WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

Oh man, I'm sorry. Nefertiti it is.



I'm with you, all the way...er, waylayer. I agree with what I've read of your assessment of sociopathy. I think there's been quite a bit said on that subject in this very thread, although I could be wrong; I'll have to check. I also agree that the two angles are not unrelated, but perhaps may serve to shed light on each other.

Again: He killed his own people. That did not really help his goals.

_________________
"And all the politicians and whores will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll look down and whisper "No". "

Silencing people who could betray his secrets?

_________________
.
.

And this is where (on my part, anyway) civil discourse falls apart.



Cold-blooded murder of three people who owed their lives to Adrian and were completely loyal to him?

Adrian is a crypto-fascist mass murderer.

Maybe this ties back into the "Sacrifice" metaphor. Adrian is giving up his sanity and his closest admirers as a sort of penance.

It's still cold-blooded, of course, but it's a thought.

_________________
.
.

While searching for the appropriate selections on sociopathy, I found this post from the moderator himself:



Yes, that does indeed sound about right.

Sure it did, and he even told you how. That was his backup. If people came knocking and saw how it connected to Veidt's empire, Veidt would simply say it was 3 high-ranking individuals in his company. Presumably, if any of them were to give an order, people would assume it would was coming from Veidt. Veidt would say they abused this trust and power, and have plausible deniability towards the whole mass-murder thing.

_________________
You think that matters? You think that solves anything? It don't matter squat here -- lemme show you why it don't matter. It don't matter squat because inside 30 years the nukes are gonna be flyin' like maybugs.

That sounds like the really easy cop-out. Probably everyone here would prefer if the Cold War ended in a non-violent way. If there is anyone who wished for the contrary, please show yourself.

The true moral problem emerges only if you assume that WWIII would have been inevitable if Veidt would not have taken action, probably later of course.

Of course it gets much easier if we just assume that Veidt and the Comedian were entirely wrong. Because then there simply is no moral problem anywhere anymore, and everything is happily black and white.

Actually, one can continue to believe that Veidt was wrong in his prognostications, and was a crypto-fascist mass-murdering baby eater (as I do), and yet still see the final chapter as presenting the other characters with a moral problem. As Bill Clinton said a number of times after the invasion of Iraq was an accomplished fact, "we are where we are," whether or not you agree with the initial decision to invade. The question that Veidt poses - would you expose me and risk causing the peace to fall apart? - is distinct from the question that he might have posed long before - do you believe that nuclear war is inevitable unless I stage an attack from another dimension? Once Veidt can show that the Soviets and Americans have stopped rattling their sabres because of his attack, he's established the terms for the moral debate. At that point, the corpses of the Bernies can be conscripted in ways that favor his position, and there's some force to his argument.

Blake betrayed the secrets despite himself. He actually wanted to keep quiet, but eventually got drunk and started blurting out way too much information.

So here are three people who may not agree with Veidt's reasoning, as Blake did -- but I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that they do. Oh, they might instead have some moral hang-up like Rorschach did -- but I'll play devil's advocate to assume they're like the guy who genuinely wanted to keep the secret but failed.

What follows?

Incidentally, I take a slightly different view of the following:



To me, it's not so much about being able to offer 'em up as scapegoats; it's more about his tactic of using layers of silenced cut-outs. Remember how someone pays Guy A to pay Guy B to pay Roy Chess to shoot at someone? Guy B can't tell you who set that in motion, because he never knew that; once Guy A is cut out, Guy B is largely a useless dead-end of an informant.

"Sealed envelopes, one with cash, one with instructions. I had to find a reliable contract hit, give him both ... all the other freight handlers who were in on things. Supposed to be accidents; overdoses ... my boss, guy gave me the envelopes, he fell under a subway train.

Rorschach tells Guy B that "you were unaware whose execution you were arranging? Maybe person arranging yours doesn't know either."

IMHO, that back-and-forth is the bit that dovetails with his later comment: "Those involved are all dead, killed by killers who killed each other, a lethal pyramid ... my servants' death from exposure, after drunkenly opening my vivarium, provides its final capstone."

Imagine that one of the servants hired Guy A; just like Guy B already has no idea that Veidt's servant hired Guy A, Veidt's servant already has no idea that Guy B paid Roy Chess to do anything. Cutting out Guy A makes it so that neither the servant nor Guy B knows Veidt hired Chess; they could theoretically put it together if they ever met, but, hey, dead servant, no problem.

Ding ding ding. Give that man (or woman, RLS, I have no idea) a Cupie doll. This is the angle not usually addressed: it's a lot easier to make the argument for Veidt's actions after his plan has completed and at least appears as a temporary success, and it's an almost impossible argument to try to make before it happens, or if Veidt's plan ultimately fails, whether short or long term. The characters in the story (and the readers) are forced to analyze the plan after it has occurred, and from Veidt's successful stance.

_________________
You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a "graphic novel," but comic books are still incredibly stupid.

-Bill Watterson

Neither do I, but as long as I get the doll, I don't care.

you guys going back and forth a few pages back were cracking me up!

The psychic, who was related somehow to the squid... We know that DM doesn't see live or dead, only sees bodies or whatever right? He doesn't see or care for the/a soul/spirit/life. Could it be that Vedit possibly found a way to transfer the soul/spirit? Maybe he transfered bubastis to the squid in an ultimate form of sacrafice?

he had said that everyday/night he meditated and pictured all the damage he was doing... could it be to further bring it home he put his cats soul/spirit into the squid?

After all, we seem to have balance in this universe, and we can see who balances who out and how. So who's DM's balance to not seeing life or it's value?

just a thought - i kinda forgot what else i was going to say after 4 pages of lol

_________________
You can never say never and never say always.

lolwut

_________________
.
.

hahaha i meant all that

But about the squid, maybe the psychic transfered vedits cat's mind to the squid! lol because if vedit learned to create bodies, just as DM, then he could he his balance transferring the mind, as opposed to DM not even seeing the difference between alive or dead, just matter in different forms.

_________________
You can never say never and never say always.

what

He tried my idea with the hashish.

hahaha yeah.

maybe i got confused somewhere... let me reread it again and see if i can make a better argument

_________________
You can never say never and never say always.

[NOTE: This post was taken from the "Who's the real hero?" thread. --"Curiosity Inc."]


So he's neither condoning or condemning. Thanks for proving my point.


"Consciousness of vindication" -- now you're just making stuff up, but I'll humor you;
“I did it. I DID IT! I saved Earth from hell.”-- That sounds like he’s fully “conscious” of his “vindication” to me.


So the world's smartest man isn't sure whether he correctly gambled on the lives on 3 million people.


That's a piss poor attempt at dragging something out of context;

"I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end"

“Mankind never ends” -- I don’t think so somehow.


Sigh.......DM has NO sense of right or wrong; there are tons of examples of this littered throughout the book. DM is an absolute utilitarian -- the only premise for his actions is the benefit of others. In his own words, he’s a puppet.

You're problem is that you can't distinguish between Veidt's mass genocide (which is totally immoral) and the subsequent decision to keep it secret (which is slightly less immoral but acceptable to everybody except Rorschach) , hence the underlying theme of "moral relativism."

NOTE: I put my response here instead of in the "Who's the real hero?" thread to save you four mouse clicks, Curiousity. Who loves you, baby?



Doctor Manhattan does not know whether or not the plan succeeds or not, nor in what time-frame Veidt is even inquiring about... that's partially the point of his "nothing ever ends" line. It's not like Dr. M can state how the world will be like twelve years from the current point in time, or whether or not Zach Snyder is attacked in his home by a mob of Watchmen nerds on March 7th, 2009. Even if Doctor M perceives a future event occurring at the present moment, he cannot spit it out like a sportscast play-by-play, as he's not some big blue magic 8-ball that can be flipped over and read. The only evidence of overtly psychic-type behavior Doc seems to utilize is limited to the very near future, which he uses to explain immediate events (when speaking with Laurie on Mars).

Doc safeguards the plan (as do Laurie and Dan) since that is the only reasonable play to make at that point in time. Veidt dealt them a hand with cards he specifically chose, and folding (revealing the plan) would have meant the millions dying for absolutely nothing. At least by protecting the plan, they gave it a chance to play out and see that hopefully the millions don't die for nothing.

_________________
You can make your superhero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a "graphic novel," but comic books are still incredibly stupid.

-Bill Watterson