Was Norman Osborn Right?

[jackolover]

This might be an effective argument if we were talking about Dr. Doom or Magneto, villains who least have some interest in improving the world. Osborn is not one of those villains, he is an immoral monster, who will always put himself above anything else, has no redeeming values.

He created a system that was so corrupt, it was broken from day one, Doom and Magneto would not tolerated the level of corruption that Osborn was comfortable with. His system would have allowed super villains to ride rough shot over people (as long as they were not too open it) and he ultimately pissed away his position, by launching an attack on Asgard. Osborn is architect of his own misfortunes here.

Osborn is both a psychopath and a psychotic, which is a very bad combination, I would not trust him to know what is good for the planet. He created a system so corrupt it was unstable and he is such a loose cannon, that he was going to endanger everything sooner or later. He didn't offer a little dictatorship in exchange for reality survival, he offered a corrupt and unstable system that was not positive in any way.

Plus heroes have managed to save the universe several times already, I think they are better at then Osborn is.

Osborn is the guy who was willing to let Red Skull in Cap's body, take Cap's place. I have to question the judgement of the guy who thinks letting a mass murdering Nazi criminal inhabiting Cap's body work as one of his official representatives. Really Osborn has more common with someone like red Skull then he does Magneto or Doom, both are cruel sadistic monsters who have no redeeming values, I wouldn't someone that immoral in charge.

I can understand the criticism against Norman Osborns control of the world. Rome controlled the world for 2000 years by the same despotic action. I'm not saying Osborn is a great leader who gives justice. I'm saying Osborn makes a satisfactory leader, that keeps super heroes away from the tools that have wrecked the Marvel Universe.

I do think there can be an argument that a despot, like the one who ruled Yugoslavia, (not that this example is satisfactory, because it has been proven that freedom worked better), can stop people from tearing each other apart, and that this is preferable to an outcome which is terminal, as it is now in the MU. I just think the super heroes did a pretty bad job of it. Thinking back, in Osborns Dark Reign, that would never have happened, because the villains were less complicated and there wouldn't have been any criminal activity that would lead to all out war or the destruction of Space-Time.

Doom would have had less reason to disagree with Osborn, if Osborn destroyed the Avengers. I think the FF and the mutants would have packed up and left for places elsewhere, so that Osborns Dark Avengers couldn't find them. Okay, the gen pop wouldn't have as rosy a walk down the street anymore, but how would their fate be compared to what it is now? I think I see at least 2 maybe 3 realities playing out right now one of which destroyed the Earth, and another, (Ultimate Universe) that had been destroyed 3 times already. Apart from the lack of judice prudence, the Dark Reign was a relative calm period.

[dragonmp93]

I can understand the criticism against Norman Osborns control of the world. Rome controlled the world for 2000 years by the same despotic action. I'm not saying Osborn is a great leader who gives justice. I'm saying Osborn makes a satisfactory leader, that keeps super heroes away from the tools that have wrecked the Marvel Universe.

I do think there can be an argument that a despot, like the one who ruled Yugoslavia, (not that this example is satisfactory, because it has been proven that freedom worked better), can stop people from tearing each other apart, and that this is preferable to an outcome which is terminal, as it is now in the MU. I just think the super heroes did a pretty bad job of it. Thinking back, in Osborns Dark Reign, that would never have happened, because the villains were less complicated and there wouldn't have been any criminal activity that would lead to all out war or the destruction of Space-Time.

Doom would have had less reason to disagree with Osborn, if Osborn destroyed the Avengers. I think the FF and the mutants would have packed up and left for places elsewhere, so that Osborns Dark Avengers couldn't find them. Okay, the gen pop wouldn't have as rosy a walk down the street anymore, but how would their fate be compared to what it is now? I think I see at least 2 maybe 3 realities playing out right now one of which destroyed the Earth, and another, (Ultimate Universe) that had been destroyed 3 times already. Apart from the lack of judice prudence, the Dark Reign was a relative calm period.

Now, i really believe that you are confusing Osborn with Doctor Doom and Magneto; they do want that kind of things, but not Osborn, he only wants power and impunity.

[Username taken]

Osborn stated in the last Dark Avengers, that the world had to control the super humans, the mutants and the monsters, or they would ruin the Earth because of their machinations. He tried to quell their actions, but was removed before he could achieve it.

Now, since the Heroic Age, his warnings come back to haunt us. If it wasn't for the super heroes, Ultron would not have been made. Because of Ultron, the super humans overused time travel and caused the Builders machine to break, making them come to destroy the Earth. Because of the super humans the Inhumans have now infected the rest of humanity and made more super humans who aren't controlled. Now the kings of the super heroes, the Illuminati, are setting up the conditions to destroy Earth, because of these incursions, by using weapons that are planet busters. Right now there is a set of alternate realities in play, including DimensionZ and Uncanny Avengers destroying one possible Earth.

If Osborn was still around today, the Heroic Age would not be upon us, and Ultron would be his problem, instead of Hank Pym;, the Red Skulls daughter may have had no reason to unleash Fear Itself; and who knows why the Phoenix came to Earth? It may have done just as Scott Summers said it would.

Is there any truth to Norman Osborns beliefs that the super humans are the cause of Earths now spiralling out of control and the multiverse fracturing into pieces?

I don't really re-call making these sort of arguments.

It was Tony Stark suggesting some form of control over the world's heroes and that led to the Superhero Registration Act (and Civil War).

Osborn wanted the heroes out of the way to carry out his "evil".

[jackolover]

Kang called it, in Avengers #1 HA, when he said the Avengers were going to break the universe, and it was Simon Williams, Wonderman, who recognised it too, when he attacked the Avengers for reforming again. The signs were there, and people knew the super heroes were doing something that eventually would lead to disaster.

[jackolover]

Now, i really believe that you are confusing Osborn with Doctor Doom and Magneto; they do want that kind of things, but not Osborn, he only wants power and impunity.

Not if you read his disatation on the matter at the time he formed the Cabal. Read that again. He was very logical and had a vision for the world. He wasn't a raving lunatic, as everybody seems to be suggesting here.

[jackolover]

I don't really re-call making these sort of arguments.

It was Tony Stark suggesting some form of control over the world's heroes and that led to the Superhero Registration Act (and Civil War).

Osborn wanted the heroes out of the way to carry out his "evil".

It may be a little vague what Osborns ultimate aims were at the start, while he was in charge of the TBolts as he won the Skrull War, but after he took over, he described it was the super humans, the mutants and the monsters were ruining the world, and he was going to stop them. I think he had a point. Not, that Osborn wanted to "carry out his evil". What people interpret from Osborns behaviour is that statement, but, he was also tying up a lot of criminals from doing a lot of evil by shoving them in the Initiative, and the Dark Avengers.

If what we got was Mark Millars "WANTED", then that would have suited Osborn down to a T.

[Mark]

On the other hand it is the government who put Norman in charge knowing who and what he was. Given the world that Tony and others on the pro-reg side created in cw I think Norman was a good fit for what their ultimate goals were, he was just a bit too extreme for them. I'm sure if he had offered Carol Danvers a job she would have jumped at the chance. Same for Hill and a lot of other pro-regs.

This might be an effective argument if we were talking about Dr. Doom or Magneto, villains who least have some interest in improving the world. Osborn is not one of those villains, he is an immoral monster, who will always put himself above anything else, has no redeeming values.

He created a system that was so corrupt, it was broken from day one, Doom and Magneto would not tolerated the level of corruption that Osborn was comfortable with. His system would have allowed super villains to ride rough shot over people (as long as they were not too open it) and he ultimately pissed away his position, by launching an attack on Asgard. Osborn is architect of his own misfortunes here.

Osborn is both a psychopath and a psychotic, which is a very bad combination, I would not trust him to know what is good for the planet. He created a system so corrupt it was unstable and he is such a loose cannon, that he was going to endanger everything sooner or later. He didn't offer a little dictatorship in exchange for reality survival, he offered a corrupt and unstable system that was not positive in any way.

Plus heroes have managed to save the universe several times already, I think they are better at then Osborn is.

Osborn is the guy who was willing to let Red Skull in Cap's body, take Cap's place. I have to question the judgement of the guy who thinks letting a mass murdering Nazi criminal inhabiting Cap's body work as one of his official representatives. Really Osborn has more common with someone like red Skull then he does Magneto or Doom, both are cruel sadistic monsters who have no redeeming values, I wouldn't someone that immoral in charge.

[jackolover]

You know what happened to the Watchers when they gave nuclear technology to primitive humanoids? The humanoids destroyed themselves and their planet in a decade. Marvel Boy, or the Protector, said the same things to Tony Stark. " You can't have technology you haven't earned. You would destroy yourselves in a years time". Well it took longer than a year, but Earth managed to get into the position of destroying itself soon after. The super humans have been managing to get and use Alien tech for as long as the Silver Age has been going, and is it a surprise that now Space-Time has been ruined? The Silver Surfer, Ultimo, the Mandarin rings, the Tinkerer. These are just a few of the interactions that have been made by Aliens on Earth. Carol Danvers is a result of Alien tech interaction, and look at the Gauntlet and the girl who also had an alien weapon on her arm from the Initiative. As soon as the super humans got their hands on a Time machine, they never stopped using them, till it became too much. This is why Kang never came back to warn the Avengers they were breaking time. Kang did the self same thing a little while later.

[pageturner]

It's not just the heroes messing up, no, but there wouldn't be any villains messing up with the Cabal in charge either, unless they wanted to go up against the Void.

but the villains always mess up that is how it works. They are often more powerful but they lose because of stupidity, carelessness or ego. I don't know what you mean about the void being this over arching power that never happened.

[pageturner]

On the other hand it is the government who put Norman in charge knowing who and what he was. Given the world that Tony and others on the pro-reg side created in cw I think Norman was a good fit for what their ultimate goals were, he was just a bit too extreme for them. I'm sure if he had offered Carol Danvers a job she would have jumped at the chance. Same for Hill and a lot of other pro-regs.

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.

[pageturner]

I can understand the criticism against Norman Osborns control of the world. Rome controlled the world for 2000 years by the same despotic action. I'm not saying Osborn is a great leader who gives justice. I'm saying Osborn makes a satisfactory leader, that keeps super heroes away from the tools that have wrecked the Marvel Universe.

I do think there can be an argument that a despot, like the one who ruled Yugoslavia, (not that this example is satisfactory, because it has been proven that freedom worked better), can stop people from tearing each other apart, and that this is preferable to an outcome which is terminal, as it is now in the MU. I just think the super heroes did a pretty bad job of it. Thinking back, in Osborns Dark Reign, that would never have happened, because the villains were less complicated and there wouldn't have been any criminal activity that would lead to all out war or the destruction of Space-Time.

Doom would have had less reason to disagree with Osborn, if Osborn destroyed the Avengers. I think the FF and the mutants would have packed up and left for places elsewhere, so that Osborns Dark Avengers couldn't find them. Okay, the gen pop wouldn't have as rosy a walk down the street anymore, but how would their fate be compared to what it is now? I think I see at least 2 maybe 3 realities playing out right now one of which destroyed the Earth, and another, (Ultimate Universe) that had been destroyed 3 times already. Apart from the lack of judice prudence, the Dark Reign was a relative calm period.

So what happens when Hope gets the PF if the heroes are scattered and no one is set up to help her? Never mind Ultron the world is already gone.

Norman in a lunatic who puts on a good face. That does not make him any less a loon. Do you really think he would have stopped at the US borders if he got his way. Doom was already figuring out ways to take him down. He would have had little trouble gathering an opposing force if he needed one.

A dictator can make the trains run on time that does not mean it is a better life.

[Mikekerr3]

Thats a simplistic way of looking at Osborns agenda. A more probable way of seeing Osborns agenda is to keep super humans away from interfering with the mechanics of reality, and thus busting it.

that is an interpration that has nothing in the comics to back itup. Where did you gwet that idea on his motivation from

There is a good argument to say that the super heroes had too much freedom to tamper with things that don't concern them, like time travel, and the Infinity Gems, and the Ultimate Nullifier. If the heroes had stuck to just countering the big bad, then the world wouldn't be in the mess it is now.

In almost all of those cases the heroes had little or no choice in whether they got involved, not getting involved would simply be suicidal for Earth in most of those cases

[Ant-manic]

I liked the Marvel Universe when Osborn was in charge. so, yeah, I'd say that he was right.

[Ant-manic]

Osborn stated in the last Dark Avengers, that the world had to control the super humans, the mutants and the monsters, or they would ruin the Earth because of their machinations. He tried to quell their actions, but was removed before he could achieve it.

Now, since the Heroic Age, his warnings come back to haunt us. If it wasn't for the super heroes, Ultron would not have been made. Because of Ultron, the super humans overused time travel and caused the Builders machine to break, making them come to destroy the Earth. Because of the super humans the Inhumans have now infected the rest of humanity and made more super humans who aren't controlled. Now the kings of the super heroes, the Illuminati, are setting up the conditions to destroy Earth, because of these incursions, by using weapons that are planet busters. Right now there is a set of alternate realities in play, including DimensionZ and Uncanny Avengers destroying one possible Earth.

If Osborn was still around today, the Heroic Age would not be upon us, and Ultron would be his problem, instead of Hank Pym;, the Red Skulls daughter may have had no reason to unleash Fear Itself; and who knows why the Phoenix came to Earth? It may have done just as Scott Summers said it would.

Is there any truth to Norman Osborns beliefs that the super humans are the cause of Earths now spiralling out of control and the multiverse fracturing into pieces?

The Hulk's daughter (from the future) pretty much confirmed that Norman was right.

[Ant-manic]

Norman Osborn is a selfish psychopath who actively created a corrupt system that aided super villains in their schemes and screwed over the general public. Norman's claims lost moral legitimacy from one day.

that's just it. Norman never claimed moral legitimacy. because morals have nothing to do with it. he was brilliant about working within the system that was already in place. the heroes don't understand it. so they fight against the injustice. and, in doing so, they make things worse. Norman, instead of attempting to fight, chose to steer the injustice. he used villains against more dangerous villains; the crazies, the uncontrollable, the genocidal. you know what didn't happen during Osborn's time in office? the skrull invasion. civil war. Onslaught. a mass infiltration of SHIELD. Secret Wars. Thanos and his generals coming to town. things weren't necessarily better or worse. and that's the point Norman was trying to make. the labels don't matter. it all comes down to managerial skills. who can take charge and keep others in line? Steve Rogers sure can't do it. Doom couldn't do it without mind control.