Is Osborn responsible for his actions?

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

Yes Norman is responsible for his own actions. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care. The same goes for Otto. Otto is no less villainous then his abusive father. Both are pretty evil Norman's just more eccentric.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The Gooby Juice isn't the green substance that corrupted Normie. The money is.

Now THIS should be framed.

[Mistah K88]

Yeah...Norman's insanity was more about the man wanting to go from a white collared criminal to a blue collared one, but couldn't risk doing it without a mask (as he did have too much to lose). The amnesia he had is more like forgetting what he did yesterday than the split personality some more sympathetic takes go with.

[Michael Watkins]

he takes pills to regulate his mood and prevent hallucination in Ellis' Thunderbolts run. he's a relatively normal politician when he's "level." that makes him villainous by every day standards. but consider the circles that he runs in. at that level, psychopathy is winning trait (reminder: Victoria Hand took down an airplane full of innocents to create a distraction & the Avengers later welcomed her with open arms). i do think that he needed to take the goblin serum to get to that level though; to become a captain of industry. his love for Harry was a weakness. and the cult later gave him the weakness of madness/loosened his grip on reality.

[Michael Watkins]

not related. but i always like spreading this conspiracy.

[Doctor Know]

Remember Gwen in ASM #121 and MJ and Peter's stillborn child in ASM #441.

Osborn knows what he's doing is wrong but he does it anyway. Like all criminals, because he does not expect to be punished or held to account.

[Michael Watkins]

Remember Gwen in ASM #121 and MJ and Peter's stillborn child in ASM #441.

Osborn knows what he's doing is wrong but he does it anyway. Like all criminals, because he does not expect to be punished or held to account.

In fairness to Osborn, the self-proclaimed heroes have the same mindset. That's what Civil War was about; not liking rules or the threat of accountability. Norman is playing by the established rules. Same rules allowed the Illuminati to make decisions for the universe and Spider-man to make deals with Satan.

[Celgress]

Anyone who would kill innocent people to get back at a person they hate especially a baby (Mayday) is a scumbag. Even most harden criminals will not intentionally harm a child or allow one to be harmed. He knows full well what he's doing. No one who is clinically insane could have planned the events of the Clone Saga.

[Huntsman Spider]

not related. but i always like spreading this conspiracy.

Thanks for sharing this again. It actually makes a lot of sense as a cohesive update to the early days of the modern Marvel Universe, given that the sliding timescale would otherwise render the rivalry between the Soviet Union/Communists and the United States/democracy/capitalism that initially motivated a lot of the earlier supervillains (and some superheroes) anachronistically irrelevant.

Also, I can see your point about the "heroes" and the "villains" not being as distant from each other in terms of basic worldview as they would like to admit. However, I'd argue that the "heroes" don't do what they do out of the same malice or selfish entitlement that ultimately underpins and informs the actions taken by the "villains." Do they overreach? Yes. Are they overly self-righteous and even hypocritical when it comes to how they act and think? Sometimes. Do many of them need a reality check concerning how their actions impact the very people they claim to protect? Most definitely. But are they going out murdering, maiming, robbing, and God knows what else for selfish thrills or malice or ego or petty revenge? No, that's the villains' territory, villains such as Norman Osborn, and while he did exploit a broken system and the public's disaffection with said system to his own advantage, his own actions by and after that point undercut any argument that he's somehow less of a bad actor than any of the heroes who fought him.

[Lee]

In Lee-Ditko's run, if you read ASM #37 and ASM #38, it's pretty clear that Norman and Goblin are one and the same, and that Norman is a rational actor.

The idea of Norman being insane or transformed via chemicals was something Lee-Romita introduced. It wasn't grounded in anything before.

Yep. And the idea of a "Goblin formula" is something a retcon that came decades later, after the Hobgoblin was introduced.

Interesting things about Amazing Spider-Man #40:

* It's never stated what the purpose of Stromm's formula was.
* After the formula exploded, Norman was in hospital for weeks.
* The state's best surgeons saved his life, but couldn't do anything about the brain damage he suffered.
* Norman claims that he didn't have brain damage, but had become more brilliant than ever, could think clearer.
* But the story portrays him as insane, so Norman's an unreliable narrator.
* There's one ambiguous line, "I'm stronger... smarter... tougher than anyone else!", but it's not stated that he gained super-human strength from the explosion.
* In the origin flashback, Green Goblin has his bat glider instead of his flying broomstick.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yep. And the idea of a "Goblin formula" is something a retcon that came decades later, after the Hobgoblin was introduced.

Interesting things about Amazing Spider-Man #40:

* It's never stated what the purpose of Stromm's formula was.
* After the formula exploded, Norman was in hospital for weeks.
* The state's best surgeons saved his life, but couldn't do anything about the brain damage he suffered.
* Norman claims that he didn't have brain damage, but had become more brilliant than ever, could think clearer.
* But the story portrays him as insane, so Norman's an unreliable narrator.
* There's one ambiguous line, "I'm stronger... smarter... tougher than anyone else!", but it's not stated that he gained super-human strength from the explosion.
* In the origin flashback, Green Goblin has his bat glider instead of his flying broomstick.

Goblin having super-strength and reflexes was implied in earlier issues where he matched Spider-Man's agility and skills well. Likewise, Norman sucker punched Peter in ASM #37 when his back was turned and knocked him out, which was a punch with some force.

ASM # 37 - Ditko-Osborn 1.jpg
ASM # 37 - Ditko-Osborn 2.jpg

Norman having super-strength is the best explanation since he isn't a very powerfully built man like Eddie Brock, leave alone Kingpin. I mean Kingpin's punches on Spider-Man and so on is itself a kind of joke that stretches plausibility as it is...but Norman having super-strength is the only logical explanation, and it's another hint that Osborn is the Green Goblin that Ditko was laying out.

Stern added the super-strength explicitly for the same reason he said that Vulture had super-strength via his harness. Since he wanted to make Peter a powerful figure and highlight his strength which writers before had kind of forgotten or let slide, he always added in-continuity explanations for that.

[Lee]

Back in the Ditko era, Spider-Man had super-strength, but he wasn't incredibly resilient like Superman. A punch to the head would still do damage.

In the original Green Goblin story, the Enforcers (3 "ordinary" gangsters) are his muscle. Ditko's Green Goblin was always a trickster villain, reliant on schemes and gadgets, rarely ever throwing a punch. Not the way a villain with super-strength would be depicted.

[Michael Watkins]

Also, I can see your point about the "heroes" and the "villains" not being as distant from each other in terms of basic worldview as they would like to admit. However, I'd argue that the "heroes" don't do what they do out of the same malice or selfish entitlement that ultimately underpins and informs the actions taken by the "villains."

of course not. it's the motive that ultimately makes a hero a villain. yet there are several villains who see themselves as heroic. and there are heroes who act in villainous fashion because they've convinced themselves that what they are doing is right and just. remember when it was Carol Danvers' goal just to be the best? how different was inverted Iron Man from the one who created the recent virtual reality world? Pym's transition to Giant-Man was based (at least for the most part) in wanting more attention/to not be outshined by the other Avengers. and that's Bentley Wittman's motivation in becoming the Wizard. Hydra-Cap was just as devoted (with no malice or self-entitlement) to the dream as original Steve Rogers. it was the dream that was bad.

[Michael Watkins]

Anyone who would kill innocent people to get back at a person they hate especially a baby (Mayday) is a scumbag. Even most harden criminals will not intentionally harm a child or allow one to be harmed. He knows full well what he's doing. No one who is clinically insane could have planned the events of the Clone Saga.

someone who is clinically insane might harm a child. and Norman's insanity is occult-based. comparing him to a real world insane person is a little disingenuous. we've seen him engage in naked rants. we've seen him sweat profusely while trying to ignore the "goblin" speaking to him. these plans are all malevolent plans. and they are always unraveled. because Norman isn't stable. he's just so smart that he can sometimes fake stability. i'd point people back to his short partnership with Otto Octavius. I've read that story a number of times. his turning on Otto is entirely irrational. he does some really horrible evil stuff just because of what exactly? was it to prove that love was a weakness? was it because Otto unintentionally insulted him? something very quickly flipped Norman's crazy switch.

[Rosebunse]

he takes pills to regulate his mood and prevent hallucination in Ellis' Thunderbolts run. he's a relatively normal politician when he's "level." that makes him villainous by every day standards. but consider the circles that he runs in. at that level, psychopathy is winning trait (reminder: Victoria Hand took down an airplane full of innocents to create a distraction & the Avengers later welcomed her with open arms). i do think that he needed to take the goblin serum to get to that level though; to become a captain of industry. his love for Harry was a weakness. and the cult later gave him the weakness of madness/loosened his grip on reality.

You do have to wonder just what Osborn thinks of himself, especially since his rise in Dark Reign wasn't just about him vs the Avengers, but was more about the fact that major villains like Doom and Loki saw him as an upstart and he lost a lot of allies like Bullseye, Taskmaster, and Mac Gargan, who thought that he had sold them out for the bigtime. Neither of these were actually incorrect. Osborn got played by everyone and he really didn't think about how his group of hired thugs were going to do against bigger threats.