|
|
Post by goldenfist on Aug 25, 2007 13:12:30 GMT -5
Check out this link to see the cover of Avengers The Initiative #7 s152.photobucket.com/albums/s171/gentofist/?action=view¤t=AVNINIT007.jpg"Triple Threat" When the Vulturians make off with some of our government's most classified secrets, it's up to the SCARLET SPIDERS to take them down before they can pass them off to a foreign power. By the time this adventure is over, expect to learn the identity of at least one of the men behind the Iron Spider masks! All this, plus an appearance by a mystery Spidey villain. And Spider-Man fans take note: This issue features a VERY important Pre-ONE MORE DAY appearance by Peter Parker! A great jumping on point for one of Marvel's hottest new titles! |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 1, 2007 8:37:10 GMT -5
Spider-Man needs to dismantle the Iron Spiders. They're as bad as Clor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 1, 2007 12:28:05 GMT -5
...
...
That's a bit too far Balok. You're claiming three men dressed in armour made by Tony Stark for Peter Parker, which Peter Parker then rejected, is as bad as making a cyborg of your dead friend? They're not REMOTELY in the same league.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 1, 2007 17:43:36 GMT -5
I regard it as identity theft, no different than when the two Power Men went at it to determine who got to keep the identity.
Spider-Man has enough problems convincing people to like him, and that's even worse now that pro-SHRA government advertising (there must be some) will present him as a dangerous villain. If these men do things that harm Spider-Man's reputation, that's wrong.
Tony didn't have to make the Iron Spiders. He could have modeled the suits in any of a dozen other ways. He did it to show his disdain for Peter's decision to reject the SHRA, most likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 2, 2007 7:12:23 GMT -5
Well no. He did it because he made an extremely powerful suit of armour for Peter Parker and didn't want it to go to waste. Calling it identity theft is ridiculous. It's a suit Tony Stark made with Tony Stark's money and if he gives it to someone and they DON'T call themselves Spider-Man, there is not even the SLIGHTEST case for identity theft.I very much doubt Peter HIMSELF cares. Not to mention that they're covert so it's not like they're going to soil Peter's... ahem... "good name". To compare it to Clor is just insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 2, 2007 11:15:42 GMT -5
Instead of changing the armor to something else, Tony goes ahead and builds two more identical suits. I'd say he very much wants to rub Pete's nose in the fact that he can make himself as many Spider-Men as he wants, whenever he wants. And I think that's wrong. We'll have to disagree again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 2, 2007 12:58:43 GMT -5
Considering one of Tony's biggest priorities appears to be bringing in Spider-Man to register, I don't really see why. I think it's more that it was an incredibly effective suit.
But again, you're saying using a similar suit to somebody is just as bad as making a cyborg of that somebody! (Neither are remorelty in the same league as making a clone of somebody)
|
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Sept 2, 2007 18:55:20 GMT -5
A few points to consider, did Tony really make extra suits, or did he just have a bunch made for Peter that were abandoned when Pete left the Initiative? If he had 3 Spider-suits kicking around, wouldn't it be beter to put them on some SHEILD agents or some such as opposed to leaving them in storage? Balok said they could be remodeled, which is true, but why would they be when the suits work fine as is? That would just be making busy work for an already busy innitiative
Truthfully the real reason is more than likely to cash in on any popularity that Spidey's new Dude's had generated, and the only way to do that is to have character(s) who wear said Costume.
I have to admit too, it was a pretty cool costume change (Temporary as it should have been but a nice change of pace for a short period)
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 2, 2007 19:26:12 GMT -5
Considering one of Tony's biggest priorities appears to be bringing in Spider-Man to register, I thought Spider-Man *was* registered. Pretty sure that's true. He supported Tony in the early issues, until he realized what kind of person Tony had become. It's hard to know what crimes Spider-Man is guilty of without the full text of the SHRA, but there's probably something in there that makes it illegal for him not to turn in Luke Cage, who is not registered. But again, you're saying using a similar suit to somebody is just as bad as making a cyborg of that somebody! (Neither are remorelty in the same league as making a clone of somebody) I regard it as identity theft. You don't. We'll disagree. It's not as bad as what Tony et. al. did to Thor, not by a lot, but it's bad. It's... typical of the sleezy approach Tony takes these days. The ends justify the means, we can step on people if they're in the way of what we want, and so on. You know - kind of how villains think. Tony's not there yet, and maybe he never will be in 616 - but a real person, having permitted a cancer into his moral center, would discover after awhile that he had no morals left at all. I don't know that they'll write Tony like that, but it would certainly be realistic if they did. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 3, 2007 8:00:26 GMT -5
I thought Spider-Man *was* registered. Pretty sure that's true. He supported Tony in the early issues, until he realized what kind of person Tony had become. It's hard to know what crimes Spider-Man is guilty of without the full text of the SHRA, but there's probably something in there that makes it illegal for him not to turn in Luke Cage, who is not registered. Apologies, my mistake, of course you're right. His full priority is clearly simply to bring Peter in. With him, it's pretty much inevitable that what Tony wants is for him to renounce the NA, then Tony will get him a pardon. Well now you're just contradicting yourself: What, you changed your mind? Rubbish. There are examples of that, the Iron Spider suits are certainly not part of them. They are TONY's suits made with TONY's weapons, and unless Spider-Man has filed a copyright for his suit design, Tony's not violating any laws, nor for that matter, any ethical clauses. Unless two people wearing similar suits is unethical to your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 3, 2007 10:56:20 GMT -5
Apologies, my mistake, of course you're right. His full priority is clearly simply to bring Peter in. With him, it's pretty much inevitable that what Tony wants is for him to renounce the NA, then Tony will get him a pardon. Sure. Which makes me wonder what Tony will do if a captured Peter defies him (Pete doesn't respond well to ultimatums)? Will it be the raft for him? Or 42? Since he's already registered, they can't "hold him until he registers." So I wonder how long they could hold him? What, you changed your mind? Yes. The Iron Spiders aren't as bad a Clor, but they're bad. Rubbish. There are examples of that, the Iron Spider suits are certainly not part of them. They are TONY's suits made with TONY's weapons, and unless Spider-Man has filed a copyright for his suit design, Tony's not violating any laws, nor for that matter, any ethical clauses. Unless two people wearing similar suits is unethical to your mind. I doubt he's violating any laws - it's not identity theft for personal financial gain (Iron Man already pillaged from small investors for financial gain) but it's sleezy. It's certainly legal. It's not, in my view, ethical. The slippery slope argument gets overused these days. Not all slopes are equally slippery or equally steep, but I can tell you that permitting yourself ethical lapses is one the steeper, more slippery slopes. Study the United States Congress in recent years for a few excellent examples. And you know that the rule of cockroaches applies there: for every ethical problem they uncover, ten go unnoticed for the moment. I hold the opinion that only strict adherence to the very highest of ethical standards qualifies one as a true hero. I don't mind occasionally reading about anti-heroes or flawed heroes, but when I think of Iron Man I think of a heroic cornerstone of the Marvel Universe. It's what he was, once, and is no longer, and that saddens me greatly. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 3, 2007 11:06:09 GMT -5
Sure. Which makes me wonder what Tony will do if a captured Peter defies him (Pete doesn't respond well to ultimatums)? Will it be the raft for him? Or 42? Since he's already registered, they can't "hold him until he registers." So I wonder how long they could hold him? Well, since no heroes have been in 42 in some time, I'd say he'd go to the Raft for a brief while. But more likely Peter would end up just packing it like Falcon and deciding to register based on a looser deal. Why not? Cos the outfits are similar? On the other hand, there are times, sadly, when you HAVE to go for the lesser of two evils. When the choice is a slippery slope or a fall into oblivion. You just have to hope you can find a firm way down. Then NO-ONE is a true hero in Marvel- and I don't mean today, I mean EVER. You're saying Spider-Man himself isn't a true hero- after all, he let a burglar go who then ended up shooting Uncle Ben. That's not a high standard. Nor is Cap's behaviour! Well according to your standards, he never has been so I don't see the change. But yeah, he's no longer a heroic cornerstone of the universe. He's the heroic flagship of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 3, 2007 11:09:04 GMT -5
Well no. He did it because he made an extremely powerful suit of armour for Peter Parker and didn't want it to go to waste. Calling it identity theft is ridiculous. It's a suit Tony Stark made with Tony Stark's money and if he gives it to someone and they DON'T call themselves Spider-Man, there is not even the SLIGHTEST case for identity theft.I very much doubt Peter HIMSELF cares. Not to mention that they're covert so it's not like they're going to soil Peter's... ahem... "good name". To compare it to Clor is just insane. Although I agree that it's nowhere near as bad as Clor, it is clearly identity theft. I understand your argument that Stark built the suits and Peter refused them. Because of that, I think he is perfectly within his rights to give them to someone else, kind of like when Hell-cat took the Cat suit when Tigra no longer needed it except Tony is even more entitled because he designed it. The part that makes it identity theft is that he is calling them the Scarlet Spiders. If Patsy had called herself the Cat, that too would have been identity theft. If Stark wasn't trying to thumb his nose at Peter, he would have called them the Iron Spiders, or something to that effect. The fact that he is calling them Scarlet Spiders (A name used by Spidey's clone) makes me wonder if Stark isn't at it again. Could the Scarlet Spiders be clones of Peter. I certainly wouldn't put it past him if he was willing to clone Thor. Naming them after Peter's clones would certainly be a poetic little ribbon to tie on that. |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 3, 2007 11:59:42 GMT -5
Well, since no heroes have been in 42 in some time, I'd say he'd go to the Raft for a brief while. But more likely Peter would end up just packing it like Falcon and deciding to register based on a looser deal. Since "Spider-Man on the Raft" wouldn't sell, you're likely right. Why not? Cos the outfits are similar? Because I regard it as identity theft. You're not going to persuade me it's ethical and I'm not going to persuade you it's not, so let's just let it go. On the other hand, there are times, sadly, when you HAVE to go for the lesser of two evils. When the choice is a slippery slope or a fall into oblivion. You just have to hope you can find a firm way down. Maybe. I think that choosing an evil path can only lead to further evil, and I would have to question whether I'd selected my goal wisely if I saw only evil paths to it. I could see choosing such a path if there was clear and irrefutable worse consequences of not taking that path. I don't consider "because a mathematics I just invented says it will" as sufficient. I'd consider, for example, "Galactus is here and setting up the energy siphon right now" as sufficient. Let me anticipate one possible counter argument: you will tell me that I will always be reactive, and never proactive. And that this approach may doom my civilization to failure. We see in the Iraq War a consequence of taking the low road proactively - a mistake this country will be paying for for decades. More generally, I wonder if a society that finds it appropriate to make evil choices to forestall vaguely defined future calamities deserves to survive. After all, if you're sufficiently vague, you can sell people on the need to do almost anything to forestall trouble. Voltaire said it more concisely: "He who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Then NO-ONE is a true hero in Marvel- and I don't mean today, I mean EVER. You're saying Spider-Man himself isn't a true hero- after all, he let a burglar go who then ended up shooting Uncle Ben. That's not a high standard. Nor is Cap's behaviour! Sorry, I should have included the part that was in my head: a true hero can sometimes miss the mark, but he always realizes it and he always strives to correct those errors. I think that describes Peter in the situation you present. I don't think Tony even thinks he's doing wrong. That's why he's not a true hero any longer. Well according to your standards, he never has been so I don't see the change. But yeah, he's no longer a heroic cornerstone of the universe. He's the heroic flagship of the universe. He's the flagship, sure. Not the heroic flagship. Never that. |
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 3, 2007 13:07:59 GMT -5
I hold the opinion that only strict adherence to the very highest of ethical standards qualifies one as a true hero. I don't mind occasionally reading about anti-heroes or flawed heroes, but when I think of Iron Man I think of a heroic cornerstone of the Marvel Universe. It's what he was, once, and is no longer, and that saddens me greatly. I gotta have to disagree with you here, Balok. Iron Man started as a weapon designer and manufacturer in the 60s, not exactly matching the highest ethical standarts. During the Celestial Madonna Saga when Englehart was adapting those heroes to the more liberal 70s he made IM realize the wrongness of his ways in the early 60s. Tony Stark has always been more on the arrogant side (but if anyone in the MU can be on the arrogant side is he - ladies man, lots of money and superhero) and later he had the drinking problem added to his personality. But, before you ask, I too think that the current Tony Stalin is too much, he is not even a anti hero anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 3, 2007 13:08:36 GMT -5
Although I agree that it's nowhere near as bad as Clor, it is clearly identity theft. I understand your argument that Stark built the suits and Peter refused them. Because of that, I think he is perfectly within his rights to give them to someone else, kind of like when Hell-cat took the Cat suit when Tigra no longer needed it except Tony is even more entitled because he designed it. The part that makes it identity theft is that he is calling them the Scarlet Spiders. If Patsy had called herself the Cat, that too would have been identity theft. If Stark wasn't trying to thumb his nose at Peter, he would have called them the Iron Spiders, or something to that effect. The fact that he is calling them Scarlet Spiders (A name used by Spidey's clone) makes me wonder if Stark isn't at it again. Could the Scarlet Spiders be clones of Peter. I certainly wouldn't put it past him if he was willing to clone Thor. Naming them after Peter's clones would certainly be a poetic little ribbon to tie on that. Out of curiosity, ARE they called the Scarlet Spiders? I mean officially? Or is that a nickname? And how do we know Stark called them that, is it not more likely that he simply gave the suit to Camp Hammond and they named them that, since they answer only to Gyrich and presumably Tony stark knows very little about them as they're a secret squad. Oh and also, I don't think anyone but Spidey knows what exactly was going on the Clone Saga. For all most of the world- including Tony -know, there was some guy who ran around with Spidey calling himself the Scarlet Spider who then vanished. So he's giving out an old super hero identity no longer in use- hardly the first time, and hardly anything morally wrong. I very much doubt he knows the complex history of the Scarlet Spider as we readers do. Well, as far as Tony, Reed, Hank et al see and know, they're in that situation where it's a choice between registration and clear and irrefutable worse consequences of not taking that path. That wasn't what I was going to say. So we have now definitively established one thing: Balok is not a futurist.  |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 3, 2007 16:02:37 GMT -5
Oh and also, I don't think anyone but Spidey knows what exactly was going on the Clone Saga. For all most of the world- including Tony -know, there was some guy who ran around with Spidey calling himself the Scarlet Spider who then vanished. So he's giving out an old super hero identity no longer in use- hardly the first time, and hardly anything morally wrong. I very much doubt he knows the complex history of the Scarlet Spider as we readers do. I don't deny that you COULD be right and that Stark may not know about the clone connection. However, Spidey's secret identity was not common knowledge when Pete told him about that either and it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to think that during all the close bonding time Spidey had with "The boss" that he may have unloaded other secrets as well. They had, after all, created such a close and trusting relationship that he revealed his identity on t.v. because Tony told him to. The Scarlet Spider name certainly seemed official to me in #5. I also noticed that when Gyrich said "Boys, are you ready for a new assignment?" they responded in unison "We were born ready sir!" I'm still just throwing this out as a theory but the identity theft concept is certainly not something out of left field. For the record, I hope I'm wrong because I think Marvel has done more than enough with clones especially where Scarlet Spiders are concerned and I would like to think that Stark still has at least one moral left somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 3, 2007 16:06:36 GMT -5
I don't deny that you COULD be right and that Stark may not know about the clone connection. However, Spidey's secret identity was not common knowledge when Pete told him about that either and it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to think that during all the close bonding time Spidey had with "The boss" that he may have unloaded other secrets as well. They had, after all, created such a close and trusting relationship that he revealed his identity on t.v. because Tony told him to. Actually, to be fiar Peter wanted to run but May and MJ talked him out of it and into unmasking. I dunno, the fact that the clone saga's NEVER mentioned makes me think Peter himself probably likes to forget that time in his life- particularly with his baby "dying" around that time and all. Either way's very possible, really. But it's worth noting Peter never trusted Tony enough to tell him about his spider sense, let alone his clone. I'm sorry, I choked a little on that one, even I find it hard to swallow Peter's "No-one but MJ and May know about my spider sense!" after... well, basically Spider-Man's entire history. I doubt it's clones, particularly as A) They've never yet used full, proper clones. Only cyborgs with some DNA to give them an appearance, which is not the same at all. B) Reed swore off using them ever again and C) Tony disapproves of proper cllones as well, as evidenced by Fallen Son. Oh, and as I said before- Gyrich says the Shadow Initiative are absolute top secret and answer to him and only him. I doubt Iron Man knows much about it, and I really very much doubt he personally said "Let's call them the Scarlet Spiders!" |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 3, 2007 16:50:01 GMT -5
Well, as far as Tony, Reed, Hank et al see and know, they're in that situation where it's a choice between registration and clear and irrefutable worse consequences of not taking that path. I don't agree that Marvel made this case sufficiently. And I do contend that the "worse consequences" weren't immediate, they were down the road aways, thus offering time for consideration of other options. Balok is not a futurist. Neither is Reed Richards.  |
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Sept 14, 2007 11:43:42 GMT -5
And Tony calls himself a futurist.
|
|
