New Avengers #23 (spoilers)

[Mark]

The advancement in technology is also a sign a civilization, and said technology results in the advancement of warfare.

There's a line that's spoken in Brad Pitt's new upcoming movie, Fury: "Ideals are nice. History is violent." While it's a great line in a movie, it also ring true of human nature.

Morals is something that we should all strive for, but that is not reality. At one has to sacrifices things for the "greater good", or the "best" outcome.

I disagree. "The greater good" is like "the big picture"; you don't see the little guys being crushed by the frame.

[MichaelAngel0]

I disagree. "The greater good" is like "the big picture"; you don't see the little guys being crushed by the frame.

Well I think that in order to deal with the little things that a grand strategy needs to be put in place first. Once a plan is in place, and set in motion, one can then improve on what's already there and properly iron out the details. That's how the issue with racism has been gradually getting better and better; it's still not perfect, obviously, but it's better than it was 5-10 years ago.

You like to focus on the smaller detail, but you can't do so without actually fixing the immediate, larger picture.

Namor doing what he's doing is fixing Marvel 616's (and the other universes') immediate, larger picture, not the smaller picture about how to stay morally clean while doing so (or the miniscule lives he's sacrificing in comparison to the seemingly infinite amount of lives he is saving in the process). It also allows them to now try to find a solution to the even bigger picture in the form of the source/cause of the Incursions.

A single planet dying for the sake of the millions of others isn't something to dwell on when all existence in all of the Marvel Multiverse hangs in the balance.

[Mr MajestiK]

This thread has taken a turn to the incredibly depressing.

[ShaokhaN]

and the murderers of everyone else. The point is that the other Earth was destroyed. Dead. Billions of lives. This is something that the members of the Illuminati -Namor and maybe T'challa aside- would have never have done and never even been a part of. They used to have and live by ironclad principles. And in my opinion it is right and it is proper if you hold to them even if the house is burning down around you, because after all you'll die too and what ever justice you face for murdering a world you'll face for holding on to what you believe in. When you live by morals for your entire life and then throw them away when the going gets tough you have two choices: never again presume to live by them without calling yourself a hypocrite, or don't live by them at all.

I'm sure Namor will trot out the old 'I had no choice' excuse and I'm just as sure that no one seeking vengeance will be moved by it, just as I'm not. Because if it can work for him then it can work for anyone, which means anyone from any of the other universes has the perfect right to blow up the mu for the same reasons, if they can over power the Illuminati. Survival of the fittest replaces all the laws and morals that have built civilization and in that case in my opinion there's no point in having laws or morals. Just let the law of the jungle prevail.

True, but this takes it to a level never seen before and I think for a good reason. I know many here say that billions had to die for trillions to live, but I just don't agree. Not with the basic premise that sometimes there really is no way out, but with the idea that when your back is up against the wall it's time to toss away everything you've lived by to survive. If Namor hadn't pulled the trigger and both universes had died then in the afterlife -assuming there is one- the Illuminati might be faced with the angry souls from both universes blaming them for the deaths or they might face one god who is judging them. In the the former case they could just have asked any of the dead what choice they would make, in the later case they would ask what right the god who put them in that situation had to judge them. Assuming it is god then he would be the last being to judge them wrong since most of his teachings involve holding true to kindness, faith and love of life. He can hardly fault them for holding to principles that his son's teaching largely inspired.
Where when if Namor does die and is met with the angry souls of the dead and he says "I had no choice" and they say "You could have done this" and show him how he could have stopped the incursions without murdering them all he'll be faced with an eternity knowing that he killed for no reason. That's damnation.

For me personally you hold true to yourself up to and beyond death and take the consequences whatever they may be. I don't think that's pride I think it's principle and it's how I've been brought up and what I believe.

Mark, three things.

1. We get it. You condemn the Illuminati for their actions. You've posted essentially the same thing dozens of times in at least five NA threads now, each time repeating they are murderers and that they've "tossed away" their moral principles. Can we move forward now? Or are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over again?
2. "Manslaughter" would be a more appropriate term than murder, given that Namor's intent was not to kill the inhabitants of the other Earth but the planet itself, which unfortunately happened to be populated. The nuance is there.
3. Please stop stating that they "tossed away all morality" as if it was a fact. To plenty of people, not acting would actually be the immoral decision, because the difference between acting and not acting in terms of death is that nobody else dies if you act but trillions of other people die if you don't act. This fact has been presented to you countless times, yet you completely ignore it and keep ranting about murders and their lack of morality as if it was as simple as you're making it out to be. If you want to keep going on about this, the least you can do is take a step back and consider that your alternative has an extremely negative net result in terms of number of deaths, and the moral implications of this fact.

Finally, out of curiosity, are you Christian? If you don't want to answer, that's obviously fine (I hope I'm not breaking any forum rule by asking, if so I apologize in advance - I'm not asking to make fun, simply because I'm curious since he's mentioned a God several times already).

[MichaelAngel0]

This thread has taken a turn to the incredibly depressing.

Lol, blame Mark and MouseofGrey haha. Jk.

[Mr MajestiK]

Lol, blame Mark and MouseofGrey haha. Jk.

LOL!

Nah, it's all on Hickman and where he's taking this NA story.

All of the characters have been tainted by darkness to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to root for any of them at this point.

I honestly don't know how Hickman's gonna complete this storyline with any of the characters concerned salvagable.

[Ravin' Ray]

This thread has taken a turn to the incredibly depressing.

If it has, it's because of the serious tone of the posts here applying real-wold concepts of morality to the MU. Reminds me of what James Wyatt, a pastor or Christian writer, wrote in the preface to one of the Good/Evil D&D supplementary books (either Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Exalted Deeds, can't remember which), that while D&D has strong moral definitions of Good and Evil (which is separate from the ethics of Law and Chaos), that it may not necessarily correspond to what one believes in real life. As least that's how I recall it.

Finally, out of curiosity, are you Christian? If you don't want to answer, that's fine (I hope I'm not breaking any forum rule by asking, if so I apologize in advance - I'm not asking to make fun, simply because I'm curious since he's mentioned a God several times already).

No, it's not a violation; you are genuinely curious, as I am too.

[neohuey89]

LOL!

Nah, it's all on Hickman and where he's taking this NA story.

All of the characters have been tainted by darkness to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to root for any of them at this point.

I honestly don't know how Hickman's gonna complete this storyline with any of the characters concerned salvagable.

right now this is the only book pulling me in. I made a pull list today so hopefully. I'll find some gems.

[Emma's Midriff]

LOL!

Nah, it's all on Hickman and where he's taking this NA story.

All of the characters have been tainted by darkness to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to root for any of them at this point.

I honestly don't know how Hickman's gonna complete this storyline with any of the characters concerned salvagable.

It's pretty easy to root for Namor, given that he's saving universes and stuff.

[XPac]

I disagree. "The greater good" is like "the big picture"; you don't see the little guys being crushed by the frame.

Maybe in part that's the moral of the story here.

We have "kings" sacrificing their souls for the greater good, so the rest of us don't have to.

We get to enjoy the benefits the greater good provides without necessarily having the pay the personal cost, because we've got "kings" taking that burden upon themselves. They may be damning themselves, but the rest of us get to sleep soundly at night because of it.

[TresDias]

Fair enough.
However, given no one elected you the police of worthy/unworthy discussions, I'll stick with discussing subjects who raise my interest, as long as mods are fine with it.

No offense.

None taken. It's what you should do -- but I'll be waiting. =P

By the way, I think we've both been unnecessarily dickish to one another thus far, so I'm going to make an effort this post to dial it back.

"They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved by someone of these three universes" should have been the proper words employed then.
"They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved by the Illuminati" would have been also correct.
Because that's exactly what the saving of these universes at the hand of Namor allowed - something I never argued against, again go read my previous entries.

"They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved" and "They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved by someone of these three universes" are not the same statements though.
Maybe for you the former sentence is a shortcut version of the latter, but for me it's not.
The original poster, Emma's Midriff, didn't say that s/he imply such a thing either. S/he took the time to detail his/her position and explained it, to which I answered:
"Also, yes, if 616 saves the day, then your statement will prove to be correct and just.
As it was, the statement was exagerrating the impact and reach of what Namor did, even if it wasn't Emma's Midriff intention initially.
Namor saved three universes.
He didn't save the entire multiverse.
Anyone or anything in the rest of said multiverse can find a solution to the Incursions eventually.
That was the case before Namor saved those universes, that's still the case after.

That's what I've been refuting since the beginning.

That first sentence ("They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved") is shorthand for the second ("They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved by someone of these three universes"), though. That's been the context of the discussion for most of the thread (a number of people have said that very thing), and is precisely the sentiment Emma's Midriff had expressed earlier in the thread:

"I would argue that even if Namor's plan isn't sustainable, It's still a lot more sustainable than the Illuminati's current plan.

At least with Namor's, it does permanently save the universe whose earth is destroyed, and it buys time for people who are less suicidal than the Illuminati to figure out what to do."

Doesn't change the fact that someone/something from the rest of the universes yet to be saved by Namor can eventually come up with a solution to the Incursions, does it ?

Which was never challenged. The claim that was made is that since the people in the 616 and these other universes aren't dead, they are in a position to work toward a solution. That was it. That was the totality of the claim you challenged.

So, again, unless you believe there is no solution coming or that, if there is, it won't be coming from any source seen within the story by that point, you have no basis for calling the statement factually incorrect. There will be the potential for much maintained by the Cabal's actions.

You say that I have no basis for calling the statement factually incorrect, yet acknowledge *the very next sentence* that there's nothing at this point of the story supporting said statement...
I mean...yeah.
Until said potential eventually comes to fruition with someone or something from one of these saved universes finding a solution to the Incursions, for better or worse "They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved" remains factually wrong.

How are you even arriving at that conclusion? Where you're pitting the words "possible" and "potential" against one another? They mean the same thing!

"There will be the potential for much maintained by the Cabal's actions."
"They are the ones who made it possible for the problem to be solved."

These statements are saying the same thing. I don't understand why you're so insistent on pitting synonyms against one another.

As you said, the potential for someone to solve the problem was already there. By keeping universes -- and the people with the potential to solve the Incursion problem -- alive, Namor and co. are making it possible for the problem to be solved. They are maintaining the potential for the problem to be solved.

These statements are identical. I just ... ugh!

By the way, you still haven't explained how believing that the solution will come from the 616 is arrogant. I'd really like to hear your explanation now. Please stop ignoring it.

1. The arrogance laid in thinking that only the Illuminati or 616 were capable of solving the Incursion - at this point of the story, that's just not true.
2. I already explained why, in my initial post for the Illuminati page 43 and in my answer to Emma's Midriff page 44...

No, you didn't. You've still not addressed this notion.

Again, no one has even said this (Emma's Midriff sure didn't say the Illuminati are the only ones who can solve this; recall again earlier in the thread: "... buys time for people who are less suicidal than the Illuminati to figure out what to do"), but in the event someone did, what makes a person posting on these message boards arrogant for thinking that only someone from the Illuminati or the 616 could solve this issue? I am just as baffled at this claim from you now as I was when you initially made it, and you've taken no steps toward explaining the claim.

Oh I didn't argue against Alexander Fleming potential to discover penicillin, I argued against the idea that he'd be the only one who could have discovered it.
I argued against this idea because I thought you were trying to make a parallel between Fleming finding the penicillin and Namor saving these universes, allowing others in them to solve the Incursions eventually.
In the same way as other scientists could have discovered penicillin eventually - under the same set of circumstances than Fleming did or not at all -, other individuals/beings from other universes not saved by Namor could solve the Incursions eventually too.
That's the point I made in response to you, yes.
If that wasn't the parallel you were trying to make with your example though, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding it.
Though in that case, I don't really see what other parallel you could actually have tried to make regarding our discussion then.

The point and parallel was that the possibility for Alexander Fleming to discover penicillin was maintained by him not dying in World War I, just as the possibility for someone from any of the universes Namor saves to solve the Incursion Crisis is maintained by him not allowing those people to die. The claim does not assume that it is only possible for these individuals to solve the issue/that only these individuals have the potential to solve the issue. The claim assumes what it says: Namor is making it possible/maintaining that potential.

If those people die, the potential for them to solve things is lost. There is no possibility for them to do it at that point.

"Trollfest" ? You know, if you disagree *this* strongly and are so upset about the points I raised, you don't have to answer. Like, at all.
No one is forcing you.

What then? I just wait and hope someone else addresses it?

You can go report your accusations to the mods and move on.
Or simply put me on ignore.
You have options.

Being adults, I will be very disappointed in us both if we can't resolve a dispute about comic books on our own.

Proper wording is necessary to convey the proper message, it's a truth inherent to verbal communication, a truth even more blatant on an online discussion board where words and a limited set of icons are all that we have to interact with one another...

And that's where the context of the discussion at large comes into play. The things other people, including Emma's Midriff, had been saying earlier in the thread. With that context taken into account, the proper message was never in question for me. If you didn't have time to read the whole thread before you posted, I get that. It's a long thread. However, you can't then blame Emma's Midriff for not using the proper wording when you didn't take the proper context into account, which would have made the message clear.

[TresDias]

I keep expecting SHIELD to experiment on Franklin and the other kids.

I know Maria Hill can do some stupid things, but I don't think she would do that.

It is an extreme result, but in comics where villains often plan vengeance for years I'm sure it's a possible response as well. Namor after all vowed vengeance on the entire surface world when he first showed up in the FF because of what happened to Atlantis. I can just imagine that the hypothetical person confronting Namor (and it wouldn't be him alone if they were any sort real vengeance seeking character) would think as much of that response as I would. Vengeance is born of pain and fire and a thirst for enough blood to quench both and it is never a rational need.

It will be surprising to me, if -- assuming a reboot isn't forthcoming anyway -- someone doesn't show up somewhere down the line with a beef against Namor and/or the Illuminati as a whole.

and the murderers of everyone else. The point is that the other Earth was destroyed. Dead. Billions of lives. This is something that the members of the Illuminati -Namor and maybe T'challa aside- would have never have done and never even been a part of. They used to have and live by ironclad principles. And in my opinion it is right and it is proper if you hold to them even if the house is burning down around you, because after all you'll die too and what ever justice you face for murdering a world you'll face for holding on to what you believe in.

How does that logic not apply equally to the decision Namor did make?

When you live by morals for your entire life and then throw them away when the going gets tough you have two choices: never again presume to live by them without calling yourself a hypocrite, or don't live by them at all.

It's a simple enough adjustment for them to make: "Don't kill innocent people" and "preserve life" (hardly principles unique to superheroes anyway) become "Don't kill innocent people except in a situation that is fucked up beyond all imagination and expectation, and in which it is required to preserve life."

It's really not that much of a difference in logic from thinking it's wrong to kill animals for sport, and that it should only be done for food and other resources. "Don't kill wastefully" or "don't kill just to be cruel."

I'm sure Namor will trot out the old 'I had no choice' excuse and I'm just as sure that no one seeking vengeance will be moved by it, just as I'm not. Because if it can work for him then it can work for anyone, which means anyone from any of the other universes has the perfect right to blow up the mu for the same reasons, if they can over power the Illuminati.

Of course they do. I don't think anyone will disagree with you about this.

Survival of the fittest replaces all the laws and morals that have built civilization and in that case in my opinion there's no point in having laws or morals. Just let the law of the jungle prevail.

This isn't survival of the fittest. It's survival of some life, somewhere.

Obviously, you're going to choose to protect your own planet, though, because the people you love and/or have sworn to protect are there. As I've been saying for quite a while now, if you have to do this horrible thing in order to ensure that at least some life survives, then you can at least make it slightly less immoral by honoring your promises to the people you've promised you would protect.

True, but this takes it to a level never seen before and I think for a good reason. I know many here say that billions had to die for trillions to live, but I just don't agree. Not with the basic premise that sometimes there really is no way out, but with the idea that when your back is up against the wall it's time to toss away everything you've lived by to survive.

But you keep confusing the issue. It isn't about your survival. It's about the survival of everyone else. As a hero or a king, that is your charge. We've seen heroes refuse to compromise their morals to save themselves before. That they would let themselves alone die is not in doubt.

This isn't about "tossing away everything you've lived by to survive." This is about sacrificing who you wanted to be for all the other people who need someone to be their hero.

If Namor hadn't pulled the trigger and both universes had died then in the afterlife -assuming there is one- the Illuminati might be faced with the angry souls from both universes blaming them for the deaths or they might face one god who is judging them.

There wouldn't be an afterlife. As we've seen countless times throughout Marvel's history, the realms of the dead are part of the universe. If the universe goes, those realms go. Those souls go. We've seen souls destroyed before (off the top of my head: "West Coast Avengers" #100). They are not invincible. They will not live beyond the death of their universe.

In the the former case they could just have asked any of the dead what choice they would make, in the later case they would ask what right the god who put them in that situation had to judge them. Assuming it is god then he would be the last being to judge them wrong since most of his teachings involve holding true to kindness, faith and love of life.

How is letting everyone die when you could have at least saved some holding to a love for life? That's precisely the opposite.

Again, it's not about you. It's about life at large. All the other people. Damn your own soul if that's what it takes, but you stand up and be the hero that is needed to preserve all the life you claim to love.

Where when if Namor does die and is met with the angry souls of the dead and he says "I had no choice" and they say "You could have done this" and show him how he could have stopped the incursions without murdering them all he'll be faced with an eternity knowing that he killed for no reason. That's damnation.

It's not for no reason if he didn't have that information or a means to act on it at that time. He worked with what he had at the moment, and, in that moment, made the only decision that could preserve life.

He can hardly fault them for holding to principles that his son's teaching largely inspired.

And if he's as understanding as all that, he can hardly fault them for being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice (their own soul) for the benefit of others, can he?

Since you're bringing up Jesus, as another kid who was raised Christian and is extremely familiar with the material, let's talk about that for a second. Do you recall what Jesus did? He took upon himself the sins of all the world and allowed himself to be separated from God, did he not?

Is that not how the story goes? That he invited damnation upon himself and suffered excruciating torment of body and soul -- just so that others would have the potential to avoid that fate?

And recall what God did afterward -- or, more importantly, what he didn't do. He did not say, "Well, you're dripping with sin and you're damned. Rot in Hell." The nobility of sacrificing the self for the sake of others outweighed all that, and Jesus went to the blessed side of sheol/hades, where those who had lived more faithfully/good/whatever awaited final judgment.

For God's sake (ha, puns), the blessed side of sheol is called "Abraham's Bosom." Abraham is the guy who was going to murder his own son just because God told him to!

That insane story of blind obedience/faith is somehow or other supposed to be a story of goodness. If you're going to try making a Biblical appeal about the morality of murder, I honestly think your argument has defeated itself before it even gets started -- you're better off sticking with notions of compassion and love for all that lives.

For me personally you hold true to yourself up to and beyond death and take the consequences whatever they may be.

How is that not the height of selfishness? To believe your view of yourself -- hell, even God's view of you -- is worth more than the life of every living thing?

No, I think civilization was built on moral principles, because any tribe of apes or any wolf pack has survival and social order.

Social order, yes. Not a lot of morals, though.

For the savage destroying another world would be ok, but for civilized men there should always be another way and if there isn't then they should die according to their beliefs.

I promise you that if we ever find ourselves in an Incursion situation, I'll be that asshole who refuses to let you and everybody else on our planet die just so that I don't have to worry about damnation. =P Fair enough?

Maybe in part that's the moral of the story here.

We have "kings" sacrificing their souls for the greater good, so the rest of us don't have to.

We get to enjoy the benefits the greater good provides without necessarily having the pay the personal cost, because we've got "kings" taking that burden upon themselves. They may be damning themselves, but the rest of us get to sleep soundly at night because of it.

And that's what makes them heroes.

[MichaelAngel0]

For God's sake (ha, puns), the blessed side of sheol is called "Abraham's Bosom." Abraham is the guy who was going to murder his own son just because God told him to!

That insane story of blind obedience/faith is somehow or other supposed to be a story of goodness. If you're going to try making a Biblical appeal about the morality of murder, I honestly think your argument has defeated itself before it even gets started -- you're better off sticking with notions of compassion and love for all that lives.

Ain't that the truth....

When trying to use God in an effort to preach about the importance of love for your fellow man, and yet said god you're referencing is the cause of more death than the devil in his own book, you've already lost the battle.

Also the whole afterlife thing doesn't really have the weight when it comes to Marvel comics when their gods are fighting alongside, or against, the heroes, have many unappealing vices and frequently get beat up by mortals.

[MichaelAngel0]

Maybe in part that's the moral of the story here.

We have "kings" sacrificing their souls for the greater good, so the rest of us don't have to.

We get to enjoy the benefits the greater good provides without necessarily having the pay the personal cost, because we've got "kings" taking that burden upon themselves. They may be damning themselves, but the rest of us get to sleep soundly at night because of it.

I think that this is an aspect of Hickman's story as well.

Sometimes it's the monster(s) that can be the greatest hero(s) of them all, that are needed, even if his/her (their) deeds go unnoticed, unwanted or unappreciated.

[TakoM]

If it has, it's because of the serious tone of the posts here applying real-wold concepts of morality to the MU. Reminds me of what James Wyatt, a pastor or Christian writer, wrote in the preface to one of the Good/Evil D&D supplementary books (either Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Exalted Deeds, can't remember which), that while D&D has strong moral definitions of Good and Evil (which is separate from the ethics of Law and Chaos), that it may not necessarily correspond to what one believes in real life. As least that's how I recall it.

No, it's not a violation; you are genuinely curious, as I am too.

I don't care who you are ^^
I think while I personally prefer a strong moral definitions of Good and Evil in comics, the real live comparison is flowed in many ways what Hickman build is an impossible situation.
Let me talk about the so called "Greater Good" it an fancy phrase for necessary evil to let it sound more positive. I agree that sometimes necessary evil is unavoidable in real live because there is no solution that is perfect, many international conflict are a good example for this , what ever you choose people will die(for their ideals).

There is still a problem with that very often but not always your "necessary evil" comes back hunting you at least that my experience of real live.(Christianity say similar thinks), because people hate you after what you done or because your plan was flawed from the beginning or you messed with the wrong people.

The third aspect is what thinks make really complicated I think authors don't have that so much on their radar. Humanity push the limit what they can do every day a bit that mean we can do thinks we couldn't do before.

When you do anything you can do even if there no law stopping you for "necessary evil" you earn a lot of hatred, at some point you start to alienate your friends/ally and they will possible turn against you. For that to counter a civilisation must lesser the use or need for "necessary evil" bit by bit in proportion of their advancement or they will face extinction someday. That is also why many apocalyptic future version of the 616 are so ridiculous they would have been wiped out every one of them.

That is also why a world which is suddenly overrun by meta-humans(mutants) is in big trouble. Keep that in mind and you see why the Illuminati shouldn't have build the bomb or better said shouldn't been able to do so for the most part.(if you apply real world logic and that would end certainly in their doom)