Loki Appreciation 2022

[Lambadelta]

They are nowhere near even. Freyja tried to completely destroy Loki’s life while Loki was trying to protect Freyja in his own way. Was it wrong that he stabbed her? Yes, but he did it out of protection for both her and to prove himself to Malekith and Laufey so he could infiltrate the Dark Council. So, while both acts are bad, they also differ massively in motivations. I’m not saying that Loki should start a war against her, but I do think he should dismiss her as his mother and treat her like she doesn’t exist. Just wash his hands of her and be done with it.

Why should it be following Aaron’s lead? Just because you don’t like AOA doesn’t mean Aaron’s writing was superior or that’s the way the characters should go.
Being in Asgard stories doesn’t protect Loki though in fact there’s much more of a high chance he will turn evil in the Asgard books then there is any other series. In fact, it was made quite clear in the Asgardian books that Loki cannot escape his fate of being the God of lies and evil. As you said, Aaron’s whole angle was to show that Gods can’t escape their fate no matter how much they might want to or how much they will try. Aaron has set that up and now it’s stuck because Cates is now running with it as well. Freyja doesn’t want him to change. Thor doesn’t want him to change. Asgard doesn’t want him to change. No one wants him to change.
And there’s no role that Loki can take that isn’t the God of lies. He can’t be champion because that’s Thor’s role and Loki is not worthy to wield Mjolnir. He can’t be King because the Asgardians hate him and would never accept him as their king. Plus, Angela, Balder and Tyr have better rights than Loki does. Oh, I also forgot Laussa or whatever the baby’s name is but at this point I don’t even know she exists anymore. He can’t be the huntress/hunter as that’s Freyja’s job, at least it looks like it is. Sif has her job. So, no matter which way you look at it there’s only two options for Loki either it’s either go back to his villainous ways as he takes back the title of god of lies or he disappears from the Asgardian side of things for good.

The only other option is if they split up the King and All-Father roles where one takes charge of Asgard and the other takes charge of the magic side of things.
Okay maybe it’s not exactly the same because the slaughter of his people is much worse than saying bad stuff about Thor but it would also prove that Loki is going back to his old ways and that’s where it starts.

I wish I could do the same but I just don't see how they can have Loki in Asgardian books and not make him a villain because as I said Aaron has pretty much set his fate in stone.

[Raye]

Look, I know it's not precisely even, but I just don't think it's worth holding on to a grudge against Freyja at this point. The ship has sailed. What's done is done, they made up, and we have to go from that point now. But regardless, if Loki expected forgiveness from her, he should be willing to grant her forgiveness for things she's done, assuming she makes the right steps, or he is a giant hypocrite. And she may have, even if off panel.

I liked AoA on the whole, I just didn't like the status quo it set up at the very end. You can dislike parts of a thing, while still acknowledging there were good parts that you did like. Even MOSTLY good parts that you liked, which is the case for me with AoA. And also Aaron's Thor. Both of them had aspects I did like, and aspects I didn't. I'm pretty easy going, as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm good, overall, and I i don't tend to focus on the negative. Nuance. It's a thing, i can both like and dislike parts of a thing. I say it should have followed Aaron's lead because Thor is the FLAGSHIP BOOK. That's the entirety of the reason, it has nothing to do with my feelings on the events or character depictions. I also preferred the depiction of Odin in AoA. But by default on characters that are shared between it and spinoffs, I feel the depiction in Thor takes priority, always, regardless of how you feel about the story, writers on the spinoffs should attempt to make things line up with the flagship. If a writer on the flagship wants to use something from a spin off book, great, all for that happening. But by default, the Thor book steers the ship on the Asgard side of things when it comes to things like character voice and a character's current status quo.

And Aaron wasn't showing that escaping fate was impossible, nor was he the one who set up that scenario, Gillen did. If you want to blame someone for the whole roles governed by fate thing, blame Gillen, because it was him, in JIM, that set it up. Why do you think it was that Kid Loki had to die? Why was there all that commentary about stagnation and the pull of fate/roles in JIM? Because Gillen set all this up. I'm not sure he really intended that it become a backbone of how Asgard works, but still. All Aaron did was use what he set up and expand upon it. And he, nor Gillen, never said it was IMPOSSIBLE to escape fate, just REALLY HARD. And Aaron set up that it may require changing roles. There is a scenario to if not escape fate entirely, at least choose a different fate. And that roles part was mostly done by Aaron, things were much more hopeless with no defined path to change roles with Gillen. And that role switch scenario is being used right now. It doesn't matter if Thor, or Freyja, or Odin, or anyone else, wants Loki in a different role, they aren't the ones calling the shots, fate is. Fate is bigger than what they want, they are governed by it as much as Loki is, even if they feel like they are calling the shots, they aren't really. If fate, the Norns, the story, whatever, want Loki in a different role, then they have no say int he matter. He can be king, if Thor steps down, or he can be Champion, which is still up for grabs. Also we don't know who dies,so whoever it is, he could take over their role. Or alternately escape the system entirely, all that's really laid out as rules is 'there must always be a ____' so if you ensure your old role is filled, you're good, you can escape. And Loki has done that. It's not hopeless.

Tho Cates may be introducing a new wrinkle - what if fate screws up? chooses the wrong person for the job? but still, just building on what came before. And it also may just be that Thor being a bad king was part of fate, we don't know for sure yet.

[Fanto.mx]

I also think that the most recent continuity is by far the most pertinent, for good or bad. I know we all love seeing the connections and looking back at how threads are brought forward, but three or four writers back, that's more or less settled until explicitly revived.

Like the Sigyn thing in the previous thread, time has basically settled the God of Stories thread until a new story brings it back up. Everything is malleable in this incredibly long ongoing story, and a whole lot of retcons are just time letting original continuity lapse -- and I think overall that's good for comics, and it's most definitely good for the people making the comics.

[Raye]

Yeah. While I have nothing against using older stuff if it will make for a good story, and sometimes events are just so impactful they will always be relevant, (origin stories and other big stuff like that. Even tho those sometimes have details tweaked, but the gist remains the same and continues to inform the character) but.... generally, with those few exceptions, I think we have to be willing to accept that certain events are in the past, and to not dwell on them overly much in terms of current stories, because it will just more than likely never come up again. It might, you never know what odd bit of history a writer might draw on, but it's not something to count on. Not sure if God of Stories is quite at that point, but it is at the very least on the cusp of it. AoA and JIM etc were still important for Loki, in terms of how they got him from point A to where we are now, like point G, or something. and I think JIM in particular may be one of those uber impactful stories that will always be a touchstone for Loki... but we also can't live in the past. Which is, you know, literally the message of the current run of Thor.

[Yoruno]

Missed a lot, experienced a death in my family.
Ms. Marvel issue 3 cover implies that the impostor is someone wearing green, hmmm, who could that be?
As for the latest debate whether Loki is going bad again or not, well, I got an impression from Lambadelta's posts that they read panels featuring Loki but ignored the story (sorry if it's not the case) . Of course it was Mjolnir who killed the jotnar. Loki's own palace was under attack, as can be seen from the Jotunheim panel!
I agree that Aaron plays the same card too often. You know what strikes me in "The Mighty Valkyries"? Not the All-Father thing, Loki is by far not the worst candidate. But his interaction with More, when Loki "has an uncommon feeling"... What is this feeling, compassion? Pity? Remorse? Does Aaron want to say Loki has never felt anything like this before, WTF?

[Raye]

Oh! sorry to hear that.

As for Ms Marvel, I don't think Loki is the impostor, or the one who set things in motion. Solicits mention someone named Qarin, and there is a type of sorta-kinda Jinn in Islamic beliefs called a Quareen, and their primary feature is that they take the form of a person and become their double. Kamla is a Muslim, so using something from Islamic belief in one of her stories makes a lot of sense. Though that doesn't explain the person in the lab she interrupted in the first issue, but I did not get the impression that was Loki. I suspect Loki may be there to help set things right later, but for now he's been caught up in things like everyone else. But Kamala knows he's there, so knows to look for him if she needs some magic help to deal with a Jinn.

With Valkyries you also have to keep in mind that Aaron is only the CO-writer, and I think he's more in charge of the basic plot side of things, while the other writer, at first Al Ewing and then Torunn Gronbekk, that do all the finer details and dialogue and stuff. (same as with the whole Original Sin tie in with Ewing) You can see a definite shift in voice when the co writer changed. So I think it's mostly her that is responsible for the odd dialogue, and somewhat strange depiction of Loki, to be fair. I get the impression she's super big into the mythology, and is very knowledgeable about it, but may not be 100% up to speed on all the comics in terms of recent developments with Loki, and may have a more myth-inspired view of him. So basically, I just take things in there with a grain of salt when it comes to how Loki acts.

that debate did prompt me to go back to the issue with Freyja to check her dialogue (she just said Loki likes phones, that was literally her only mention of him so...not like that contradicts anything) and I noticed something, though, a bit of foreshadowing that's making more sense now.

So Freyja says this to Thor:



and then last issue, Odin says this to Thor:


https://imgur.com/a/0jwTbiz

this was right after it was revealed how badly Mjolnir was wrecking ****. So my thought is, we have yet another disgruntled child of Odin on the scene, and it may be Mjolnir itself. This could explain why the trouble started when Thor became king, if Mjolnir feels it (she?) should be the one to inherit the throne, or something like that.

ILM posted this, pretty cool:

[rpmaluki]

Since I am not reading, can I ask who Freya is referring to when she says "his children", what is the context?

[Habis]

Odin's left eyebrow is weird. The eye-patch's string goes under it...

[Riimi]

A bit late to the party. I'll say that I didn't much care for Aaron's treatment of Loki -- although he did eventually set him up to be heroic (in War of the Realms) and showed that he felt horrible about doing bad things for good reasons, reading it made me feel kind of 'trapped', in that he was fighting so hard to be good and failing anyways (at least what felt like the majority of his run). I think Cates has somewhat addressed this, by making him refuse to lie or do the sneaky thing. Idk, as someone who's struggled with some mental health and maladaptive coping strategies, I felt disheartened by some of what I felt was regression and his apparent inability to change his fate. I agree that God of Stories was too powerful -- I feel like it was a great emotional ending for me, but I recognize the difficulty in coming up with further stories for Loki with those powers(not to mention that most stories with super powerful characters are best, imo, when they focus on interpersonal or personal struggles -- such as Sandman -- and Loki both got super powerful and overcame his trauma, leaving little room for him to grow.) I also pretty much just ignored the fact that it was a 'new' Loki at the end of Agent of Asgard, because facing that would have been upsetting for me. Now, ignoring it may have become impossible if future writers kept that development, but they didn't.


I do feel like some people are quick to hate anyone who hurts Loki (like Freya), but kind of ignore how he was such a negative presence in his family's life for so long. Like, I honestly think he and Thor had a bit of an unhealthy codependency. And yes, he is trying to do better, but if a formerly abusive person tried to do better and contacted me, I'd be happy for their progress but be ultimately reluctant to renew whatever relationship we had in the past. Now, I do think Freya was out of line, I just think it's important to recognize Loki's own failings. (Also, I think most of the Thor writers have all but decanonized that part of Agent of Asgard.)

Anyways, I like how Cates is handling Loki so far, mostly because I feel like he's making progress (refusing to lie, passing on the role to Blake.) Speaking of Blake, I think Loki was wrong to do what he did, although that's perhaps a more 'modern' interpretation of right and wrong; the Asgardians work under a different morality. However, I also see Odin punishing Loki like that to be wrong. It's just kinda like, wtf man. I also think that there's an aspect of Odin's morals being outdated in the current portrayal of him. Honestly, I feel like if the new ruler of Asgard takes things in a different direction, Odin will end up as an antagonist. However, I don't think this act makes Loki evil, per se. Since he was treated in such a way, he might not even realize it's wrong. I'm hoping he reflects about it more and comes to this realization (but by that point, it's too late, since I'm pretty sure Cates at least wants Blake to stay a villian). Then again, not sure this will happen in Thor's book, though I feel certain Blake will appear again.

About the announcement for the anniversary: I took " a new chapter" to mean setting Loki up for whatever comes next, though I suppose it could be an AoA story. I also think Freya is likely going to die. On a practical, cynical note, this may be a 'good' thing for Loki, at least so far as him not turning back into a villain goes. Though Cates has moved the pieces, he's kept certain aspects of the royal family the same: for instance, referring to Blake as Thor's 'brother', despite this interpretation being new afaik. And, despite her portrayal by Gillen and Ewing, overall she's been portrayed as the voice of reason in the family, especially as Odin has become more problematic. Some of this is just because usually characters fulfill different roles -- otherwise, they become redundant. If Freya dies, that allows Loki to take her place in some form. (Although I hope it won't be a 100% the same -- if nothing else, Loki will probably less tolerant of Thor when he messes up. A brother is different from a mother, after all.) I admit it's a super cynical take on things, and I'm not rooting for Freya's death, but it kinda makes sense.

[Habis]

I do feel like some people are quick to hate anyone who hurts Loki (like Freya), but kind of ignore how he was such a negative presence in his family's life for so long. Like, I honestly think he and Thor had a bit of an unhealthy codependency. And yes, he is trying to do better, but if a formerly abusive person tried to do better and contacted me, I'd be happy for their progress but be ultimately reluctant to renew whatever relationship we had in the past. Now, I do think Freya was out of line, I just think it's important to recognize Loki's own failings. (Also, I think most of the Thor writers have all but decanonized that part of Agent of Asgard.)

The problem is, Freyja wasn't trying to cut ties with Loki. What she was doing was to make sure a Loki who had become a better person would regress to being a monster.

[Riimi]

The problem is, Freyja wasn't trying to cut ties with Loki. What she was doing was to make sure a Loki who had become a better person would regress to being a monster.

I think I didn't express myself well. Freyja was definitely wrong in how she treated him. The Asgardian royal family is...kinda messed up.

[Yoruno]

I don't think the writers fully ignore the God of Stories thing. Loki now calls himself the God of Stories and Myth, and I see it as an important addition. He's the one who knows that he and his family are myths, and I guess he was the only one capable to punish Blake in the mythical way (and thus walk out of his own myth). This aspect is not neglected and might be fully used in the future.

[Raye]

edit - agree see the bottom of my post. (I was dicking around watching youtube as I was making my post and you posted in the meantime )

The problem is, Freyja wasn't trying to cut ties with Loki. What she was doing was to make sure a Loki who had become a better person would regress to being a monster.

Still, Loki had given her plenty of reasons in the past to make her doubt how genuine he was, or how long it would last. And she felt it was necessary, even though she was wrong about that, from her perspective, it was that or doom. The fact that she was mistaken does illustrate the main flaw in trying to do bad things for a greater good, though. But not like Loki's shied away from that sort of thing. I'm just saying, if we, and Loki, are willing to look at his methods where he does a bad thing for a good purpose sympathetically, and at least acknowledge their reasons were good, then why not her?

Since I am not reading, can I ask who Freya is referring to when she says "his children", what is the context?

That's the thing, we're not entirely sure. She was telling Thor why she had left Odin, she never did specify what children she meant. It's easy to assume Loki at first, but she considers Loki her child as well, even if he is adopted, and she also said to Thor that she considers him her child, even though she never birthed him, so presumably that holds true for Loki as well. But with Odin's thing later, it's looking as though there may be another child that we are yet unaware of, one she doesn't really consider hers.

Odin's left eyebrow is weird. The eye-patch's string goes under it...

Heh, I know, it's weird

A bit late to the party. I'll say that I didn't much care for Aaron's treatment of Loki -- although he did eventually set him up to be heroic (in War of the Realms) and showed that he felt horrible about doing bad things for good reasons, reading it made me feel kind of 'trapped', in that he was fighting so hard to be good and failing anyways (at least what felt like the majority of his run). I think Cates has somewhat addressed this, by making him refuse to lie or do the sneaky thing. Idk, as someone who's struggled with some mental health and maladaptive coping strategies, I felt disheartened by some of what I felt was regression and his apparent inability to change his fate. I agree that God of Stories was too powerful -- I feel like it was a great emotional ending for me, but I recognize the difficulty in coming up with further stories for Loki with those powers(not to mention that most stories with super powerful characters are best, imo, when they focus on interpersonal or personal struggles -- such as Sandman -- and Loki both got super powerful and overcame his trauma, leaving little room for him to grow.) I also pretty much just ignored the fact that it was a 'new' Loki at the end of Agent of Asgard, because facing that would have been upsetting for me. Now, ignoring it may have become impossible if future writers kept that development, but they didn't.

I do think it went on too long, though I do still think that Aaron never intended to have it be a permanent regression, just a setback, which he overcame in the end. I can see how it would be frustrating to see him as stuck, or regressed early on. I was frustrated by it early on too. But in hindsight, i can see now that the plan was always to have him eventually escape his role. It just took a long time.... and then Aaron set up a method by which the entire pantheon can change roles, including Loki, which I think is an interesting setup.

And yeah, I liked Sandman, that was actually my first comic, but since it was a brand new universe (ok, i know it is technically the DCU, but you know what I mean) yeah there was a lot more to explore there in terms of setting up all the lore, and how the siblings interacted and the power they held was never really the point, because they were ALL anthropomorphic personifications of ideas, and were all quite powerful in their respective spheres of influence, then the focus was less on what they could do, really. But Take Loki, in the middle of the MU and expect him to participate in that type of story, he'd either have to do the Sandman thing where they went full cosmic, and he was extremely distanced from the rest of the events, just sticking to his sphere of influence, and other characters on the same level, or he'd just... be out of place. Like you can't just have Morpheus and Batman team up, especially not on a regular basis, it doesn't work. and I would prefer he have interactions with the other characters, i don't really care about his power levels, unless it's taken too far in either extreme. Also, just, not everyone can be Neil Gaiman. an extremely talented writer might be able to make it work, but then what happens when the leave?

I do feel like some people are quick to hate anyone who hurts Loki (like Freya), but kind of ignore how he was such a negative presence in his family's life for so long. Like, I honestly think he and Thor had a bit of an unhealthy codependency. And yes, he is trying to do better, but if a formerly abusive person tried to do better and contacted me, I'd be happy for their progress but be ultimately reluctant to renew whatever relationship we had in the past. Now, I do think Freya was out of line, I just think it's important to recognize Loki's own failings. (Also, I think most of the Thor writers have all but decanonized that part of Agent of Asgard.)

Yeah, like i said above, i'm just trying to treat her the same as Loki, in terms of trying to look at motivations and understanding where she is coming from, and that doing a bad thing doesn't make her a terrible person, just a flawed one. And as I've said before, if Loki expects her to forgive him for everything he's done, which has been a LOT, he should be willing to forgive her for Agent of Asgard, or he is a hypocrite. so I am not going to fault him at all for moving past that and making up with her. Until shown otherwise, I'm just gonna headcanon it that they had a talk, hashed things out, and decided to start over.

But yeah, I do feel like those last couple issues have more or less been walked back, chalked up to Secret Wars weirdness. I think some of it happened, otherwise we'd get no God of Stories references at all, but maybe not in exactly the same way, and it may be that the Secret Wars weirdness plus the stress of the situation just caused him to go a bit loopy for a bit there, and then he came to his senses. that way it can still have happened, but he was just.... over confident at the end there, and was mistaken about having escaped/altered his role.

Anyways, I like how Cates is handling Loki so far, mostly because I feel like he's making progress (refusing to lie, passing on the role to Blake.) Speaking of Blake, I think Loki was wrong to do what he did, although that's perhaps a more 'modern' interpretation of right and wrong; the Asgardians work under a different morality. However, I also see Odin punishing Loki like that to be wrong. It's just kinda like, wtf man. I also think that there's an aspect of Odin's morals being outdated in the current portrayal of him. Honestly, I feel like if the new ruler of Asgard takes things in a different direction, Odin will end up as an antagonist. However, I don't think this act makes Loki evil, per se. Since he was treated in such a way, he might not even realize it's wrong. I'm hoping he reflects about it more and comes to this realization (but by that point, it's too late, since I'm pretty sure Cates at least wants Blake to stay a villian). Then again, not sure this will happen in Thor's book, though I feel certain Blake will appear again.

my thought is that it is one of those things that was necessary but unpleasant. They couldn't just let him go free, and Thor had just forbidden him from being killed. The only thing left was imprisonment. The snake is a bit much, yeah. though I think the actual punishment is not that, it is the role itself. Loki, thanks to everything that had happened over the past 10 years, knows how Asgard works probably better than anyone else, and he knows that his old role MUST be filled. Someone is going to end up in that role no matter what. Loki knows he doesn't want to be the one who fills it. Then along comes Blake, who, with his actions, essentially offered himself up to fill it. Hell, he may have been considered in the role even without that cave, but I think Loki just wanted to be absolutely sure it was made official, by copying what was done to him. (also, it makes it blatantly clear to the readers, which i think was the bigger reason) Trapping Blake in the role doesn't just free Loki from the role for good, it also protects everyone else. I think Loki knows damn well Blake will escape, that's just how this story goes, and he knows it. But the role greatly limits the damage he can do. That role is destined to always lose, so in effect he's neutered Blake, prevented him from doing (too much) future harm. Yeah, he will attack, he will cause damage, but he will always be beaten in the end.

[Lambadelta]

If Freya had completely washed her hands of Loki because of past events or didn’t believe that he wanted to truly change I would have completely understood her actions but it wasn’t like that. Freya actively went out to cause Loki pain after pretending to welcome him back with open arms and pretending to give him a second chance when she knew that he was genuine about wanting to change.

It’s not just that she did this but that she wouldn’t have done it to any other child of hers. Then again, she doesn’t really consider Loki as her child so that’s likely why it was so easy for her to do something like that.

Would Freyja have done the same thing if let’s say Thor came from the future and told her Balder had to become evil for the sake of Asgard? No, she wouldn’t.

Yes, he did some questionable and even bad things during Aaron’s run but there was also a huge difference between what Loki did and what Freyja did and that was Loki wasn’t trying to sacrifice anyone to achieve his goals. The only person he sacrificed was himself both in terms of knowing that his actions would have him hated again…well hated even more and then sacrificed himself to die and we know that he went into Laufey’s body thinking he would die because he even said it himself. But at this point Loki is pretty much unkillable.

Freyja on the other hand was simply okay in throwing Loki under the bus, not because she didn’t believe his change, not because she saw his future self and thought that Loki turning evil again was inevitable, not because she wanted to wash her hands of him after everything that he had done in the past but because she didn’t want things to change, so she pretended to welcome him back with open arms only this was a ruse so she could backstab him later. She wanted Asgard to remain the same with Loki being the villain, always the villain. Freyja would have thrown Loki under the bus no matter what.

Freyja doesn’t consider Loki her child as well. Freyja has made that plenty clear on many occasions.

Well, whether intended or not that’s exactly what Aaron got, a permanent regression for Loki, which he never overcame in the end. How did he overcome it? He’s still stuck in the same regressive state that Aaron left him off in. And Aaron setting up that the Norse Gods can change roles just makes things a lot worse for Loki not better because not only can he NOT change his own role, something that again Aaron made clear, but that he will be stuck in his role even if someone else comes along and also takes up the mantle.

No Aaron just ignored everything with Freyja during AOA because he didn’t believe she had done anything wrong and painted her a saint throughout all of his run. We can’t have the great Freyja being flawed after all. We can’t have anyone call Freyja out on her BS and to make matters worse Aaron also had the gull to have Freyja call Loki her son. That is a lie because she has never once thought of Loki as her son, ever.

Well, no he wasn’t overconfident and luckily Cates is undoing everything Aaron tried to do by having Loki be the God of Stories again. Which as it should be and not this whole ridiculous idea of changing roles where nothing happens but the same old, same old with the same old characters.

Trapping Blake doesn’t free Loki of his role at all. He’s still the God of Lies, still the God of evil and still the God of Chaos and Mischief. This hasn’t change at all. The only difference is, is now there are two Gods of lies and evil instead of one. How does it protect everyone else? Everyone else was already protected because no one else was ever going to fulfil the loser role only Loki, something that he will never escape from because Aaron has set it up that way.

[Raye]

But Loki and Freyja made peace, and that's just where things stand right now, if you are looking to have her pilloried in the books for what she did in AoA, you will not get it. That ship has sailed, it's gone, and holding on to some grudge against a fictional character and cherry picking things from the books trying to paint every action by her in the worst possible light will accomplish nothing. She is still going to appear, and she is not going to be treated as the bad guy, you have to get over it.

I am not saying that what Freyja did was right, just that her motivations are understandable, and that trying to hurt Loki wasn't her primary goal, nor does she hate him, and I stand by that. Would she have acted differently for Thor? maybe, but we can't say that for sure. But just because she may consider Thor her favourite doesn't mean she doesn't love her other children at all. Would you say she hates Angela, or Balder, just because she favours Thor? Of course not, and the same goes for Loki. there's room for nuance there, it doesn't have to be either love or hate.

Also, since we are dealing with matters of fate pretty heavily, then we have to consider the hand of fate in her actions as well. If fate was so concerned at that point with keeping Loki as the villain, that could have played into events during Agent of Asgard.

And yes, it DOES mean he's escaped, by the rules Aaron set up. Blake is the God of Lies now, the villain of the story, not Loki. Loki has not claimed a new role yet, but if Blake is the God of Lies, that means Loki is not, and whatever role Loki ends up with will come with different expectations that means he will not be the villain. I'm not going to explain it again, I'd just be repeating myself for like the third time in this thread alone, and I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have, hell, i don't know how Cates can make it clearer. Cates is not undoing anything. He's still working with what Aaron set up. He is still using the roles idea extremely heavily, and even if he has Thor no longer as king at the end of this arc, I don't think he is abandoning the roles idea, or he would not continually bring it up, he'd have just abandoned it from the beginning. How Aaron left it, it was vague enough it could have been ignored, if Cates had chosen to do so. He didn't. The narrative roles framework set up is pretty clear, and I stand by it. If you don't like it, well, too bad, but it is what it is. And if you are so certain that failure is assured, I dunno why you are even here. What are you getting out of reading every issue and just seeing nothing but failure on the horizon? It feels like no matter what happens, if Loki is made king, or champion or anything else besides the designated villain, you will find a way to say it's not what it appears.

eta - also i am just baffled how you could read WotR, and how Loki killed Laufey, and still come away with the idea that it meant Loki was stuck forever in the villain role. It's just incredibly baffling to me, I just don't see it at all. The whole thing with him killing Laufey was blatantly a symbolic rebirth, after doing a very fast but absolutely textbook run of the Hero's Journey in his death visions, from defeating the threshold guardian to returning with a boon. It was even lampshaded that this is what he was doing, when Loki commented on the whole Christmas Carol parallels, since that story is both a redemption story and hits all the monomyth checkboxes. It was hopeful, not pessimistic at the end of it. The whole thing was him basically saying that Loki had finally, at long last, broken free of the role. Not just redefined it, actually escaped. Sure, the path to get there was incredibly hard and rocky, with some setbacks along the way, and definitely dragged in the middle there, (I think Jane was more popular than anticipated, so the story got stretched out) but still. And then Cates continued that and built on it. (as Aaron had previously built on what Gillen and Ewing had done. Even if Aaron had a somewhat different take on the roles than Ewing did, he did still use some of what Ewing had set up) His status is in flux right now, and we don't know for sure what role Loki will end up in, because Thor is being stubborn and thick headed, but Cates has been clear that Loki wants to be something else, and has taken steps to ensure his old role is filled. Thor may be a bit slow on the uptake, sure, and still sees Loki as who he was rather than who he is, but Thor's perception doesn't change things, it's just another example of how he's slow to adapt to new things, and Loki has only helped Thor for the entire run. That's not the makings of a villain. and it doesn't mean that both Loki AND Blake are in the role, that's not how this goes, it is one person per role.