InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "ahhh! pants!"

cyberghostface (cyberghostface) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-30 15:14:00

Entry tags:

title: amazing spider-man

Two pages from the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man #601

OH NOES THE TYPICAL PARKER LUCK!!!

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 09:52 am UTC (link)
	But it's killing it in cold blood, not heat of the moment. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	So. killing in the heat of the moment, losing yourself to rage, instead of deliberating on it and realizing it's the most effective option, makes it better somehow? Legally, sure, but morally? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kagome654
2009-07-31 01:26 pm UTC (link)

Morally? I'd say, yes, it's better to kill in the heat of the moment (IMVHO). Your passions get the best of you and you do something you wouldn't otherwise have done, that's something very easy to understand. Killing someone in cold blood is calculated, it robs the person you're killing of their humanity, treating them like an object. It's...well, cold and dehumanizing. I can sympathize with someone who is so hurt, scared or angry that they lash out and kill someone, but people who kill in cold blood tend to just scare me.

Though it does depend on a few things. For example I'm not going to rage against a sniper who takes down a man menacing hostages with a knife. That sniper is still coolly detached, but he's making decision based on an immediate threat. It's not a job I'd want, and it's not something I can cheer and say 'job well done!', and I do sometimes worry about anyone who makes a living killing other human being, but I understand the necessity, even while acknowledging it as something tragic. Had he shot a prone man on the ground, however, that would be something totally different to me. By removing potential victims you've removed the sense of urgency and suddenly there are a lot more viable options open to you.

Basically, as bad as OMD/BND is I'd consider Spider-man killing, or allowing Harry to kill, Osborn to be....really bad for the character. I like my absurdly idealistic comic book characters, thank you very much!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell
2009-07-31 01:41 pm UTC (link)

It would be bad, and traumatic, for Peter or Harry to kill Norman, and even if he did it would result in major fallout and I'd never want to see him make a regular thing of it.

What I'm arguing here is that simply because the fight was over and Norman lost, sure the immediate danger was gone, but what other options are available when the law won't touch it and nobody seems to care about his bad reputation? Even if Batman never kills the Joker, he at least doesn't just walk away and let him rampage unchecked.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kagome654
2009-07-31 02:01 pm UTC (link)

True, that's one of the reasons I dislike this kind of stroyline. You can't have idealistic heroes and untouchable villains together without the heroes looking pretty ineffectual. At least when Luthor gets into positions of power you can (generally) count on him not to randomly start killing people one day.

Other options for Norman include things are pretty immoral, such as taking advantage of all your mystical or military minded friends and having them find a convenient hole to stick him in while you work to discredit him, but not as final (and destructive to the one committing the deed) as murder. Of course such things would only work if Osborn could be discredited, and that would count on people in the MU NOT being a bunch of jabbering idiots, but I don't think having Peter murder someone is the best way to combat bad writing. I admit that they haven't left Peter with many options, but I'd rather see him lock Osborn up in an abandoned meatlocker somewhere then kill him. Even if Osborn is found again and bitches about his rights being violated, well, it's not like Spidey's reputation can get any worse.

In all honesty I'd be more comfortable with Peter killing someone in a rage (like what almost happened to the Sin-Eater) than killing in cold blood. I don't think I'd be able to forgive the latter. Maybe Osborn needs to die, but I'd rather someone with already bloodstained hands, like Moon Knight or the Punisher, be the one to do so. Spider-man is so far removed from the character I used to know already, crossing that line would probably be the final nail in the coffin for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, if someone did kill Osborn, it probably shouldn't be Peter. Maybe once Steve gets over the time thing, he'll come around to show everyone one more way he's the MU's equivalent to Diana? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	No, killing in cold blood makes it worse. Sitting down and saying "Norman osborn deserves to die" and killing him while he is defenceless is morally far worse than killing someone in the middle of a fight while your life or that of others is in immediate danger. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	So immediate danger is tantamount to constant danger then? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 07:29 pm UTC (link)
	I'm confused her. Immediate danger is immediate danger. If someone is beaten down and can't fight back (at the moment) the danger is no longer immediate (it is indirect) You can't kill someone because you think he might try to kill you in the future. You can't kill someone for something they might do in the future, only for what they are doing right now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-07-31 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	Well, if nothing happens to take the person off of the path they are currently dead-set on, it's a fair assumption to believe they'll continue on that path. The heroes of the MU don't need a magic lasso to see that Norman won't top unless stopped. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-07-31 11:15 pm UTC (link)
	Considering how often heroes turn villain and vice-versa, I don't think I'd stake ANYTHING on someone staying aligned the same in the MU. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-08-01 02:05 am UTC (link)
	Norman, though? The has, if anything, only gotten more evil as his existence has continued. There's absolutely no way they could believable redeem him. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -