Was Norman Osborn Right?

[Alvarez]

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

That entire incident was awesome.

[Ant-manic]

That entire incident was awesome.

that right there is a good reason to apprehend the Fantastic Four. those little monsters will eventually be a threat to everyone.

[Alvarez]

that right there is a good reason to apprehend the Fantastic Four. those little monsters will eventually be a threat to everyone.

How dare those children defend themselves from a murderous psychopath.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Clearly the man who wears a Goblin mask and is overly obsessed with a man dressed like a Spider knows what's up.

[stingnewell]

How dare those children defend themselves from a murderous psychopath.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Clearly the man who wears a Goblin mask and is overly obsessed with a man dressed like a Spider knows what's up.

Oh this is hilarious we need to throw more random stuff at the Norman fans. Read more of their hilarious response that Norman is some
benign figure. This thread is pure gold.

[Ant-manic]

you know what's funnier? the FF leaving one of their children in the hands of a murderous psychopath; one who was part of Norman's Cabal, btw.

[pageturner]

did you mean to write "schtick?"

yes, yes I did

[Mark]

Norman offered Carol Danvers a job said no Avenger would work with him. Of course Norman then pointed to Sentry and Ares but there you go.

Really? I missed that, but by then I was reading less and less marvel. Given Carol's fascist leanings in cw I would have thought she'd jump at the chance to work for him.

[Huntsman Spider]

Really? I missed that, but by then I was reading less and less marvel. Given Carol's fascist leanings in cw I would have thought she'd jump at the chance to work for him.

Carol had standards. She'd fought beside Tony for years as fellow Avengers and he helped her when she fell off the wagon after the utter quagmire that was her life since becoming an Avenger finally sank in, so she didn't see much of a reason to doubt that he had the best of intentions even if, as her own series showed, she was starting to have some serious doubts about how they were carrying on in Civil War. Norman Osborn, on the other hand, was and is a murderous psychotic with a god complex and nil in terms of empathy who spent years royally f***ing up somebody's life because that somebody didn't have the good grace to let himself be killed by Norman so Norman could score some street cred with the Mafia and taking sadistic relish in every piece of suffering he inflicted on said somebody. Even if most of that wasn't public record, let's not forget that what was public record was that he massacred a bunch of reporters in a fit of pique and that wasn't the first or last time he attempted, let alone succeeded in, mass murder of people for getting on his nerves. You really think someone like Carol, who as a military veteran would hold self-discipline as one of the greatest and most necessary of virtues for success, would agree to work for someone with blatant impulse control problems, let alone coupled with the kind of sociopathy and sadism Osborn displays on a regular basis?

[Anarchist]

*Osborn* and *Right* does not compute.
Ever.

[Mark]

Well I didn't really think she'd turn on fellow Avengers either, or that she'd beat up a woman in front of her daughter so she could throw that woman into the negative zone for life. Not the woman who once threatened a federal agent to keep her own secret id secret. But I have to face the fact that the Carol I liked died when Claremont sacrificed her to give Rogue a storyline. All that's left of the Carol I liked is the name Carol Danvers. I'm sometimes surprised with all the changes her latest writer has made that she's kept that.
Still look at it from Norman's point of view. Carol did go after fellow heroes at government orders, the same government that put him (knowing who he was and that's be a conveniently overlooked fact, that someone in the government handed him that post, but that's the unsophisticated marvel writers knowing nothing about how government works) in charge of HAMMER. Also after cw Carol was rewarded with A-lister status (she didn't need her publicist anymore), her own SHIELD strike force and made leader of the Avengers. From the outside looking in it had to seem to Norman -with his worldview- that Carol had sold out and would work for anyone who offered her a similar offer.
In fact if you look at cw/wwh from Norman's point of view you see sell outs and cynical opportunism all over the place, not the nobility and self sacrifice that heroes had always thrown in his face. He must have figured that Tony Stark was simply better at PR than he was and since from his point of view Carol kissed Tony's feet she'd kiss his. Given Carol's lack of support to She-Hulk after what Tony did to her and the way Tony hunted the rest of the renegade Avengers I can see why. Even if Tony hadn't wired up Norman's brain and gotten away with it the rest of the stuff he did in cw pretty much would have confirmed Norman's world view.

Carol had standards. She'd fought beside Tony for years as fellow Avengers and he helped her when she fell off the wagon after the utter quagmire that was her life since becoming an Avenger finally sank in, so she didn't see much of a reason to doubt that he had the best of intentions even if, as her own series showed, she was starting to have some serious doubts about how they were carrying on in Civil War. Norman Osborn, on the other hand, was and is a murderous psychotic with a god complex and nil in terms of empathy who spent years royally f***ing up somebody's life because that somebody didn't have the good grace to let himself be killed by Norman so Norman could score some street cred with the Mafia and taking sadistic relish in every piece of suffering he inflicted on said somebody. Even if most of that wasn't public record, let's not forget that what was public record was that he massacred a bunch of reporters in a fit of pique and that wasn't the first or last time he attempted, let alone succeeded in, mass murder of people for getting on his nerves. You really think someone like Carol, who as a military veteran would hold self-discipline as one of the greatest and most necessary of virtues for success, would agree to work for someone with blatant impulse control problems, let alone coupled with the kind of sociopathy and sadism Osborn displays on a regular basis?

[dragonmp93]

that right there is a good reason to apprehend the Fantastic Four. those little monsters will eventually be a threat to everyone.

I cant tell if you are serious or not ?.

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Osborn had Bullseye kill Bob's wife, so yeah, that's the guy you're defending.

And if you want to blame it all on Loki's influence, Norman invited Loki into the Cabal, so again, it's his fault.

Since the first issue of Ellis's Thunderbolts, Osborn was shown as struggling with his sanity despite his medication. So it was only a matter of time. Your defense of him is based entirely on rhetoric and faulty logic.

[Mark]

I think the question is not whether Osborn was crazy or evil, but whether regardless of being crazy and evil he was right anyway.

Osborn had Bullseye kill Bob's wife, so yeah, that's the guy you're defending.

And if you want to blame it all on Loki's influence, Norman invited Loki into the Cabal, so again, it's his fault.

Since the first issue of Ellis's Thunderbolts, Osborn was shown as struggling with his sanity despite his medication. So it was only a matter of time. Your defense of him is based entirely on rhetoric and faulty logic.

[hawkeyefan]

I think the question is not whether Osborn was crazy or evil, but whether regardless of being crazy and evil he was right anyway.

Right about what? That the heroes are no good? Clearly he was not right. Flawed as the heroes are, they are clearly preferable to the likes of Osborn.

It's like saying Obama or Bush isn't perfect, so we should give the job to Ted Bundee.

[Kisinith]

No. There is a difference from making a somewhat correct observation and being right. Yes super-powered shenanigans are the greatest threat facing the Marvel U. Considering how often the world is at stake that’s an inarguable point. However, those same problems are solved by superhero’s. Further how did Osborn try and solve these issues? Heroics? Inspiration? Not so much, more like by fraud, intimidation, blackmail and murder. Not really seeing that as heroic, also indefensibly villainous.

Now that said, Osborn or someone maybe 2 degrees less psychotic like Hand or Gyrich should have remained in charge. There is too much story potential in an antagonistic government agency. It would also make the various stories flow better across titles with less of a disconnect. Its always jarring to go from X-Men where the government is typically passively hostile to outright villainous to Avengers where typically everything is awesome.

It would also solve one of the major plot holes in Marvel comics, why haven’t the superhero’s fixed the common ills of the world? Why haven’t Reed Richards and Tony Stark solved world hunger yet? As it stands its because reasons. An antagonistic mistrusting government agency blocking things makes a hell of a lot more sense than “because reasons”.