Again, absolutely she overreacted. However, not in a violently dangerous way. Noone was endangered in that scene. The narration is explicit in this regard. This is not about me denying that Jean as a temper. You posted this scene as some sort of historical proof that you can't definitively say that sanctioning kill squads would be out of character. I fundamentally disagree with that. I don't think this scene provides any concrete evidence of that. A bad temper is a long ways from sanctioning black ops kill squads.
And there is a big difference between killing in the heat of battle and going out with the intention to kill. That is the mission statement. Kill these people. That most assuredly is not consistent with Jean Grey's historical characterization.Beyond simply being capable of killing, Jean has killed. That's the point. To say she's unwilling to kill or condone killing under any circumstance is inconsistent with her history.
I really am loathe to discuss this because I didn't read any of these books. However, I do not need to have read them to know that I am fundamentally against that development for his character. He is among the last X Men who should be condoning that.Secrecy in and of itself isn't an indication of guilt, only an indication of discretion. Scott knew that likely the decision would be challenged, no doubt. I also think part of it was that he was unwilling to burden the rest of the X-Men's consciences with what he had decided was necessary.
I read that he kept it secret, that is why I brought it up. I ask again. If it was cut and dry that was no other choice, why the need for secrecy. Burden? What burden, it's an absolute situation, kill or be killed. No burden to be relieved. Unless, of course, some of them would disagree. Which means there was some level of ambiguity to it, and if there was I think Cyclops should be on the no kill squad side.
As I said, though, if there was no ambiguity. They have been backed into a corner with no other choice, I would then argue that story shouldn't have been told. Don't plot it that way. Obviously, if it was the case I wouldn't condemn Scott morally for his actions. I'd be against the story told.
They could do anything with any character. To my dismay, they have in many cases. I stand by my belief that it is not historically consistent with Jean Grey's character to be okay with sending out squads with premeditated murder as their goal. Clearly, they could do with her what they did with Scott . What springs to mind from that is two wrongs don't make a right.As for me using Scott's OOC behavior, yes I absolutely am using that to some extent to make my case. In some ways it's an even more compelling argument. If Scott can be written going through such an extreme change of philosophy, why couldn't Jean, or anyone else who was leading at the time. In many ways, Jean's historical perspective on killing is very closely aligned with Scott's. If Marvel in their "wisdom" could justify Scott taking that action, I certainly think it's possible they could have gotten Jean there too.
I'll say it again. I didn't read any of these comics. Makes it hard to judge how justified these actions are. My main argument is your posting scans and thinking these scans indicate that Jean might have some inclination towards what Scott did. And I don't see that. Certainly not in the last 2. At least she killed Prism. Btw, this is something I found on the character's Marvel wiki page. is that run bu Marvel or is it run like regular wiki where pretty much anyone can add stuff? Well, this is part of the bio. I knew I'd seen that character since MUTANT MASSACRE.
Prism has apparently died three times during his time as a Marauder. The first was when Jean Grey used her telekinetic powers to throw Prism against a wall, smashing him to pieces. The second was during Inferno, where a group of policemen shot Prism and shattered him. The third and final time was when X-Man used his mental powers to slaughter all of the Marauders. It is unknown if Prism actually did die, or if he was able to piece his crystal body back together; this would explain his overconfidence and willingness to battle those stronger than him (Sinister regularly cloned members of the Marauders when they died).
Back to I can't really judge without reading it. The X Men faced a whole lot of remorseless killers before this and didn't go out to kill them. How many mutants were there in the 60s when Trask rounded them all up or 1975 when Stephen Lange planned to do the same?Regardless, Scott's changes are typically justified as adapting to the circumstances and I think there is a legitimate point to be made about that. Remember, as you commented on the U-Men, X-Force's targets were hardened and remorseless and it's highly unlikely that such threats would have responded to dialogue. With 198 lives left, how many more bets could Scott make that they wouldn't be attacked or could talk down, or non-lethally suppress a threat down without loses. Would Jean have presided over the extinction of the mutant species?
The number 198, in and of itself, doesn't convince me. I'm nit saying there are none that could either. But as I keep saying, I would be against creating that story. Cyclops, or Jean for that matter, are not characters who should be doing that. I would say that for multiple Marvel characters.
Egads, something else we agree on.Sorry, there's some miscommunication there. I was suggesting it's worth re-reading Jean's scene at the Waldor in XF 1 and her fight with Scott in XF 18 simply to illustrate that Jean had some disproportionate responses in XF. I certainly am not arguing that X-Factor Investigations bore any similarity to X-Force.