Judgement Day #1 Preview

[jwatson]

That same logic applies to Krakoan gates. Mutants didn't ask any human before making them. Only mutants and humans with a mutant accompanying them can use them and mutants can use the gates to potentially wage war against humanity. And they actually put them all around the world while Reed kept the knowledge of Codex-X to himself. Hell even his family didn't know until Franklin tried to cross a gate.

Gates are in countries that have treaties or on private property in places. They actually did have to ask thus the reason for the treaties and the fact that we saw gates were heavily guarded in the places that they were. And again now your using hypotheticals. The gates have no effect on humanity where as reeds device does have a direct affect on mutants. There is a big difference. A gate standing there doing nothing is no different than the many statues and monuments built all over the place that no one was asked before they were put up. Seeing a krakoan gate may be offensive to some but it doesn't actually do anything but let a mutant walk through it.

[Reigna]

Did Reed had any ill intention towards Krakoa and did mutants get negatively affected by Codex-X aside from Franklin. Reed did wrong by his son. Anything else works on a hypothetical. Speaking of hypotheticals I have another one. Can Codex-X hide the x-gene from those mutant power suppressing collars? Can be pretty nifty for mutants if it is so. But after all its just another hypothetical just like most of the justifications for Reed's punishment. See my point? Chuck punished a man for owning a knife just because it could be used to kill a man while dismissing all of its other uses. And again even if Codex-X is 100% harmful to mutants beyond a shadow of a doubt, why should Reed ever again trust Chuck or Mags or Krakoa which they represent when they didn't trust his judgment for what needs to be done with Codex-X.



Where are the mutant hating groups that appearantly got ahold of Codex-X and using it against mutants?

Hey, the statenent was a hypothetical one, and I gave a hypothetical answer. Or are not allowed to use "potentiality" anymore?

[Reigna]

In defense of Reed? The first sentence of what I wrote acknowledges Reed's wrongdoing. Reed did wrong by his family and specifically by his son. His invention may have some negative implications for mutantkind but some people think that he committed a crime against mutants which simply isn't the case. Almost all the arguments I've seen against him works on a hypothetical. If his invention falls into the wrong hands, if mutant haters use it stop mutants from reaching Krakoa etc. Why not acknowledge the other side? If his invention can hide mutants from mutant targeting technology, if it can be modified to be controlled by the user so mutants can hide themselves whenever they want etc. It's as if Reed mass produced Code-X and sold the patent to Orchis himself. At the end of the day it boils down to a scientist acknowledging that their work can be weaponized and Reed got punished for it. Not for something he did but for the potential his work could do.

So let me get this straight, the leaders of a nation full of people who are actively hunted and under constant threat of genocide, should not think of all the hypothetical outcomes that can come from any weapon fashion either for or against them? Genuine question I am asking. Because if the answer is yes they should consider the hypothetical scenarios that can play out in order to ensure their survival then people making hypothetical arguments against reed actually fits, simply because of the very implications of his invention. Something even he didn't seem to have considered.

[Doom'nGloom]

So let me get this straight, the leaders of a nation full of people who are actively hunted and under constant threat of genocide, should not think of all the hypothetical outcomes that can come from any weapon fashion either for or against them? Genuine question I am asking. Because if the answer is yes they should consider the hypothetical scenarios that can play out in order to ensure their survival then people making hypothetical arguments against reed actually fits, simply because of the very implications of his invention. Something even he didn't seem to have considered.

He considered it as Codex-X can be theoretically modified into a weapon but that's not how he designed it. It's not its intended use. Some people seem to think of Reed as Oppenheimer who had a direct hand in the development of nuclear bombs while to me he's more Lise Meitner in this instant who discovered nuclear fission. And I know the comparison is not 1 to 1 since Codex-X only affects mutants but some seem to think Reed pulled the trigger while Reed isn't even holding the gun. And if Krakoa is going to act on hypotheticals why they only consider the negative implications and not the positive ones and why does the story conveniently ignores them?

Gates are in countries that have treaties or on private property in places. They actually did have to ask thus the reason for the treaties and the fact that we saw gates were heavily guarded in the places that they were. And again now your using hypotheticals. The gates have no effect on humanity where as reeds device does have a direct affect on mutants. There is a big difference. A gate standing there doing nothing is no different than the many statues and monuments built all over the place that no one was asked before they were put up. Seeing a krakoan gate may be offensive to some but it doesn't actually do anything but let a mutant walk through it.

Gates have a practical use. Mutants come and go through them. Comparing them to statues doesn't make much sense to me. Krakoa may have aggrements with governments but they didn't ask everyone living in those countries if they are okay with the gates just like Charles didn't ask Reed if he is okay with his mind being messed with just like Reed didn't ask Franklin about Codex-X. Who is to say tomorrow Exodus won't use those gates to attack humanity and declare war on them. So since some people seem to think Reed deserved his mind being tampered with without his consent based on a hypothetical doesn't the same apply to Krakoa and the gates. Doesn't the people living in USA, Germany, South Korea etc. have a right to destroy the gates based on a hypothetical.

[The tall man]

So let me get this straight, the leaders of a nation full of people who are actively hunted and under constant threat of genocide, should not think of all the hypothetical outcomes that can come from any weapon fashion either for or against them? Genuine question I am asking. Because if the answer is yes they should consider the hypothetical scenarios that can play out in order to ensure their survival then people making hypothetical arguments against reed actually fits, simply because of the very implications of his invention. Something even he didn't seem to have considered.

Well using that logic then Orchis or any anti Krakoa nation can claim they are taking preventative measures or planning for hypothetical aggressive actions that mutants might take in the future. I mean if Xavier and Magneto are all about eliminating potential future threats to Krakoa then Orchis can say mutants taking over Mars, declaring themselves gods and now with their res protocols are all potential threats to humanity and must be dealt with. Just like Charles and Erik decided Reed's device was a potential threat to mutants. It cuts both ways

[jwatson]

He considered it as Codex-X can be theoretically modified into a weapon but that's not how he designed it. It's not its intended use. Some people seem to think of Reed as Oppenheimer who had a direct hand in the development of nuclear bombs while to me he's more Lise Meitner in this instant who discovered nuclear fission. And I know the comparison is not 1 to 1 since Codex-X only affects mutants but some seem to think Reed pulled the trigger while Reed isn't even holding the gun. And if Krakoa is going to act on hypotheticals why they only consider the negative implications and not the positive ones and why does the story conveniently ignores them?



Gates have a practical use. Mutants come and go through them. Comparing them to statues doesn't make much sense to me. Krakoa may have aggrements with governments but they didn't ask everyone living in those countries if they are okay with the gates just like Charles didn't ask Reed if he is okay with his mind being messed with just like Reed didn't ask Franklin about Codex-X. Who is to say tomorrow Exodus won't use those gates to attack humanity and declare war on them. So since some people seem to think Reed deserved his mind being tampered with without his consent based on a hypothetical doesn't the same apply to Krakoa and the gates. Doesn't the people living in USA, Germany, South Korea etc. have a right to destroy the gates based on a hypothetical.

Not the same and quite a bit of ignoring context as well to make two wrongs similar. At the end of the day the gates are not inherently made in anyway that can hurt or violate a human directly reeds invention did. It's just a fundamental wrong whereas Xavier and magneto are wrong for many reasons but still wrong. But we can agree to disagree. It's like comparing a frisbee to a gun. Yes you can hurt someone with a frisbee but it's mere existence isn't hurtful.

[Doom'nGloom]

Not the same and quite a bit of ignoring context as well to make two wrongs similar. At the end of the day the gates are not inherently made in anyway that can hurt or violate a human directly reeds invention did. It's just a fundamental wrong whereas Xavier and magneto are wrong for many reasons but still wrong. But we can agree to disagree. It's like comparing a frisbee to a gun. Yes you can hurt someone with a frisbee but it's mere existence isn't hurtful.

Not everyone that carries a gun outside is taken into custody in prospect of them shooting someone on the street. And anything can be a weapon with the right intention. Reed made something that can hypothetically be beneficial or hurtful towards mutants depending on how you look at it but he didn't design it to be a weapon. It didn't affect anyone outside of Franklin and this should have stayed between them with Charles telling Reed what to do with Codex-X since it can affect mutants. But no. Instead Reed got punished for a trigger he didn't pull and it's business as usual for Krakoa. But sure let's agree to disagree. At the end of this I just want Reed to regain what he lost and let's worry about what comes next after that. One last thing. Why should Reed trust Charles ever again when Charles didn't trust Reed's judgment and took it upon himself to serve his justice?

[jwatson]

Not everyone that carries a gun outside is taken into custody in prospect of them shooting someone on the street. And anything can be a weapon with the right intention. Reed made something that can hypothetically be beneficial or hurtful towards mutants depending on how you look at it but he didn't design it to be a weapon. It didn't affect anyone outside of Franklin and this should have stayed between them with Charles telling Reed what to do with Codex-X since it can affect mutants. But no. Instead Reed got punished for a trigger he didn't pull and it's business as usual for Krakoa. But sure let's agree to disagree. At the end of this I just want Reed to regain what he lost and let's worry about what comes next after that. One last thing. Why should Reed trust Charles ever again when Charles didn't trust Reed's judgment and took it upon himself to serve his justice?

Franklyn is a mutant all mutants have amnesty, reed violated a mutant even if it was his own son because he lacked consent. Xavier and magneto we're petty about it and made him pay by taking the knowledge and also letting them know he took it. We pretty much agree with the facts. They still aren't the same thing. They did exactly to him what he did to Franklyn and that's what makes it wrong but the reasons are different. They left him very aware of the device he created but they masked how he did the same way he masked who Franklyn was. The difference also is they told him they did it.

Also thinking about it further it isn't hypothetical that the weapon could be used against a mutant will because that is what the first act was of the creation. Had he mentioned it to Franklyn it would be a different story but here the inventor himself used it exactly as one may expect.

But to be clear I don't think reed did it for bad reasons or anything intentional. He wanted to protect his son and well reed uses science to protect what he loves because it's what he knows and his thing. So I don't think anyone is really implying reed is a bad guy or was trying to hurt anyone intentionally.

[Jv565]

Franklyn is a mutant all mutants have amnesty, reed violated a mutant even if it was his own son because he lacked consent. Xavier and magneto we're petty about it and made him pay by taking the knowledge and also letting them know he took it. We pretty much agree with the facts. They still aren't the same thing. They did exactly to him what he did to Franklyn and that's what makes it wrong but the reasons are different. They left him very aware of the device he created but they masked how he did the same way he masked who Franklyn was. The difference also is they told him they did it.

Also thinking about it further it isn't hypothetical that the weapon could be used against a mutant will because that is what the first act was of the creation. Had he mentioned it to Franklyn it would be a different story but here the inventor himself used it exactly as one may expect.

But to be clear I don't think reed did it for bad reasons or anything intentional. He wanted to protect his son and well reed uses science to protect what he loves because it's what he knows and his thing. So I don't think anyone is really implying reed is a bad guy or was trying to hurt anyone intentionally.

Minors don't have the right to run away from home, even if they have been granted amnesty by another country. It's why the cops can bring your kid back to you if they decide to run away and join the circus. It's why Elian Gonzalez was brought back to his father all those years ago. They don't need a kid's consent to bring him/her/they back home unless they're emancipated and that's a long, complicated court process.

The way I see this is actually pretty simple. Reed did a stupid, awful thing because he's a science guy who doesn't always understand the personal ramifications of his actions. What he did had horrible implications, and so Charles did something bad to stop those implications from becoming reality because he's seen that happen far too many times. The problem is that, if he'd have had an actual conversation with Reed where he explained his position, Reed most likely would have agreed to destroy the tech and maybe even agree to the mental blocks. Reed created what he did for family reasons, and as misguided as it was, those family reasons were working themselves out by the end of that mini. Reed had no need for that tech anymore, and very likely no desire for it. Instead of doing that, Charles and Mags decided to push their weight around and use scare tactics. They wanted to make a statement, and in doing that, they may have very well made the situation worse with the FF and Avengers when that wasn't needed. Forget about whether it was right or wrong. We're talking about nation building, and in that regard, it was a reckless move.

[JB]

I thinks this is a case where two things can be true at once. Yes, Chuck and Mags gloating about violating Reed’s mind is gross and not how they should be treating a former ally.

At the same time I understand why his “ally status” meant very little to them. In the first issue of HOX we find out that personnel form both good and evil organizations have joined Orchis because the very existence of Krakoa threatened. We also find out that the intellectual properties of both Reed and Tony have fallen into Orchis’ hands. Xavier had every reason to fear this new tech also falling into Orchis’ hands and getting misused against mutants.

Exactly. This is no small thing either, this has been created using Reed and Stark's ingenuity for the sole purpose of destroying mutantkind.





Xavier is will aware of this information thanks to Raven's trip to Damage Control. So to find out that Reed has created technology that could be used against mutants, after a powerful team of X-Men died trying to destroy Mother Mold... yeah, I get it Charles.

[Doom'nGloom]

Franklyn is a mutant all mutants have amnesty, reed violated a mutant even if it was his own son because he lacked consent. Xavier and magneto we're petty about it and made him pay by taking the knowledge and also letting them know he took it. We pretty much agree with the facts. They still aren't the same thing. They did exactly to him what he did to Franklyn and that's what makes it wrong but the reasons are different. They left him very aware of the device he created but they masked how he did the same way he masked who Franklyn was. The difference also is they told him they did it.

That changes little since they didn't ask Reed beforehand. Both Franklin's and Reed's situation lacked consent. And yes the reasons are different. Reed did what he did to Franklin out of love (which is no justification as I wrote in an earlier post) while Chuck and Mags did what they did to scare of a grown man with Mags saying "Your wild, unchecked actions are now being checked." Who gives him the right exactly? As I said earlier this whole situation is between Reed and Franklin and Franklin already forgave his father. At that point the only right Krakoa has is to decide what to do with Code-X since it can affect them but this doesn't warrant punishment on Reed since he didn't commit a crime against mutants. If he commit any crime it was against his son and they already made peace.

Also thinking about it further it isn't hypothetical that the weapon could be used against a mutant will because that is what the first act was of the creation. Had he mentioned it to Franklyn it would be a different story but here the inventor himself used it exactly as one may expect.

But to be clear I don't think reed did it for bad reasons or anything intentional. He wanted to protect his son and well reed uses science to protect what he loves because it's what he knows and his thing. So I don't think anyone is really implying reed is a bad guy or was trying to hurt anyone intentionally.

Then wasn't Reed's punishment excessive? Wouldn't a simple warning suffice? They didn't even give Reed a choice to do better. They took that choice from him. They didn't trust Reed so why should Reed trust them ever again?

(By the way I may come off as aggressive but actually I'm enjoying the hell out of this conversation)

[Metal Sphere]

Except no one is romanticising or even respecting what charles and beast has done. To most of the mutants and most fans those two figures are trash, beast more so than charles. No matter what beast says no one cares or even believes him. You are speaking as if all the evil shit that they have done in the name of mutant survival is being praised by the fandom or even mutants themselves. Magneto is in an existential crisis, moira is full on insane and on an anti mutant spree, charles is constantly being shamed by the council members and is seen lowly by the krakoan population. They are not of the hook, they are paying a very slow price for the things they did to get to where they are. Beast spoons far has escaped consequence but it will surely find him, sinister is openly hated by everyone literally, anytime he speaks or breathes they want to kick him in the face.

But notice how long that has taken to come about in the books, and the rarity at which Charles (and the others involved in this) receives pushback for it. I'm glad the ball is finally rolling on Charles, and the revelations in Marauders (that he will choose life for mutants over death no matter the cost) and Sabertooth (that he's seen as someone of very low moral fiber) are these developing threads on this. We're just pointing out the incredibly soft language being used to describe what Magneto and especially Charles did that day. There's pretty much no valid justification for it, the deed and the intent were wrong.

Also,
The same way humans are allowed to do what they want in order to feel safe mutants should also be afforded that right? Or dont you agree?
I mean I dont see any of you advocating for any human nation to do things against it's own interests? It almost as if you understand that nation building and running isnt cute or pretty. But yet krakoa must have impeccable morality? Because you equate all mutants to heroes and xmen?

Please don't do this. If we take this scenario to its logical conclusion, humans have every reason to mass deploy X-Gene negation devices around the world and develop weapons specifically for eliminating certain types of mutants. In the current MU mutants are deathless and unaccountable to the laws of the nations of the Earth. They have free access, via portals, to massive vulnerable population centers. Any country can use that self-defense argument to ensure their citizens are safe from potential attacks. Reed created a device that can eliminate an abstract like Galactus. Mutants have omegas with no limit to their power. Why shouldn't humans or aliens be allowed to develop such a device?


This is why the trust aspect of this is so critical.

[Doom'nGloom]

Hey, the statenent was a hypothetical one, and I gave a hypothetical answer. Or are not allowed to use "potentiality" anymore?

Don't come at me friend. My vocabulary is a bit limited when it comes to english. It's always good to spice things up.

[JB]

But notice how long that has taken to come about in the books, and the rarity at which Charles (and the others involved in this) receives pushback for it. I'm glad the ball is finally rolling on Charles, and the revelations in Marauders (that he will choose life for mutants over death no matter the cost) and Sabertooth (that he's seen as someone of very low moral fiber) are these developing threads on this. We're just pointing out the incredibly soft language being used to describe what Magneto and especially Charles did that day. There's pretty much no valid justification for it, the deed and the intent were wrong.



Please don't do this. If we take this scenario to its logical conclusion, humans have every reason to mass deploy X-Gene negation devices around the world and develop weapons specifically for eliminating certain types of mutants. In the current MU mutants are deathless and unaccountable to the laws of the nations of the Earth. They have free access, via portals, to massive vulnerable population centers. Any country can use that self-defense argument to ensure their citizens are safe from potential attacks. Reed created a device that can eliminate an abstract like Galactus. Mutants have omegas with no limit to their power. Why shouldn't humans or aliens be allowed to develop such a device?


This is why the trust aspect of this is so critical.

Well, they have the gates because they're sanctioned by the governments that host them. Now, could Xavier have gone to the US government, or the UN even, and filed a complaint about Reed's X-Gene technology? Maybe but that likely wouldn't go anywhere. The issue is that Reed is unable to ensure such technology wouldn't fall in the hands of a mutant-hating organization. *points to Mother Mold* And to your point about humans creating devices and such to eliminate mutants, it's happening now anyway. There are organizations capturing and trying to kill mutants currently.

That said, Reed did get an invite to the Gala and he graciously accepted.

[Ulysian_Thracs]

Thanks for so many great posts making me think on a Sunday morning. Loving the knowledge drop and the discussions about what it means. Please take the following in the following in the spirit of furthering the discussion...

This era's Jean doesn't have character beats/emotions. She doesn't think anything. Best ask Cyclops what he thinks instead lol.
I like her having freckles lol

Thank you! She just tags along and blasts things. I wish she was in Immortal on the QC playing political chess against Emma instead.

That line didn't make sense then, and it especially doesn't now since they have since retroactively downgraded Jean's powers.

I never took the line to mean she was more powerful without the Phoenix in absolute terms, since she is very clearly written to be less powerful since she lost its cosmic tier powers, but rather that she could use her own full power set without worrying it would let Phoenix take over. (Something like Cable using the balance of his power to keep the TO virus in check, she had to use hers to keep Phoenix in check). So she’d rather have her full powers without risk than better Phoenix powers with the risk.

I guess somebody in Marvel has realized that 30,000 resurrections per week was stupid. I mean, 30,000 resurrections per week means 4,46 resurrections per minute, 16 hours per day, seven days per week... that's just ridiculous. That's worse than a sweatshop... I bet after four of five days they would be so tired and bored they would start producing bodies with multiple heads and extra limbs...

Let say they bring back one mutant every 15 minutes, ten hours per day, seven days per week: That's 280 mutants per week, that's much more reasonable. It would take them 714 days to bring back 200,000 mutants at that rate, which fits the timeline quite well...

This kind of production time makes a lot more sense, and I would go even lower to make RP less of a bum rush tactic. Not only to scale back the power of RP, but to make it cost a bit more. If you’re only getting 280 a week, that means when some careless a$$hole (QQ) dies a dozen times a month, it actually pushes things back.

That's the thing, most humans should be well aware of the persecution mutants have endured and are still enduring. Genosha and other tragedies were publicly known events.

You (and Bobby and the others) are certainly not wrong. Humanity on general does not ‘deserve’ a thing from mutants. But that’s a whole different question than what a particular human (say the 4-yr-old daughter of that woman, neither of which presumably ever persecuted mutants) might ‘deserve’.

IMO you just can’t be the good guys if you willingly let other innocent people die when it is within your power to stop it. Simple as that. It makes no difference what humanity ‘deserves’. If they can resurrect humans and choose not to (which is different than prioritizing mutants for resurrection at the moment), they are simply not the heroes of the story anymore.

But more importantly from mutants’ perspective, I think Tony is right and none of the morality or ethics really matter on a practical level. If mutants can ‘resurrect’ (I maintain it is cloning and not real resurrection) and humans can’t (I maintain mutants WON’T resurrect them because we have seen Wanda whip up all the memory files of the mutants who died pre-cerbero backup, so why can’t it be done for humans too?), humans will never stop trying to destroy the toys they can’t have. There will be war and genocide without end, and humans have numbers and allies. So, from a survival standpoint, I think resurrection would doom mutants regardless of whether they should (or even could) share it with humans.

To be fair. Realistically a large majority of mutants shouldn't be 100% cool with that either.

Or be happy and supportive when learning that a mad scientist, with a history of performing horrible experiments on humans (mutants included), has taken a sample of their DNA to store and alter at his leisure or that a rich white american Bezos looking telepath, who nowdays wears an evil scientist overlord looking helmet, has secretly invaded their minds in the past and taken a full copy of their entire memories to be stored multiple times in backup devices which only he and his chosen ones have access too.

Both now used to clone their bodies and insert said memory recordings into, in order to create a replica presented as "resurrection" of them, what ever they actualy wanted that or not, because a group of self proclaimed mutant leaders formed a nation and retroactively decided anyone with the same specific gene as them is now part of their nation and needs to live.

I understand the sentiment, but I think playing god like that would make it even worse both practically and morally. The outrage of people who are just out of luck for their loved ones would increase exponentially. And who is to say this Reaver or Purifier who died in a battle at Xavier’s (or any dead person really) is more worthy of being resurrected than the 4-yr-old child who died of cancer? I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience to make that call.

Man I'm really stoked for the Children confrontation especially with this new team of X-Men.

This next gen of the Vaulties should now have Darwin's DNA in them as well so it's gonna be epic.

I am much more excited about this. I think you see Vault Synch, Vault X-23, and Vault Darwin as the main antagonists. And that will be really hard for Synch to fight the X-23 that he had those centuries with.

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?

This is a very fair point…that I’m going to throw back at you in the other direction. If it is wrong for humans to make moves against Krakoa based on the very real possibilities of the future dominance of a government that visibly includes MULTIPLE terrorists, serial killers, and mass murders, then it is at least equally wrong for Xavier to do it. (And this is where people lose me with the whole ‘Mutants are the good guys’ position. No. X-Men are [supposed to be] the good guys. Mutants as a whole are just as much a mixed bag as humanity. Maybe worse because of the power differential.)

And truthfully I think what Xavier did it is even worse because Reed was an ally and a friend. I saw it as the power play being just a heel turn for Xavier more than anything, but I think this was clearly the wrong approach, both practically because it potentially turns a powerful friend into an enemy and morally.

That changes little since they didn't ask Reed beforehand. Both Franklin's and Reed's situation lacked consent. And yes the reasons are different. Reed did what he did to Franklin out of love (which is no justification as I wrote in an earlier post) while Chuck and Mags did what they did to scare of a grown man with Mags saying "Your wild, unchecked actions are now being checked." Who gives him the right exactly? As I said earlier this whole situation is between Reed and Franklin and Franklin already forgave his father. At that point the only right Krakoa has is to decide what to do with Code-X since it can affect them but this doesn't warrant punishment on Reed since he didn't commit a crime against mutants. If he commit any crime it was against his son and they already made peace.
Then wasn't Reed's punishment excessive? Wouldn't a simple warning suffice? They didn't even give Reed a choice to do better. They took that choice from him. They didn't trust Reed so why should Reed trust them ever again?

(By the way I may come off as aggressive but actually I'm enjoying the hell out of this conversation)

I’m failing to see the argument that Xavier has any right to tell anyone outside Krakoa what tech he may or may not create. It was an extrajudicial black op that hurt a friend and ally who they admitted had no malevolent motives. To me, this was written to clearly make Xavier the bad guy of the exchange and Reed the good guy who was wronged. (Though as stated he is far from perfect.) And I particularly find it odd that the same people who constantly argue humanity has no right to interfere or take actions against Krakoa based on what might one day happen are the most vehement that Xavier had the right to take preemptive action against Reed. I just see those two positions as mutually exclusive.