ASM 37 Preview

[bob.schoonover]

"We have big plans for all the characters in this book-- unless your name is Ben Reilly, because if you're in the X-Office, just give us a buzz. We'll give him for free."

(for what's worth, the reader never once said Paul committed intentional assisted genocide. It's kind of a bad look if you directly put words in the metaphorical mouth of the readership, so to speak, because if he said "the way you said it might imply it was intentional" is one thing. Full out claiming the reader say that? Nah.)

I think "...assisted in genocide" as written implies intention pretty clearly, honestly. The letter writer is using the genocide, not Paul's inability to see what his father was up to, as the disqualifying attribute. A plain reading of "assisted in genocide" would suggest intention absent other qualifications that aren't in the letter.

As an aside, "[MJ] would not choose a man who assisted in genocide" in specific comparison to Peter is not a slam dunk if the letter writer meant to imply "unintentional deaths caused by intentions gone poorly" is obviously disqualifying - Venom and Carnage have a shocking body count, for example. And yes, that's fewer deaths than Paul might be culpable for, but as a statement about MJ's morality in regards to chosen partner, "he's partly responsible for thousands, not millions, of deaths" is ...something.

[MisterTorgo]

I mean Nick says "intentional genocide assister" isn't a good read of that dialogue, but I don't think he could argue that "unintentional genocide assister" isn't a perfectly apt read of that dialogue. And I really do not care much about the intentions of a character whose only feature outside of being MJs wooden plank boyfriend is the fact that he assisted in committing genocide. As far as we know he is literally the only person on that planet to assist in it too. Like my man is never beating the "Genocide Paul" allegations lol. Maybe Paul should have simply been better if he expected people not to hate him.

How wonderful that he slipped the word "intentional" in there, as if trying to invalidate the whole letter, amd then goes on to answer nothing else. Amd whether intentional or unintentional, has he ever really been shown to be trying to atone for it? Does he have any definable character traits for the audience to grab onto other than very much being an genocide assister?

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

I think "...assisted in genocide" as written implies intention pretty clearly, honestly.

Not really. Paul assisted in genocide one way or the other; of course it was involuntary, but if you say "Paul assisted in genocide"? It's still a fact (rest of my post addresses this point exactly, with how Lowe could have just said "your letter makes it seem like Paul did it willingly"). To say that the reader definitely stated that he willingly did it, though, is a bridge too much I wouldn't cross. It just reminded me of someone who once messaged Taika Waititi about Ragnarok, and said he liked the movie, but wish he didn't do a comedy with Thor. Waititi immediately said "No fun ever!" and the likes, and the guy just said he wasn't trying to go there and that he just didn't feel the depiction suited Thor much. No one goes much of anywhere when subjects get 'discussed' like this.

(That's nothing to say about the argument presented in the letter itself, which I also never said I endorsed [and don't]. The whole "we know MJ would never go for a guy like [this or that!]" is a can of worms I've never gone near, nor am I interested in at the slightest.)

[bob.schoonover]

Not really. Paul assisted in genocide one way or the other; of course it was involuntary, but if you say "Paul assisted in genocide"? It's still a fact (rest of my post addresses this point exactly, with how Lowe could have just said "your letter makes it seem like Paul did it willingly"). To say that the reader definitely stated that he willingly did it, though, is a bridge too much I wouldn't cross. It just reminded me of someone who once messaged Taika Waititi about Ragnarok, and said he liked the movie, but wish he didn't do a comedy with Thor. Waititi immediately said "No fun ever!" and the likes, and the guy just said he wasn't trying to go there and that he just didn't feel the depiction suited Thor much. No one goes much of anywhere when subjects get 'discussed' like this.

(That's nothing to say about the argument presented in the letter itself, which I also never said I endorsed [and don't]. The whole "we know MJ would never go for a guy like [this or that!]" is a can of worms I've never gone near, nor am I interested in at the slightest.)

I just disagree about the intention in using the word - if we worked at a bakery, I asked you to hand me a rolling pin, then I beat a belligerent customer with it, did you "assist in the assault"? Would you appreciate that phraseology if someone used it to describe your roll in my wrong-doings? Do you think "NotJT assisted in the bakery assault" accurately reflects the actions to a person who is told only that? I legitimately think one wouldn't use the word "assist" in either case unless they were trying to (maliciously or not) imply intention. Paul was an unwitting dupe, or a head-in-the-sand idiot, a liar by omission, or any of a thousand other things that accurately reflect his actual faults.

I'm not trying to be smart here, I am genuinely curious: is there a common-use phrase where people use "assist" for unintentional acts w/o further qualifiers? Assisted suicide is definitely intentional, a gravity assist is an intentional use of gravity to accelerate an object to a specific path, assists in hockey and basketball are intentional (deflected passes do not, at least in basketball, get scored as assists), etc.

(I also don't have much opinion about the argument in the letter since, among other things, MJ is fictional, and while I generally think Lowe is a very hit-or-miss presence as an editor, I think in this instance, he wasn't particularly putting words in the mouth of the writer and deserves the benefit of the doubt by the plain English reading of the whole letter)

[Mister Mets]

I think "...assisted in genocide" as written implies intention pretty clearly, honestly. The letter writer is using the genocide, not Paul's inability to see what his father was up to, as the disqualifying attribute. A plain reading of "assisted in genocide" would suggest intention absent other qualifications that aren't in the letter.

As an aside, "[MJ] would not choose a man who assisted in genocide" in specific comparison to Peter is not a slam dunk if the letter writer meant to imply "unintentional deaths caused by intentions gone poorly" is obviously disqualifying - Venom and Carnage have a shocking body count, for example. And yes, that's fewer deaths than Paul might be culpable for, but as a statement about MJ's morality in regards to chosen partner, "he's partly responsible for thousands, not millions, of deaths" is ...something.

That's a good comparison.

If Paul assisted in genocide, Peter assisted in cop-killing and mass murder by bringing over the alien costume.

[Triniking1234]

I have some older issues to go through since I dropped the book after Dark Web.

Lo and behold the first book I pick up is Rek Rap and Limbo ****.

[HypnoHustler]

I have some older issues to go through since I dropped the book after Dark Web.

Lo and behold the first book I pick up is Rek Rap and Limbo ****.

There’s really no reason to spend money and time getting any of the books since Dark Web ended. Besides one *okay* Doctor Octopus arc, they’ve all been hot garbage and you can get caught up on developments since then by just asking us or checking Wikipedia.

[Kevinroc]

That's a good comparison.

If Paul assisted in genocide, Peter assisted in cop-killing and mass murder by bringing over the alien costume.

I don't think it's a good comparison. There are too many steps on Peter's part, and some of them were not by choice (Paul could have told his father he didn't want to work with him, but Peter had no choice but to go to Battleworld) that complicate things.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

if we worked at a bakery, I asked you to hand me a rolling pin, then I beat a belligerent customer with it, did you "assist in the assault"? Would you appreciate that phraseology if someone used it to describe your roll in my wrong-doings? Do you think "NotJT assisted in the bakery assault" accurately reflects the actions to a person who is told only that?

"Accurately", yeah; but only so far on the grounds that it's still factual (which also doesn't mean whether I 'approve' of the usage, or if it's something I'd mostly partake in myself). I expanded more on it below, no less.

I'm not trying to be smart here, I am genuinely curious: is there a common-use phrase where people use "assist" for unintentional acts w/o further qualifiers? Assisted suicide is definitely intentional, a gravity assist is an intentional use of gravity to accelerate an object to a specific path, assists in hockey and basketball are intentional (deflected passes do not, at least in basketball, get scored as assists), etc.

Admittedly, about the "common use", it's a different can-o'-worms. However, as far as dealing with written arguments like these, I find that this "wiggle room" sticks out with me quite a lot. It might be an entire different discussion about materialism (I suppose more in the historic sense?) and how 'objective' can one be. There's an added degree of formality to the written form, at least how I've seen it, and to this day people have plenty of issues with interpreting the tone of a message because of how it can come across in pure text. I might have been viewing this through more of a 'formal' veneer opposite a casual one, mostly because that's how I've always taken text in my entire life.

In Lowe's position, I'd just have said that you can take the implication that the letter tried to imply intentional aid, and that this was not his takeaway. To put it as the writer meaning it, full stop, strikes me as a bit of a crapshoot where you might have 50/50 odds. If anything, because, if it was a constant exchange of messages, the writer could definitely tell Lowe he never wrote the word, and that he didn't mean it (even if, if we want to go out there, that might have been his intent, but we can call it "an opening" - but even still, something that there would not be a consensus on, if our exchange is anything to go by.)

I guess the short and long of it might be: Semantics! (though, to be honest, I must also say this whole exchange is a whole deal more interesting than the letter we're talking about.)

[Lifetap]

I think one of the biggest issues with the genocide and Paul's culpability is we know nothing about it. Although no matter how it occurred I can see logic to bend it to point out how sketchy he is as a character.

One possible would be an instant genocide. Everyone is alive one moment and dead the next due to a single spell or something similar. If this was the case Paul would have known the kids were fake from Day 1.

If it was a slow genocide that had monsters hunting people in the streets etc. Then Paul would have had the chance to show remorse for his part in the genocide. Like maybe he protected human enclaves or something to show him 'making up for his mistakes'. In that case I would say the only sketchy thing would be he seems to be the only survivor, but it would allow for the possibility of why did not suspect foul play with the kids.

There is also a possibility of during a slow genocide Paul decided to screw humanity to create his workshop which would show he has no remorse and only cares for himself.

We just don't know how it happened other than everyone is seemingly dead and the kids are found and Paul initially says No to taking them in.

[Kevinroc]

I think one of the biggest issues with the genocide and Paul's culpability is we know nothing about it. Although no matter how it occurred I can see logic to bend it to point out how sketchy he is as a character.

One possible would be an instant genocide. Everyone is alive one moment and dead the next due to a single spell or something similar. If this was the case Paul would have known the kids were fake from Day 1.

If it was a slow genocide that had monsters hunting people in the streets etc. Then Paul would have had the chance to show remorse for his part in the genocide. Like maybe he protected human enclaves or something to show him 'making up for his mistakes'. In that case I would say the only sketchy thing would be he seems to be the only survivor, but it would allow for the possibility of why did not suspect foul play with the kids.

There is also a possibility of during a slow genocide Paul decided to screw humanity to create his workshop which would show he has no remorse and only cares for himself.

We just don't know how it happened other than everyone is seemingly dead and the kids are found and Paul initially says No to taking them in.

The fact that Paul initially doesn't want to take the kids in should point to him not being on the level. In fiction that is absolutely an indefensible position.

[Daibhidh]

I legitimately think one wouldn't use the word "assist" in either case unless they were trying to (maliciously or not) imply intention. Paul was an unwitting dupe, or a head-in-the-sand idiot, a liar by omission, or any of a thousand other things that accurately reflect his actual faults.)

There are degrees and degrees though. I haven't read the story so I'm just going on what I've read here mostly.
I think the appropriateness of saying that someone is assisting in an action where they don't intend the end result depends on the complexity of their involvement and the degree to which there are subtasks that they do understand and intend. If someone is hired as an assistant to Dr Armageddon thinking Dr Armageddon is trying to build a fusion reactor when Dr Armageddon is trying to build a bomb, then that someone is certainly assisting Dr Armageddon. But saying that they're assisting Dr Armageddon in building a fusion reactor seems wrong, because Dr Armageddon isn't building a fusion reactor. But assisting Dr Armageddon in building a bomb isn't quite right either. I think you'd say they were unwittingly assisting Dr Armageddon in building a bomb, or something of the sort.

There is of course the question of just how much assistance one could provide without having some idea of what the project could actually be.

[Moxxi517]

I don't think it's a good comparison. There are too many steps on Peter's part, and some of them were not by choice (Paul could have told his father he didn't want to work with him, but Peter had no choice but to go to Battleworld) that complicate things.

I'd point to Peter and the Fantastic Four successfully containing the symbiote as another point that makes Peter far less culpable for the Symbiote's actions. Is Peter really responsible for the symbiote's actions after it escaped the containment Peter put it in? Even with Brock getting the symbiote, Peter was reasonably concerned about his life being endangered and was also not physically capable of containing the symbiote anymore. So it seems diffucult to use his actions at that point to justify him being an accessory to cop murder.

But also there's the whole question of how reasonable the unwittingness of the respect people (Peter/Paul) is. Like with Peter I think it is somewhat reasonable to not realize when he picked it up that the symbiote would one day spawn a child that would commit serial killings. And he arguably needed the thing to survive Battleworld. With Paul, he seemingly invented a genocide gun that he gave to his dad. And then his dad committed genocide with it. Paul's actions are far more correlated with the actual crime. And I struggle to imagine how Paul possibly was that much of a rube. Finally, the degree of harm here matters. Rabin directly killed an entire world based on Paul's assistance. That's a lot worse than the direct harm caused by the symbiotes.

Plus as I've said elsewhere, we don't like Paul and have no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. Like oh no someone is unreasonably slandering Paul, whatever are we going to do?

[wleakr]

I also don't have much opinion about the argument in the letter since, among other things, MJ is fictional, and while I generally think Lowe is a very hit-or-miss presence as an editor, I think in this instance, he wasn't particularly putting words in the mouth of the writer and deserves the benefit of the doubt by the plain English reading of the whole letter.

If the board gave the benefit of the doubt, they'd have one less thing to debbie down about! We can't have that...LOL!

[Moxxi517]

Not to get too sidetracked from the actual story though, I have some thoughts on the actual issue:

spoilers:

- IMO this issue confirms that nothing will come of Randy seeing Goblin Spider-Man try to kill tombstone by messing with the medical equipment in ASM #34. With how the mayor is having spidey work as an ambassador to limbo and randy wanting to coordinate the end of Fisk's law with spider-man, it seems like everybody truly believes that a Venom did all that other stuff. Truly nothing matters. - I'm glad that a friend of Peter's is involved in this story at all though. That is cool. - Seems like Count Nefaria coordinated with Tombstone and his daughter to do some gang intrigue ****. Would be a decent set up for a reveal if the reveal hadn't been entirely spoiled already. ASM really has to figure out how they do solicits / covers and such, they spoil way too much in advance. - The pacing is pretty slow here, a lot of Rek-Rap humor just to convey that yeah the repo demon showed up at Peter's apartment and took Randy. Obvious debt collector reveal is obvious. Like that humor is just not for me, but apparently some people like it so go wild I guess. - We've been talking about that one letter Nick responded to. But honestly the funniest part of that response is where Nick says that Peter is going to need the help of his friends now that he has been eaten by the repo demon. LOL, lmao even, I would bet money that MJ / Paul don't show up in issue #38. Or really anyone who hasnt already shown up in the arc. Like why would he say that there?

end of spoilers