WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

[NOTE: This thread started out in the "smiley face" thread. Two pages after this post, it became obvious that we were off topic and the discussion had swerved into a debate worthy of its own thread. So I finally split them. --Curiosity Inc.]


Well, he did feel a moral twinge when Veidt proposed killing half of NYC... so there's a little humanity in them. Probably more than a little, in light of his attempts to relate to Laurie.

_________________
.
.

_________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste......

I think Blake almost tries to ignore his own morality because he's just that affected by it. By looking at everything like a joke, it no longer inspires his (presumable) overwhelming depression at the state of the world. As is pointed out in the work, he's Veidt's counterpart. He sees what's going on, and can't take it. Veidt can. Still, they have similar compassion for humanity - Blake just tries to make himself stop seeing people as humans.

_________________
.
.

Actually, he's Veidt's nemesis. Blake is the only person ever to take a round out of Veidt. He easily matches him in intelligence. He's also seen the horrors of war (which Adrian hasn't) which has made him see life for the absurd farce it can be. He's chosen to have no philosophy other than life is pointless, so why not have a few laughs? Who cares who you hurt along the way, there is no god so let's break some heads.

Ironically, Ozy's plan is a result of being showed up by Blake at the Crimebusters meeting. The whole plan is actually Veidt's revenge on the Comedian. He has to prove to Eddie that, as the smartest man in the world, he can stop nuclear war. That's why Blake "accidentally" stumbles on the horrific plan. That's why Veidt has to kill him personally, so that Eddie needs to know he's been finally been bested.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

I completely disagree.

I refuse to believe that Veidt would kill 3,000,000 people just to show Blake up. No way would Ozy be that petty.

There's no reason that I know of to think that Blake's discovery of the plot was contrived by Ozymandias. Besides that, if Ozy wanted to show that Blake had been bested, why did he kill Blake two months before the plot was finished? I should think it would've been a harsher blow to the Comedian's ego if Veidt let Blake live to see the monster come to New York. Let Blake witness the carnage. Better yet, let him die as a result of that which he was powerless to stop.

No, I don't think that Blake equaled Veidt in intelligence and I sure as hell don't think that Ozy did this just to show up the Comedian. Veidt listened to the Comedian, realized that he was right and decided to do something about it.

He wasn't showing up or challenging the Comedian, he just agreed with him.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

He was denying 'his kind' their last black laugh. Their 'last black laugh' is nuclear war. He detests how people who realize the situation the world is in, like the Comedian, opt to do nothing to prevent it, instead just sitting back to laugh.

_________________
.
.

I would suggest both of you underestimate the depth of Veidt's vanity and narcissism. The thing he loves the most is himself. That is why he can casually kill his servants and press the button to kill 3 million without nary a tear. Emotional detachment (which some have confused with the ability to see clearly) is one symptom of his psychopathy. Note the scene where he talks about the death of his parents and he's sitting at their grave chewing on a piece of grass. Most kids his age would be devastated.

He's admiring the scenery.



He detests Blake. Period. Eddie made him look bad twice. Looking bad is the worst possible thing that could happen to someone as concerned with appearances as Veidt. He had to prove the comedian wrong, to deny him his last black laugh.



Then how come Blake could see armageddon coming and Veidt didn't until Eddie pointed it out to him?? Remember Jon's assesment of the Comedian: He understands perfectly. And he doesn't care.




Issue I, first panel, first page:



Issue 12, first panel, first page:



Barely two weeks. Veidt even had time to schedule an assasination attempt on himself.



Considering the depth of detail that went into planning (ho took 20 years) this elaborate horror, there's no reason why he couldn't have. Remember, he knew Blake visited Moloch and the conversation that ensued. Why go to the trouble of bugging Moloch's home? Why snoop on a sick and dying old man (also murdered by Veidt as part of the plan) unless he's a key part in your plans?? Adrian's plan was detailed and included many contingencies. He didn't make up much of it on the fly.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

I agree, Veidt does have a high opinion of himself, but like I said, that doesn't affect his judgment, only the manner in which he executes his decisions. Emotions are notorious for clouding judgment in a negative way. There are plenty of examples out there for that. Veidt knows this, and arranges his mindset accordingly. He also sees these things in the larger scheme, rather than on a personal basis. He's the least selfish character in the entire graphic novel, and strong emotions are usually self-absorbed; even ones that seem to be sympathetic, like sadness when someone dies - you either believe that they've moved on to a better place or that they don't know what's happening. Why feel sorrow unless it's because of your worsened situation? Emotions are generally selfish and illogical.


Oh yes, he hates Blake, and that's due in part to both his ideology and the personal squabble they had. But still, I mean, it's like if Stalin came up and punched you in the face - you might be inclined to go after Stalin more, but it remains that he's a bad guy with bad ideals, and that'd still be part of it. That would be the fuel for the fire.

_________________
.
.

Only if a decision is taken in the heat of the moment. For all we know, Veidt's decision to save the world by such a callous may have had as much to the with the fact that he didn't want to end up being the smartest man on the cinder. It can be awful lonely without your adoring fan club.



It's not just sorrow he doesn't feel. It's true remorse that's lacking. The scene with Jon in the Orrery shows how callous and unfeeling he truly is. He claims he's made himself feel every death (note the use of past tense in his language), then refers to a dream that sounds a lot like the ending panel of Marooned, which he then says is insignificant.

He's just murdered three million. That's 3,000,000 thermodynamic miracles that will never realize their potential. And those lives, in Ozy's estimation, were not worth mourning over even though they were sacrificed in the service of his precious plan.



Untrue. Psychopaths are notoriously self absorbed while being detached from emotion. That's why they can go through life manipulating, using, and discarding other individuals without feeling true remorse. Like the Black Freighter, they leave a trail of destruction in their wake.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Nevertheless, 'saving the world' is something that's pretty hard to fault. I mean, regardless of why he likes humanity's continued existence - I personally always saw it as him acting as a kind of father figure - he likes it.


He says the dream is insignificant because, I think, he doesn't quite understand it, and it's 'just a dream.' Also, the past tense, not much of an indicator - even if he 'made', he can still be 'feeling.' He hates having to kill innocent people, and wishes he didn't have to.


And yet, Veidt constantly donates to charities and, pretty much by his own admission, damns himself in order to save the world, and attempts to ignore his personal emotions on the matter of the killing so as to better serve humanity.


Sorry, that just reminded me of this so strongly:

_________________
.
.

But does he, really? The only evidence of his philanthropy is a concert of his athletic prowess in reruns on late night TV. Like his crime fighting career (remember, he only mentions two "cases" while reminiscing in Karnak) you have to wonder if his non-monetary accomplishments are more hype than fact. Another sign of psychopathy is the aggrandising of ones accomplishments, and I'm not so sure that his reputation as a adventurer and philanthopist are the result of succesful self promotion.



You're again assuming that's what he's actually accomplished.



I personally saw him as more of a Big Brother figure - he likes it



He doesn't hate killing innocents enough to find a way to "save the world" that doesn't involve not doing so.

This may surprise you, but the first few times I read Watchmen, I would have been in agreement with you. The more I read it, the more I realized what a horrible character Moore had created. Everything he does seems so reasonable, so perfect, so right. Then you step back and look at the big picture and realize he's in reality more brutal than Blake, and colder than Osterman. Even Eddie couldn't handle the gross brutality of mass murder, at least not on that scale. It broke him as a man - and Veidt knew and relished that thought. Jon, meanwhile, was transformed into a more complete (feeling AND thinking) being by Veidt's machinations. In the end, Manhattan rebukes Adrian in a passive aggresive manner, and Ozy is left pouting in his orrery.

On a related note, I've also have personal and professional dealings with individuals with psychopathic tendencies. If you're not careful, they can suck you in and suck you dry before you've realized it. They can charm the pants off a manager or a board of directors and gain the confidence of key people and one fine morning the safe is empty and the money is gone and the company is bankrupt and everone is scratching their head and going WTF happened??

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Didn't he donate his original fortune, as well?


This is a point that can't really be argued one way or another, since we have no idea what ran through Veidt's mind before he came up with the alien plan. Maybe he considered other options. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he couldn't find any other options (unlikely). Maybe he didn't want to rely on those other options, or thought this one was the most reliable of them all.

Veidt is brutal - he is cold - but he's also doing what's necessary to protect the world. You look at Rorschach, set on enforcing his personal right-wing morals regardless of if he's actually doing any good in the long run, who just likes hurting criminals; look at Osterman, losing touch with humanity and refusing to take positive action even though he's the most powerful being in existence; look at Laurie, absorbed in her own boredom and love life; look at Dan, just swept up in things and hoping to improve his personal state of mind. Then look at Veidt, who forfeits being at peace with himself - the idea the other characters are striving for - in order to save innocent lives. And they realize this. "Logically, I'm afraid he's right." "All we did was fail to stop him saving earth." "Earth's damned if we don't." "Elation that an almost certain war has been avoided." "Like Hiroshima but with buildings." This last one is especially relevant, as the Hiroshima comparison is made a few times in the book on the sidelines. It's meant to be a simplified parallel (there's still some lingering doubt about Hiroshima because of that Russian treaty fiasco, but most still agree it was a good decision). It's meant to be the ultimate question: do you sacrifice lives to save them? If the only way to save humanity is to act inhumanly, is it worth saving? It's the whole point of the "Stronger, loving world" quote. "A stronger, loving world to die in." That's what Rorschach wants - for humanity to go out with personal morality intact. Just checking up on the tense of Veidt's regret - "By day I imagine endless faces. By night..." - so this is continuous regret. He may not be bawling - that's not his style - but he is extremely disturbed by what he's done, though he doesn't regret it. He faces Manhattan and asks, "I did the right thing, didn't I?" He knows Osterman won't lie to him. He genuinely wants to know, and he knows that Jon will know. His means may be grandiose - but his intentions are solid.

_________________
.
.

You're playing a dangerous game, dreiberg. All we have for evidence is the graphic novel, so we have to go with what the graphic novel purports is true. Soon as you start denying that, all of everyone's arguments go out the window.

If you want more evidence of Veidt's donations to charity, check out V.17.4, where Bernie the Senior clearly states that Veidt did charity work.

And yes, I'm sure that Veidt's exploits were exaggerated due to the cartoon series and storybooks and whatever else have you. But Veidt couldn't have started all that from nothing. His retirement and unmasking got quite a bit of media attention and he apparently turned his image into a multi-million dollar franchise in no time flat, which leads me to believe that Veidt must have had some amount of fame as a superhero.

What's more, the Comedian constantly refers to Ozy by his "smartest man in the world" nickname during the Crimebusters meeting. The same meeting that planted the seeds of Veidt's homicidally peaceful ambitions. So, Veidt must have done a considerable amount of crime-fighting to build up such a reputation... even before he set his sights on forcing world peace.

Then there's this: Chapter XI, pg. 11, panel 2: "Thus began my path to conquest...conquest not of men, but of the evils that beset them." --Ozymandias. So your "Big Brother" hypothesis is also incorrect. He was never out to control anyone, just to eradicate their more evil nature. And to do that, he eventually fought fire with fire.

You mean like impersonating Doc Manhattan, sending blue beams of energy into the sky and telling everyone to knock off the warmongering?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Is that a threat sir? Pistols at dawn, I say.



I'm not, as far as I know, "throwing out anything". If you've carefully read what I've posted, you'll see I'm strictly using the novel to back up my case. I have a different interpretation than yours, and am defending it.

If anything, I'm perplexed by your defense of a mass murderer. Maybe you've been taken in by his propaganda

Seriously though, I think this is exactly the kind of discussion Moore intended to generate. What's moral? How do you know? It depends on the framework of your experience. Is it moral to murder 3 million to save 5 billion? If so, under what circumstances?



Bernie doesn't exactly give examples of this, does he? As a news vendor, he should've been able to give us at least one. I suspect he's only repeating Adrian's PR.

I'll grant he gave his original fortune to charity, but that was almost 25 years before 1985.



Unlike the other characters, whom we see actually doing pages and page of "heroic deeds", Veidt perhaps two frames demonstrating what he's purported to do best. The rest is text reported by other characters. You could say his exploits are legendary. What I'm saying is that while there's alot of TALK about Veid't accomplishments, the EVIDENCE suggests that his biggest and most noticeable accomplishment is his vast fortune.



Let's see, his name or image is everywhere just as in 1984. He's watching everything (and sometimes everyone) just like, .. well..., you know. Think again. No, he was never out to control anybody, but like the character in Marooned, he set upon a noble task based on an incorrect assumption. Like this character, Veidt performed a horrendous deed aimed at those he purported to loved and in doing so became that which he despised.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

I absolutely, 100% agree with dandreiberg. Ozymandias is a sociopathic asshole of the first degree. He is also a liar. Why, then, do we feel the need to believe that he gave his inheritance away based upon nothing but his word, which we know is no good? Another of his lies, I say.

Why would Ozymandias lie to people he's killed? Besides, giving away his fortune was a step towards showing that he could rebuild it, and from then on it was used to show that he was a 'good' person. Whatever his motives for being a good human being - whether it was motivated by his need for self-importance or by his true love of the human race - the result is an enormous drive to make the world better through his actions.

As far as Bernie talking about Veidt giving to charity - I mean, we see two firm examples of this and hear the newsvendor talk about it. There are things we take for pure fact on one example and half a line in Watchmen. Veidt gives to charity. It isn't written in a way that inspires doubt.

None of the characters' heroic deeds are truly delved into. We see Veidt taking down the criminal underworld. We see Rorschach doing a couple things at most. We see Nite Owl doing, what, one thing? Talks about another? Laurie, I don't think we see anything except her looking helpless at the riot. Veidt had a reputation, just as much of one - if not more - than any of the others, save Manhattan.

_________________
.
.

It is written in every way to inspire doubt. The public personna - the humanitarianism, the adventuring, the false humility, the cult of personality - is at odds with the actions of the private man. Again, we HEAR a lot about Veidt's adventures. However, what we SEE is a petty, cruel, conniving, unfeeling, callous man who thinks he's better than everyone and knows how to save the world. Drink the koolaid children, affable uncle Adrian is in town.

No, but the other characters walk their own talk. Their behavior is consistent with their expressed worldview. Jon the scientist, able to see into he hearts of stars but unable to understand the heart of humanity. Eddie the amoral, looking after himself first. Rorschach, driven by a traumatic childhood to be an agent of vengeance. Laurie, pushed by others into being something she didn't want, and never knowing what she truly wanted. Dan the romantic, joining in the fight against crime because it was cool and a way out of his shell.

I think it's also significant that we find out about the other characters either directly, or through flashbacks. There can be no fudging the facts on Dan. Or Eddie. Or Walter. Or Laurie and Jon. It's laid there simply for all to see.

Veidt, on the other hand, tells his story first hand to his servants, who have been unknowingly handed a death sentences. He tells his plot to Dan and Rorschach, fully knowing that he did 35 minutes ago, and aware that he might have to kill them as well. An epic narrative for limited consumption. Everything else we know about Adrian is second hand; subject to massaging, propagandizing, confabulation, and outright manufacture. Like I said before: legendary. Perhaps based on the truth but perhaps allegorized as time goes on.

Given the indirect nature of what we know about Ozy, how do we know the information is reliable? Anyone can SAY they're trying to save the world. Anyone can SAY they feel bad about killing 3 million people. At the end of the day, the only things Adrian appears to actually FEEL bad about is killing Bubastis and being rebuked by Jon.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

We also see a brief flashback of him taking down crime bosses, don't we? The only reason we don't see his adventuring is because it's not relevant to his current persona, which has shifted from the basic heroic deeds to looking at the greater problems of the world. His past adventuring is not the walk he's talking.

As far as his emotions:

He feels regret over Bubastis first because she was close to him - the only being that truly was - and second, because her death should have been unnecessary to his plan - Jon's intrusion changed that. He feels regret over being rebuked because he would hate for those lives to go to waste - because he cares about them. The only reason he isn't bawling over the people is because he knows their deaths did good for the world. In fact, he doesn't bawl over the other two, either - actually, come to think of it, he pretty much has the same sad expression on his face throughout all three.

_________________
.
.

Exactly two frames. XII/18/3 and XII/19/2. Both during his soliloquy to Nite Owl and Rorschach at Karnak.



I disagree. If he was truly feeling sad for the waste of lives, he shouldn't care what Jon thinks. But since he sees Jon as his only equal, he's pouting because he didn't get the approval he seeks. And what's wrong with bawling over three million lives even if as you say it was the greater good? As Laurie points out, they had no choice. They didn't volunteer for martyrdom at the altar of St Adrian. They were coldly murdered. And Adrian's only response to that is I did it!. Capital "I". No credit for the dead at that moment. Cheers of joy (and an erection, I bet) for his grandiose plan. I did it!. Not The world is saved, but I F*****G DID IT!!!!.

If that doesn't scream pathological narcissism, I don't know what does.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Like I said, he has less because his past heroism doesn't matter - to him or in the larger scheme of things.


He doesn't like killing, but on the other hand, it would be even worse - much, much worse - if it was all for naught. He simply seeks reassurance that his peace will hold - a reasonable request. Any display of emotion from Adrian would simply be labeled as attention-seeking as well; Adrian has no reason to cry. It's not his style. He can feel pain without crying about it or getting overemotional. Just look at the Comedian, talking to his estranged daughter, who rebukes him - sadness in his face, but not a tear, no tantrums that the others pull. Veidt has the same MO. He knows himself. Others don't need to.

And I mean, seriously, if you had just saved the world, you'd be pretty stoked, too. I mean, think about movies where someone's comrades are picked off/die in horrible ways attempting to aid in achieving a goal, then one person finally manages it, he's not thinking, "I'd like to thank my friends, family, and all who died for this cause..." right then. He's thinking "I DID IT!"

_________________
.
.