Is villainy defined solely on one's actions? Or does intent play a role? Namor > Red Skull?

[Mikekerr3]

I wonder if the same folks that support Namor would feel the same about Bishop

Namor murdered 9 BILLION people just to make it easier to commit infanticide?

[Mikekerr3]

I support Namor.

I do not support Bishop.

Because quite frankly, the reasons given (by the writer(s)) for Bishop's genocidal pursuit of Hope (a character I despise, btw) make absolutely no sense wot-so-ever and amounted to blatant and deliberate character assassination.

Even Bishpop admits he was wrong and is coping a weak insanity defense

[Emma's Midriff]

Yeah, I don't really get the Namor = Bishop argument at all. It seems like a pretty big reach or just a way of taking a shot at Namor supporters.

[HUTHAIFA]

First, we must accept that something positive can come from a negative act and vice versa.proxima midnight is not an anti hero. There is no sacrifice or nobility in her actions or intent, but there is a positive impac from her action. The Illuminati I have positive intentions but has a negative impact. So going by that true villainy is determined by intent and character because proxima will still kill without regard and the black panther and therest of the gang will still risk their lives to save others

[Mark]

All of that doesn't add up to justice, all that boils down to what I mentioned earlier, the stuff about 'you now have to live with what you've done', which means they'll be back smiling and laughing in about a year or so. Having the characters face no judgement but their own is the same as having them decide on their own not to tell anyone about the incursions.

Well lets look at what some members of the Illuminati have lost already.

Black Bolt has lost his kingdom.
T'Challa is cut off from Wakanda.
Dr Strange is losing his soul.
Namor has lost his kingdom.
Beast has lost his way.
Reed is okay so far.
Bruce seems content that the Hulk will finally be killed.

It may not be the punishment you think they deserve but they aren't going through this unscathed. And the story isn't over yet.

[Mark]

Obama kills plenty of people in drone strikes. By your rationale, he intends to kill them and then does and there is no war. He should then be considered a murderer. He hasn’t killed the whole Middle East because the whole Middle East isn’t directly threatening America.

Moreover, if he didn’t act TWO WHOLE UNIVERSES would have died. Would you approve of dropping a bomb on one town if it would save the entire country from death? Namor’s choice was exponentially more lop-sided, as there are enumerable lives in the universe (x2).

The Marvel wiki has 192 planets listed (and of course, there are many more planets in the universe than would be listed on the wiki so even this calculation will be much less). Assuming they all have Earth like populations (7 billion), that’s 1,344 billion sentient lives . Double it because there’s two universes, and that’s 2,688 billion. 2,688 billion against 7 billion. And of course, that 7 billion would die ANYWAY if nothing was done. How could anyone NOT make that choice?

Namor’s act wasn’t selfish. He did a monstrous act because to not act would have invited the unimaginable.

No, it was selfish. He murdered to protect what was his and what he liked. He didn't give a darn about the lives lost, he selfishly protected his own.

[Mark]

In regard to the cosmic beings, that has been addressed within the confines of the story. And it would also defeat the purpose of the story to rob the characters of their agency by having cosmic entities wave their fingers and fix things.

And "abomination" is overly harsh. Clearly the story is compelling given your continued involvement in each and every thread on the topic.



Hasn't this been the course of action you have been asking for? Punishment for the Illuminati and for those involved to retain their morals and allow the incursion to destroy both universes?

I call it an abomination because it is destroying any trace of heroism within the characters. Hickman has set up a set of false choices where he has given no other options, a story where he is absolutely determined to destroy what these characters once stood for and make sure that it sticks in a way that will never be cleaned off short of a massive retcon.
We have Dr. Strange -who once was an actual doctor- murdering, Namor murdering, the rest of the Illuminati building bombs to murder and then deciding for the rest of the universe to give up and commit suicide. Hickman will have them dragged down father than ever, father than Tony in cw and then the story will end and the dead will still be dead and the heroes of marvel will be murderers. So the next time they go up against a supervillain I'll remember that no matter how bad the supervillain is, they are actually worse in terms of body count. And I don't think that Hickman or the rest of the editorial staff give a darn about that. I think he is having more fun destroying them, showing them as losers, corrupting them them to the point where I really think that Doom is a better person than Reed and after he's had that fun I don't think that they have any clue on how to pull the characters back from this. Because there is no coming back from murder on this sort of scale. The last time I saw a hatchet job like this done on a character was Mary Marvel.

[TakoM]

First, we must accept that something positive can come from a negative act and vice versa.proxima midnight is not an anti hero. There is no sacrifice or nobility in her actions or intent, but there is a positive impac from her action. The Illuminati I have positive intentions but has a negative impact. So going by that true villainy is determined by intent and character because proxima will still kill without regard and the black panther and therest of the gang will still risk their lives to save others

I don't think so..... what people intent isn't something what make it right or wrong.

Hitler thought he was also right he intended to rescue his people while living like a Monk, his view was corrupted from hate, the Iluminatis view is corrupted by fear.

Fear is more common while most people don't hate others really, people are often imitated by the fear of someone or something.

Politicians take very often advance of this by pointing out how the other sides counter/negate with their ideology the ideology of those politicians.(Something like:"All democrats are communists") , while they are them self also entangled in this kind of thinking.(This why I said early the Iluminati reminds me of politicians)

Perhaps we should take a 180 degree look on this from the other side. We make a villain who conquer alternate earths who hates it to unnecessary sacrifice life, to conquer other worlds he use eg. mind control to disarm the enemy army when possible. He also has the tech to protect those worlds from the incursions in a way so that no life will be sacrificed and with all the other tech he has and unification he brings those worlds to a paradise like state.(You could say besides he is a conqueror he is a also really nice guy to the extends that your tooth going to hurt)

What make him that? He has bad intentions and his really for a super villain an abnormal but besides that what is he ?

[Exciter]

No, it was selfish. He murdered to protect what was his and what he liked. He didn't give a darn about the lives lost, he selfishly protected his own.

You did not address most of my points so I'm not sure how fruitful continuing the debate will be, though let me point out that what would have been truly selfish would have been to let all the lives I mentioned in the post you quoted perish because you want to keep your sense of nobility and righteousness intact.

If an innocent person is rolling towards you and your family with a bomb strapped to them, and the only way to stop that person is to shoot him with a gun your friends made - you're a selfish murderer if you do it?

[TakoM]

You did not address most of my points so I'm not sure how fruitful continuing the debate will be, though let me point out that what would have been truly selfish would have been to let all the lives I mentioned in the post you quoted perish because you want to keep your sense of nobility and righteousness intact.

If an innocent person is rolling towards you and your family with a bomb strapped to them, and the only way to stop that person is to shoot him with a gun your friends made - you're a selfish murderer if you do it?

We don't discuss what I would do Mark or you, we talk about what superheroes are supposed to do in such a situation. Normal people have face their trial in situation like this, or they going to risk a lot.(Which makes them incredible stupid or a hero)

I can only say superheroes shouldn't be fearful even in a situation like that, that is what's make them super and they didn't see them self as dark lord or something arrogant like this when they aren't such thing and they don't choose people over each other and they don't make plans to do so

You can argue that the Illuminati are the complete wrong team for the wrong job and that supervillains should do the job since the beginning.......... I can only say that is what I felt since 2th of New Avengers.

Hickman took all the member (besides Banner) a part first as superhero than as a human being.

I should mention again at the end there must be a solution because Hickmans run must end somehow.

[Imraith Nimphais]

You did not address most of my points so I'm not sure how fruitful continuing the debate will be, though let me point out that what would have been truly selfish would have been to let all the lives I mentioned in the post you quoted perish because you want to keep your sense of nobility and righteousness intact.

If an innocent person is rolling towards you and your family with a bomb strapped to them, and the only way to stop that person is to shoot him with a gun your friends made - you're a selfish murderer if you do it?

Which is exactly wot T'Challa did...even after being "told off" by his ancestors. Self-sacrificing in deed, selfish in intent.

[Mark]

Do I have to respond to every single point? I didn't know that was a requirement these days. Very well. One at a time then.

Obama kills plenty of people in drone strikes. By your rationale, he intends to kill them and then does and there is no war. He should then be considered a murderer. He hasn’t killed the whole Middle East because the whole Middle East isn’t directly threatening America.

Moreover, if he didn’t act TWO WHOLE UNIVERSES would have died. Would you approve of dropping a bomb on one town if it would save the entire country from death? Namor’s choice was exponentially more lop-sided, as there are enumerable lives in the universe (x2).

I don't believe the Obama example works, not only because of the scale but because we are in a war -however much many won't admit it- with a foe that does want to kill us. He may not be doing a great job and I don't think he's got a clue on how to handle it and I really, really don't think he's waging the war in the right way, but I don't think it qualifies as murder when you kill people in a war.

The Marvel wiki has 192 planets listed (and of course, there are many more planets in the universe than would be listed on the wiki so even this calculation will be much less). Assuming they all have Earth like populations (7 billion), that’s 1,344 billion sentient lives . Double it because there’s two universes, and that’s 2,688 billion. 2,688 billion against 7 billion. And of course, that 7 billion would die ANYWAY if nothing was done. How could anyone NOT make that choice?

Namor’s act wasn’t selfish. He did a monstrous act because to not act would have invited the unimaginable.

That only qualifies if you go by numbers. If two lives are worth more than one life then three lives must be worth more than two lives and so on. It doesn't work that way. My life is no more or less valuable than your life and that of your closest friend. All life is equal, born with the same value no matter what species. An ant lives in many respects the same life I live. She is born, she hunts for food, she serves her community and she dies. If ant is caught in a spider web and I'm fighting for my life against a lion we have same goals, we struggle with the same ferocity, we just have different tools.

The idea that two is more valuable than one probably comes from the primal instinct of species survival (there more there are the more likely a species is to survive) and is given more credence by the emotions we've piled up over that instinct. Namor has long maintained that Atlanteans are better than surface men, based on that don't you think he'd kill every man and woman on the surface if it meant that his race would survive? The selfish choice is regarding the lives of the ones you love to be more valuable than the lives of the ones you don't love; and they aren't. Do you think that if Atlantis wasn't in danger that Namor would have pushed the button? I don't. He didn't do it to save uncounted trillions, he did it to save Atlantis.

[Midnight_v]

If an innocent person is rolling towards you and your family with a bomb strapped to them, and the only way to stop that person is to shoot him with a gun your friends made - you're a selfish murderer if you do it?

You have a really good point, that isn't well refuted by the posts that respond to it.

That only qualifies if you go by numbers. If two lives are worth more than one life then three lives must be worth more than two lives and so on. It doesn't work that way. My life is no more or less valuable than your life and that of your closest friend. All life is equal, born with the same value no matter what species.

I strongly disagree with this poster. Human life has inherently more valuable, human life is more valuable if for no other reason (dismissing all spiritual thought here) than the potential that each of us possesses. Were pretty much the only things that can protect (or destroy) ALL the other life we know about. We can theoretically and potentially stop a meteor from hitting the earth (wiping out all life) and turn lifeless planets into things that can support life including ants if we like.
That's a rule that generally makes ANY mans life more valuable than any ants life. IMHO

Namor has long maintained that Atlanteans are better than surface men, based on that don't you think he'd kill every man and woman on the surface if it meant that his race would survive? The selfish choice is regarding the lives of the ones you love to be more valuable than the lives of the ones you don't love; and they aren't. Do you think that if Atlantis wasn't in danger that Namor would have pushed the button? I don't. He didn't do it to save uncounted trillions, he did it to save Atlantis.

You know I alluded to something like this in another thread. He's also tried to destroy the surface world a few times before Hickman showed up.
Your rage at the Morality of oh say... Doc Strange, is really kind reasonable I NEVER thought in a MILLION years I see him do what he did to the Justice League Proxy. I wasn't sure he COULD do something like that... so okay.
Being mad that Namor is portrayed, for doing whatever it takes to protect Atlantis, and by extension EARTH, and By EXTENSION 2 UNIVERSES, it not super clear why your upset?

I have a thought though, any of you guys ever play D&D? Is the real cause of dislike of this series because Hickman is playing "GOTCHA!" with the Paladin?
Or is it because, so many people are not upset and applaud it? I saw in another thread today someone ask
"What should we be taking away from what you're saying here?"
Is it just Hickmans run? or .... people still defending these guys or what? I'd like a better grasp of what you're saying.

[Mark]

You did not address most of my points so I'm not sure how fruitful continuing the debate will be, though let me point out that what would have been truly selfish would have been to let all the lives I mentioned in the post you quoted perish because you want to keep your sense of nobility and righteousness intact.

If an innocent person is rolling towards you and your family with a bomb strapped to them, and the only way to stop that person is to shoot him with a gun your friends made - you're a selfish murderer if you do it?

I'd shoot out the wheels. There's always another way.

[Mark]

I strongly disagree with this poster. Human life has inherently more valuable, human life is more valuable if for no other reason (dismissing all spiritual thought here) than the potential that each of us possesses. Were pretty much the only things that can protect (or destroy) ALL the other life we know about. We can theoretically and potentially stop a meteor from hitting the earth (wiping out all life) and turn lifeless planets into things that can support life including ants if we like.
That's a rule that generally makes ANY mans life more valuable than any ants life. IMHO

Protect the Earth? Yea, we're doing a real good job of that aren't we? Name me an environmental disaster that was caused by an ant. We can theoretically and potentially do a lot of things that the ant can't do, but then I can't naturally lift ten times my own weight. What we can't potentially do doesn't make our race any more valuable than the race of the ants. If ants vanished from the planet tomorrow there'd be a gigantic hole in the enviroment, if we vanished the planet would probably have a party.

You know I alluded to something like this in another thread. He's also tried to destroy the surface world a few times before Hickman showed up.
Your rage at the Morality of oh say... Doc Strange, is really kind reasonable I NEVER thought in a MILLION years I see him do what he did to the Justice League Proxy. I wasn't sure he COULD do something like that... so okay.
Being mad that Namor is portrayed, for doing whatever it takes to protect Atlantis, and by extension EARTH, and By EXTENSION 2 UNIVERSES, it not super clear why your upset?

I'm upset because I think the story is presenting the characters badly, the story itself is badly thought out and that after the story is over we'll be left with heroes who are murderers.

I have a thought though, any of you guys ever play D&D? Is the real cause of dislike of this series because Hickman is playing "GOTCHA!" with the Paladin?
Or is it because, so many people are not upset and applaud it? I saw in another thread today someone ask
"What should we be taking away from what you're saying here?"
Is it just Hickmans run? or .... people still defending these guys or what? I'd like a better grasp of what you're saying.

I haven't played D&D for years, but I do read Knights of the Dinner Table and Hickman would be facing a huge alignment penalty from the DM. Lawful Good after all does not allow Lawful Evil actions without a penalty. He's not playing Gotcha with the paladin as much as he's making the paladin play the assassin.