Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 126
  1. #61
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    With Batman legally it's far more problematic than with Spider-Man.
    -- Batman is obviously operating with the consent of the police and has never been legally deputized.
    -- They have a Batsignal located on the roof of Police HQ.
    -- There's numerous evidence of collusion between a vigilante and the Police Commissioner.
    -- Whatever evidence Batman has acquired and deposited, it's clearly not been acquired with the proper procedures or with a warrant. And yet since he's acting rather blatantly with police support, a defense lawyer has a lot of good arguments to invalidate arrests. Especially for American citizens like Batman's rogues usually are.

    If a private citizen acting without police support and help were to bring forth evidence or leak ito the press and so on, that evidence can be used since there's no question on the part of the police about needing a warrant or following procedures. That's why whistle-blowing is such a big deal and why WikiLeaks was a big thing until they got bought by Putin.



    Well Mongul is not a human being. Since he's acting as an invader of a superior force threatening the whole planet, then legally he would be considered a war criminal. Legally though, under the "ain't no rule" justification, Superman can fry Mongul's skull with heat vision and walk scott-free since Mongul has no legal rights and recognition as a human being. If Superman were to attack and kill Mongul in battle, then it would be justifiable under Geneva convention's law and custom of wars where violence towards enemy combatant is licensed. Legally speaking, for instance, Norman Osborn cannot be considered guilty for killing Ben Reilly. Ben Reilly is not a human being, he's a clone. Since he has no legal recognition as a person, Norman Osborn killing him wouldn't qualify as murder.



    In the case of CIVIL WAR, Reed Richards' would be judged for war crimes and excessive force in terms of detaining many US citizens without due process, without habeas corpus, in unsanitary conditions and certainly I'd say him illegally cloning Thor would at the very least have him debarred and black-balled from the scientific community with many universities rescinding their doctorates from him.
    Illegally cloning Thor would also have him on the hook for felony murder, possibly, since the Thor clone killed Bill Foster/Goliath, which contributed to Spider-Man deciding to oppose the SHRA.
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  2. #62
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    6,079

    Default

    Whoa Ben Reilly? Clones? Oh man what the heck is going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    With Batman legally it's far more problematic than with Spider-Man.
    -- Batman is obviously operating with the consent of the police and has never been legally deputized.
    -- They have a Batsignal located on the roof of Police HQ.
    -- There's numerous evidence of collusion between a vigilante and the Police Commissioner.
    -- Whatever evidence Batman has acquired and deposited, it's clearly not been acquired with the proper procedures or with a warrant. And yet since he's acting rather blatantly with police support, a defense lawyer has a lot of good arguments to invalidate arrests. Especially for American citizens like Batman's rogues usually are.

    If a private citizen acting without police support and help were to bring forth evidence or leak ito the press and so on, that evidence can be used since there's no question on the part of the police about needing a warrant or following procedures. That's why whistle-blowing is such a big deal and why WikiLeaks was a big thing until they got bought by Putin.
    Bruce Wayne is pretty influential in Gotham. I suspect he could have legitimized Batman, and I usually assume he's done that in some way. Its not like Bruce is above acting in conflict with the law in any respect. He's after justice above all. Its why he constantly conflicts with Superman on things.

    In the case of CIVIL WAR, Reed Richards' would be judged for war crimes and excessive force in terms of detaining many US citizens without due process, without habeas corpus, in unsanitary conditions and certainly I'd say him illegally cloning Thor would at the very least have him debarred and black-balled from the scientific community with many universities rescinding their doctorates from him.
    Thor is not a citizen, so there would have to be special laws about cloning for that to work. And your Mongul argument also works against Thor here.Not sure about the rest, counselor. The Superhero Registration Act was signed by the federal government, and I believe Reed et al were given authority to do all that. Maybe its like the Nazis, where they were just "following orders" - if so then the trial would be different, more like a military tribunal run by ... I don't know.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  3. #63
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Whoa Ben Reilly? Clones? Oh man what the heck is going on.



    Bruce Wayne is pretty influential in Gotham. I suspect he could have legitimized Batman, and I usually assume he's done that in some way. Its not like Bruce is above acting in conflict with the law in any respect. He's after justice above all. Its why he constantly conflicts with Superman on things.



    Thor is not a citizen, so there would have to be special laws about cloning for that to work. And your Mongul argument also works against Thor here.Not sure about the rest, counselor. The Superhero Registration Act was signed by the federal government, and I believe Reed et al were given authority to do all that. Maybe its like the Nazis, where they were just "following orders" - if so then the trial would be different, more like a military tribunal run by ... I don't know.
    That was pretty much what the pro-registration side in Civil War boiled down to --- "just following the law," even if it resulted in the violations of human rights for U.S. citizens, which still applied even if they were also superhumanly enhanced/empowered persons.
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  4. #64
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    With Batman legally it's far more problematic than with Spider-Man.
    -- Batman is obviously operating with the consent of the police and has never been legally deputized.
    Batman was deputized in 1941.

  5. #65
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I'd say Doctor Octopus does in fact embody toxic masculinity, and certainly Slott's and Gage's take on him in Superior and their attempt to find sympathy for him is based on a certain artificial and unquestioned sympathy for him being a "nerd" and in the view of both writers for a weird kind of thing where they "appreciate the real beauty" and so on and such nosh. I'd say Doctor Octopus is a kind of Hank Grimes/Falling Down-esque "angry white man", i.e. the kind who looks at Fight Club and misses the point, and becomes the bad fan of the Matrix films, or thinks that Walter White is a role model. He represents middle-class entitlement among sections of the academic and scientific elite, who start from a valid place in decrying American anti-intellectualism that devalues their work, but go off the deep end and take the wrong lessons from that. And certainly classic Doctor Ock, before the 90s(all the sob story origins with Ock come from the 90s, it never existed before, and considering that Hank Grimes/Falling Down/Fight Club are all 90s stories, I think there's a reason why), was a terrorist and gangster without redeeming elements. Paul Jenkins once compared Ock to Ted Bundy and he had no time for sympathetic-Ock. Among adaptations, the Molina Octopus is free of that but in that movie Octopus is just an AI interface puppeterring a host, not really a character. In the PS4 game, he's very much reconciled and brought to his roots as a Falling Down/Walter White terrorist/gangster.

    Peter also embodies part of that "angry-white-man" attitude, but also a more benign and relatively harmless one. Remember his first instinct to use his powers wasn't "robbing banks or taking over the world" but becoming a proto-Justin Bieber showman/celebrity (so Jameson is right that fundamentally Spider-Man exists out of vanity and chasing fame rather than doing the right thing). That's certainly a vapid use of his talents but in an of itself, a desire for fame and showbiz, is not a serious issue. It becomes so when he becomes careless and inattentive to the consequences of his inactions.
    I agree with Ock being a metaphor for elitists, and he does become more dominating and aggressive after becoming Ock, but I'm not sure that's enough to qualify for toxic masculinity. Characters who embody toxic masculinity are usually thuggish-aggressive types (think Electro/Sandman/Rhino/Shocker), or cold-and-emotionless types (think Norman Osborn). Ock takes too much pride in not acting out on impulse to fit the former, and is too in-touch with his emotions to be the latter. You compared him to Walter White and I think that's a perfect comparison. Even after his full transformation into Heisenberg, Walter never becomes fully embodies toxic masculinity. Hank is still the embodiment of the thuggish-aggressive type, and Gus Fring is still the embodiment of the cold-and-emotionless type.

    I'm also not sure I agree with the "angry-white-man" part. Peter never struck me as inherently "white" in the way Steve Rogers does. I think summing up the Peter from AF # 15 as an "angry-white-man" can have unintended consequences. First, it implies only white men want to become like Justin Bieber. Second, it implies Peter's anger doesn't come from a justified place (namely bullying and rejection). Third, it can make a lot of women and minorities experiencing bullying and rejection for reasons similar to Peter's (being nerds, etc.) feel excluded.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 06-02-2020 at 04:45 PM.

  6. #66
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huntsman Spider View Post
    Illegally cloning Thor would also have him on the hook for felony murder, possibly, since the Thor clone killed Bill Foster/Goliath, which contributed to Spider-Man deciding to oppose the SHRA.
    Oh absolutely. That would definitely stick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Bruce Wayne is pretty influential in Gotham. I suspect he could have legitimized Batman, and I usually assume he's done that in some way. Its not like Bruce is above acting in conflict with the law in any respect. He's after justice above all. Its why he constantly conflicts with Superman on things.
    There's not much evidence of Bruce using his fiscal-capitalist influence to bend the legal system to his liking (outside of backing and funding reformists via fundraisers and so on). As a CEO and majority stakeholder of Wayne Enterprises, I think stockholders and other people on the board who are not Lucius Fox would express concern about "the Wayne brand" being tied overtly to Batman (at least in most stories...Batman Inc. by Morrison ran with this but not with any of the issues addressed). And I don't know...Bruce Wayne acting like an oligarch and pushing him around would probably be a bigger red flag than "rich guy dressing like a bat and beating up poor people". The latter at least is balanced by a sense of bizarre and grotesque which removes it from reality (since rich people don't have to dress up as Bat to beat up poor people, the police do that for them for free).

    I had problems with that in the stinger of the Suicide Squad movie, where Bruce basically exchanges notes with Amanda Waller and promises to look the other way in exchange, so he's willing to let a corrupt government official responsible for personally killing innocent people off the hook!?

    Thor is not a citizen, so there would have to be special laws about cloning for that to work.
    Yeah but Reed Richards as an American citizen is the one on trial here. Cloning someone without consent and in secret would be a red flag.

    The Superhero Registration Act was signed by the federal government, and I believe Reed et al were given authority to do all that.
    An act being passed in congress doesn't validate everything practised or enforced in its name, especially if it conflicts with other parts of the Constitution. That's kind of what courts (from district to federal to supreme) are there for.

    The SHRA was never specified in all its details in the comics, but clearly the Negative Zone Gulag is illegal since for one thing it's presented as a secret by Reed and Tony, so it's obviously something that they are ashamed of and don't want to present in the public eye or under government scrutiny. And Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios' OSBORN miniseries shows Norman escaping justice after Dark Reign by using being put in a Supermax in illegal contexts as a violation of his riots.

  7. #67
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Batman was deputized in 1941.
    Golden Age Batman and maybe Silver Age Batman, but not Batman of Post-Crisis. In either case even if that were the case it would not in any way negate or contradict the main thrust of my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I agree with Ock being a metaphor for elitists, and he does become more dominating and aggressive after becoming Ock, but I'm not sure that's enough to qualify for toxic masculinity.
    Toxic masculinity exists on more subtle levels too.

    I'm also not sure I agree with the "angry-white-man" part.
    You are right. The fact is that a lot of people think Spider-Man or Peter in AF#15 does fit that mould. The writer Dan Slott based his entire run on Superior on the idea that Peter in AF#15 is identical to Ock and that were it not for Uncle Ben's death he was on his way to becoming a villain. Other writers and fans before have seen Peter as a potential school shooter as well.

    I disagree with that, but I still felt I had to address it in some way owing to the fact that it does have currency.

    I think summing up the Peter from AF # 15 as an "angry-white-man" can have unintended consequences. First, it implies only white men want to become Justin Bieber. Second, it implies Peter's anger doesn't come from a justified place (namely bullying and rejection). Third, it can make a lot of women and minorities experiencing bullying and rejection for reasons other than (or in addition to) discrimination feel excluded.
    I agree with you. Mostly because the idea of Angry-White Man being bullied kids or more familiarly "school shooters=bullied kids" is a false and misleading nostrum based on a mischaracterization of the Columbine shooters (who were white supremacists and sociable but were somehow presented as bullied asocial nerds after the incident).

    To me, Peter's first instinct as Spider-Man wasn't getting back at Flash or any such thing that you see in adaptations or even USM (where after getting powers, Spider-Man does get into a fight with Flash). It was basically chasing fame. And to me being Justin Bieber or wanting to be famous and so on is not so bad.

  8. #68
    Formerly Assassin Spider Huntsman Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Oh absolutely. That would definitely stick.



    There's not much evidence of Bruce using his fiscal-capitalist influence to bend the legal system to his liking (outside of backing and funding reformists via fundraisers and so on). As a CEO and majority stakeholder of Wayne Enterprises, I think stockholders and other people on the board who are not Lucius Fox would express concern about "the Wayne brand" being tied overtly to Batman (at least in most stories...Batman Inc. by Morrison ran with this but not with any of the issues addressed). And I don't know...Bruce Wayne acting like an oligarch and pushing him around would probably be a bigger red flag than "rich guy dressing like a bat and beating up poor people". The latter at least is balanced by a sense of bizarre and grotesque which removes it from reality (since rich people don't have to dress up as Bat to beat up poor people, the police do that for them for free).

    I had problems with that in the stinger of the Suicide Squad movie, where Bruce basically exchanges notes with Amanda Waller and promises to look the other way in exchange, so he's willing to let a corrupt government official responsible for personally killing innocent people off the hook!?



    Yeah but Reed Richards as an American citizen is the one on trial here. Cloning someone without consent and in secret would be a red flag.



    An act being passed in congress doesn't validate everything practised or enforced in its name, especially if it conflicts with other parts of the Constitution. That's kind of what courts (from district to federal to supreme) are there for.

    The SHRA was never specified in all its details in the comics, but clearly the Negative Zone Gulag is illegal since for one thing it's presented as a secret by Reed and Tony, so it's obviously something that they are ashamed of and don't want to present in the public eye or under government scrutiny. And Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios' OSBORN miniseries shows Norman escaping justice after Dark Reign by using being put in a Supermax in illegal contexts as a violation of his riots.
    At least Justice League Unlimited had the decency to show that Batman and Waller were a case of "mutually assured destruction," insofar as Waller revealing that Batman was really the billionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne would in turn result in Batman exposing her own illegal actions with Project Cadmus to the public. As for Osborn, that dovetailed into his attempt to restart the Dark Avengers in Brian Bendis's post-Siege Avengers run, with him playing up to the public that he had been illegally detained and falsely imprisoned, and claiming that it was at the behest of the Avengers to discredit them further after the PR debacle that was their earlier fight with Wonder Man's Revengers.
    The spider is always on the hunt.

  9. #69
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Golden Age Batman and maybe Silver Age Batman, but not Batman of Post-Crisis. In either case even if that were the case it would not in any way negate or contradict the main thrust of my argument.



    Toxic masculinity exists on more subtle levels too.



    You are right. The fact is that a lot of people think Spider-Man or Peter in AF#15 does fit that mould. The writer Dan Slott based his entire run on Superior on the idea that Peter in AF#15 is identical to Ock and that were it not for Uncle Ben's death he was on his way to becoming a villain. Other writers and fans before have seen Peter as a potential school shooter as well.

    I disagree with that, but I still felt I had to address it in some way owing to the fact that it does have currency.



    I agree with you. Mostly because the idea of Angry-White Man being bullied kids or more familiarly "school shooters=bullied kids" is a false and misleading nostrum based on a mischaracterization of the Columbine shooters (who were white supremacists and sociable but were somehow presented as bullied asocial nerds after the incident).

    To me, Peter's first instinct as Spider-Man wasn't getting back at Flash or any such thing that you see in adaptations or even USM (where after getting powers, Spider-Man does get into a fight with Flash). It was basically chasing fame. And to me being Justin Bieber or wanting to be famous and so on is not so bad.
    Peter was never a Sociopath like serial killers down through the years, nor is he a Justin Bieber type ( maybe in Amazing Fantasy 15 but that is it). He also lacked the killer instinct ( see ASM 122 or Amazing Fantasy 15 two times killing might be justified, he did not do it). Believe it or not, I think he wants to be as normal as possible. That means keeping his identity private. Why? He could no longer be Peter Parker. There are a whole lot of people who would like to copy Osborn and go after MJ and Aunt May. Finally, Spider-Man to Peter a job not a lifestyle.

  10. #70
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Golden Age Batman and maybe Silver Age Batman, but not Batman of Post-Crisis. In either case even if that were the case it would not in any way negate or contradict the main thrust of my argument.
    You didn't make the distinction, you said "never".

  11. #71
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I see Spider-Man's relationship to the police and the media similar to a protester's. If we look at what they said about protesters in the 60's (or even right now), it's not different to what they say about Spider-Man. There is constant talk about how they are "masked menaces", how they're badly influencing your kids, that they don't respect authorities and are out there causing chaos.

    Also like protesters, Spider-Man is a dangerous idea to the rich and powerful. They both challenge the idea that ordinary people are powerless. People aren't "supposed" to feel that way going by Establishment doctrine. They're "supposed" to be apathetic consumers looking out for themselves.

    It's no surprise Spider-Man was immediately more hated than other superheroes when he first debuted in the Marvel Universe. The Avengers and the Fantastic Four aren't exactly pro-status quo, but they can at least be partially controlled. They're also celebrities. It's easier for someone in the MU to imagine themselves to be Spider-Man since he is anonymous and completely covered from head to toe.

    Spider-Man also talks about how "with great power comes great responsibility", which he has said on TV on at least one occasion (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 3). The slogan initially came from the French Revolution. Again, if you are a corrupt cop or powerful person living in the Marvel Universe, this would upset you more than what other superheroes say to the public.
    Superheroes by their very nature are not ordinary people. J. Jonah Jameson is technically a better example of an ordinary person holding the powerful accountable and he's frequently depicted as a hypocritical antagonist who is often wrong. It was only recently in #39 of Nick Spencer's run that a writer pointed out that Peter's own immaturity and lone-wolf tendencies contributed to his unflattering reputation.

    An anonymous vigilante with no oversight and a history of trolling and even threatening reporters is dangerous to everyone not just the rich and powerful.

  12. #72
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Handle was generated by an internate username algorithm rather than created by me (I can't create cool nicknames or handles by myself). And my point of view is not extreme. It's in fact a moderate and middle view.



    Not sure what Captain Stacy's death has to do with "the ends justify the means" and "anarchy". I wasn't advocating any of that either.



    Firstly it's not everyone. It's Sam Bullitt and Gwen Stacy, but others like Randy Robertson and so on had no intention of killing Pete nor turning on him.



    What happened in the 30s is the professionalization of the police. That's not the same thing as militarization. Militarization of police refers to stuff that's been happening since the Bush years, since 9/11. I suggest reading up on it because explaining it in detail will be quite off-topic.



    In the real world, if a criminal commits a crime and is apprehended in the real world because some random bystander trips him on the way out (as for instance the cop expected Spider-Man to do in AF#15), then that arrest would not be invalidated because he was tripped over by a random civilian and not a deputized officer of the law. On a legal level, since Spider-Man is an independent agent and unknown actor, anytime he catches or stops an armed robbery, he's basically acting as a bystander. Since he's a vigilante, any criminal he webs up for the cops to them pick up would not be invalidated any more than say, random criminals mugging a druglord's palace getting busted would invalidate pre-existing charges against that druglord whose evidence of wrongdoing got exposed by minor crimes.

    The issue of superheroes and vigilantism and the legal issues of that as it usually plays out in comics wouldn't actually be the way it goes down in the court of law.

    The real issue of glorifying vigilantism is that in American history and society, vigilantism in practise is less about catching criminals and bank robbers and more about say, "Stand your ground" and lynching and so on. Vigilantism in American history is the KKK, the White Leagues and so on. Someone like the Punisher, who has become the most popular superhero among cops and armed forces, is far more problematic and far more in need of a rethink. A hero who uses non-lethal fictionalized adhesive and so on is quite removed from the everyday context of vigilantism in a way that Frank Castle isn't and probably never will be.
    Spider-Man is not simply a random bystander. He frequently investigates crimes and interferes with crimes as his own one-man police force.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    The implication was that the guys knew Spider-Man would never come into the station to sort things out, and they were just taking the opportunity to needle him.



    I'm not sure how it can be done either. The only real way to address the problem, at least as I see it, is to treat Frank like the villain he truly is. Have him kill innocents in his war on crime and not get too broken up about it. Because the whole idea of a guy waging literal war on the streets without massive casualties is ridiculous.
    Having unaccountable vigilantes with no proper law enforcement training and at times questionable stability will result in casualties regardless of whether or not said vigilantes have a rule against killing. Realistically, Spider-Man would have an even bigger body count than the Punisher.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 06-02-2020 at 11:55 PM.

  13. #73
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I usually don't care for Bob Chipman but he has an interesting video on the Keystone Kops (https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/...e-big-picture/). He points out that for a long time police were often featured exclusively as comic figures in Hollywood movies before becoming subjects of serious dramatic interest.

    He asks towards the end, about the fact that there are anti-superhero satires like The Boys or Kick-Ass but there aren't usually for cops (except for Bad Lieutenant I suppose) in the same vein anymore. Anti-Superhero satires like The Boys and Garth Ennis' stuff tend to a lionizing of police and military, even if from an ironical perspective.

    That's kind of what I mean about anti-vigilantism cutting both ways. We tend to think that stories attacking vigilantism is from a progressive view but it can also be from a more reactionary/authoritarian perspective.
    Superheroes have been dominating pop culture that even cops haven't. It isn't surprising they are being the subject of satire these days more than cops.

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Spider-Man is not simply a random bystander.
    Legally he is. The important thing for a prosecutor making an arrest is to delink Spider-Man from acting directly with the police, so that means the Police can go after Spider-Man and the criminals equally.

    He frequently investigates crimes and interferes with crimes as his own one-man police force.
    In real-life, ordinary civilians and others do investigate crimes or interfere with it. They are called journalists. Stuff like the Catholic Church abuse scandals, and more recently the arrests of Harvey Weinstein and others, came from journalists rather than cops. Bill Cosby was brought down because another comedian made a crack about cases that were swept under the rug but went viral on social media. And ultimately that started a movement that led to Cosby and Weinstein going to jail.

    Realistically, Spider-Man would have an even bigger body count than the Punisher.
    "Realistically" Spider-Man would not exist because you don't get bitten by a spider and get spiders as some rather unfortunate children recently found out (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9538491.html).

  15. #75
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Superheroes by their very nature are not ordinary people. J. Jonah Jameson is technically a better example of an ordinary person holding the powerful accountable and he's frequently depicted as a hypocritical antagonist who is often wrong. It was only recently in #39 of Nick Spencer's run that a writer pointed out that Peter's own immaturity and lone-wolf tendencies contributed to his unflattering reputation.

    An anonymous vigilante with no oversight and a history of trolling and even threatening reporters is dangerous to everyone not just the rich and powerful.
    Superheroes by their very nature don't exist. Powers in comics are just metaphors for different talents/skills. I mean, if you're going to be that literal, you might as well say they're not ordinary because they don't age.

    Jameson by no means is an ordinary guy. He represents the Establishment Media. He is all about sensationalism and greed. The Jameson from Nick Spencer's run is an anomaly and not the norm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •