Judgement Day #1 Preview

[Krakoa]

When you say it like that, there's this kind of irony to what Xavier did. Reed altered his son's body without his consent, removing something important from him. Xavier altered Reed's mind/body without his consent, removing something important from him.

I don’t really see the two as equivalent. Reed removed an aspect of his underage son’s identity. Xavier took action to stop an adult man from choosing to performing procedures that could at worst exterminate a minority group and at best threaten krakoa’s national security by undermining the gate system.

[Jv565]

I don’t really see the two as equivalent. Reed removed an aspect of his underage son’s identity. Xavier took action to stop an adult man from choosing to performing procedures that could at worst exterminate a minority group and at best threaten krakoa’s national security by undermining the gate system.

While I agree that it the two actions aren't the same, Reed wasn't performing 'procedures'. He performed one procedure that had absolutely nothing to do with the X-Men or any mutant that wasn't his son (who, as it turned out, wasn't even a mutant in the first place). He did create a technology that COULD be used to strip mutants of their abilities, but he himself said he wasn't going to use it for that. Of course, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have or that the tech wouldn't be stolen or anything. So, I understand why the tech needed to be grounded. But Reed isn't a terrorist. He's one of the greatest superheroes the Marvel Universe has ever known. I think Xavier could have at least asked for his consent before taking the memory. This was a power play. It was an intimidation tactic, and I feel like it came through pretty clearly in the panels. I think Xavier even told him he was leaving the memory of this so that Reed would know not to screw with mutants, and that they were living in a new world, their world. I'm paraphrasing.

That being said, I do agree with what you said. If someone came up with a conversion therapy technology, I would want it gone immediately. I would, of course, hope that it could happen in a more ethical way, but if not, I'd want it gone by any means necessary. That was a very good analogy, and it's opened my eyes about the issue a little bit. So, thank you for that.

[The tall man]

Reed is the smartest man in the MU, he has overcome cosmic entities with just his mind and can create the most outrageous technology capable of almost anything. Does Xavier and mutantkind in general really want Reed as an enemy, do they have any idea what this man can do? If Reed directs his intellect towards revenge against mutants it won't end well for them. I don't think Krakoa wants a vengeance minded Reed focusing on them.

[BobbysWorld]

I really don't mean to pile on, Jv565, but I always had the exact same conversion therapy vibes from that mini as Krakoa did, and I have to say something about the specific angle you take to defend Reed here.....because the fact that Reed is a hero, a good guy rather than a terrorist, like, does not in any way detract from whether or not what he did there was wrong. Actions have to be judged by their own merits, not by the perception we have of those who take those actions. Many people in this era, yourself included, have made the criticism that you're not happy with a lot of the X-Men because of the actions they're taking or the people they've willingly allied with, and I have to ask.....what makes this particular defense of Reed and his actions any different from if others of us were to say that the things people are condemning various X-characters for in this era are okay or defensible simply BECAUSE they're heroes, and have been written as the good guys for decades?

What makes 'this character is historically good-aligned, thus their actions and choices are more palatable on that basis alone' different when it comes to Reed, but not when it comes to the X-Men, y'know?

Why do some heroes get the benefit of the doubt, when the heroes whose very premise has had them fighting an uphill battle on behalf of the very people who hate and fear them since their inception, like, cease to get the benefit of the doubt the second they stop prioritizing everyone else OVER themselves?

I just don't think that logic works to distract from or gloss over the uncomfortable nature of Reed's actions in that mini, when people are perfectly willing to hyper-scrutinize the morality of every specific choice or action made by Xavier, the rest of the Quiet Council, the X-Men, or mutants in general.

Either the action was wrong and a violation on its own merits, or not......Reed's history as a hero shouldn't factor into it at all, if the history various X-characters have as heroes isn't being factored into whether or not their various actions are wrong and violations.

(And on a lesser note, I also disagree with the stance 'he performed one procedure that had nothing to do with the X-Men or any mutant that wasn't his son' - it doesn't work like that, IMO, when you're talking about actions that are aimed as much at an identity as they are an individual, even if they're only applied to one specific individual in a given instance. Continuing along the lines of the conversion therapy analogy, a parent who sends just their own child to conversion therapy isn't exactly putting forth a stellar defense if they then inform the rest of the LGBTQ+ community 'I don't see what you're upset about, I didn't send any of YOU, this has nothing to do with anybody but me and my son.' Marginalized communities adopt senses of community for a reason. Individuals being targeted or singled out individually doesn't mean the rest of that individual's community has no basis for giving a damn, y'know?)

Lastly, where you see Xavier and Magneto making a power play - and you're not wrong - I just want to point out that an action can have more than one side to it. It could just as easily be described as two leaders of a people who have a history of seeing scientists attempt to 'cure' or weed out or eradicate the very thing that makes their people unique, being like 'we're not going to simply sit back and watch while people keep coming up with ways to transform us from who we were born being, or effectively incapacitate or invalidate the things people don't like or fear about us.' From Reed's perspective, what they did was absolutely a power play, yes. But from Xavier and Magneto's perspective, it was a statement that from now on, these sort of actions will have consequences.

Eye of the beholder, and all that.

[Reigna]

Reed is the smartest man in the MU, he has overcome cosmic entities with just his mind and can create the most outrageous technology capable of almost anything. Does Xavier and mutantkind in general really want Reed as an enemy, do they have any idea what this man can do? If Reed directs his intellect towards revenge against mutants it won't end well for them. I don't think Krakoa wants a vengeance minded Reed focusing on them.

I mean if Reed himself is the smartest man in the mu them he should have put two and two together that what he did was fucked up that's why he got mind wiped for it. If he cant think that through and realize that he essentially creating tech that can target and isolate the x gene is dangerous... then he might not be as smart as yall think. More akin to a mad scientist if anything. Kinda like how forge created that weapon to erase mutant abilities which soon fell inti the hands of many many many many wrong people. Sane could happen with this maybe this time it just doesnt turn off the gene, maybe this time it destroys it after orchis gets their hands on it. It was fucked up plain and simple.

[BobbysWorld]

I do also want to point out that Krakoa (the poster) raised a very good point about the hypothetical dangers of Reed's invention to Krakoan safety, and that of mutants who rely on being able to use the gates to reach its refuge.

Tons of the criticisms and judgments made about Krakoa (the nation) and mutants in general....are based not even on any of the CURRENT ramifications of their actions, but on hypothetical future repercussions those actions COULD have....such as overpopulation, 'outliving' humanity in general, etc, etc.

So the question I have is.....why is it reasonable to defend human characters' behavior or preemptive actions based on their fears of what COULD happen because of what mutants are doing now.....but mutant characters aren't defensible in being equally preemptive based on THEIR fears of what COULD happen because of what various human characters like Reed are doing?

[Reigna]

I really don't mean to pile on, Jv565, but I always had the exact same conversion therapy vibes from that mini as Krakoa did, and I have to say something about the specific angle you take to defend Reed here.....because the fact that Reed is a hero, a good guy rather than a terrorist, like, does not in any way detract from whether or not what he did there was wrong. Actions have to be judged by their own merits, not by the perception we have of those who take those actions. Many people in this era, yourself included, have made the criticism that you're not happy with a lot of the X-Men because of the actions they're taking or the people they've willingly allied with, and I have to ask.....what makes this particular defense of Reed and his actions any different from if others of us were to say that the things people are condemning various X-characters for in this era are okay or defensible simply BECAUSE they're heroes, and have been written as the good guys for decades?

What makes 'this character is historically good-aligned, thus their actions and choices are more palatable on that basis alone' different when it comes to Reed, but not when it comes to the X-Men, y'know?

Why do some heroes get the benefit of the doubt, when the heroes whose very premise has had them fighting an uphill battle on behalf of the very people who hate and fear them since their inception, like, cease to get the benefit of the doubt the second they stop prioritizing everyone else OVER themselves?

I just don't think that logic works to distract from or gloss over the uncomfortable nature of Reed's actions in that mini, when people are perfectly willing to hyper-scrutinize the morality of every specific choice or action made by Xavier, the rest of the Quiet Council, the X-Men, or mutants in general.

Either the action was wrong and a violation on its own merits, or not......Reed's history as a hero shouldn't factor into it at all, if the history various X-characters have as heroes isn't being factored into whether or not their various actions are wrong and violations.

(And on a lesser note, I also disagree with the stance 'he performed one procedure that had nothing to do with the X-Men or any mutant that wasn't his son' - it doesn't work like that, IMO, when you're talking about actions that are aimed as much at an identity as they are an individual, even if they're only applied to one specific individual in a given instance. Continuing along the lines of the conversion therapy analogy, a parent who sends just their own child to conversion therapy isn't exactly putting forth a stellar defense if they then inform the rest of the LGBTQ+ community 'I don't see what you're upset about, I didn't send any of YOU, this has nothing to do with anybody but me and my son.' Marginalized communities adopt senses of community for a reason. Individuals being targeted or singled out individually doesn't mean the rest of that individual's community has no basis for giving a damn, y'know?)

Lastly, where you see Xavier and Magneto making a power play - and you're not wrong - I just want to point out that an action can have more than one side to it. It could just as easily be described as two leaders of a people who have a history of seeing scientists attempt to 'cure' or weed out or eradicate the very thing that makes their people unique, being like 'we're not going to simply sit back and watch while people keep coming up with ways to transform us from who we were born being, or effectively incapacitate or invalidate the things people don't like or fear about us.' From Reed's perspective, what they did was absolutely a power play, yes. But from Xavier and Magneto's perspective, it was a statement that from now on, these sort of actions will have consequences.

Eye of the beholder, and all that.

Exactly bobby, it is as you said it gives very yikes conversion therapy vibes. And though reed is a hero and though he is "book smart" he is not exactly life smart. As in his emotional intelligence is severely lacking. I recall sue even wanting to divorce him due to this. As an individual he tries his best but even he the supposed smartest man in the universe is not infallible he always believes he is right and that in of itself make him wrong on most accounts that matter. Xavier letting him know that he erased the memory though was not the best idea at first when I thought about it, it was actually a respectful way of letting him know that he thought of something fucked up did it and now he wont be able to do that anymore. From xaveurs point of view he is literally freeing his people from a very potentially dangerous technology. Imagine of world governments hot their hands on it, imagine mutants running towards a gate trying to escape persecution and then being hit with it preventing them from accessing the gate, imagine. It will be horrible. Forge's weapon though it strips the individual of their abilities it doesnt mask their gene iceman was still able to acess the gate after being hit by the ray. With reeds weeping they could not only depower mutants but prevent them from accessing a gate. That is sooo fucked up I dont know even how people can be here saying what they are saying.


But in the end they dont care what Reed did was bad or not they just want justification for why krakoa should be eradicated so they go back to the "we are all going to die high school" were genocide happens every two to three weeks.

[Jv565]

I really don't mean to pile on, Jv565, but I always had the exact same conversion therapy vibes from that mini as Krakoa did, and I have to say something about the specific angle you take to defend Reed here.....because the fact that Reed is a hero, a good guy rather than a terrorist, like, does not in any way detract from whether or not what he did there was wrong. Actions have to be judged by their own merits, not by the perception we have of those who take those actions. Many people in this era, yourself included, have made the criticism that you're not happy with a lot of the X-Men because of the actions they're taking or the people they've willingly allied with, and I have to ask.....what makes this particular defense of Reed and his actions any different from if others of us were to say that the things people are condemning various X-characters for in this era are okay or defensible simply BECAUSE they're heroes, and have been written as the good guys for decades?

What makes 'this character is historically good-aligned, thus their actions and choices are more palatable on that basis alone' different when it comes to Reed, but not when it comes to the X-Men, y'know?

Why do some heroes get the benefit of the doubt, when the heroes whose very premise has had them fighting an uphill battle on behalf of the very people who hate and fear them since their inception, like, cease to get the benefit of the doubt the second they stop prioritizing everyone else OVER themselves?

I just don't think that logic works to distract from or gloss over the uncomfortable nature of Reed's actions in that mini, when people are perfectly willing to hyper-scrutinize the morality of every specific choice or action made by Xavier, the rest of the Quiet Council, the X-Men, or mutants in general.

Either the action was wrong and a violation on its own merits, or not......Reed's history as a hero shouldn't factor into it at all, if the history various X-characters have as heroes isn't being factored into whether or not their various actions are wrong and violations.

(And on a lesser note, I also disagree with the stance 'he performed one procedure that had nothing to do with the X-Men or any mutant that wasn't his son' - it doesn't work like that, IMO, when you're talking about actions that are aimed as much at an identity as they are an individual, even if they're only applied to one specific individual in a given instance. Continuing along the lines of the conversion therapy analogy, a parent who sends just their own child to conversion therapy isn't exactly putting forth a stellar defense if they then inform the rest of the LGBTQ+ community 'I don't see what you're upset about, I didn't send any of YOU, this has nothing to do with anybody but me and my son.' Marginalized communities adopt senses of community for a reason. Individuals being targeted or singled out individually doesn't mean the rest of that individual's community has no basis for giving a damn, y'know?)

Lastly, where you see Xavier and Magneto making a power play - and you're not wrong - I just want to point out that an action can have more than one side to it. It could just as easily be described as two leaders of a people who have a history of seeing scientists attempt to 'cure' or weed out or eradicate the very thing that makes their people unique, being like 'we're not going to simply sit back and watch while people keep coming up with ways to transform us from who we were born being, or effectively incapacitate or invalidate the things people don't like or fear about us.' From Reed's perspective, what they did was absolutely a power play, yes. But from Xavier and Magneto's perspective, it was a statement that from now on, these sort of actions will have consequences.

Eye of the beholder, and all that.

A couple of things. First off, I see that my statements have been taken as a defense of what Reed did. I can see how you might think that. It's a complicated situation and all, but that's not what I'm doing. In fact, on no less than two separate occasions, I specified that I don't agree with what Reed did and that it is inexcusable. I stand by that. All I was doing was stating the difference between a person who creates a weapon of destruction in order to destroy and a person who does not. Reed did not create with an intention to destroy, and nothing in his character indicates he would have used the technology in that way. You say that actions have to be judged by the merit of the action and not by the intent or character of the person or people who take those actions. I say that doing that cuts out valuable information that renders the actions almost impossible to judge thoroughly. Of course, intent matters. Of course character matters. If they didn't, they wouldn't be brought up in a court of law.

The reason I'm harder on the X-Men lately than Reed is because their intentions are different. In most cases, Reed and his family fight to save the entire universe. The mutants fight to save themselves. Both are understandable. Both are justified. I personally just believe the former to be more altruistic than the latter. Now, there's an argument to be made that Reed doesn't suffer the same bigotry as mutants, and as such, his altruism comes at a much lower cost. I'll concede that, but I'll also remind you that the X-Men used to show the same level of altruism. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong to have abandoned that in order to protect themselves. I'm just stating that I personally like the direction lesser and it makes me respect them as characters a bit less than I did before. A lot of that is probably my own baggage. As you and Krakoa so masterfully alluded to, mutantdom can be a metaphor for a lot of minorities, including being a member of the LGBT+ community. As one of those members, I fully and completely see, respect, and even agree with protecting yourself and standing up for you and your community. I personally have just always been the sort of LGBT+ member who also strives to reach out to people who maybe don't see eye to eye with me (I had to do that with a lot of family members, and I watched their minds change because of my efforts). I related to the X-Men because they made some same efforts, and because it was their mission statement. Again, the new mission statement is a justifiable one. It's just not the one I personally want it to be.

So, in terms of Franklin and the analogy you made. I can see where you're coming from, and again, let me state as loudly and clearly as I can, I don't agree with what Reed did. I'm just saying that he wasn't trying to force a genocide.

With all of that said, and if you'd like to keep the analogy going, Reed is an ally. He's always been a staunch ally, and as someone who is who they are today in large part due to the help of allies, I like to treat them like what they are. I don't look at allies and see bigots. I don't look at a mistake or flash of momentary ignorance made by someone who I KNOW loves and supports me simply by the merits of the action. They're earned more than that. They deserve more than that, and honestly, if I did that, it wouldn't be accurate. I would be missing the intent, and missing the character of the person. And that's what makes a person. I can't treat an ally like a bigot, regardless of how many bigots there are.

[BobbysWorld]

A couple of things. First off, I see that my statements have been taken as a defense of what Reed did. I can see how you might think that. It's a complicated situation and all, but that's not what I'm doing. In fact, on no less than two separate occasions, I specified that I don't agree with what Reed did and that it is inexcusable. I stand by that. All I was doing was stating the difference between a person who creates a weapon of destruction in order to destroy and a person who does not. Reed did not create with an intention to destroy, and nothing in his character indicates he would have used the technology in that way. You say that actions have to be judged by the merit of the action and not by the intent or character of the person or people who take those actions. I say that doing that cuts out valuable information that renders the actions almost impossible to judge thoroughly. Of course, intent matters. Of course character matters. If they didn't, they wouldn't be brought up in a court of law.

The reason I'm harder on the X-Men lately than Reed is because their intentions are different. In most cases, Reed and his family fight to save the entire universe. The mutants fight to save themselves. Both are understandable. Both are justified. I personally just believe the former to be more altruistic than the latter. Now, there's an argument to be made that Reed doesn't suffer the same bigotry as mutants, and as such, his altruism comes at a much lower cost. I'll concede that, but I'll also remind you that the X-Men used to show the same level of altruism. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong to have abandoned that in order to protect themselves. I'm just stating that I personally like the direction lesser and it makes me respect them as characters a bit less than I did before. A lot of that is probably my own baggage. As you and Krakoa so masterfully alluded to, mutantdom can be a metaphor for a lot of minorities, including being a member of the LGBT+ community. As one of those members, I fully and completely see, respect, and even agree with protecting yourself and standing up for you and your community. I personally have just always been the sort of LGBT+ member who also strives to reach out to people who maybe don't see eye to eye with me (I had to do that with a lot of family members, and I watched their minds change because of my efforts). I related to the X-Men because they made some same efforts, and because it was their mission statement. Again, the new mission statement is a justifiable one. It's just not the one I personally want it to be.

So, in terms of Franklin and the analogy you made. I can see where you're coming from, and again, let me state as loudly and clearly as I can, I don't agree with what Reed did. I'm just saying that he wasn't trying to force a genocide.

With all of that said, and if you'd like to keep the analogy going, Reed is an ally. He's always been a staunch ally, and as someone who is who they are today in large part due to the help of allies, I like to treat them like what they are. I don't look at allies and see bigots. I don't look at a mistake or flash of momentary ignorance made by someone who I KNOW loves and supports me simply by the merits of the action. They're earned more than that. They deserve more than that, and honestly, if I did that, it wouldn't be accurate. I would be missing the intent, and missing the character of the person. And that's what makes a person. I can't treat an ally like a bigot, regardless of how many bigots there are.

Fair enough. For the record, I do want to clarify that I don't think that Reed WOULD weaponize his invention against mutantkind per se.....but the issue is that like....there have been many, MANY stories where Reed's inventions have been stolen, copied or misused by someone else. I don't necessarily even see Xavier and Magneto being of the belief that Reed was ever going to mass produce that technology at mutantkind's expense so much as their stance was like this was a Pandora's box you shouldn't have opened and we're doing something about it before it ends up being used at our expense SOMEHOW, even if its not due to Reed directly. He's still the point of origin for it.

Also in regards to the part of your post I bolded......I just wanted to point out the slight discrepancy there, because its kinda key to a lot of my stances here.

Because while I get why it happens, and I think its an easy slip to make, I think it needs to be kept centered that you can't say that Reed's altruism, due to the lack of bigotry he faces from the people he protects, comes at a lower cost than the X-Men pay....and then turn around and say that until recently, the X-Men applied the SAME level of altruism that Reed does.

That doesn't add up. If Reed's comes at a lower cost, due to the lack of bigotry, then the X-Men's altruism must ipso facto come at a HIGHER cost. Reed and the X-Men's altruism categorically can't be treated as being on the exact same level at the same time as its claimed they're both paying different costs or tolls.

And that's a key part of the equation, because the X-Men paying a higher cost to defend people who have quite literally spat at them in the immediate aftermath of saving them, like.....directly factors into WHY many of them might just be tired of paying that cost when heroes like the non-mutant Avengers and FF don't have that particular element grinding down their willingness to protect people as a whole. You can't acknowledge that there's a discrepancy between the two groups of heroes but practically speaking, fail to treat that discrepancy as though it has actual weight when it comes to examining the two different groups' choices and priorities, if you get what I mean?

It means nothing to acknowledge that protecting people who hate and fear them took a toll on mutant heroes in the aftermath of some of them being less willing to keep paying that toll....if it never was actually treated as though it mattered that previously, it cost those mutant heroes MORE to protect people who hated and feared them than it did heroes who weren't hated and feared. If practically speaking, mutant heroes were never treated as being any different in fans' eyes until mutant heroes started prioritizing their own people, its very easy to say 'oh, of course they always had a higher bar to clear,' after the fact, but like.....that rings a bit hollow, if that makes sense? Eh, its late, and I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly at this point. But there's an angle missing here, for me. I'll leave it at that for now.

[Jv565]

Fair enough. For the record, I do want to clarify that I don't think that Reed WOULD weaponize his invention against mutantkind per se.....but the issue is that like....there have been many, MANY stories where Reed's inventions have been stolen, copied or misused by someone else. I don't necessarily even see Xavier and Magneto being of the belief that Reed was ever going to mass produce that technology at mutantkind's expense so much as their stance was like this was a Pandora's box you shouldn't have opened and we're doing something about it before it ends up being used at our expense SOMEHOW, even if its not due to Reed directly. He's still the point of origin for it.

Also in regards to the part of your post I bolded......I just wanted to point out the slight discrepancy there, because its kinda key to a lot of my stances here.

Because while I get why it happens, and I think its an easy slip to make, I think it needs to be kept centered that you can't say that Reed's altruism, due to the lack of bigotry he faces from the people he protects, comes at a lower cost than the X-Men pay....and then turn around and say that until recently, the X-Men applied the SAME level of altruism that Reed does.

That doesn't add up. If Reed's comes at a lower cost, due to the lack of bigotry, then the X-Men's altruism must ipso facto come at a HIGHER cost. Reed and the X-Men's altruism categorically can't be treated as being on the exact same level at the same time as its claimed they're both paying different costs or tolls.

And that's a key part of the equation, because the X-Men paying a higher cost to defend people who have quite literally spat at them in the immediate aftermath of saving them, like.....directly factors into WHY many of them might just be tired of paying that cost when heroes like the non-mutant Avengers and FF don't have that particular element grinding down their willingness to protect people as a whole. You can't acknowledge that there's a discrepancy between the two groups of heroes but practically speaking, fail to treat that discrepancy as though it has actual weight when it comes to examining the two different groups' choices and priorities, if you get what I mean?

It means nothing to acknowledge that protecting people who hate and fear them took a toll on mutant heroes in the aftermath of some of them being less willing to keep paying that toll....if it never was actually treated as though it mattered that previously, it cost those mutant heroes MORE to protect people who hated and feared them than it did heroes who weren't hated and feared. If practically speaking, mutant heroes were never treated as being any different in fans' eyes until mutant heroes started prioritizing their own people, its very easy to say 'oh, of course they always had a higher bar to clear,' after the fact, but like.....that rings a bit hollow, if that makes sense? Eh, its late, and I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly at this point. But there's an angle missing here, for me. I'll leave it at that for now.

No, you're absolutely right, and I agree with you. I did mean that, because it cost more it was more. I misspoke. It's late here too lol. I think we're actually agreeing on most things at this point, and even if we're not, I always enjoy our conversations.

I'm sure there will be another lol.

[Zelena]

I don’t really see the two as equivalent. Reed removed an aspect of his underage son’s identity. Xavier took action to stop an adult man from choosing to performing procedures that could at worst exterminate a minority group and at best threaten krakoa’s national security by undermining the gate system.

What terrible things we could do by love… or rather by fear of losing who we love. Those who do it always find justifications to do such things with a difference: Xavier altered Reed’s mind but won’t live with him afterwards. He can go on with his life without the constant reminder of what he has done…

It’s one of the things I don’t like with this Xavier: the ease with which he does questionable things, without second thoughts…

[Doom'nGloom]

Reed was wrong to discard his sons bodily autonomy. There is no justification for it not even love. That said this idea that Reed's invention which has potential to be turned into a weapon against mutants warrants what Chuck and Mags did to him is funny to me. Research into the structure of the atom and radioactivity has potential to create stronger nuclear weapons or research into germs has potential to create bio-weapons. So should we discard science all together since it has potential to be weaponized? One can say they are not the same thing since Code-X affects only the mutants. So? Atomic research can be catastrophic for every human. At the end of the day both can potentially kill people if one looks hard enough. And that is looking only at the negative implications. On the other hand Code-X can be a great tool to use against Orchis and other mutant hating groups. It can make mutants harder to target. It has potential to do so. So why act on one potential and not the other? And let's say Code-X is beyond a shadow of a doubt harmful for mutants. It's not but for the sake of argument let's assume that. Krakoa wants humanity to left them alone right? To live in peace. Well then the first step towards mutual understanding is trust. Chuck and Mags didn't trust Reed to do the right thing. They didn't trust his judgment. If they had they wouldn't have tempered with his mind. They gave him no choice but instead made the choice for him. As I stated at the beginning Reed was wrong but so was Chuck and Mags and one cannot use one wrong to justify the other.

[Metal Sphere]

Reed was wrong to discard his sons bodily autonomy. There is no justification for it not even love. That said this idea that Reed's invention which has potential to be turned into a weapon against mutants warrants what Chuck and Mags did to him is funny to me. Research into the structure of the atom and radioactivity has potential to create stronger nuclear weapons or research into germs has potential to create bio-weapons. So should we discard science all together since it has potential to be weaponized? One can say they are not the same thing since Code-X affects only the mutants. So? Atomic research can be catastrophic for every human. At the end of the day both can potentially kill people if one looks hard enough. And that is looking only at the negative implications. On the other hand Code-X can be a great tool to use against Orchis and other mutant hating groups. It can make mutants harder to target. It has potential to do so. So why act on one potential and not the other? And let's say Code-X is beyond a shadow of a doubt harmful for mutants. It's not but for the sake of argument let's assume that. Krakoa wants humanity to left them alone right? To live in peace. Well then the first step towards mutual understanding is trust. Chuck and Mags didn't trust Reed to do the right thing. They didn't trust his judgment. If they had they wouldn't have tempered with his mind. They gave him no choice but instead made the choice for him. As I stated at the beginning Reed was wrong but so was Chuck and Mags and one cannot use one wrong to justify the other.

This was absolutely beautiful and captured the nuances of that whole scenario perfectly. It goes back to what Hickman setup back in HoX for Charles. He knows what happened in Moira's other lives and is willing to do whatever it takes to keep his people alive. It means giving Beast carte blanche to act on behalf of Krakoa in eliminating threats to Krakoa's dominance, and unfortunately it means violating the mind of an incredibly intelligent and well respected figure. All because something his mind could create wasn't beneficial for mutant dominance. Ironically, in doing what he did Charles basically destroyed the trust needed for his dream of peaceful coexistence to come about.

Do humans have to check in with their telepathic mutant supervisor every Tuesday and Thursday to be checked for equipment or ideas with the potential to be dangerous to mutants?

[Habis]

Code-X only hides the x-gene. It doesn't remove it. It doesn't inactivate it. It's still there and superpowers still work. Why is everybody speaking of it as if it made mutants into not mutants? All it does is to block devices and powers from detecting the x-gene...

Also, Reed didn't try to pass Franklin as a non-mutant: Everybody already knows he is a mutant, and he didn't tell otherwise to anybody...

[Reigna]

Code-X only hides the x-gene. It doesn't remove it. It doesn't inactivate it. It's still there and superpowers still work. Why is everybody speaking of it as if it made mutants into not mutants? All it does is to block devices and powers from detecting the x-gene...

Also, Reed didn't try to pass Franklin as a non-mutant: Everybody already knows he is a mutant, and he didn't tell otherwise to anybody...

Because it prevents mutants from accessing the gates. Remember for every legion and storm or even kitty and bishop we have a hundred beaks, long necks, jazzs among others. The mutants whose mutations are not exactly combat efficient are waay more than those who are. Imagine a group of mutant kids running towards the gates trying to escape their hostile nation's prosecution and then boom they get hit with the reed device there is no escape. They are trapped. And knowing humans they wont just use reeds device alone, they will double combo it with forge's device for good measure because human beings are paranoid like that.

The implications for what he did are that bad. Many "critics" of the krakoan era like to criticise the mutants on the potential outcomes of their decisions and actions, well afford the same to reed on this case. Because if you dont you are being hypocritical and speaking in bad faith. Like that one user that was screaming that the qc is an autocracy without actually knowing what an autocracy is.