Ironically enough, the opening lines of the graphic novel are of Rorschach talking about “great men like my father and Truman” and he calls Truman great because he “dropped the bomb”.
Now, I think one could certainly make a reasonable argument defending the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it’s certainly rather similar to any argument defending Ozymandias.
Someone above made a point about Rorschach thinking Ozymandias was gay. I think the point of that accusation told us far more about Rorschach then Ozymandias. Remember, thanks to his mother, Rorschach, even before the dog scene was severely damaged, especially when it came to sexual matters.
Anyway, along the same lines as to whether or not Senator Kelly has a point, the Senator in Iron Man 2 demanding the Iron Man armor be turned over to the federal government has a really good point.
Even the most ardent defenders of gun rights believe that not ALL weapons should be allowed to be privately owned and a small number of Iron men would be a match for the militaries of most nations and a single Iron Man could destroy entire cities.
I just caught part of Open Range last night. Didn’t Baxter kind of have a reason to be upset that random cowboys were driving cattle across his land without permission? I guess the ways of the West were changing and all, and Baxter was absolutely a prick. But if he was the legal owner of a huge swath of land, I can see why he wouldn’t want anyone to graze it off and move on.
I don’t think so. Stark built the Iron Man suit for his own use while he was being held captive. So he didn’t build it based due to some contract with the government nor did he use any government resources to build it. And he’s not a government employee. Just because Stark builds some weapons for the government doesn’t mean they own everything he invents.
At the time, the ethos about open range vs. privately held land was still being worked out, at times, via gunfights. You see it from your contemporary perspective as an open and shut case, but at the time it was very much NOT an open and shut case. Baxter certainly felt that way, but a lot of people would regard the cowboys who drive through his lands as very much within their rights.
Here’s my 2¢ about mutant persecution: It may not be their fault but the superhuman mutants’ very existence poses a challenge to the power structure of civilization itself.
Ever since some proto-Pharaoh circa 4000 BC worked out that an army of disciplined soldiers fighting in formation according to a master strategy could defeat much larger armed rabbles, the armed force that underlies civilization has been based on numbers and organization. Power is ultimately based on followers and weapons. It’s been a long, long time indeed since some single mighty hero could by his own personal prowess turn the the tide of battle.
But the mutants threaten to overturn all that. One powerful mutant could by his or her personal power defeat an army. Power that’s inborn- no one gave it to them and no one can take it away. In the Marvel universe, the DC universe and in TV shows like The 4400 and Heroes, the government is working overtime to try to find a way to duplicate and mass-produce super powers. Because otherwise you have power outside of the system, that can potentially rebel against or destroy it. Or in the Girl Genius steampunk world, the one “super power” is the Spark: the mad scientist savant talent to create world-conquering tech, and the Sparks alternately rule and threaten to destroy the world.
A world with people with real super powers might end up devolving to a sort of feudalism, with the most power mutants as suzerains, the lesser mutants their vassal warriors, and the mundanes as their peasants. In a world of supers, Nietzschean standards of morality might hold sway, like some people have claimed The Incredibles has as a subtext.
The movie espoused nothing of the sort, if anything that describes the villains in the movie(which in an odd inversion were all normals). The movie did not encourage rule by force by supers. *I realize you did not espouse this opinion.
Do we know that the Republic is actually so corrupt and awful? Or might the cartoonishly evil villains be shading the truth a bit? From what I remember, the Republic seems to be a bureaucratic morass with, no doubt, instances of corruption … but, then, so is the United States. A not-so-dynamic central government seems like a really small price to pay for thousands of years of peace.
I’d also argue that suppressing rebellion is a far cry from “suppressing dissent,” which AFAIK the Republic doesn’t do. And I’d hardly take it as a given that seceding from an a Republic or Democracy is some kind of natural right.
One of the great failures of the films is that we never see WHY the Seperatists are willing to follow Dooku and leave the Republic aside from a line or two about high taxes. Remember that a whole lot of normal everyday people supported that move and the ensuing war, sure Dooku was manipulating them but we never get their perspective.
Also remember Palpatine had been working for years before TPM to mess shit up, who knows how much of that corruption was his direct doing to piss off everyone enough to join Dooku years down the line.
I say it has been months and months of seeing their comrades dwindle one by one as they await results that aren’t coming from Frankenstein’s lab. Even in the face of that they might be posturing and running their mouth but they haven’t actually hurt anyone, and in fact are still deferring to civilian control when all evidence points to it being a waste. That is until Rhodes finds out Frankenstein is using his soldiers as zombie food, only then does the shit hit the fan. Hell Sarah when she finds out the truth her first thought is that Rhodes will kill all the scientists including her in revenge.
Rhodes was even right about wanting to kill the bitten Miguel, even though Sarah saved him by amputating his arm his mental instability lead him to commit suicide by letting the zombies in.:smack:
It made me think of those people whose default insult for anybody they dislike is fag/dyke - and yes, they mean it to be sexual and derogatory. Someone cuts them in traffic? Fag! A woman’s kid is too rambuctious? Dyke! The point is not that Oxxy is gay, but that Rorschach is a bigot and not particularly smart.
Re. mutant politics in comics, first they project US social issues on everybody else; second, I think if mutants really existed they’d have this things called families, which in general would see the kid as “my kid” and not “a monster, aaaah, it’s blue, kill it!” People tell you their son who’s murdered ten people is “such a nice boy!”, yet comics treat those non-rejecting families as non-entities incapable of caring for their child* while giving a lot of screen time to those who kick the kid out.
Or have Chuck F Saviour overwrite their minds for their own good, cos, yanow, otherwise people might actually do what’s on their minds and not what’s on his.
Honestly, if that film had been two solid hours of Fass-neto dispatching former Nazis, I would’ve been right back in line to buy tickets for a second and third showing.
ETA re US vs other countries social issues and how there is no reflection of those differences:
Has there ever been any mention of the resources spent/gained in countries with UHC by the apparition of mutants? Money spent on dealing with things such as “bones in weird places” vs healers who work within the system? There was that whole “Angel’s blood heals kids” arc: not UHC country and not an ongoing thing. The comics I’ve seen with mutant healers as doctors, they were always in the US and in hiding.
That sounds all well and good, but the apes are hardly off the hook in terms of killing for greed or sport. They want to keep their crops for themselves. The first time we see the gorillas hunting humans, they seem to be enjoying the sport of it alright, and they look happy when they continue to abuse Taylor throughout the movie.