Ikke av flesk wrote:
But it seems, in all, most of the characters thought, although morally wrong in, most things, he was right.
An interesting question!
I don't know whether the other characters agree
with his actions, but his moral stance is much harder to argue against. He is able to call the others out on their moral failings, forcing them to confront their own dishonesty (in contrast with his honesty) about human nature and their behaviour. I'd even go so far as to characterise Blake as the "father figure" of Watchmen. Almost everything that happens is a consequence of his actions, and his world view.
Of the five other main characters of Watchmen, only Laurie and Rorschach are not explicitly confronted by the Comedian about their views and actions: and yet they are both directly influenced by his behaviour.
The most obvious case is Laurie: Blake is literally her father. But she isn't just a result of Blake's biology: her upbringing, which shapes everything about her - making her the "specific form" that has kept Jon on Earth for two decades - is a result of the way he approached Sally. So, although Laurie is the least in agreement or admiration of the Comedian, she is also the most shaped by his actions.
Rorschach is the most explicit in his admiration of the Comedian. In fact, he almost views Blake as a father figure: Blake is the kind of guy Rorschach would like his father to be. We don't find out explicitly whether Rorschach amended his behaviour due to the Comedian (the only time they interact - at the Crimebusters meeting - they disagree, and Rorschach doesn't seem to have changed his perspective on the importance of bringing down criminals like Moloch), but he seems at least to admire and aspire towards Blake's worldview and achievements.
Of the other three protagonists, we see their
revelations from the Comedian in the Chapter II flashbacks. At the funeral, each sees how fundamentally Blake has influenced them - even if we as readers don't realise the significance at the time, in Adrian's case.
Adrian is most obviously Blake's "child", in the sense that, when confronted at the Crimebusters meeting, he has to admit that Blake is right: he's been trying to solve the wrong problem, and he proceeds to reshape his entire life around this fact. In his case, he's specifically trying to prove Blake wrong, deny his nihilism by saving the world, but he still has to admit that Blake was right about the scale of their problems.
Jon is forced to admit that his criticism of Blake's amorality is hollow. He could
have stopped the killing, he could have done a lot of things, but he didn't. Is this the first time he realises that he is "drifting out of touch"? Certainly, the line about "Sally Jupiter's little gal" must have been particularly cutting, even though he couldn't have known why the Comedian was so upset by it at the time. I'd still argue that Jon pretty much spends the next fourteen years trying to prove the Comedian wrong: trying to fight his growing estrangement and prove that he does
care, even when he's drifted too far to relate to her properly. Hence his willingness to return to Earth, to persuade Laurie and Dan that they need to keep quiet about Adrian's behaviour, and kill Rorschach when he refuses, to protect a world that he himself has no interest in. So, maybe he doesn't agree with Blake, but he can see that he's in no position to criticise him.
Dan's revelation from the Comedian is less mind-blowing, but I still think it's the Comedian's behaviour during the Riots of '77 that led to Dan retiring. Can Dan argue that he's really noble, and protecting society when he's only happy going up against "Schmucks in Halloween Suits"?. He later admits that the Comedian was right: they didn't need all that hardware just to catch hookers and cutpurses. I suspect that this is the point where Dan realises that he's been acting out of self-interest: a bored rich-kid living out his hero fantasies, rather than helping the world. He may not agree with the Comedian's take on life, but he can't deny that the Comedian's got his number. After all, when Dan does
go back into the field, he does so with no illusions that he's doing so altruistically.
So, having said all that, I don't think Jon, Dan or Adrian do agree with Blake's views on morality: but they have to admit that he's right about them. Their nobility is largely pretend, and deep down - they're really no better than him.
That's my take, anyway!