Was Norman Osborn Right?

[Alvarez]

Norman is an unstable psychopath.
A fun unstable psychopath... but one none the less.

But no. He was pretty wrong about everything.

[jackolover]

So is their fault that not every hero is like the punisher ?.

I think if Norman Osborns Dark Avengers were in charge, he would negotiate the problem villains away, like he did the Molecule Man. I don't think he would have killed them. But the super heroes were like bait to the villains, and made them angry, so they kept coming back. No, not be like the punisher. What we have to accept though is the very idea of a super villain like Norman Osborn ever getting near the position of Top Cop during the Silver Age would be unheard of. The difference is, that Marvel was too innocent and soft in the Silver Age. They solved problems by just ignoring the problems. Now that the problems have come back to roost, a Man like Norman Osborn as Top cop makes more sense.

so because they don't have all the answers we should put Norman in charge. We should let him kill DD because Beast is going to mess with time? Moonknight, Mockingbird and Kitty Pryde should be murdered so Logan does not time travel? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Let's kill the mall to stop one. That is thinking the right way.

I don't know what the connection is here with DD or Kitty Pryde, so I can't comment on any of this. What does DD have to do with Beast? Mock and Kitty Pryde were already dead in AOU so that is irrelevant, but killing MK? Who knows if that changes anything to do with Logan's time travel?

My memory is foggy, but how long i remember, Osborn never cared about who were the casualties, costumed vigilantes, villains, inoccents; he simply didnt care.

That is only true until he joined the Thunderbolts after Civil War. After that, he was a different man.

[jackolover]

Ha yes, he ha them following orders until they stopped, and one killed the other because he had decided to kill Osborn. Good examples.

Siege culminated with Sentry melting down. Norman's influence on him was horrible and unleashed the Void. It actually boiled down to the Sentry/Void being the final big bad guy of the event.

Norman was doomed to fail all along, and all through his own selfish actions.

Ares was problematic in the Siege event because Ares was eventually going to find out it wasn't Loki, but Balder in charge of Asgard, so Ares was always going to get killed. Sentry self destructing could have been controlled if Loki didn't turn against Osborn, and used the Norn stones to better effect against the Void. The Avengers would be dead, and after the Void was contained in another dimension, the Dark Avengers could earn their retirement and the New Dark Avengers of the Hood Gang would take over their role - the New Heroic Age of Norman Osborn.

[hawkeyefan]

I think if Norman Osborns Dark Avengers were in charge, he would negotiate the problem villains away, like he did the Molecule Man. I don't think he would have killed them. But the super heroes were like bait to the villains, and made them angry, so they kept coming back. No, not be like the punisher. What we have to accept though is the very idea of a super villain like Norman Osborn ever getting near the position of Top Cop during the Silver Age would be unheard of. The difference is, that Marvel was too innocent and soft in the Silver Age. They solved problems by just ignoring the problems. Now that the problems have come back to roost, a Man like Norman Osborn as Top cop makes more sense.



I don't know what the connection is here with DD or Kitty Pryde, so I can't comment on any of this. What does DD have to do with Beast? Mock and Kitty Pryde were already dead in AOU so that is irrelevant, but killing MK? Who knows if that changes anything to do with Logan's time travel?



That is only true until he joined the Thunderbolts after Civil War. After that, he was a different man.

No, it's really not. He planned on using his new status for personal gain, and created a Cabal of other villains to share the wealth.

Occasionally, as a part of his job, he stopped threats that could have escalated, such as with the Molecule Man. But to say he should be top cop or that he was a different man than he had been before seems a bit off.

[Alan2099]

Now that the problems have come back to roost, a Man like Norman Osborn as Top cop makes more sense.

Norman being top cop makes about as much sense as Charles Manson being put in charge of the FBI.

With a different villain the idea would have at least been plausible. As some examples... Kingpin has enough clout to have his crimes swept under the rug and is good at playing the legitimate business man. Dr. Octopus has shown some signs of redemption in the past (even pre-Superior) and has actually helped the heroes at times and proven he can work as a leader. Baron Zemo... well, this isn't that huge a jump from his Thunderbolts plan. Norman though? he was publicly unmasked as being a grade A nutball. You catch the guy on the wrong day, he's practically running around the office in his undies licking the paint of the wall. How did he get that position?

[pageturner]

Even future Tony Stark pulled "now" Stark aside and admitted that the Ultron war that will start in the future was the Avengers fault. This all happened at the cusp of the Heroic Age, just as things were changing, as the Osborn influence was replaced by the super hero influence, and Simon Williams was definitely not on side with it, going to the extreme of attacking the Avengers in the Tower. And this couldn't but have alerted the Avengers to the effect they were having on the world, and, how this must have discouraged them somewhat going forward.

The heroes say every thing is their fault. Some guy gets shot and killed on the street some hero will blame themselves for not stopping the bad guy. If the Avengers never form the world is dead, no ff the world is dead, no x-men the world is dead. They don't have all the answers but even Stark knows they can't just take over.

[pageturner]

I think if Norman Osborns Dark Avengers were in charge, he would negotiate the problem villains away, like he did the Molecule Man. I don't think he would have killed them. But the super heroes were like bait to the villains, and made them angry, so they kept coming back. No, not be like the punisher. What we have to accept though is the very idea of a super villain like Norman Osborn ever getting near the position of Top Cop during the Silver Age would be unheard of. The difference is, that Marvel was too innocent and soft in the Silver Age. They solved problems by just ignoring the problems. Now that the problems have come back to roost, a Man like Norman Osborn as Top cop makes more sense.



I don't know what the connection is here with DD or Kitty Pryde, so I can't comment on any of this. What does DD have to do with Beast? Mock and Kitty Pryde were already dead in AOU so that is irrelevant, but killing MK? Who knows if that changes anything to do with Logan's time travel?

You want to put Norman in charge well he wants heroes dead. You want to stop Beast and Logan from time traveling well leaving Norman in charge many heroes will be dead. So DD and the rest are murdered but hey the time travel does not happen.

Although we do have the incredible ineptness of Norman's teams in actually completing their missions and murder attempts so there is that. But suppose in time he gets his way and most of the heroes are murdered who stops the Void when he eventually invades Asgard?

I also do not understand why you think Norman could make deals that will hold. There is no evidence he can work with anyone except the Hood. His Cabal fell apart quickly with 4 out of 5 of them turning on him. His Tbolts were amazingly ineffective.

I fail to see how he makes the world a better place. I don't see how the world continues to exist if he stays in power.

[jackolover]

Reading the beginnings of the Heroic Age, it becomes apparent, the super heroes don't know what they are doing to the world by their continued disregard for handling villains and going back to old habits again, like ignoring the aftermaths of encounters, taking the glory and moving on the bar, or Avengers Towers. They are perpetuating the same dysfunctional traits they have always shown.

There is an issue of Fantastic Four, ( #579), where Reed Richards addresses a forum Reed founded for bringing new ideas and dismisses them as being outmoded and too old to have fresh ideas. That's the super heroes. It's almost like Hickman is symbolising the old way of writing super heroes is gone, and they need new writers who come at things from a fresh perspective.

[stingnewell]

Jack, this is getting old and to prove Osborn is an irrepressible monster here are some scans
http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4690341.html
http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2212281.html

If you can't accept these scans are proof that Osborn is up their with Red Skull and Joker, well than I don't really care.

[pageturner]

Reading the beginnings of the Heroic Age, it becomes apparent, the super heroes don't know what they are doing to the world by their continued disregard for handling villains and going back to old habits again, like ignoring the aftermaths of encounters, taking the glory and moving on the bar, or Avengers Towers. They are perpetuating the same dysfunctional traits they have always shown.

There is an issue of Fantastic Four, ( #579), where Reed Richards addresses a forum Reed founded for bringing new ideas and dismisses them as being outmoded and too old to have fresh ideas. That's the super heroes. It's almost like Hickman is symbolising the old way of writing super heroes is gone, and they need new writers who come at things from a fresh perspective.

not really if you view it as a small window of time in the MU they have learned to deal with a huge number of threats on the fly. Ok some have been more effective than others and they still cannot build a jail that works but many more things done right than wrong.

[Ant-manic]

Norman being top cop makes about as much sense as Charles Manson being put in charge of the FBI.

With a different villain the idea would have at least been plausible. As some examples... Kingpin has enough clout to have his crimes swept under the rug and is good at playing the legitimate business man. Dr. Octopus has shown some signs of redemption in the past (even pre-Superior) and has actually helped the heroes at times and proven he can work as a leader. Baron Zemo... well, this isn't that huge a jump from his Thunderbolts plan. Norman though? he was publicly unmasked as being a grade A nutball. You catch the guy on the wrong day, he's practically running around the office in his undies licking the paint of the wall. How did he get that position?

oh stop. I don't know how many times some misguided individual has namedropped Kingpin as a worthy replacement. Fisk was proven to be an organized crime figure a long time ago. he was blinded and disgraced by low level rivals. and he lost his **** over Daredevil, of all people. he's a wannabe Osborn. and I'd love to see Zemo's version of this. but Dark Reign required an American villain. plus, Zemo could barely hold it together in the original Thunderbolts book. Moonstone was always having to remind him to reign in his arrogance/temper.

[Ant-manic]

You want to put Norman in charge well he wants heroes dead.

his first act was to recruit Ares and the Sentry. he asked Carol Danvers to remain an Avenger, as well. "hero" and "villain" are just labels. Norman proved that by offing the skrull queen and ascending to a leadership position. the only people Norman wants dead are those who actively oppose his agenda. if he's so evil, why wasn't Victoria Hand murdered?

[Ant-manic]

Ha yes, he ha them following orders until they stopped, and one killed the other because he had decided to kill Osborn. Good examples.

Siege culminated with Sentry melting down. Norman's influence on him was horrible and unleashed the Void. It actually boiled down to the Sentry/Void being the final big bad guy of the event.

it's patently untrue. Norman did not release the Void. he was the only thing standing between the Void and civilization. the Avengers, for some strange reason, released the Void. they did so by freeing Bob from prison and reminding him of who he was. they knew he was nuts and still used him as a weapon. they stood by as he kept Lindy prisoner. Norman gave Bob a way to deal w/ the madness. that's why the Sentry kept following his orders. and he never turned on Norman. the latter just stopped giving orders; having been pushed over the edge by Loki. and, like I mentioned before, Loki took the blame for all of this. he realized that his penchant for mischief had messed everything up. so he sacrificed himself. take Loki out of the equation and Norman and the Sentry are still in control of things. you're also wrong about it being a selfish action. they were attacking Asgard to make good on Osborn's original deal with Loki. it was Loki's selfishness that led to the end of Dark Reign.

[pageturner]

his first act was to recruit Ares and the Sentry. he asked Carol Danvers to remain an Avenger, as well. "hero" and "villain" are just labels. Norman proved that by offing the skrull queen and ascending to a leadership position. the only people Norman wants dead are those who actively oppose his agenda. if he's so evil, why wasn't Victoria Hand murdered?

He tried and failed to kill moonknight. He attacked the FF and he got his hat handed to him by val. He sent the tbolts to kill people but they could not get it done. He shot Fury in the head but whoops he failed again LMD. He sent a bomb at the NA but screwed up and blew up his own house.
Norman is the poster child for incompetent he spent years getting bested by a teenager just because he failed at murder does not make mean he was not trying to kill them.

Ares is a former villain (kinda) himself so no reach there. Sentry is a bigger loon that Norman if that is possible. There is no way you can take the job offer to Carol as sincere.

If you want to continue this "stick" please save it for Mike Kerr and his fantasies.

[Ant-manic]

He tried and failed to kill moonknight.

Captain America and Tony Stark atttempted to sideline Marc; during Civil War. because he's effin insane. he was going around carving moons in people's foreheads.

He attacked the FF and he got his hat handed to him by val.

SHIELD is currently attacking the FF.

He sent the tbolts to kill people but they could not get it done.

he had a reason for every attempt.

He shot Fury in the head but whoops he failed again LMD. He sent a bomb at the NA but screwed up and blew up his own house.
Norman is the poster child for incompetent he spent years getting bested by a teenager just because he failed at murder does not make mean he was not trying to kill them.

he was incompetent because the writers needed him to be. it's the illusion of change. do you consider Spider-man to be an incompetent because Norman is continually returning/escaping justice.

If you want to continue this "stick" please save it for Mike Kerr and his fantasies.

did you mean to write "schtick?"