Grad student Peter

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I said a “few of them qualify as everymen” did I not?

I mentioned 8 villains who didn't qualify. That's a huge number of the rogues not being everymen.

Last I heard, we have a zero percent chance of getting spider powers too.

Way things are, that's more believable for some people than being a CEO. And you know climbing buildings and other acrobatics aren't out of reach. Like you know Philippe Petit, the dude who climbed and did high wire walks between buildings was a working-class lower-middle class guy in France when he crossed the WTC in the '70s.

Hell, two of the most popular superheroes in existence are Batman and Iron Man, two CEOs.

Them being CEO has nothing to do with their popularity. For one thing Batman in the Golden Age and Silver Age was just independently wealthy, he didn't own a company like Wayne Enterprises and it was never mentioned once how rich he was. He wasn't called a millionaire until the 70s and a billionaire until the 90s. Batman was already an imperishable icon until then (http://sequart.org/magazine/41539/su...t-three-money/). Likewise, Tony Stark was a B-list character and the lesser star for much of Marvel history and it wasn't until a washed up actor with a past in independent and low-budget films saw the role as a way to make up for lost time, that people gave a damn about Tony Stark.

It seems the more accurate answer is that Marvel simply doesn’t think being a CEO gives them the type of drama they like to write with Peter.

If you look at Batman comics, or for that matter Uncle Scrooge comics, most of the times their adventures don't have anything to do with running a business empire and so on. You can get away with that in a world as fantastic as Gotham and Duckburg, but Iron Man comics on the other are forced to make businesses and corporate politics and so on an essential part of the story and setting, because Marvel sets stuff in a realistic space, and Tony Stark inhabits a specific corner nobody else can. That's why a lot of Iron Man comics have traditionally been boring as hell. Running a business isn't a lot of fun to see, unless you know it's organized crime. You get way more interest out of seeing Kingpin work real-estate scams and slum redevelopment (usually killing people already living there) then watching Stark at work. Or for that matter, watching Janine Lincoln/Lady Beetle take a corporate approach to feminism and organized crime is pretty fun, more fun than it would be if she wasn't a criminal and regular person trying to reform corporate America.

So the truth is that being a CEO has almost never produced good comics, regardless of genre and character.

But when it comes to Peter, there seems to be a rather disturbing element of glorifying poverty by writers and fans alike.

Is Peter homeless? Like right now, is he homeless? Because that's real poverty.

And again, the way I see it, there are always fewer characters from working-class backgrounds than the alternatives. So I don't know why you should take one of the most original things about Spider-Man away.

[boots]

Who?

-Pav, who doesn't recall such an X-Man...

i lub you pav

[boots]

peter as CEO is worth exploring, but i agree 616 should never stay in that role.

i'd be interested in an expansion of 'life story' where we get shown the kind of compromises and dodgy practises that both peter and ben would have had to endorse (or turned a blind eye to) in order to run a world successful company. i can also understand why a guy who came from so little is so worried about losing that "success" as peter is in the last issue.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

peter as CEO is worth exploring, but i agree 616 should never stay in that role.

i'd be interested in an expansion of 'life story' where we get shown the kind of compromises and dodgy practises that both peter and ben would have had to endorsed (or turned a blind eye to) in order to run a world successful company. i can also understand why a guy who came from so little is so worried about losing that "success" as peter is in the last issue.

The latter is the other problem with CEO Peter. He loses something if you make him get a huge opportunity and then go back with nothing. That makes him a little privileged and not exactly hard luck. People around him would say that Peter has blown past lucky breaks repeatedly thrown in his way, if you treat that seriously. So that’s why the whole CEO era has to be played down going forward. Most times, people who fail as much as Peter has at the end of Slott’s run would be written off. Before you can sell Peter as this guy with bright potential who might make it but who might also be a guy who people will appreciate when he’s gone. It’s hard to do that if you take CEO Peter realistically. So that has to be downplayed and ignored as it has in Spencer’s run for the most part.

There are ways you can have things both ways. Like say if it was Harry Lyman who started the company and Harry is decommissioned and he asks Peter to be acting CEO then it might work. In the way that MJ working at Stark Industries was handled. It becomes ridiculous with a company named Parker Industries where Harry is working for him as his second.

And as for ethical issues, well Parker Industries did business with China, a totalitarian government. So yeah if and when China becomes a democracy that part is gonna be there with all those embarrassing stuff people have to downplay.

[boots]

The latter is the other problem with CEO Peter. He loses something if you make him get a huge opportunity and then go back with nothing. That makes him a little privileged and not exactly hard luck. People around him would say that Peter has blown past lucky breaks repeatedly thrown in his way, if you treat that seriously. So that’s why the whole CEO era has to be played down going forward. Most times, people who fail as much as Peter has at the end of Slott’s run would be written off. Before you can sell Peter as this guy with bright potential who might make it but who might also be a guy who people will appreciate when he’s gone. It’s hard to do that if you take CEO Peter realistically. So that has to be downplayed and ignored as it has in Spencer’s run for the most part.

i was always under the impression it would be moved on from, and i don't think slott planned it any differently.

And as for ethical issues, well Parker Industries did business with China, a totalitarian government. So yeah if and when China becomes a democracy that part is gonna be there with all those embarrassing stuff people have to downplay.

yeah, you've mentioned your thing with china before. if china ever becomes a democracy, it'll most likely be the singaporean brand, which is more or less for PR only.

and it may be by degrees, but there will be plenty of dodgy practises in any corporation from a democratic country. i've spoken to too many execs and general managers to buy into the platitudes, the lip service to social issues, the nice guy ceo in the plaid shirt or the company subsidised yoga classes. follow the paper trail and the money of any successful corp, and you'll find blood. china, usa, australia.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

i was always under the impression it would be moved on from, and i don't think slott planned it any differently.

In terms of plot logic, the fact that Peter didn't take a salary as CEO and all such shenanigans (which in real life are total stunts, only the already rich and connected can afford this) meant that Peter could still be poor at the end of Parker Industries. Most of the money went into severance packages for workers who were laid off abruptly and Peter didn't keep things for himself and all that. So on that base level, it didn't change anything. But on a character level, and a setting level, it's a huge change. A lot of people pointed out that in Spencer's issues in the Bar with No Name, people bring up Peter as the guy who did that book of photographs in Michelinie's run with married Spider-Man but nobody mentioned Peter being a former CEO and owner of a MNC. I mean in the Graveyard Shift story, Peter even tried to offer work to ex-criminals and so on. So they would plausibly know that side of him, instead Spencer plays that down.

and it may be by degrees, but there will be plenty of dodgy practises in any corporation from a democratic country. i've spoken to too many execs and general managers to buy into the platitudes, the lip service to social issues, the nice guy ceo in the plaid shirt or the company subsidised yoga classes. follow the paper trail and the money of any successful corp, and you'll find blood. china, usa, australia.

Sure, Parker Industries probably used sweat-shops and so on. As a big-tech company, it would play a part in using automation and phasing out the manufacturing sector, and so on. There's stuff there worth mining in terms of "being a good person would not make you a good CEO, or a successful one". But we didn't really get that. It basically became an excuse for big stupid props. And I point out China because it's a blatant example in terms of "elephant in the room". The editor in the time should have told Slott to change it to like Madripoor or you know Wakanda or some other fictional country simply to avoid the baggage.

[boots]

In terms of plot logic, the fact that Peter didn't take a salary as CEO and all such shenanigans (which in real life are total stunts, only the already rich and connected can afford this) meant that Peter could still be poor at the end of Parker Industries. Most of the money went into severance packages for workers who were laid off abruptly and Peter didn't keep things for himself and all that. So on that base level, it didn't change anything. But on a character level, and a setting level, it's a huge change. A lot of people pointed out that in Spencer's issues in the Bar with No Name, people bring up Peter as the guy who did that book of photographs in Michelinie's run with married Spider-Man but nobody mentioned Peter being a former CEO and owner of a MNC. I mean in the Graveyard Shift story, Peter even tried to offer work to ex-criminals and so on. So they would plausibly know that side of him, instead Spencer plays that down.



Sure, Parker Industries probably used sweat-shops and so on. As a big-tech company, it would play a part in using automation and phasing out the manufacturing sector, and so on. There's stuff there worth mining in terms of "being a good person would not make you a good CEO, or a successful one". But we didn't really get that. It basically became an excuse for big stupid props. And I point out China because it's a blatant example in terms of "elephant in the room". The editor in the time should have told Slott to change it to like Madripoor or you know Wakanda or some other fictional country simply to avoid the baggage.

all the above is why i'm only interested in the take in a "life story" format, because i've personally sprained my wrist from all the comic book hand-waving already.

i was open to the idea of parker industries, but the execution did nothing for me.

[Agent Z]

In terms of plot logic, the fact that Peter didn't take a salary as CEO and all such shenanigans (which in real life are total stunts, only the already rich and connected can afford this) meant that Peter could still be poor at the end of Parker Industries. Most of the money went into severance packages for workers who were laid off abruptly and Peter didn't keep things for himself and all that. So on that base level, it didn't change anything. But on a character level, and a setting level, it's a huge change. A lot of people pointed out that in Spencer's issues in the Bar with No Name, people bring up Peter as the guy who did that book of photographs in Michelinie's run with married Spider-Man but nobody mentioned Peter being a former CEO and owner of a MNC. I mean in the Graveyard Shift story, Peter even tried to offer work to ex-criminals and so on. So they would plausibly know that side of him, instead Spencer plays that down.



Sure, Parker Industries probably used sweat-shops and so on. As a big-tech company, it would play a part in using automation and phasing out the manufacturing sector, and so on. There's stuff there worth mining in terms of "being a good person would not make you a good CEO, or a successful one". But we didn't really get that. It basically became an excuse for big stupid props. And I point out China because it's a blatant example in terms of "elephant in the room". The editor in the time should have told Slott to change it to like Madripoor or you know Wakanda or some other fictional country simply to avoid the baggage.

If the Marvel universe has fictional countries like Madripoor or Wakanda, then it probably has a version of China that doesn't have the same issues as the real one. Most people reading Spider-Man comics likely don't know or care about China being a totalitarian government.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If the Marvel universe has fictional countries like Madripoor or Wakanda, then it probably has a version of China that doesn't have the same issues as the real one.

ASM #38 had Harry Osborn accuse Peter of being a Maoist, so the answer is no. Mao existed in Marvel China, so it had the same history as the real world. Marvel's policy has always been "the world outside your window" as much as possible.

Ta-Nehisi Coates when he wrote Black Panther had the good sense to use Madripoor and other fake countries as stand-ins for real ones, so that could work. DC has its fake cities, Marvel has its fake countries.

Most people reading Spider-Man comics likely don't know or care about China being a totalitarian government.

1) Spider-Man is Marvel's most famous character and a mainstream big time superhero.

2) One of the defining images of the last hundred years is a guy standing up to a tank in Tiananmen Square.

The idea that most people reading Spider-Man comics know nothing about China simply can't work if Spider-Man is a mainstream character. Because there would have to be considerable overlap between 1) and 2) for both statements to be true.

China's surveillance stuff is so notorious that Google of all companies was banned for a while. If Peter in his Parker Industries phase is to be some kind of tech-bro stand-in (which itself dates poorly since people have a lower opinion of the types that Slott cited as positive references or that arc -- than before thanks to the Amazon move-in to NY State being controversial, Elon Musk proving himself a tool and being fired from his own company, Zuckerberg being another tool), then Parker Industries proves to have fewer ethics than Google.

[Agent Z]

ASM #38 had Harry Osborn accuse Peter of being a Maoist, so the answer is no. Mao existed in Marvel China, so it had the same history as the real world. Marvel's policy has always been "the world outside your window" as much as possible.

Ta-Nehisi Coates when he wrote Black Panther had the good sense to use Madripoor and other fake countries as stand-ins for real ones, so that could work. DC has its fake cities, Marvel has its fake countries.



1) Spider-Man is Marvel's most famous character and a mainstream big time superhero.

2) One of the defining images of the last hundred years is a guy standing up to a tank in Tiananmen Square.

The idea that most people reading Spider-Man comics know nothing about China simply can't work if Spider-Man is a mainstream character. Because there would have to be considerable overlap between 1) and 2) for both statements to be true.

China's surveillance stuff is so notorious that Google of all companies was banned for a while. If Peter in his Parker Industries phase is to be some kind of tech-bro stand-in (which itself dates poorly since people have a lower opinion of the types that Slott cited as positive references or that arc -- than before thanks to the Amazon move-in to NY State being controversial, Elon Musk proving himself a tool and being fired from his own company, Zuckerberg being another tool), then Parker Industries proves to have fewer ethics than Google.

And again, most of the people reading this probably don't care even if they do know.

Hell, with all the morally questionable crap superheroes regularly do, the China thing in particular looks like less of a big deal. At least doing business with China is legal if not unethical.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Hell, with all the morally questionable crap superheroes regularly do, the China thing in particular looks like less of a big deal. At least doing business with China is legal if not unethical.

Legally Spider-Man isn't responsible for Uncle Ben's death. Morally, he definitely is. See the difference.

Being a superhero means you are held to the very highest moral and ethical standards, not the real-world standards of grey and murky shades of reality. Whether its legal to trade with China is secondary to the question of whether it's right, when it comes to a superhero.

Spider-Man condemned Doctor Doom for being a dictator in JMS' "Doomed Affairs" saying he's a war criminal who should be brought to the Hague.I don't know if it's possible to cheer Peter for condemning Doom when he as a businessman does business with China which has a comparable record on the same specific areas in which he (justly) condemns Victor. If you were to take that seriously, Peter Parker would be a total hypocrite at the very least.

[Agent Z]

Being a superhero means you are held to the very highest moral and ethical standards,

In theory maybe.

Spider-Man condemned Doctor Doom for being a dictator in JMS' "Doomed Affairs" saying he's a war criminal who should be brought to the Hague.I don't know if it's possible to cheer Peter for condemning Doom when he as a businessman does business with China which has a comparable record on the same specific areas in which he (justly) condemns Victor. If you were to take that seriously, Peter Parker would be a total hypocrite at the very least.

So add hypocrisy to one of Peter's many flaws. Seriously, the guy is not and never has been a saint.

And honestly, I wouldn't put anything China has done remotely on the same level as Dr Doom.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And honestly, I wouldn't put anything China has done remotely on the same level as Dr Doom.

When has Dr. Doom implemented policies that starved tens and millions of his own people, or suppress and persecute ethnic minorities in the way the CCP has done to the Tibetans, and the Uighurs, among others? I don't think you know what you are talking about, so let's just drop it.

I am simply pointing out many of the problems in Dan Slott's run with Peter being a CEO and why it didn't fit the character, and the manner in which it brings in a series of questions and dilemmas that it fails to address. For some people these questions might not apply, that's fair. For others, there are serious problems that don't make it work.

[Agent Z]

When has Dr. Doom implemented policies that starved tens and millions of his own people, or suppress and persecute ethnic minorities in the way the CCP has done to the Tibetans, and the Uighurs, among others? I don't think you know what you are talking about, so let's just drop it.

I am simply pointing out many of the problems in Dan Slott's run with Peter being a CEO and why it didn't fit the character, and the manner in which it brings in a series of questions and dilemmas that it fails to address. For some people these questions might not apply, that's fair. For others, there are serious problems that don't make it work.

You claimed a very real government is the same as a character who, even by superhero comic standards, is ludicrously cartoonish. But I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?