New Avengers #24 Review (w/spoilers)

[ShaokhaN]

the better situation to look at is the boat scene in The Dark Knight. Joker's entire plan was based on showing the world their true nature, by putting them in the same situation that The Great Destroyer has put the multiverse. Are the prisoners and civilians cowards for their decision?

I've already addressed this comparison several times. The TDK scene had three outs which were absent from the incursion the Illuminati were facing: 1. he's bluffing, 2. someone will stop him in time, 3. if there are explosives, they won't necessarily go off/kill us. Also, one boat = half of the population in danger, while one planet = a tiny, tiny fraction of the population of two universes in danger. My image was more accurate, since like in the case of the incursion there would be certain death if nothing was done.

[ShaokhaN]

I think you're kind of losing your own point here. Majestik answered the question, but that doesn't mean he will agree to an equivocation that simply doesn't exist in the situation.

Maybe people on these destroyed Earths would be okay with the outcome if they knew what was happening. Some probably would, some probably wouldn't. That's neither here nor there, though, since part of what makes what Namor has done so horrible is that these people don't know and have no say in it. That's a vital component to the reality of this necessary evil.

Namor isn't making excuses for what he's done, so I don't think making them for him is necessary either. He knows what he's done. He's honorable enough to acknowledge the dishonor in what he is doing. Trying to take the "evil" out of "necessary evil" is missing the point.

I'm not saying that everyone on the destroyed Earth was indeed ok with it. I was simply pointing out to Majestik that if everyone on that Earth had been thinking like him and me, namely that they'd rather live 30 min less if that meant two universes would survive their death, then by definition the destroyed Earth's population would be ok with Namor destroying it as opposed to doing nothing. There's no equivocation here.

[TakoM]

Kings are above the station of the common man and common law. They ratify the law of the land, they are rarely subject to it because they aren't subjects, they are rulers.

As for a remote detonator, it was established that one of the Illuminati had to pull the trigger or they'd have just had Iron Man teleport to a Wal-Mart car park and ask any random person to pull the detonator. But it doesn't work like that, you need to be in visible range of the incursion and have one of those teleporters/alert devices in your hand.

I think you have a point here possible not in the direction you wanted but it show how the others in the Iluminati also are responsible for the explosion of that one earth not Narmor alone.
The built the bomb, they made the way clear by killing the other superheroes and who pressed the button wasn't this important any more.(but yeah he will have a lot of guilt on him)

[Juggernaut Punch]

But Namor still allied himself with these demons, yes?

A necessary evil, yes?

I thought Namor regretted nothing?

There's more horror to come so I hope the Avenging Son is ready.

Did you miss this?

[Mark]

Kings are above the station of the common man and common law. They ratify the law of the land, they are rarely subject to it because they aren't subjects, they are rulers.

In their own kingdom perhaps. Not outside of it.

[Trident]

I honestly don't understand how some think that Namor revels in killing after his speech in these pages....




I understand that not everyone is going to be as knowledgeable about Namor history but it sorta seems strange. I guess I would understand better if he threw his head back in maniacal laughter or something but that didn't occur. Could someone explain that to me?

[jackolover]

Here we are 8 comic boxes since the end of Siege, and are the humans happy what they got when the super heroes returned? You have to wonder if Norman Osborns prophetic words, when he was placed in his cell, have come true. "Something a super hero or heroes do will crack open the Earth", and "the world is going from one chaotic encounter after an another". Others, like Daken, have said it was just a game, all these super heroic encounters. Not that in any way could the humans stop the encounters from happening, but they must be wondering now, "what have we done, letting these super heroes run around and do whatever they liked"? Surely there must be some way to counter this problem of the Cabal dictating who they want to destroy next? They shouldn't even be here. The humans don't know why the Cabal have been ignited, and that it is to do with Incursions. All they know is, that all this crazy alien, mutant, inhuman, super human stuff has led to this. The humans must be very disappointed in what it has all led down too. Happy were the days, when a super human just flew in and punched someone out, and a villain was led into jail. Those nostalgic days are all gone now.

I just wonder what assurances the super heroes gave the government at the start of the Heroic Age?

That the world would be a better place with them in it?
Or, that it will be a worse place without them in it?

[neohuey89]

I've already addressed this comparison several times. The TDK scene had three outs which were absent from the incursion the Illuminati were facing: 1. he's bluffing, 2. someone will stop him in time, 3. if there are explosives, they won't necessarily go off/kill us. Also, one boat = half of the population in danger, while one planet = a tiny, tiny fraction of the population of two universes in danger. My image was more accurate, since like in the case of the incursion there would be certain death if nothing was done.

The Dark Knight had outs , but the people on the boat didn't know that. If Joker actually had the bombs triggered everyone would have died, but that that's the chance that everyone took, because no one had it in themselves to kill the other group. It's not the numbers that are important. It's the idea that would you, could you, and should you kill an innocent person/people in order to save yourself/someone else.

[XPac]

The Dark Knight had outs , but the people on the boat didn't know that. If Joker actually had the bombs triggered everyone would have died, but that that's the chance that everyone took, because no one had it in themselves to kill the other group. It's not the numbers that are important. It's the idea that would you, could you, and should you kill an innocent person/people in order to save yourself/someone else.

I disagree that numbers aren't important. When you start talking about the entire universe ending as opposed to a few dozen people on a boat, it can DRASTICALLY effect what a person might do.

You might be willing to gamble that someone will save the day or that it's a bluff if the scale is much smaller. One would be lessing willing to take that chance if the entire universe is on the line.

As a crude example of how scale can change ones behavior, how many of us are willing to spend a buck on a lotto ticket? Odds are a good number of us. How many of us are willing to gamble our lifes savings away? Odds are that number is considerably smaller. You can't ignore scale and say it's the same thing. Numbers at a certain point can and often DO make a difference. In this case, the scale is massive to the point where I'd argue it would almost be impossible not to factor that into the equation.

[neohuey89]

I disagree that numbers aren't important. When you start talking about the entire universe ending as opposed to a few dozen people on a boat, it can DRASTICALLY effect what a person might do.

You might be willing to gamble that someone will save the day or that it's a bluff if the scale is much smaller. One would be lessing willing to take that chance if the entire universe is on the line.

As a crude example of how scale can change ones behavior, how many of us are willing to spend a buck on a lotto ticket? Odds are a good number of us. How many of us are willing to gamble our lifes savings away? Odds are that number is considerably smaller. You can't ignore scale and say it's the same thing. Numbers at a certain point can and often DO make a difference. In this case, the scale is massive to the point where I'd argue it would almost be impossible not to factor that into the equation.

You're making it a mathematical problem, but the story isn't about 1<100. It's the principle. It's the moral idea. Another movie I can bring up as an example is iRobot. Will Smith's character hated robots and nobody understood why until he told the story about how he and a child were drowning and the robot saved Will Smith instead of the child simply because his chance of survival was higher. Will Smith didn't care, because (morally) you don't leave a child to die. Logically it makes more sense to blow up and kill a billion people than to let 100x that die, but it's not an argument of Logic. It's the argument of morality. How many people were saved when Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped? Yet still the creators of those bombs live in regret and actually started speaking out against nuclear weapons simply because morally they felt that it was wrong to kill all the people they did.

[Double 0]

The Illuminati tried to make it mathematical. That's why they took out Cap, but when it came down to it, couldn't destroy a populated Earth.

[Trident]

The Dark Knight had outs , but the people on the boat didn't know that. If Joker actually had the bombs triggered everyone would have died, but that that's the chance that everyone took, because no one had it in themselves to kill the other group. It's not the numbers that are important. It's the idea that would you, could you, and should you kill an innocent person/people in order to save yourself/someone else.

I get the point you are trying to make but the scenario is very different.

The decision being made in NA is whether everything does or everything lives. The boat analogy doesn't work because only the lives on each boat were at stake not the existence of all that is.

[XPac]

You're making it a mathematical problem, but the story isn't about 1<100. It's the principle. It's the moral idea. Another movie I can bring up as an example is iRobot. Will Smith's character hated robots and nobody understood why until he told the story about how he and a child were drowning and the robot saved Will Smith instead of the child simply because his chance of survival was higher. Will Smith didn't care, because (morally) you don't leave a child to die. Logically it makes more sense to blow up and kill a billion people than to let 100x that die, but it's not an argument of Logic. It's the argument of morality. How many people were saved when Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped? Yet still the creators of those bombs live in regret and actually started speaking out against nuclear weapons simply because morally they felt that it was wrong to kill all the people they did.

It's not just a mathmatical problem... I'm saying in some cases a persons moral compass with shift dependent on the scale. People willing to gamble on the lives of a few dozen people on a boat might not be willing to do that with the fate of the entire universe on the line. Are there some who might act exactly the same regardless of the scale of it? Sure. But I think there are many many who would factor that into their decision making process.

And that's especially true in a situation like this one, where frankly the people who the Illuminati or Cabal might kill would die either way.

[Emma's Midriff]

You're making it a mathematical problem, but the story isn't about 1<100. It's the principle. It's the moral idea. Another movie I can bring up as an example is iRobot. Will Smith's character hated robots and nobody understood why until he told the story about how he and a child were drowning and the robot saved Will Smith instead of the child simply because his chance of survival was higher. Will Smith didn't care, because (morally) you don't leave a child to die. Logically it makes more sense to blow up and kill a billion people than to let 100x that die, but it's not an argument of Logic. It's the argument of morality. How many people were saved when Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped? Yet still the creators of those bombs live in regret and actually started speaking out against nuclear weapons simply because morally they felt that it was wrong to kill all the people they did.

I don't understand how letting universes die is any more moral an destroying a planet. *shrug*

[PocketfulofKryptonite]

In their own kingdom perhaps. Not outside of it.

Yes, even outside of it. It's called crown immunity. Civil action may be taken but not criminal proceedings.