Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 142
  1. #76
    Rachel Grey-Summers Sardorim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Rachel turned into Ahab's baby momma by Marvel. Disgusting.
    Posts
    6,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    No, she just stole the X-Men life force and tried to destroy the whole universe.
    Please, that's not relevant to the discussion and we don't need to bring Rachel in every single thread.
    Rachel gave it back and it really was the only way at the time to kill the Beyonder. Course I noticed that you left those important parts out.

    Yes it really is as Rachel was the most in control Phoenix Host to date thus proving that the Phoenix Force isn't a natural evil. It's simply shaped by its hosts and the interactions with said Host.

    I suggest brushing up on Phoenix history as Rachel is very much relevant whenever the Phoenix is brought up.
    Last edited by Sardorim; 06-02-2015 at 08:11 AM.

  2. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sardorim View Post
    Rachel gave it back and it really was the only way at the time to kill the Beyonder. Course I noticed that you left those important parts out.
    That was a very sane reaction indeed. Let's destroy the whole universe to get rid of the Beyonder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sardorim View Post
    Yes it really is as Rachel was the most in control Phoenix Host to date thus proving that the Phoenix Force isn't a natural evil. It's simply shaped by its hosts and the interactions with said Host.
    Nobody said the Phoenix Force is evil.

    And Rachel didn't had Emma and Mastermind working on her mind during months to make her lose her sanity and make her schizophrenic. Please, read what was already arguemented in this topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sardorim View Post
    I suggest brushing up on Phoenix history as Rachel is very much relevant whenever the Phoenix is brought up.
    I suggest you read what this topic is about. Because Rachel is very irrelevant to it.

  3. #78
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    To the avatar/manifestation of the Phoenix as the same issue show the real Jean in the Cocoon. But maybe also, in a way, to Jean through the piece of her soul that was in Phoenix and that would be returned to her (first through Maddie) even if Death said she wouldn't remember this encounter or his words.
    An "avatar/manifestation" that Death consistently referred to as Jean...

    (A lot later (in X-Men Forever), the "real" Jean consciousness is projected back into Phoenix and she has another conversation with Death which she will remember)
    You mean the same story arc where Prosh (formally known as Ship) --


    -- is yanking the chains of not only Jean Grey but Mystique, Toad, Iceman, and Juggernaut as well?


    Last edited by ZNOP; 06-02-2015 at 09:15 AM.

  4. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZNOP View Post
    You mean the "avatar/manifestation" that Death consistently referred to as Jean?
    Yes. On the last page, Death show us Jean in the cocoon at the bottom of the sea; the Phoenix bringing back its memories and the piece of Jean' soul that it borrowed; Jean rejecting it and the Phoenix delivering them to Maddie instead.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZNOP View Post
    You mean the same story arc where Prosh (formally known as Ship) --
    -- is yanking the chains of not only Jean Grey but Mystique, Toad, Iceman, and Juggernaut as well?
    Yes, that's the second conversation. In the same issue that it's stated: "The cosmic entity that called itself the Phoenix Force had created a body for itself based on Jean's genetic structure. But it was the residual spirit of Jean Grey -- her innate heroism -- that had willed the entity to end its existence."



    But that's going a little out of topic...

    I am not sure what you are trying to say, sorry...

  5. #80
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    Yes. On the last page, Death show us Jean in the cocoon at the bottom of the sea; the Phoenix bringing back its memories and the piece of Jean' soul that it borrowed; Jean rejecting it and the Phoenix delivering them to Maddie instead.





    Yes, that's the second conversation. In the same issue that it's stated: "The cosmic entity that called itself the Phoenix Force had created a body for itself based on Jean's genetic structure. But it was the residual spirit of Jean Grey -- her innate heroism -- that had willed the entity to end its existence."



    But that's going a little out of topic...

    I am not sure what you are trying to say, sorry...
    If were talking about the same story arc I like to point out that it ended --


    -- with it all being some sort of failed coup executed by The Stranger...
    Last edited by ZNOP; 06-02-2015 at 09:25 AM.

  6. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZNOP View Post
    It ended with it all being some sort of coup by The Stranger...
    What are you talking about? What does that have to do with the DFS or the legal implication of what Dark Phoenix did?

    You are saying it's all The Stranger fault because he spent decades controling the evolution of life on earth? That's a tad tenous.
    Last edited by Narasinha; 06-02-2015 at 09:24 AM.

  7. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    What are you talking about? What does that have to do with the DFS or the legal implication of what Dark Phoenix did?
    Nothing I guess. I was responding to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    To the avatar/manifestation of the Phoenix as the same issue show the real Jean in the Cocoon. But maybe also, in a way, to Jean through the piece of her soul that was in Phoenix and that would be returned to her (first through Maddie) even if Death said she wouldn't remember this encounter or his words. (A lot later (in X-Men Forever), the "real" Jean consciousness is projected back into Phoenix and she has another conversation with Death which she will remember)

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    You are saying it's all The Stranger fault because he spent decades controling the evolution of life on earth? That's a tad tenous.
    No, I'm saying that Jean didn't revisit her meeting with Death in Forever... That was Prosh impersonating Death at the behest of The Stranger.
    Last edited by ZNOP; 06-02-2015 at 09:50 AM.

  8. #83
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sardorim View Post
    Rachel gave it back and it really was the only way at the time to kill the Beyonder. Course I noticed that you left those important parts out.

    Yes it really is as Rachel was the most in control Phoenix Host to date thus proving that the Phoenix Force isn't a natural evil. It's simply shaped by its hosts and the interactions with said Host.

    I suggest brushing up on Phoenix history as Rachel is very much relevant whenever the Phoenix is brought up.
    The Phoenix force isn't evil. It goes through a process to evolve and sometimes that process includes billions of deaths. Galactus isn't evil and it has fed on trillions. The phoenix has saved creation more than once it really depends on if the host has embraced their shadow/dark side. Rachel did and never really evolved as a Phoenix host. She never became a white Phoenix like Hope or Jean.

  9. #84
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    444

    Default

    You're missing a key factor here. Cyclops was not in a sober state of mind. The Phoenix Force had affected him
    .

    How was it affecting him? Because on the one hand we're being told Scott did all these good things when he was one of the phoenix fiver and that he saved mutantkind from extinction, and on the other hand we are told he was not in control. Which one is it? That is key to this trial.

    And even if you're not willing to concede that, Xavier was attacking him. As I stated in a previous post, there's a difference between provocation and attacking. Provocation would just be Xavier insulting and yelling at Cyclops. He was doing that. But he was also attacking. That takes this beyond provocation and turns it into a fight that he instigated.
    Again Cyclops instigated the fight: by pushing his personal agenda, by intending to turn normal human beings into mutants so his race could be saved from extinction, by taking the first shot when the Avengers came for Hope, by intending to use the phoenix force to make things right for his chosen people, by interfering with international politics without any authority other than having the power to do so, by refusing to let others help him get rid of the phoenix. We're not talking about a bar brawl where two guys are pushing each other until one of them takes a swing.

    Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Look up the self-defense clauses that exist in every state of the USA and in most other countries in some form or another. If someone is attacking you, you have a right to defend yourself. Xavier was attacking Cyclops. He was attacking and provoking him. The case could be made that Cyclops had a right to defend himself.
    See above. Cyclops acted as a benevolent tyrant who held the world hostage with a weapon that could and almost did burn the world. He intended to mess up people's genetic structure to restore his master race by creating breeding fodder. He violated any number of national and international laws, interfering with the sovereignty of nations, dismantling their military without permission, This isn't a barbrawl we're talking about.

    If you're going to be the prosecution, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cyclops was 100 percent responsible for the aggression he displayed. And by that standard, I think there's too much doubt.
    No your defense is that he was -not- responsible for the aggression displayed. it's up to you to prove that the -obvious- facts are not what they seem. The obvious facts are that Scott refused to acknowledge the avengers authority, threw the first punch, intended to turn normal humans into mutants using a cosmic force capable of destroying worlds, refused to aid in getting rid of said force, and killed Charles because his father figure got in the way of his plans. Your defense, your burden of proof.

    Objection, point of relevance. This isn't about what Cyclops intended to do with the Phoenix. This is about the charge levied against him in the murder of Charles Xavier.
    It is most definitely relevant. It speaks to the character of the defendant. The situation itself is also the reason why Charles confronted Scott. Motivation is most assuredly relevant.

    And your comparison to Nazi experiments is really extreme. He wasn't turning normal humans into mutants. Hope Summers did that with the Scarlet Witch.
    he was most definitely the instigator, the masterplanner. Even after all was said and done he took responsibility by saying he'd do it all over again. If you wish to paint Scott summers as a mere accomplice, which we both know is twisting facts, prosecution can accept that label. It still doesn't make him innocent. His intent was more than clear and he admits that he was needed to make it happen and that he would do it again.

    Cyclops was using the Phoenix to do all sorts of good in the world for humans and mutants alike.
    On whose authority? if he does so without permission of the sovereign nations he forced to comply he is a benevolent tyrant at best. It would be similar to one nation wiping out all nuclear weapons on earth except their own and then declaring world peace because no one can defeat them. The Phoenix Five were the last nuclear bombs holding the world hostage. Might makes right is not a show of morality.

    Again, point of relevance. This isn't about what Cyclops did before he got the Phoenix Force. This is about what he did while under its influence in the death of Charles Xavier.
    Again relevant because it speaks of the defendant's character. Also you still haven't proven Scott was under the influence of the phoenix to the point where he had lost control of his own faculties when he killed Charles Xavier. The facts bear out another story.

    I already responded to this. I can call witnesses to the stand who can document all the good things Cyclops did with the Phoenix Force and how none of those things involved turning humans into mutants. I can also call witnesses to confirm that it was Hope Summers and Wanda Maximoff who did what you claim. If you're going to charge Cyclops with that crime, you have to charge them as well. And that would be a separate case. You're speculating on his agenda
    There is no need to speculate. The defendant himself has stated on multiple occasions that mutant restoration was his ultimate goal, the very reason why he needed the phoenix, why he needed Hope as his tool to accomplish his plan. He also showed no remorse after the fact and stated he'd do it all again. His agenda is crystal clear.

    There's nothing in that agenda that shows that he planned or intended to kill Charles Xavier.
    Which is why Scott is not up on first degree murder charges but instead second degree.

    Those same witnesses can also document what happens when the Phoenix is attacked, as tends to overwhelm the host. Those same witnesses can also attest that when someone under the influence of the Phoenix exerts themselves, it tends to cause them to enter a state of mind where it's not possible for them to have a reasonable understanding of a situation.
    Again your defense rests on you establishing reasonable doubt that Scott Summers was not in control when he killed Charles Xavier. Prosecution has pointed out multiple times that there are enough cases of Phoenix possession by a large variety of hosts that did not result in them losing control under a wide variety of circumstances. From those facts we can safely assumes that the appearance of the Dark Phoenix is triggered by the immorality or mental instability of its hosts -prior- to acting as phoenix host. We can point to the history of the Phoenix Five hosts Magic (demon sorceress), Collosus (former terrorist), Emma Frost (criminal), Namor (former terrorist) who's personalities are more likely the cause of their loss of control as host. We can also point to Scott losing control of the PHoenix and declaring himself Dark Phoenix only -after- he killed his mentor. Until that exact moment Defense paints the defendant as a hero who only did good. Can't have it both ways.

    Occam's razor: if not all of the phoenix hosts turn Dark Phoenix when attacked while acting as host then it is more likely the personality of said host is who decides to draw on the power of the phoenix in an immoral manner and therewith turns into Dark Phoenix.

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    No, she just stole the X-Men life force and tried to destroy the whole universe.
    Please, that's not relevant to the discussion and we don't need to bring Rachel in every single thread.
    The key point is that she didn't do so under the influence of the dark phoenix. Doing so didn't turn her into dark phoenix either. She remained in control.
    Despite the phoenix being part of her, despite less than moral actions, despite being provoked, threatened, attacked, despite past traumas and near death. All those things that defense wants us to believe made Scott lose control. Rachel proves that the Phoenix is not a force that automatically influences people to kill others. Wolverine stabbing jean on asteroid M while she was host to the phoenix also didn't trigger the dark phoenix, Attacking a phoenix host is not the trigger to turning a host into Dark Phoenix.

    And this is the crux of the case presented: defense wants us to believe that the Phoenix inherently turns its hosts dark because of outside influences or corruption inherent to its nature. Prosecution says there is no evidence for this defense, that facts show that this is not the case in an overwhelming number of cases, that thus the Host's personality determines whether they corrupt the Phoenix rather than viceversa.

    in short Scott's immoral killing of Charles for very personal reasons corrupted the Phoenix. not the other way around!

  10. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZNOP View Post
    No, I'm saying that Jean didn't revisit her meeting with Death in Forever... That was Prosh impersonating Death at the behest of The Stranger.
    Oh! Hmm, yes, maybe. Or maybe not: I don't think there is any indication that Prosh faked any of the things they saw. Also Prosh/The Stranger wouldn't have know of Phoenix discussion with Death. Finally, Prosh, as the narator, told us that he sent their mind back in time. He was not speaking to someone in the comic so there is no reason that he wasn't telling the true.

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    How was it affecting him? Because on the one hand we're being told Scott did all these good things when he was one of the phoenix fiver and that he saved mutantkind from extinction, and on the other hand we are told he was not in control. Which one is it? That is key to this trial.
    It was affecting him in that he and the Phoenix Five were doing things that someone in a reasonable state of mind wouldn't and couldn't normally do. A person under the influence of a drug can do both good and bad things that they wouldn't normally do. Someone on certain pills may feel excessively loving, as we see with drugs like MDMA. Someone on alcohol may feel excessively violent. In both cases, they're under the influence of something that makes them do things that they don't do in a normal state of mind. The Phoenix Force fits this criteria in that all five who were influenced by the Phoenix carried out actions that they never did or hinted at doing in a sober state of mind. So that is strong evidence that they were affected by the Phoenix Force in a way that they could not consciously control. Jean Grey has experienced similar states as well so there is a precedent for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    Again Cyclops instigated the fight: by pushing his personal agenda, by intending to turn normal human beings into mutants so his race could be saved from extinction, by taking the first shot when the Avengers came for Hope, by intending to use the phoenix force to make things right for his chosen people, by interfering with international politics without any authority other than having the power to do so, by refusing to let others help him get rid of the phoenix. We're not talking about a bar brawl where two guys are pushing each other until one of them takes a swing.
    You're again not focusing on the case at hand. The issue isn't whether Cyclops was turning human beings into mutants. That's not the purpose of this discussion. The purpose is to determine the extent of his guilt in the murder of Charles Xavier. And the facts remain very clear on one issue. Cyclops did not seek to become a host for the Phoenix Force. You yourself state that he intended Hope to be the host. The Phoenix was thrust on him against his will by Tony Stark. At no point was becoming the Phoenix himself part of the plan. We can debate how criminal Cyclops' actions were in fighting the Avengers prior to the Phoenix's arrival in another thread. It's not relevant to this discussion and in a court of law, it would be inadmissible as evidence because it would be part of another case.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    See above. Cyclops acted as a benevolent tyrant who held the world hostage with a weapon that could and almost did burn the world. He intended to mess up people's genetic structure to restore his master race by creating breeding fodder. He violated any number of national and international laws, interfering with the sovereignty of nations, dismantling their military without permission, This isn't a barbrawl we're talking about.
    Again, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Cyclops' actions during the Pax Utopia period are not relevant to this case. It's his actions during his battle against Xavier and the Avengers that are relevant. The fact still remains that he didn't seek the Phoenix Force. It's the Avengers who broke it and made it so he became a host. You keep harping on Cyclops' intention of messing with peoples' genetic structure as well. Why is this relevant? Why do you keep coming back to this? It has nothing to do with him killing Charles Xavier. By that same logic, you could say Wanda Maximoff is guilty of a greater crime because she robbed a viable species of its ability to propagate. If she hadn't done what she did, these people would be mutants anyways. But again, this is getting off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    No your defense is that he was -not- responsible for the aggression displayed. it's up to you to prove that the -obvious- facts are not what they seem. The obvious facts are that Scott refused to acknowledge the avengers authority, threw the first punch, intended to turn normal humans into mutants using a cosmic force capable of destroying worlds, refused to aid in getting rid of said force, and killed Charles because his father figure got in the way of his plans. Your defense, your burden of proof.
    If you're the prosecution, the burden of proof rests on you. If I'm the defense, I only need to show that there's reasonable doubt that Cyclops was not in a clear state of mind and had no control over himself when Charles Xavier died. This isn't about whether he was just in fighting the Avengers when he came to Utopia. That's not pertinent to this case. The matter at hand is the death of Charles Xavier. In a court of law, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. That means you must prove that he killed Charles Xavier intentionally because he got in the way. I say the facts don't support this because Cyclops never attacked Charles Xavier until Xavier began fighting him. You can't say it was part of a plan after a fight begins.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    It is most definitely relevant. It speaks to the character of the defendant. The situation itself is also the reason why Charles confronted Scott. Motivation is most assuredly relevant.
    The character of the defendant is irrelevant. It's basically hearsay. What matters in a criminal court is the evidence. It doesn't matter if Cyclops is the worst human being in the world. That's not evidence that's admissible in a courtroom during a criminal case.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    he was most definitely the instigator, the masterplanner. Even after all was said and done he took responsibility by saying he'd do it all over again. If you wish to paint Scott summers as a mere accomplice, which we both know is twisting facts, prosecution can accept that label. It still doesn't make him innocent. His intent was more than clear and he admits that he was needed to make it happen and that he would do it again.
    Again, that's hearsay. It's not admissible as evidence. Cyclops has also said he doesn't quite remember his actions and doesn't remember controlling himself. Emma Frost's testimony and that of Jean Grey could corroborate this. She indicated in Uncanny X-men #3 that the conflict caused by the Avengers made it difficult to control themselves. And his intent to undo the damage done by the Scarlet Witch isn't in and of itself a crime. It's the death of Charles Xavier that's the crime. He even said to the Jean Grey Institute that if he knowingly did what he did to Xavier, he demanded that his friends kill him because he couldn't live with himself. None of his friends did so. That shows that even his friends would testify that he was not in control of himself on some level. This, along with evidence of the Phoenix's influence, would cast more reasonable doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    On whose authority? if he does so without permission of the sovereign nations he forced to comply he is a benevolent tyrant at best. It would be similar to one nation wiping out all nuclear weapons on earth except their own and then declaring world peace because no one can defeat them. The Phoenix Five were the last nuclear bombs holding the world hostage. Might makes right is not a show of morality.
    Not relevant to the case at hand. If you want to discuss the legality of what Cyclops did in establishing Pax Utopia, then it might be best to start another thread. That's not the discussion here.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    Again relevant because it speaks of the defendant's character. Also you still haven't proven Scott was under the influence of the phoenix to the point where he had lost control of his own faculties when he killed Charles Xavier. The facts bear out another story.
    See above. The defendant's character is hearsay. What matters most is the evidence and facts of the incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    There is no need to speculate. The defendant himself has stated on multiple occasions that mutant restoration was his ultimate goal, the very reason why he needed the phoenix, why he needed Hope as his tool to accomplish his plan. He also showed no remorse after the fact and stated he'd do it all again. His agenda is crystal clear.
    Still not relevant to the case in question. There's nothing in this agenda that indicates he would kill Charles Xavier or anyone for that matter. The violence was never a part of the agenda and the agenda itself is not pertinent to the case.
    Join me on the official website for X-men Supreme, home of Marvel Universe 1015. Want a fresh take on X-men? Click below to enter the official home of Marvel at it's most Supreme!


    Or if you want, check out my official publishing blog.

  12. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    Which is why Scott is not up on first degree murder charges but instead second degree.
    And your evidence to support such a conviction has too much reasonable doubt because you can't prove that Cyclops was in a sober state of mind, nor can you deny that the Phoenix Force influenced his judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    Again your defense rests on you establishing reasonable doubt that Scott Summers was not in control when he killed Charles Xavier. Prosecution has pointed out multiple times that there are enough cases of Phoenix possession by a large variety of hosts that did not result in them losing control under a wide variety of circumstances. From those facts we can safely assumes that the appearance of the Dark Phoenix is triggered by the immorality or mental instability of its hosts -prior- to acting as phoenix host. We can point to the history of the Phoenix Five hosts Magic (demon sorceress), Collosus (former terrorist), Emma Frost (criminal), Namor (former terrorist) who's personalities are more likely the cause of their loss of control as host. We can also point to Scott losing control of the PHoenix and declaring himself Dark Phoenix only -after- he killed his mentor. Until that exact moment Defense paints the defendant as a hero who only did good. Can't have it both ways.

    Occam's razor: if not all of the phoenix hosts turn Dark Phoenix when attacked while acting as host then it is more likely the personality of said host is who decides to draw on the power of the phoenix in an immoral manner and therewith turns into Dark Phoenix.
    And the defense would point out that none of those hosts you mentioned faced the same situation and circumstances as Cyclops and the Phoenix Five. You could make the same argument for a drug like alcohol in that it puts people with certain personality traits into a more violent state of mind. But they main difference here is that Cyclops didn't willingly consume the Phoenix Force. It was thrust on him against his will and intentions. And the defense can cite precedent for a Phoenix host being unstable when strained, as was shown with Jean Grey when the Inner Circle attacked her.

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    The key point is that she didn't do so under the influence of the dark phoenix. Doing so didn't turn her into dark phoenix either. She remained in control.
    Despite the phoenix being part of her, despite less than moral actions, despite being provoked, threatened, attacked, despite past traumas and near death. All those things that defense wants us to believe made Scott lose control. Rachel proves that the Phoenix is not a force that automatically influences people to kill others. Wolverine stabbing jean on asteroid M while she was host to the phoenix also didn't trigger the dark phoenix, Attacking a phoenix host is not the trigger to turning a host into Dark Phoenix.

    And this is the crux of the case presented: defense wants us to believe that the Phoenix inherently turns its hosts dark because of outside influences or corruption inherent to its nature. Prosecution says there is no evidence for this defense, that facts show that this is not the case in an overwhelming number of cases, that thus the Host's personality determines whether they corrupt the Phoenix rather than viceversa.

    in short Scott's immoral killing of Charles for very personal reasons corrupted the Phoenix. not the other way around!
    Since the experience with the Phoenix Force varies so greatly between hosts, the experience of someone like Rachel Grey is basically anecdotal. And there are parts of her history where the Phoenix has made her violent and unstable when experiencing distressing circumstances. So her testimony and that of the Phoenix Five basically prove the same thing. When under the influence of the Phoenix Force, people are prone to losing control in stressful situations. Cyclops was in a stressful situation that he did not instigate because it's a fact that he did not seek the Phoenix Force. Say someone had their drink spiked against their will and they ended up becoming intoxicated in a way that nobody anticipated. They are not entirely responsible for their actions because they did not choose to put themselves in these circumstances. That lack of choice and the documented effects of the Phoenix Force cast too much reasonable doubt on Cyclops' state of mind. Add on top of that the fact that Charles Xavier was actively attacking Cyclops (and so were the Avengers) and there's too much reasonable doubt to warrant a Second Degree Murder conviction or even a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction.
    Join me on the official website for X-men Supreme, home of Marvel Universe 1015. Want a fresh take on X-men? Click below to enter the official home of Marvel at it's most Supreme!


    Or if you want, check out my official publishing blog.

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pro View Post
    The key point is that she didn't do so under the influence of the dark phoenix.
    Really? You mean that it's normal for Rachel to want to destroy the whole universe just to prevent the Beyonder from doing so himself? She was totaly sane when she got that idea?

    If I remember, when she went about to steal the X-Men's life force to increase her own power, she didn't looked exactly like herself.

    But if you want to believe otherwise, fine. That doesn't change anything: Nobody said that everyone would react to the same way when inflicted with the Phoenix Force. Rachel is the daughter of the Phoenix. Scott isn't. Why should they be affected in the same manner?

  14. #89
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    It's certain that she didn't know. Her reaction when she learned about it is proof enough.
    I was phrasing things conservatively.

    Jean has no notion of astronomy. And this is happening in the 60', early 70' at most. We barely walked on the moon at that time. It's doubtful that a young girl, raised in the 60, was exposed to much theories about star system formation. She probably didn't even watched Star Trek...
    Do we know for a fact that she has no notion of astronomy? Is it possible that, through the Phoenix Force, she might have more knowledge of the universe than she otherwise would have had?

    In fact, even with the information we have today, it's seems very improbable that any random start system would have a sentient life-form (and assuming that a G-type star, like Sun, is needed for life is pretty antropocentric). Occurrence of sentient life form seems to be exceptionally rare, for whatever reason (see Fermi Paradox).
    This is true. And yet, Jean knew that it was possible for a solar analog star to support, in its planetary system, a populated Earth analog world. She came from one such world herself.

    Was she capable of understanding the potential consequences of her actions?

    (It's doubltfull that a sane person would dive right away into a star, whaver the reason lol)
    Rather!

    (I'm strongly inclined towards the argument that Emma and Mastermind, not Jean, are legally culpable.)

  15. #90
    Rachel Grey-Summers Sardorim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Rachel turned into Ahab's baby momma by Marvel. Disgusting.
    Posts
    6,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narasinha View Post
    That was a very sane reaction indeed. Let's destroy the whole universe to get rid of the Beyonder.



    Nobody said the Phoenix Force is evil.

    And Rachel didn't had Emma and Mastermind working on her mind during months to make her lose her sanity and make her schizophrenic. Please, read what was already arguemented in this topic.




    I suggest you read what this topic is about. Because Rachel is very irrelevant to it.
    Considering that the Beyonder could do far worse....

    The title clearly says "Trial" in it thus it assumes the Phoenix is accused of something while Rachel proves the Phoenix is innocent all any and all accusations. Please, Rachel went through far worse in her own timeline and was made a slave more than once.

    I suggest you read the topic title again, Rachel fits it as once again any Phoenix talk means all Hosts are relevant. Not to mention you didn't even make the topic so you really aren't in a position to dictate the topics contents at all. Furthermore, please lose your hostility towards me and if you cannot than maybe you should just ignore my posts?
    Last edited by Sardorim; 06-02-2015 at 11:25 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •