Secret Empire #8 [Spoilers]

[Prof. Warren]

I felt like they took an easy way out when they reveal that Hydracap had a fragment on him and that's what save him instead of Miles choosing to still be a hero, i may not be a fan of Miles but i still feel his character had that moment stolen from him. Also why is Nick Spencer making such drastic decisions like the possibility of having Strange lose the Sanctum? He has no right to mess with work that isn't his, i expected better than that but instead he pulled a Bendis...for shame Spencer.

It's not like Spencer is making these decisions in a vacuum without editorial input or consulting other writers.

In fact, it's more likely that Spencer is simply incorporating changes that others writers have already come up with and SE is laying the groundwork for them.

And in regards to Miles, ultimately it's more heroic that he abstain from murder - even in the case of HydraCap.

[Michael Watkins]

To play devil's advocate, wasn't Steve doing the responsible thing by having the Avengers kill that monster; in the first issue? Had the Avengers been too lax with threats, in the past?

[penthotal]

Also why is Nick Spencer making such drastic decisions like the possibility of having Strange lose the Sanctum? He has no right to mess with work that isn't his, i expected better than that but instead he pulled a Bendis...for shame Spencer.

Because being the writer of the story he also know that at the end of the issue Strange won't have lost his house. What's drastic and messy in a minor plot point that's started and it's concluded without repercussions in the same issue?

[Mike_Murdock]

It's also clearly intended as a joke. It's a moment of humor and levity playing on the idea that all magic has a cost but taking that cost in an unexpected, literal way.

[Biclopcicle]

Yeah I don't think Strange is out of the Sanctum. And even if he were that would be the least terrible thing they've done with the character since Secret Wars

[JKtheMac]

To play devil's advocate, wasn't Steve doing the responsible thing by having the Avengers kill that monster; in the first issue? Had the Avengers been too lax with threats, in the past?

It is certainly a commentary on killing the monster, and the Avengers tie-in with the team dispatching the creatures at the shield transmitter explored the flip side of this. The difficulty of allowing your heroes to kill monsters is in the definition of the monster. I suspect a country like mine, where the death penalty has not existed in my lifetime, we may see things slightly differently.

[JKtheMac]

It's also clearly intended as a joke. It's a moment of humor and levity playing on the idea that all magic has a cost but taking that cost in an unexpected, literal way.

Yes, an accounting cost, payable in full, in prime real estate. Definitely a joke. There have been quite a number of jokes in Marvel that have had equally poe-faced reactions recently. I do wonder if comic readers need to lighten up a little. Certainly from a UK standpoint, with our general irreverence and askew perspective, US comics desperately need more humour in their stories. Anybody would think we are supposed to take costumed heroes seriously. I thought we had all learnt the lessons of the nineties.

[Michael Watkins]

It is certainly a commentary on killing the monster, and the Avengers tie-in with the team dispatching the creatures at the shield transmitter explored the flip side of this. The difficulty of allowing your heroes to kill monsters is in the definition of the monster. I suspect a country like mine, where the death penalty has not existed in my lifetime, we may see things slightly differently.

how about you? do you see it differently? would you kill to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones? because that monster was certainly there to kill people. and it had absolutely no fear of being stopped from that task. this wasn't even a death penalty case. the monster wasn't going to get its day in court. in the past, Reed Richards or someone would have done capture and release. or maybe it would have been locked away in a secret prison; only to break out during the chaos of some later event.

[JKtheMac]

how about you? do you see it differently? would you kill to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones? because that monster was certainly there to kill people. and it had absolutely no fear of being stopped from that task. this wasn't even a death penalty case. the monster wasn't going to get its day in court. in the past, Reed Richards or someone would have done capture and release. or maybe it would have been locked away in a secret prison; only to break out during the chaos of some later event.

I mercifully will never be asked to stand on a jury where the decision of life or death would be made. As to the killings here they were not lawful by any stretch of the imagination. There was no deliberation of any kind, just an arbitrary decision to kill.