Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Jun 7, 2007 1:13:49 GMT -5
Oh boy, I can't wait until we start talking about this one! I'll give folks time to read and digest a little before we start talking about the more nefarious aspects of the Initiative that seem to have popped up. My main question, and this is to anyone. I don't recall Rhodey being such a gargantuan A-hole. My exposre to him was back when he was wearing the old red&gold, in fact the last Iron Man issue I read back in the 80's was when Rhodey had caught fire in the suit upon re-entry from space. I have never read much regarding his original War Machine days, etc... I always thought he was the amiable, sidekick, sometime-superhero. Now he seems to be a totally d*ckhead. So, when did this happen? Or did I just not have enough exposure to him in the past to realize that this is kind of who he is?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 7, 2007 10:01:41 GMT -5
I haven't read this issue yet, but, as far as Rhodey goes, he never looked too amiable. For example in volume 3 of Iron Man, he was somewhat over aggressive from what I can (barely) remember...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 7, 2007 10:18:51 GMT -5
I really enjoyed this issue. Far from being the Pro-Reg book it was billed as, it almost seems as if there is NO redeeming value in the Initiative. I think perhaps showing all the corruption, and how it impacts the characters, may be a great set-up for one or more of the leads to step up and turn the program around, into something truly good.
My favorite part of the story was the fight with Spider-Man. It was a tremendous pleasure to see Spidey as the veteran here, a consummate pro who easily psyches out the inexperienced Komodo.
Yellowjacket's ethical struggles are also on display in a scene with Dr. Curt (The Lizard, 'natch) Connors, where Connors expresses concern over the use of his lizard formula in military applications. I get the feeling Hank is about ready to boil over -either he's going to break down again (unlikely I think) or he's going to get a backbone and straighten this $#!* out.
Tone, I know what you're saying about Rhodey and I have to agree. I never thought of him as blindly following Stark, but it has been years since I read Iron Man. But I don't recall him being such a humorless jerk.
This issue also gives us more of those wonderful Stark nanobots, now called S.P.I.N. tech (super-power inhibiting nanobots). It appears that the plan now with unlicensed supers is not just to arrest them, but to strip them of their powers. This just gets uglier and uglier.
Thankfully little of Gauntlet this issue! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 7, 2007 11:36:05 GMT -5
Would anyone be surprised if I said I totally disagreed with Tana and felt the book was pretty balanced, with a good few pro-reg factors as well. Of course it was NEVER going to be a functional Initiative, or even a totally competent one as that makes for worse storytelling.
Take the SPIN darts for instance. We're told again and again they're permanent- and yet Hulk 106 not so subtly infers once that they're not and flat out states once that they're not, so that certainly redeems much of this book. As does the fact that they aren't blindly doing evil, they're trying to do good and when they do something wrong it's a conscious decision which they feel is for the greater good. The essence of super heroing really.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 7, 2007 15:43:44 GMT -5
This issue did address two issues that had been noted of the innitiative.
We finally see a little bit about how the Innitiative is trying to train recruits(To fight on land see and air, as well as to be field medics, not to mention a little class 100 fighting training, and the specialists that have been brought in to help certain recruits like Trauma.)
We also see that sending recruits into fight Hyrda is fairly trivial considering the prescence of their instructors(Hyrdra just a bunch of punks in green jumpsuits or somesuch)
I was kinda hoping we'd see a little more on the MVP front, hopefully we'll see Justice and Cloud 9's meeting next issue. It would be nice to see just what the crazy scientists found in MVP exactly too.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 7, 2007 16:02:30 GMT -5
I don't see the HYDRA thing as bad anyway.
Either they were a COLOSSAL threat, in which case the Initiative HAD to be sent in or George Bush was DEAD. (Acutally hang on... that's a good thing!)
Or else they were a minor inconvenience so there was very little actual threat anyway.
The comics lean towards the latter.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 7, 2007 17:28:58 GMT -5
I wondered if I'd missed this issue. I'll have to look for it tomorrow (too busy to visit the comic book store the last couple of days). But without having read it - what one man builds, another can dismantle. Tony's not the smartest man in the Marvel Universe - there are likely a number of criminal scientists who could override the devices. It could be as simple as hunter-killer nanobots that go in and destroy the SPIN nanobots.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 8, 2007 11:21:22 GMT -5
As does the fact that they aren't blindly doing evil, they're trying to do good and when they do something wrong it's a conscious decision which they feel is for the greater good. The essence of super heroing really. I think that statement pretty much sums up why you and I are so diametrically opposed in our opinions. Doing something wrong, "for the greater good", has often been a justification for some of the most self-serving of actions. I find it far more heroic when someone does the right thing, even though it will cause them personal loss. But to each his own.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 8, 2007 12:10:15 GMT -5
Perhaps, Tana, but that's the thing. This is indeed a difference- because if I were to be told that killing one person would save the world, I'd do it. If I knew for certain it was true, I'd do it. I couldn't live with myself afterwards. I'd probably kill MYSELF. But I'd still do it, god help me. I'd lose myself to save the world. Others, including, perhaps, you would not compromise their morals even if it meant extinction. And that commitment is commendable in it's own fashion.
So maybe that is where the difference lies.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 8, 2007 14:56:44 GMT -5
Perhaps, Tana, but that's the thing. This is indeed a difference- because if I were to be told that killing one person would save the world, I'd do it. If I knew for certain it was true, I'd do it. I couldn't live with myself afterwards. I'd probably kill MYSELF. But I'd still do it, god help me. I'd lose myself to save the world. Others, including, perhaps, you would not compromise their morals even if it meant extinction. And that commitment is commendable in it's own fashion. So maybe that is where the difference lies. I think the problem for me is your path is a slippery slope. Once you've crossed the line, what else can you justify doing? Not that such a path doesn't lead to great drama. One of my favorite Star Trek episodes is a Deep Space Nine ep called "In the Pale Moonlight". Essentially, Capt. Sisko allows the assassination of a Romulan senator, hoping it will draw the Romulans onto the Federation's side in the war against the Dominion. He struggles with this decision and even though at the end he says, "I can live with it", the viewer is left wondering if he really can. It's great drama, and it certainly works with some stories and characters. But when you apply it to super- heroes, that's when I begin to have a problem with it. I still hold them to a higher standard than "real world" folks.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 8, 2007 15:30:31 GMT -5
Oh a very slippery slope indeed tana, but once more it's just differing philosophies. I like my super-heroes to be relatable. That's why I like the Flash and Spider-Man more than say, Superman. (Cap is the exception that proves the rule) And so I like to see them struggle with such decisions and even enjoy their failures IF they're well written.
My philosophy has a HUUUUUGE risk. But better to chance an ill in causing a good than to let an ill come because you could not take the risk. If ya know what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Jun 8, 2007 19:17:16 GMT -5
Doom,... the thing is, your example of killing someone is an extreme one. Again the argument comes down to something more problematic than death.
Freedom
If killing, or letting one person die would save multitudes, maybe.
But infringing on the freedoms of anybody is a different matter. As Tana said, there is a slippery slope to this one.
Another aspect of this is that a small group of indivduals,... not an elected body,... are deciding who deserves freedom to live their lives and who does not. Also slippery.
Back to the other part of this discussion, someone pointed out that maybe Pym was about to grow a pair and start bringing things in-line. I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 9, 2007 20:49:42 GMT -5
Rhodes seemed very out of character to me in this issue. Now, it's been a long time since I read a book that featured him (other than this one), but it sure seemed like he got up and put on his a**hole suit in this issue. The glee with which he approached the prospect of maiming Spider-Man made me queasy.
Once again, I come away from an Initiative related book thinking "these guys are acting so differently that how the superheroes I grew up with would act, I have to wonder if someone has coopted the SPIN tech and through it all of these heroes." I doubt that this is what's happening, I think really it's just Marvel catering to an audience that wants something different from their books than I want. Something a *lot* different.
There's little question to me that Slott has elected to paint the Initiative as a basically villainous organization masquerading as a heroic one. That could be his personal bias, or it could be my basic loathing of what the Initiative stands for, but that's the feeling I get - these are not heroes by any definition I've ever heard. I saw exactly one minor sequence that painted a positive spin on the Initiative: the bit where it seemed like the 'cruits were getting some varied training.
You can't do evil to do good. Oh, it may work for a little while, and the evil-doer may even convince himself he's doing good - but history shows that such things always go horribly wrong. It's the trap of "ends justify the means" thinking.
The one bright spot was Spider-Man - how he mind-frakked the bargain basement Lizard (Komodo) and the message he gave War Machine for Iron Man. And that was basically two panels. Marvel got their nine bucks' chance to convince me this book was worth reading and failed to do so. Now I'll go upstairs for a glass of water to wash the foul taste from my mouth.
Can someone tell me when they depowered the She-Hulk? Did that happen in her book? And what made her break with the Initiative?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 9, 2007 20:56:01 GMT -5
Yellowjacket's ethical struggles are also on display in a scene with Dr. Curt (The Lizard, 'natch) Connors, where Connors expresses concern over the use of his lizard formula in military applications. I get the feeling Hank is about ready to boil over -either he's going to break down again (unlikely I think) or he's going to get a backbone and straighten this $#!* out. I must disagree. I got no real sense that Hank felt any ethical qualms. He may have but the writing didn't convey it to me. I think he's falling into the "go along to get along" trap.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 10, 2007 10:43:32 GMT -5
I flipped through this one and I liked a few things, especially Spidey's battle and the return of the Spider Armor as villain(s)... can't wait to see Peter smashing each and every of them. Didn't care too much for Komodo and the other trainees though, in fact I skipped some of their pages for the moment, may go back to read them later.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 10, 2007 13:24:30 GMT -5
Rhodes seemed very out of character to me in this issue. Now, it's been a long time since I read a book that featured him (other than this one), but it sure seemed like he got up and put on his a**hole suit in this issue. The glee with which he approached the prospect of maiming Spider-Man made me queasy. Once again, I come away from an Initiative related book thinking "these guys are acting so differently that how the superheroes I grew up with would act, I have to wonder if someone has coopted the SPIN tech and through it all of these heroes." I doubt that this is what's happening, I think really it's just Marvel catering to an audience that wants something different from their books than I want. Something a *lot* different. There's little question to me that Slott has elected to paint the Initiative as a basically villainous organization masquerading as a heroic one. That could be his personal bias, or it could be my basic loathing of what the Initiative stands for, but that's the feeling I get - these are not heroes by any definition I've ever heard. I saw exactly one minor sequence that painted a positive spin on the Initiative: the bit where it seemed like the 'cruits were getting some varied training. You can't do evil to do good. Oh, it may work for a little while, and the evil-doer may even convince himself he's doing good - but history shows that such things always go horribly wrong. It's the trap of "ends justify the means" thinking. The one bright spot was Spider-Man - how he mind-frakked the bargain basement Lizard (Komodo) and the message he gave War Machine for Iron Man. And that was basically two panels. Marvel got their nine bucks' chance to convince me this book was worth reading and failed to do so. Now I'll go upstairs for a glass of water to wash the foul taste from my mouth. Can someone tell me when they depowered the She-Hulk? Did that happen in her book? And what made her break with the Initiative? Balok, Iron Man depowered She-Hulk in issue 18 of her series. He used the nanotech on her - apparently, SHIELD had been testing it on all the gamma-powered villains she had been capturing. When Jen confronted Stark about what the Illuminati had done to Hulk, they fought, and Stark finally injected her with these power inhibiting nanobots. We have a whole thread discussing the issue under the 'related books' subject.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 10, 2007 13:37:16 GMT -5
Rhodes seemed very out of character to me in this issue. Now, it's been a long time since I read a book that featured him (other than this one), but it sure seemed like he got up and put on his a**hole suit in this issue. The glee with which he approached the prospect of maiming Spider-Man made me queasy. I don't think it was glee so much as trying to shrow Spidey off. I'd say it's definitely your personal bias as I went into this expecting a "INITIATIVE EAT BABIES!" approach and am instead getting am uch more tempered, reasonable and positive one. Aah balok ,your typical naivety amuses me. You can do evil to do good. History most cerrtainly NEVER shows us that doing one thing will ALWAYS result in another. (Except perhaps invading Russia. That just can't end well.) Many, many times in history has someone done evil to do good WITHOUT it bakcifirng. Maybe it should, true, but it doesn't always. The good guys don't always win. And once more, your naive absolutist thinking of "He thought this once, he'll ALWAYS think this" which you bring up every time Iron Man is mentioned. You can do evil to do good. Whether yhou SHOULD is debatable but it has been done before without ill aftereffects. Of course! Because the INITIATIVE are evil and the guy mind-frakking a poor psychologically weak teenager should be cheered all the way.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 10, 2007 13:50:16 GMT -5
Aah balok ,your typical naivety amuses me. And unnecessary personal insults like this really DON'T amuse me. Your opinion (and the question of doing evil to do good is one that has no absolute answer) is no more valuable than Balok's or anyone else's here. If you disagree with him, fine, but to label his opinion as naive simply because you do not agree with it is not a valid argument.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 10, 2007 13:58:01 GMT -5
I call it as I see it. Do I find it naive to believe questions like that have ABSOLUTE answers? Yes, I do.
But you know what I'm also not amused by, tana? I'm not amused by how people will leap upon any comment made by me to someone and yet the many insults that might be aimed at me tend to go unanswered by any save myself? No-one finds THEM offensive for some reason. Much worse comments than just "naivety" for that matter.
I don't mind of course, but I do not appreciate double standard so please people, either point out both or none at all.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 10, 2007 16:09:34 GMT -5
I call it as I see it. Do I find it naive to believe questions like that have ABSOLUTE answers? Yes, I do. But you know what I'm also not amused by, tana? I'm not amused by how people will leap upon any comment made by me to someone and yet the many insults that might be aimed at me tend to go unanswered by any save myself? No-one finds THEM offensive for some reason. Much worse comments than just "naivety" for that matter. I don't mind of course, but I do not appreciate double standard so please people, either point out both or none at all. Before I made that last post, I went back to look at Balok's post to figure out what he had said that made you respond the way you did. He made no personal insult towards you, nor did he even refer to you. If he had, then I would not have made that post. In fact, if I had noticed the two of you going at it again, I probably would have just avoided this topic entirely.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 10, 2007 22:36:25 GMT -5
I don't think it was glee so much as trying to shrow Spidey off. Frankly, I don't see how you can read this issue and come away with a positive impression of Rhodes. And back in the day, when I read Iron Man from time to time, he wasn't a malicious man. I'd say it's definitely your personal bias as I went into this expecting a "INITIATIVE EAT BABIES!" approach and am instead getting am uch more tempered, reasonable and positive one. With one small exception, I didn't see the Initiative painted at all positively in this issue. Aah balok ,your typical naivety amuses me. Thanks for the ad hominum. You're a class act, Doom! You can do evil to do good. History most cerrtainly NEVER shows us that doing one thing will ALWAYS result in another. Let me elaborate. When people do evil once, they tend to do it again, because people are naturally wired to select the path of least resistance. Evolution selects for organisms that expend the amount of effort needed to achieve their goals and no more than that, and we thinking meat machines are little different. And evil is very, very easy. So while one may "get away" with one evil act, what happens is that the next evil act is easier to commit. And the one after that, easier still. Until, eventually, the evil eats every part of the person's brain. So what I'm saying is that evil feeds itself. Evil people become more evil, over time. And once more, your naive absolutist thinking of "He thought this once, he'll ALWAYS think this" which you bring up every time Iron Man is mentioned. Please see above. People who take the short cut once, take it again and again and again. Historically, this is how some of the greatest despotisms arose (see: Communist Russia, Communist China). Those people didn't start out with the idea of mass murder, but that's where they eventually got to. That's why evil is so dangerous. You can do evil to do good. Whether yhou SHOULD is debatable but it has been done before without ill aftereffects. I gotta call you out on this one. Please state some examples. Of course! Because the INITIATIVE are evil and the guy mind-frakking a poor psychologically weak teenager should be cheered all the way. Well, the one has nothing to do with the other, but relax. I said it was amusing, not that what Spider-Man did was necessarily right. On the other hand, she attacked him, and was attempting to permanently maim him, because he was attempting to bring lawbreakers to justice. In such a situation, he's within his rights to defend himself. Heck, she's lucky she didn't go up against a real villain - she'd likely be dead now, another victim of poor training. (Someone that easy to frak with is clearly not ready for prime time.) She was easy to frak with because the Initiative and its draconian approach to superhumans filled her with fear. If she didn't, deep inside, suspect that Spider-Man was right about her bosses, that trick wouldn't have worked.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 10, 2007 22:57:40 GMT -5
I'm not amused by how people will leap upon any comment made by me to someone and yet the many insults that might be aimed at me tend to go unanswered by any save myself? No-one finds THEM offensive for some reason. Not true.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 11, 2007 2:34:23 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't see how you can read this issue and come away with a positive impression of Rhodes. And back in the day, when I read Iron Man from time to time, he wasn't a malicious man. It's relatively easy. I don't come away with a particularly positive one either but I saw nothing to sway my view. With... er... no real exceptions, I did. As opposed to the last two where there WERE exceptions. So I think we can each read into it what we will, which is a mark of good writing. I apologize for the ad homin em, it's just something I consistently marvel at when responding to you. This is indeed a possible outcome. But not the only one. Sometimes a little evil MUST be done to do a greater good. Sure. But as I said above, sometimes there is no choice. Otherwise in comics Galactus himself would be considered eivl for killing billions- how is this anything BUT evil? He does evil for the greater good and so no-one but no-one considers him evil. How about the most obvious one of all? -Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima- the casualties that resulted? Killing that number of civilians is nothing if not evil. That was the only atom bomb ever to be dropped. It has DISSUADED nations since from dropping them. Oppenheimer did not giggle insanely and begin to drop A-bombs everywhere. One can question if this was barbaric or ncessary but the fact remains- it did not lead to this short cut being taken... ever again. Which is perhaps why she was being taken on a test field mission against a hero who WOULDN'T kill her? And again, he's attempting to bring lawbreakers to justice- he IS a lawbreaker himself! He is part of a GROUP of lawbreakers. Hypocrisy right there- so he gets to pick which laws should be enforced and which should not? Hmm... doesn't sound like America to me. She was easy to frak with because the Initiative and its draconian approach to superhumans filled her with fear. If she didn't, deep inside, suspect that Spider-Man was right about her bosses, that trick wouldn't have worked.[/quote] Sorry, you're right Phantom- but then you're an exception to every rule. You have that particular sense of class.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 11, 2007 6:53:10 GMT -5
This is indeed a possible outcome. But not the only one. Sometimes a little evil MUST be done to do a greater good. We shall have to disagree on this point. I feel that evil cannot lead to anything except more evil, based on human experience. Otherwise in comics Galactus himself would be considered eivl for killing billions- how is this anything BUT evil? He does evil for the greater good and so no-one but no-one considers him evil. I do regard Galactus as evil, as I suspect do his victims. I have heard that some sort of explanation was eventually crafted to allow for his existence - he's part of the "natural order" or some such thing. I never read the story where that appeared, but I think that was done as much so that Reed wouldn't seem like a ginormous a*hole for saving his life as for any other reason. I seriously doubt that such an explanation was part of his original origin; all Stan and Jack wanted as a GAMF they could tell a story around. (Who was it - the Shi'ar? - who wanted to kill him and actually could owing to his weakness. And Reed stopped them? Forgive me, it's been awhile for these stories and the details have faded.) -Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima- the casualties that resulted? Killing that number of civilians is nothing if not evil. That was the only atom bomb ever to be dropped. It has DISSUADED nations since from dropping them. Oppenheimer did not giggle insanely and begin to drop A-bombs everywhere. One can question if this was barbaric or ncessary but the fact remains- it did not lead to this short cut being taken... ever again. A couple of points here: (1) yes, killing those non-combatants was evil, (2) but it was an actual (as opposed to virtual) wartime situation and the Japanese government had brought us into the war with a vicious sneak attack. That, plus a lot of vile propaganda designed to present the Japs as subhuman, made it possible for people to support that vile act, and (3) the jury is still out on who will use atomics in the future, since terror states will have them soon (some, like Pakistan, already do), and (4) one might argue that American military success has led to American adventurism and imperialism, the most recent examples of which are going on right now - so the jury could still be out on the long term repercussions of that act. In other words, maybe if we'd had to fight a little harder to win that war seven decades ago, we'd have a little less use for war now. Which is perhaps why she was being taken on a test field mission against a hero who WOULDN'T kill her? And again, he's attempting to bring lawbreakers to justice- he IS a lawbreaker himself! He is part of a GROUP of lawbreakers. Hypocrisy right there- so he gets to pick which laws should be enforced and which should not? (1) There's a time honored tradition in this country of people objecting to bad law by refusing to honor it, and whatever your opinion might be, Spider-Man regards the SHRA as bad law. (2) He IS registered - he just won't do what Iron Man wants him to, including turning on his friends, (3) the laws the men he sought to apprehend are more serious than the SHRA, in terms of the consequences of breaking them, and (4) [most importantly], according to Rhodey in the issue itself, they sought to permanently maim Spider-Man {an outcome about which Rhodey was particularly gleeful} without arrest, withput trial, without Spider-Man getting any legal representation, without a sentence. That sort of high-handed and unconstitutional behavior has been the pro-reg approach since early days of the Civil War and Tony's use of 42. You left this piece of my original post in but didn't comment - did you have a reply?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 11, 2007 8:31:39 GMT -5
I do regard Galactus as evil, as I suspect do his victims. I have heard that some sort of explanation was eventually crafted to allow for his existence - he's part of the "natural order" or some such thing. I never read the story where that appeared, but I think that was done as much so that Reed wouldn't seem like a ginormous a*hole for saving his life as for any other reason. I seriously doubt that such an explanation was part of his original origin; all Stan and Jack wanted as a GAMF they could tell a story around. (Who was it - the Shi'ar? - who wanted to kill him and actually could owing to his weakness. And Reed stopped them? Forgive me, it's been awhile for these stories and the details have faded.) !!!!!!!! Here is where I draw the line! You can mess with Bendis, you can mess with Millar, you can mess with Quesada but you do NOT[/u] mess with the Trial of Reed Richards. That story is a classic- not just a classic, it is THE classic. It is renowned as quite possibvly the best Fantastic Four story EVER, or at least the only one to hold a candle to The Coming of Galactus. If you haven't read it, DO. There's a REASON it is held as an incredible story. But I haven't time for a rant on it now or how it's one of the best stories of it's time, so let's leave it at this: Galactus is not evil, he is an essential force of the universe itself. Period. And yet it still directly contradicts your claim that any who do a little evil will do more, and more, and more etc- since those that dropped the bomb are dead or long out of power. It is a direct contradiction. Tradition doesn't make it right. If you CAN fight a law by legal means, you should. That option is totally open- especially to the already registered Spidey, he just chooses not to. He's still a blatant lawbreaker. The actual legal forces did not just apprehend him though- they went for both. Actually, this is almost entirely your opinion. Again, leaving aside the question of the term "permanently maim", Spidey would have been depowered. How do we know we would not then have been taken in and given a trial? How do we know it was permanent? And if it HAD come to trial, exactly what defence could spidey mount? What if he was just depowered so he could be apprehended and put on trial easily, how can we discount this possibility? Too many variables left. You left this piece of my original post in but didn't comment - did you have a reply?[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 11, 2007 9:19:00 GMT -5
And yet it still directly contradicts your claim that any who do a little evil will do more, and more, and more etc- since those that dropped the bomb are dead or long out of power. It is a direct contradiction. The exact same people, perhaps not. Think larger. Thing governments. Do you think Lenin really set out to create a government that would later murder millions of the very folks he wanted to defend? I don't. But that's what the system he put in place did. Evil begets evil, always. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen. Tradition doesn't make it right. If you CAN fight a law by legal means, you should. That option is totally open- especially to the already registered Spidey, he just chooses not to. Except that this (as has been discussed) wouldn't make a very engaging comic book story. Also, Marvel's not going to overturn the changes they've made in their universe with a legal battle. If it happens, it will happen one of two ways: with another huge fight, or because the next generation of talent simply ignores it. (That is, stops telling Initiative stories and sort of lets things slouch back to their pre-Initiative state). Spider-Man would have to surrender to fight the battle legally. He has no resources to conduct such a fight. And I guess he'd have to consent to be maimed by SPIN. He's still a blatant lawbreaker. But the point of many arguments has been, sometimes unjust laws are crafted and people don't see any alternative but to fight for their rights. Hell, living in Ireland you should understand this better than anyone... Actually, this is almost entirely your opinion. Again, leaving aside the question of the term "permanently maim", Spidey would have been depowered. That's maiming for a superhuman. Don't take my word for it, check out definition 2. How do we know we would not then have been taken in and given a trial? We don't. But we readers know the Initiative is fairly corrupt, even if Spider-Man doesn't. How do we know it was permanent? I assumed Rhodey was telling the truth about SPIN. Sure, thanks to the She Hulk #18 thread, I know there's at least one individual who can remove the effects (and here's hoping Amadeus Cho posts that cure to the Internet - it's what I'd do). And if it HAD come to trial, exactly what defence could spidey mount? That he was apprehending law breakers, I suppose. That the law was bad, no matter how many idiots think it's okay to violate the 14th Amendment. Things like that. What if he was just depowered so he could be apprehended and put on trial easily, how can we discount this possibility? We discount it because dialog in the book explicitly contradicts it. You seem to like taking only those books you agree with, and sometimes only those statements you agree with, as canon. Other stuff is always bad writing or it will be retconned, or we anti-reg folks are misinterpreting it, or... well, you've always got some excuse. It's kind of bizarre. Still nothing to say about why it was so easy for Spider-Man to mindfrak Komodo? About how afraid she was of her own bosses? That, too, is right there in the book. Look at those big, tear-filled eyes. The girl is terrified!
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 11, 2007 15:30:40 GMT -5
Balok man, You a pot calling a kettle black with that second last point. The main problem anyone on this site has with keeping upwith all books is Cannon is that no one not even Doom reads all of Marvel every week. There are a lot of points brought up in books that I don't read (ASM's Civil war crossover for example) and a lot of books I read that have a lot of relevant information to a topic at hand that nobody else has seen (Loners, once again is a good example of Supers who want to, and ARE left alone by the SHRA and how this can happen)
|
|