Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[Alan2099]

I mean the only reason Tony Stark is able to be so rich is the fact that he has inherited wealth. His dad Howard made the family fortune and then Tony spent the greater part of his adult life (remember per comic time, it's not been long since Tony became Iron Man) as an amoral weapons manufacturer dedicated to the bottom line. The fortune that Tony has didn't come from his ethical turn or change of heart. To quote 44, "he didn't build that", the he being box-of-scraps-in-a-cave Tony.

Tony STARTED with a fortune, but he's lost everything more than once and had to build a new company from scratch on multiple occasions.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Tony STARTED with a fortune, but he's lost everything more than once and had to build a new company from scratch on multiple occasions.

So? How does that disprove my point? The safety net for the already rich and preternaturally wealthy is such that they get numerous second chances, owing to their name, reputation, and so on, compared to people who come from other classes. When you are in an upper class, you get many advantages and avenues of recovery and repair...you know socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

In essence Tony Stark's fortune is based on the privilege and advantages he had growing up as Howard Stark's son, followed by his own period as an amoral businessman and weapons manufacturer. That's the basis for his fortune and the basis for his character. You can't extrapolate from that and insist that Peter Parker be set up for a similar chart because for one thing Peter had his change of heart at the age of 15 rather than 40 or late-30s unlike Stark, and Stark of course grew up wealthy unlike Peter did. It's pretty convenient for Tony that he could live it up and accumulate profits for most of his life and change his heart at a time when he can keep his ill-gotten gains. Of course the whole point of Tony is that he has advantages and is the overdog.

[Agent Z]

So? How does that disprove my point? The safety net for the already rich and preternaturally wealthy is such that they get numerous second chances, owing to their name, reputation, and so on, compared to people who come from other classes. When you are in an upper class, you get many advantages and avenues of recovery and repair...you know socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

In essence Tony Stark's fortune is based on the privilege and advantages he had growing up as Howard Stark's son, followed by his own period as an amoral businessman and weapons manufacturer. That's the basis for his fortune and the basis for his character. You can't extrapolate from that and insist that Peter Parker be set up for a similar chart because for one thing Peter had his change of heart at the age of 15 rather than 40 or late-30s unlike Stark, and Stark of course grew up wealthy unlike Peter did. It's pretty convenient for Tony that he could live it up and accumulate profits for most of his life and change his heart at a time when he can keep his ill-gotten gains. Of course the whole point of Tony is that he has advantages and is the overdog.

Peter's epiphany came courtesy of a thief he let get away. It isn't Tony's fault terrorists waited until he was an adult to kidnap him.

[SpideyCeo]

I think we need to cut out real life compatisons about peter or tony, in my eyes peter is a not realistic or mentally stable to be a real person woth a opportunity to be rich, and his context for not making finanicial profit his superheroes is in the realm of fictional than realistic.

Tony is a boderline mary sue inventor and celebrity that just so happens to screw up alot. No way hes comparable to real life genius billionares.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think we need to cut out real life compatisons about peter or tony, in my eyes peter is a not realistic or mentally stable to be a real person woth a opportunity to be rich...

Not sure what mental stability has to do with being rich. There are a lot of people who are rich and aren't exactly "stable geniuses" you know. Howard Hughes wasn't all there mentally, you know, and he's a famous example.

People who are wealthy have less to fear from the social norms that normal people have to do, and as such great wealth licenses more outrageous behavioral patterns.

Tony is a boderline mary sue inventor and celebrity that just so happens to screw up alot. No way hes comparable to real life genius billionares.

Agreed but by the same measure, Tony Stark can never function as a plausible role model or standard to measure Peter or any other character against.

[Frontier]

Tony STARTED with a fortune, but he's lost everything more than once and had to build a new company from scratch on multiple occasions.

And he has risked his fortune numerous times because of what he does as Iron Man.

[Steel Inquisitor]

So? How does that disprove my point? The safety net for the already rich and preternaturally wealthy is such that they get numerous second chances, owing to their name, reputation, and so on, compared to people who come from other classes. When you are in an upper class, you get many advantages and avenues of recovery and repair...you know socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

In essence Tony Stark's fortune is based on the privilege and advantages he had growing up as Howard Stark's son, followed by his own period as an amoral businessman and weapons manufacturer. That's the basis for his fortune and the basis for his character. You can't extrapolate from that and insist that Peter Parker be set up for a similar chart because for one thing Peter had his change of heart at the age of 15 rather than 40 or late-30s unlike Stark, and Stark of course grew up wealthy unlike Peter did. It's pretty convenient for Tony that he could live it up and accumulate profits for most of his life and change his heart at a time when he can keep his ill-gotten gains. Of course the whole point of Tony is that he has advantages and is the overdog.

They're both friends, Peter can call Stark up to invest in his company or consolidate it with Stark for money an still run it. He's not someone without access to great resources. You're also forgetting how smart Stark is, he makes things with technology we can only dream about. He'd still be doing amazing things with technology without the fortune. The fortune helps, but Stark is a real genius and a successful businessman. Stark has routinely fought villains stronger than he is, and lost his companies to other people.

[JTHM]

No, Spider-Man is not a loser. It's kind of silly when you think about it. Like, why is he a loser? Because he isn't in a big superhero team? Not since, like, 20 years ago or so when he became a regular Avengers member and is still a secondary face for the group. He has strong ties with the superhero community, pupils, people who look up to him. Why would he be a loser? What part of his concept has to do with being that? Not even compared with other heroes. In fact, you could argue Spider-Man is one of the heroes who has the best deal cut out to him. He is inspiring, down-to-earth, he has his shadows but he is not a broken man like some other heroes. He has had tragedies but not to the same bleakness some others have had. In general, he is alright. I wouldn't say he is more of a loser than, say, Luke Cage.

[NC_Yankee]

No, Spider-Man is not a loser. It's kind of silly when you think about it. Like, why is he a loser? Because he isn't in a big superhero team? Not since, like, 20 years ago or so when he became a regular Avengers member and is still a secondary face for the group. He has strong ties with the superhero community, pupils, people who look up to him. Why would he be a loser? What part of his concept has to do with being that? Not even compared with other heroes. In fact, you could argue Spider-Man is one of the heroes who has the best deal cut out to him. He is inspiring, down-to-earth, he has his shadows but he is not a broken man like some other heroes. He has had tragedies but not to the same bleakness some others have had. In general, he is alright. I wouldn't say he is more of a loser than, say, Luke Cage.

I very much agree. Peter is perhaps the biggest winner in Super hero comics. Why? He has kept his humanity and not allowed Spider-Man to define who he is. Instead, it is the lessons he learned from Aunt May and Uncle Ben. If you think of Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne they love being superheroes and it is their money that allows them to fight bad guys. For Peter it is a job, and one that he does not always like. This was the message of Spider-Man Requiem ( one of my personal favorite stories). While I concede the point it is not 616, it shows the need for Spider-Man until he can finally be with MJ in Heaven. In Life Story Miles does not think he can measure up to Peter but it is MJ who gives him the costume, basically passing the torch. Both Miles and MJ certainly know that hat Peter was anything but a loser.

[SpideyCeo]

Peter is a conceptual loser though compared to the high end heroes, thats his appeal amd his villains reflext that where their losers compared to more high class villains in the marvel world.

[SpideyCeo]

Whew boy. I mean sure, comics at a base level can be written and read as power fantasies, but that's a pretty surface level scratch on a medium that can go a lot deeper than that (half of the characters you mentioned are actually pretty flawed and toxic representatives of "masculinity" as a concept in their own individual ways at that and maybe not characters to ever be idolized, per se). Marvel in particular I don't feel has ever really sold their characters in such a manner, instead using them to tell stories of humanity through superheroic tropes - and Spider-Man isn't any different. He's not a loser, he's human character with human issues like most of their characters. The constant juggle between his private and sueprhero life while reckoning with responsibility is as much of "flaw" to his character as Stark's ego and alcoholism, Wolverine's bloodthirstyness and emotional stiltedness, Cap's rigidity, and so on.

Despite their flaws, they are still more infleuncial and pillars of their respective teams, if not the whole marvel community. Peter even has to look up to them. All three of them could cuck peter by banging mj and aunt may and he would not mind.

If all of their baggage still makes them gods amongst men and woman magnets, whats peters excuse for being so inadequate with being a joke to most people and a beta male to mostly all his love interests?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Peter is a conceptual loser though compared to the high end heroes, thats his appeal amd his villains reflext that where their losers compared to more high class villains in the marvel world.

I really don’t understand this sentence especially the second part

[Huntsman Spider]

I really don’t understand this sentence especially the second part

Same, and as for the comparisons to Captain America, Iron Man, and Wolverine --- at worst (by writers who don't fully understand the character), Cap is just self-righteous, inflexible, and rigid, but Iron Man and Wolverine are themselves one bad day (or a less sympathetic viewpoint) away from being outright villains themselves. If we're comparing them to Spider-Man with regards to concepts like "manhood" and "masculinity," well, Steve Rogers is the only one of them who exhibits those traits more positively compared to Logan and Tony, given Logan and his longstanding d***-measuring contest with Scott "Cyclops" Summers over Jean Grey, plus Tony overcompensating for his personal insecurities with a showboating playboy attitude when he's not throwing his friends in extradimensional gulags for not falling in line with what he thinks is best. Neither of them are, to understate things, really good standard bearers for heroic manhood when you consider how damaged, unstable, and self-destructive they can get, not to mention how dangerous they can be to others (if not the world) around them. While Spider-Man may not be as superficially "cool" as Iron Man and Wolverine, nor as venerated as Captain America, overall, he's a much better example of what a hero can (and should) be in comparison to Tony and Logan, and in the same ballpark of heroism as Captain America himself.

[Agent Z]

Despite their flaws, they are still more infleuncial and pillars of their respective teams, if not the whole marvel community. Peter even has to look up to them. All three of them could cuck peter by banging mj and aunt may and he would not mind.

1) No they couldn't because May and M.J have never shown any interest in them whatsoever.

2) How they hell is sleeping with Aunt May "cucking" Peter? Are you under the impression Peter is dating his aunt?

If all of their baggage still makes them gods amongst men and woman magnets, whats peters excuse for being so inadequate with being a joke to most people and a beta male to mostly all his love interests?

Peter has had more girlfriends than most male Marvel superheroes. Also, here's some free advice; try to avoid using the words "cuck" and "beta male" without irony.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I really don’t understand this sentence especially the second part

This is just my interpretation but I think what Spidey's saying is that Spider-man appears on the surface to be a "loser" compared to other super-heroes, who have more acclaim and are in higher social classes than he is, and the same for villains - many of which are very financially superior and stable to him so he is the underdog compared to them. Of course, being an underdog is not the same as being a loser.