Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[Lukmendes]

Well, let's just say he takes responsibility for what it is within his responsibility to take care of. With Great Power doesn't necessarily come with Great Financial Obligation unless you're Iron Man .

Does Tony actually have finacial obligations though? 'Cause I get the feeling he'd be bankrupt if he did .

This is the same universe where Tony Stark was able to successfully masquerade Iron Man as his bodyguard for years.

I wasn't talking about how the characters managed to have secret identities, I was talking about how everyone back then had one.

As for Tony managing to have that secret identity, it makes sense, it's hard enough to imagine someone like him actually being Iron Man, and he did financially support super-heroes like the Avengers, so he was doing plenty already, so Iron Man being his bodyguard with a secret identity works.

[Frontier]

Does Tony actually have finacial obligations though? 'Cause I get the feeling he'd be bankrupt if he did .

Maybe in the real world .

I wasn't talking about how the characters managed to have secret identities, I was talking about how everyone back then had one.Maybe

As for Tony managing to have that secret identity, it makes sense, it's hard enough to imagine someone like him actually being Iron Man, and he did financially support super-heroes like the Avengers, so he was doing plenty already, so Iron Man being his bodyguard with a secret identity works.

I know. I was just emphasizing how silly it is to give Spidey guff for it when even mr. "I am Iron Man" did it for a long point in his career and no one really cared.

[PCN24454]

Maybe in the real world .

I know. I was just emphasizing how silly it is to give Spidey guff for it when even mr. "I am Iron Man" did it for a long point in his career and no one really cared.

Are you talking about us or Jameson who isn’t always portrayed as sane?

[Agent Z]

I prefer Chip Zdarsky's take from Daredevil #11:

I don't think Zdarsky understood the implications of this scene when he wrote it. He's essentially arguing that the powers and abilities of superheroes make them above the law which is the same argument a supervillain uses to justify their own misdeeds. It's essentially the Spider-Man equivalent of Captain America's infamous "no you move" speech which could have come from Red Skull or Dr Doom without changing a single word. And of course, there's the issue that the reason laws for dealing with superpowered don't exist is because Marvel either doesn't create them or when they do, they treat it as a bad thing.

The crux of Spider-Man's argument is that having superpowers means you're above the law. Where I not keeping up with the main Spider-Man books, I'd think this was Dr Octopus still parading around in Peter's body.

[Agent Z]

To be fair, if you put actual logic in this, he really doesn't, how many cars or apartments has he destroyed during a super-hero fight and done nothing to pay back, or even try to fix the damage?

But then again, if you're gonna think like that, then he's not the only one, since even the ones who do have public identities do jack shit, nor there are negative consequences for 'em lol.



It's also dumb for her to point out that Spidey having a secret identity soon after F4's debut as a point against him when 99% of super-heroes back then had one, even the likes of Hulk (Short lived sure, but he had it), Iron Man, and Thor had one, so F4 were the exception, not the rule.

Those other heroes did get mistrust from the public often and eventually discarded their secret identities. Spider-Man is one of the few Marvel heroes who still has a secret identity.

[Frontier]

I don't think Zdarsky understood the implications of this scene when he wrote it. He's essentially arguing that the powers and abilities of superheroes make them above the law which is the same argument a supervillain uses to justify their own misdeeds. It's essentially the Spider-Man equivalent of Captain America's infamous "no you move" speech which could have come from Red Skull or Dr Doom without changing a single word. And of course, there's the issue that the reason laws for dealing with superpowered don't exist is because Marvel either doesn't create them or when they do, they treat it as a bad thing.

The crux of Spider-Man's argument is that having superpowers means you're above the law. Where I not keeping up with the main Spider-Man books, I'd think this was Dr Octopus still parading around in Peter's body.

I think his argument is basically that there is no clear rulebook or guidance for how to handle a world with superpowers and the impact on the legal system so the heroes just have to do their best and hold themselves accountable.

I think from the dialogue and the honesty it's pretty clearly Peter.

Those other heroes did get mistrust from the public often and eventually discarded their secret identities. Spider-Man is one of the few Marvel heroes who still has a secret identity.

Not to the extent of Spider-Man (other than Hulk). Heck, Iron Man accidentally vaporized a dude once and there wasn't the kind of manhunt Spider-Man gets.

And, yeah, he still has a secret identity but unlike 90% of Marvel Heroes these days he actually has a life outside of being a Superhero and doesn't want to compromise that.

[Alan2099]

I don't think Zdarsky understood the implications of this scene when he wrote it. He's essentially arguing that the powers and abilities of superheroes make them above the law which is the same argument a supervillain uses to justify their own misdeeds. It's essentially the Spider-Man equivalent of Captain America's infamous "no you move" speech which could have come from Red Skull or Dr Doom without changing a single word. And of course, there's the issue that the reason laws for dealing with superpowered don't exist is because Marvel either doesn't create them or when they do, they treat it as a bad thing.

I didn't read it as Spider-man trying to make a clear argument. I just read it as him being mad and venting.

[Huntsman Spider]

I don't think Zdarsky understood the implications of this scene when he wrote it. He's essentially arguing that the powers and abilities of superheroes make them above the law which is the same argument a supervillain uses to justify their own misdeeds. It's essentially the Spider-Man equivalent of Captain America's infamous "no you move" speech which could have come from Red Skull or Dr Doom without changing a single word. And of course, there's the issue that the reason laws for dealing with superpowered don't exist is because Marvel either doesn't create them or when they do, they treat it as a bad thing.

The crux of Spider-Man's argument is that having superpowers means you're above the law. Where I not keeping up with the main Spider-Man books, I'd think this was Dr Octopus still parading around in Peter's body.

I think what he means is that while superpowers are rife with potential for misuse and abuse, the problem is that society's institutions are inclined to lump all superpowered individuals together as a threat, with no regard for the fact that in the case of the more altruistically minded, these are largely people trying their damnedest to do right by the world in which they live and getting attacked for it on all ends, whether by supervillains or more "mundane" criminals and terrorists that would gladly target the people closest to them as revenge by proxy, the public that generally distrusts and fears, if not even viscerally detests, them, and government institutions that have been shown repeatedly to take a dim view of anything or anyone that would pose a challenge to their ability to enforce their authority through the "monopoly on the legitimate use of force." And the issue with making laws to deal specifically with the superpowered is that having superpowers in and of itself doesn't break any laws, so it could be equated to a form of prejudice or bigotry to single out superpowered people for "special laws," not to mention that as reckless and maladjusted as a number of superheroes can be, would putting their regulation in the hands of a(n in-universe) government that treats giant robots that cause as much destruction as the mutants they're sent to "neutralize" as anything but a giant waste of taxpayer money really make that situation any better?

[Huntsman Spider]

I didn't read it as Spider-man trying to make a clear argument. I just read it as him being mad and venting.

Mad and venting, yeah, because the cops in-universe spend more time going after the likes of Daredevil (who, bear in mind, did accidentally kill a robber he was trying to stop) and himself than addressing that they're effectively taking marching orders from the not-so-former Kingpin of Crime, just because he's now "Mayor Fisk." You have a known criminal sitting as mayor of Marvel's New York City, someone who's repeatedly pulled the wool over the public's and law enforcement's eyes using his wealth, influence, and connections to evade justice for his years of wrongdoing, and yet . . . Daredevil's the problem? Spider-Man's the problem?

[Lukmendes]

I prefer Chip Zdarsky's take from Daredevil #11:

I'd say it's a case of both sides having a point, minus the secret identity one that chick made, 'cause she's right that Spidey has problems that he brought himself, 'cause Spidey antagonizing JJ so much certainly did no favors to make the situation better, but he still has a point when it comes to dealing with super-villains, 'cause the cops are fucking useless to deal even with the low tier ones.

I don't think Zdarsky understood the implications of this scene when he wrote it. He's essentially arguing that the powers and abilities of superheroes make them above the law which is the same argument a supervillain uses to justify their own misdeeds. It's essentially the Spider-Man equivalent of Captain America's infamous "no you move" speech which could have come from Red Skull or Dr Doom without changing a single word. And of course, there's the issue that the reason laws for dealing with superpowered don't exist is because Marvel either doesn't create them or when they do, they treat it as a bad thing.

The crux of Spider-Man's argument is that having superpowers means you're above the law. Where I not keeping up with the main Spider-Man books, I'd think this was Dr Octopus still parading around in Peter's body.

To get that interpretation, you have to completely ignore that despite having no laws about this and being pretty much above the law, him and other heroes try to do the right thing.

If this were Otto he'd say that he's basically perfect and that the ends justify the means, while Peter here is saying they try their best, even if there's no laws to stop super-villains, but still make mistakes, so yeah lol.

Those other heroes did get mistrust from the public often and eventually discarded their secret identities. Spider-Man is one of the few Marvel heroes who still has a secret identity.

Doesn't change my point, the way she talks implies that Spidey was the only one who ever had a secret identity after F4's debut, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Plus, other heroes who aren't mutants or Hulk are practically celebrities when compared to the amount of shit reputation Spidey has, even back when they all had secret identities.

I think what he means is that while superpowers are rife with potential for misuse and abuse, the problem is that society's institutions are inclined to lump all superpowered individuals together as a threat, with no regard for the fact that in the case of the more altruistically minded, these are largely people trying their damnedest to do right by the world in which they live and getting attacked for it on all ends, whether by supervillains or more "mundane" criminals and terrorists that would gladly target the people closest to them as revenge by proxy, the public that generally distrusts and fears, if not even viscerally detests, them, and government institutions that have been shown repeatedly to take a dim view of anything or anyone that would pose a challenge to their ability to enforce their authority through the "monopoly on the legitimate use of force." And the issue with making laws to deal specifically with the superpowered is that having superpowers in and of itself doesn't break any laws, so it could be equated to a form of prejudice or bigotry to single out superpowered people for "special laws," not to mention that as reckless and maladjusted as a number of superheroes can be, would putting their regulation in the hands of a(n in-universe) government that treats giant robots that cause as much destruction as the mutants they're sent to "neutralize" as anything but a giant waste of taxpayer money really make that situation any better?

Yeah the government certainly wouldn't be helpful to deal with this, while it's childish that super-hero comics only ever show governments being in the wrong whenever they try to deal with super-hero types, but, that world is like this, governments, cops and whatever are incredibly incompetent and/or corrupt, so super-heroes step up, trying to work against everyone with super powers often fucks over heroes more than villains, in a way, it's a lot like schools' zero tolerance policy now that I think of it...

Mad and venting, yeah, because the cops in-universe spend more time going after the likes of Daredevil (who, bear in mind, did accidentally kill a robber he was trying to stop) and himself than addressing that they're effectively taking marching orders from the not-so-former Kingpin of Crime, just because he's now "Mayor Fisk." You have a known criminal sitting as mayor of Marvel's New York City, someone who's repeatedly pulled the wool over the public's and law enforcement's eyes using his wealth, influence, and connections to evade justice for his years of wrongdoing, and yet . . . Daredevil's the problem? Spider-Man's the problem?

Spidey kinda points out what you're saying there with less words, when he says that "You wasted my time with a fake mugging, shot a net and me and pointed guns!", he could be saving other people, but the cops decided that they should try to arrest him, plus while it's not pointed out in that page, the cops wasted their own time going after him instead of actual criminals too.

Anyways, the next page explains his point better.



Basically there's a difference between what's legal and illegal, and what's right and wrong, and since Fisk is a mayor making super-heroing illegal, when super-heroes are what prevent that world from exploding like once a week, yeah, you gotta consider what he's saying, at the very least.

[Agent Z]

I didn't read it as Spider-man trying to make a clear argument. I just read it as him being mad and venting.

It's clearly meant to be taken seriously as an argument. Especially when Cole later drops his pursuit of Daredevil.

[Agent Z]

I think what he means is that while superpowers are rife with potential for misuse and abuse, the problem is that society's institutions are inclined to lump all superpowered individuals together as a threat, with no regard for the fact that in the case of the more altruistically minded, these are largely people trying their damnedest to do right by the world in which they live and getting attacked for it on all ends, whether by supervillains or more "mundane" criminals and terrorists that would gladly target the people closest to them as revenge by proxy, the public that generally distrusts and fears, if not even viscerally detests, them, and government institutions that have been shown repeatedly to take a dim view of anything or anyone that would pose a challenge to their ability to enforce their authority through the "monopoly on the legitimate use of force." And the issue with making laws to deal specifically with the superpowered is that having superpowers in and of itself doesn't break any laws, so it could be equated to a form of prejudice or bigotry to single out superpowered people for "special laws," not to mention that as reckless and maladjusted as a number of superheroes can be, would putting their regulation in the hands of a(n in-universe) government that treats giant robots that cause as much destruction as the mutants they're sent to "neutralize" as anything but a giant waste of taxpayer money really make that situation any better?

Super powers are not and should not be seen as illegal. I understand that and that isn't what Cole is arguing here. He's arguing against the idea that superheroes shouldn't face the same consequences for breaking the law as anyone else. The government isn't perfect but as this run shows, to say nothing of the past several years, neither are the superheroes. Governments are flawed because they are made up of people. And superheroes, for all their amazing powers, skills and costumes, are people as well.

I think his argument is basically that there is no clear rulebook or guidance for how to handle a world with superpowers and the impact on the legal system so the heroes just have to do their best and hold themselves accountable.

I think from the dialogue and the honesty it's pretty clearly Peter.

From a Doylist perspective, the lack of laws dealing with this is entirely on the writers' heads. The Marvel universe is 59 years old by this point. It is way past time somebody sat down and said, "okay, this is how the legal system in this universe works". If My Hero Academia and One Punch Man, two superhero universes that aren't even a fraction of the MU's age can do this, Marvel has no excuse.

From a Watsonian perspective, it doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man and Daredevil are vigilantes and, in Daredevil's case, have at least one person's death on their hands.

I mean, has anyone ever considered that the reason Fisk gets away with so much is because the two guys who oppose him the most can't even prove they're legally on the up and up?

And, yeah, he still has a secret identity but unlike 90% of Marvel Heroes these days he actually has a life outside of being a Superhero and doesn't want to compromise that.

Other superheroes have been shown doing stuff outside of superhero work. A secret identity isn't required. Some fans have even argued that Peter's stories are less focused on his personal life right now.

I'd say it's a case of both sides having a point, minus the secret identity one that chick made, 'cause she's right that Spidey has problems that he brought himself, 'cause Spidey antagonizing JJ so much certainly did no favors to make the situation better, but he still has a point when it comes to dealing with super-villains, 'cause the cops are fucking useless to deal even with the low tier ones.

There are things cops are more capable of doing than someone who isn't a cop. Same goes for firefighters, doctors, lawyers, teachers, garbage men, etc. When these guys screw up, they face accountability and proportionate consequences. Or at least they should.

To get that interpretation, you have to completely ignore that despite having no laws about this and being pretty much above the law, him and other heroes try to do the right thing.

See my response to huntsman and frontier.

If this were Otto he'd say that he's basically perfect and that the ends justify the means, while Peter here is saying they try their best, even if there's no laws to stop super-villains, but still make mistakes, so yeah lol.

What Peter is saying is little better. He's saying that because they save lives they should be given a free pass.

Doesn't change my point, the way she talks implies that Spidey was the only one who ever had a secret identity after F4's debut, which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's not what she's saying either. She's focusing on Spider-Man because he's the subject of the conversation.

So the next time the Green Goblin murders someone, is Spider-Man going to just let him "clear his head" and hope he never comes back?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

So the next time the Green Goblin murders someone, is Spider-Man going to just let him "clear his head" and hope he never comes back?

Why would he? He knows both Daredevil and Green Goblin personally. He knows first-hand that the former is a genuinely good person (arguably one of the best people in the entire MU), and that the latter is a sociopath with connections.

[Frontier]

It's clearly meant to be taken seriously as an argument. Especially when Cole later drops his pursuit of Daredevil.

It's seriously Peter's response, but it's just one, everyday, guy's opinion and not a definitive answer. Cole is free to respond how he wishes to.

Super powers are not and should not be seen as illegal. I understand that and that isn't what Cole is arguing here. He's arguing against the idea that superheroes shouldn't face the same consequences for breaking the law as anyone else. The government isn't perfect but as this run shows, to say nothing of the past several years, neither are the superheroes. Governments are flawed because they are made up of people. And superheroes, for all their amazing powers, skills and costumes, are people as well.

And Spidey takes DD to task as well for what he did and that he shouldn't be a Superhero anymore if he actually killed someone.

From a Doylist perspective, the lack of laws dealing with this is entirely on the writers' heads. The Marvel universe is 59 years old by this point. It is way past time somebody sat down and said, "okay, this is how the legal system in this universe works". If My Hero Academia and One Punch Man, two superhero universes that aren't even a fraction of the MU's age can do this, Marvel has no excuse.

From a Watsonian perspective, it doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man and Daredevil are vigilantes and, in Daredevil's case, have at least one person's death on their hands.

I mean, has anyone ever considered that the reason Fisk gets away with so much is because the two guys who oppose him the most can't even prove they're legally on the up and up?

I mean, the Marvel Universe is a world where the government employs Sentinel Robots to hunt down an entire race of people just for existing and the general populace are okay with that...a general populace who also turn on their heroes on a dime. I don't think we could trust them to set up the kind of order and structure that we have in the MHA and OPM universe. Because the Marvel Universe loves making their heroes the underdogs (and not underdogs in terms of fighting monsters way outside their power level as in OPM).

And Spidey's not denying DD needs to be held accountable to some extent.

Has Spidey and DD's lack of legal backing ever been cited as a reason they can't take Fisk down? There are usually other reasons why.

Other superheroes have been shown doing stuff outside of superhero work. A secret identity isn't required. Some fans have even argued that Peter's stories are less focused on his personal life right now.

To the extent of Peter, though? Like, he doesn't want people to think of him as Spider-Man, he wants to just be Peter Parker and separate his civilian life and his hero life.

And people rightfully complain about the lack of focus on his personal life, both in comics and on TV.

[Lukmendes]

From a Doylist perspective, the lack of laws dealing with this is entirely on the writers' heads. The Marvel universe is 59 years old by this point. It is way past time somebody sat down and said, "okay, this is how the legal system in this universe works". If My Hero Academia and One Punch Man, two superhero universes that aren't even a fraction of the MU's age can do this, Marvel has no excuse.

Marvel is made to be close to reality in how everyday life is, only just happening to have super-heroes, and while realistically having a bunch of overpowered freaks in skin tight costumes would change real life colossally, this is not what Marvel is meant to do, which is why despite super-heroes existing, Marvel's world is essentially the same, so it's not doing the same thing as OPM, and considering that not even the more "realistic" Ultimate bothered to actually change what the world is like by having super-heroes, it shows that Marvel never wants to bother with this.

From a Watsonian perspective, it doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man and Daredevil are vigilantes and, in Daredevil's case, have at least one person's death on their hands.

I mean, has anyone ever considered that the reason Fisk gets away with so much is because the two guys who oppose him the most can't even prove they're legally on the up and up?

Fisk also easily gets rid of any and all evidence against him whenever they're found (Born Again being just one of many examples), and even if he's arrested he won't get much of a sentence because he's rich and has connections, fact that he doesn't stay in jail is never the fault of super-heroes, but the fault of a very shitty legal system, which unfortunately isn't far fetched from real life.

Other superheroes have been shown doing stuff outside of superhero work. A secret identity isn't required. Some fans have even argued that Peter's stories are less focused on his personal life right now.

Peter's personal life having less focus is not a good thing as fans point that out too.

What Peter is saying is little better. He's saying that because they save lives they should be given a free pass.

Hardly, since he did say he went to talk to Matt to make him stop since he was screwing up too much, so heroes try to hold each other accountable (At least they do in Zdarsky's Daredevil, more complicated and worst outside of it), and Peter did go talk to him again once he learned Matt was back as Daredevil, saying that he could still do good but out of costume, and the same issue has Matt dismissing Spidey's points with his own:







(Daredevil#21)

So Spidey's point of view is not absolute.

That's not what she's saying either. She's focusing on Spider-Man because he's the subject of the conversation.

Him being the subject of the conversation still ignores the context of the time that everyone back then had secret identities and F4 were the exception, if you're going to talk about having secret identities like it's a bad thing that Spidey does, then you also have to keep in mind he was far from being the only one, and he was overhated despite working arguably harder than the rest.

So the next time the Green Goblin murders someone, is Spider-Man going to just let him "clear his head" and hope he never comes back?

Are you really doing a strawman that misses his point, saying that Spidey thinks Green Goblin is anything remotely like Matt and give them the same benefit of doubt, to make Spidey look worse than he really is? 'Cause I can do that too, answer this: Next time Norman is arrested and shown to the public he's a violent psychopath for the nth time, is the government going to make him head of SHIELD again? He's even the head of Ravencroft nowadays so that's not far fetched to happen once again.

Super-heroes are very flawed, Marvel's Earth is such a shithole that authorities can't do jack shit to stop super-villains, so super-heroes being around is a need, otherwise everyone dies, and maybe if the government wasn't constantly shown to be so hilariously incompetent at least, and outright evil to the point of commiting terrorist acts and treason at worst, then so many heroes wouldn't need to be vigilantes.