WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

Except in WWII when civilians in both theatre were specifically targetted for reasons of morale. By both sides. This wasn't colateral damage. Thousands died. The Allies deliberately firebombed residential areas in Germany and Japan. They were hoping to force a surrender or cause the populations of those countries to revolt. They underestimated the loyalty and/or fear of the those populations to those in power.




I'll have to disagree with that somewhat. Even if we hold the citizens of 1930's Germany responsible for Hitler's acts (and they ultimately paid the price for that), his rise to power was equal parts opportunism and trickery. Like a fictional character currently under discussion, he used a false pretense and public fear to his advantage to push his agenda. He was elected as a minority party leader who then used manipulation (specifically, painting the burning of the Reichshag as a jewish/communist plot) and leverage to solidify his hold on power. Within months Deutschland was a goosestepping totalitarian state. Those who could, left. Those who coulnd't either got on the bandwagon or lived the next decade in fear. Not all who were firebombed out of their homes or killed could be characterized as guilty. One is not necessarily guilty of a neighbour's crimes.



Veidt shows some signs of sanity. He has the ability to think logically. In spades. That ability alone does not necessarily sanity make. He wants to save the world. So do I. That's not necessarily crazy either. Those who want to save the whales don't kill the whalers, though.

It's the means he uses that demonstrates he's loonier than Rorschach.

Not only does he kill three million innocents, he also kills anyone remotely associated with the plan (plus a few who have nothing to do with it). Those who thought they worked on a film set on the island... all imminent thinkers of one discipline or another... musicians, artists, writers, scientists. (Kind of a purge of intellectuals if you will, reminds me of... never mind) His servants. His secretary, for Christ's sake (and the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the hit man was abysmally inept, or Adrian actually ordered the hit on her... ).

That kind behavior not only suggests CARELESS DISREGARD for human life but also PARANOIA. He doesn't trust ANYONE.

Hey Vynson, maybe we should take the Owlship to Karnak and check out this VM fellow??

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

I don't think he'll be there. He left, like.......35 minutes ago.

_________________


"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."

But that's not what I'm talking about. I know that stuff happens, but even if it didn't, civilians still die as the result of accidents.


Well, if you kill three million people, you're not going to leave any room for error in the plan. Leaving hundreds of people alive who worked on the alien he had just teleported into New York City would have been, like... a neighborhood for error.

_________________
.
.

No, but if the cause was true and just, don't you think he might have been able to trust people like you who agree with him??

I just had an epiphany of sorts. I'll give you credit for showing it to me. It's this little line:



If you subscribe to the humanitarian Veidt, this is simply him telling us that he's going to save the world. But I suspect that, for such a nuanced character as he is, there is more here than meets the eye.

If you look at Adrian's face in II pg 11 panel 7, it's an angry face contrasting with the next panel. He's pissed because the Comedian has showed him up. That's right: EMOTION. One of the few times we actually see it on his face. The Eddie's just told him the world is doomed. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. Not even Adrian. He's humiliated. In front of everybody. End of meeting. Go home.

So, Veidt decides he's going to save it. Because, as the quote says, he wants to deny him and those like him. It sounds almost personal... but that seems controversial around here...

And then it hit me. The last three words of the sentence can take two meanings:

at earth's expense

The question you need to ask yourself is this:

...does the black laugh come at earth's expense...

...or does the denial of said bla(c)k(e) laugh.... come at earth's expense??




Think about it. Really hard.






I love it when Moore writes like that.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Why can't it be both? Either way, humanity gets hit pretty hard.


Obviously not, with people like Rorschach running around. Even Dan and Laurie have a little trouble accepting it.

_________________
.
.

It could be, that's the beauty of double meanings. Either way, his motivation becomes denying Blake's last laugh. Then we only argue at whose expense the plan is.



Ah, but wouldn't a true humanitarian try to protect those most important to them?

He's simply discarded all those close to him. Just like taking out the trash. His servants were loyal to him, had been with him for many years. Their reward was a draught of red wine laced with drugs. Rev. Jim Jones would be proud.

Way to treat your employees. I guess the Veidt corporation doesn't have a retirement plan.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

By distancing himself from everyone, everyone is 'most' important to him. That's the beauty of Veidt's logic. Everyone is equal to him, so he's able to assess things objectively, without emotional bias.

_________________
.
.

I disagree. Everyone is equally important to him. Which is to say not at all.



A psychopath assesses everything as it relates to him. That's about is subjective as things get.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

But if he places any value on anyone at all - he places value equally. Which is what he does with the NYC incident. He decides to value humanity.


Take a look at Rorschach if you want to see someone assessing things because of how they relate to him. Everything he believes is emotionally charged, and emotions are personal. What gives Rorschach the right to decide to destroy Veidt's plan?

_________________
.
.

No, he DEVALUES humanity. People are things for him to use and discard as is convenient to him. They have no more meaning or value to him than a pen or pencil. They are instruments for use in furthering his plan.



I disagree. Rorschach may be psychotic, be he's an absolute moralist. How he "feels" about things relates as to whether he believes they are moral. There is good and there is evil and evil must be punished. Pretty cut and dried. It's his sense of morality that compels him to act against Veidt.

Like the Comedian, Veidt has no moral framework with which to frame his decisions. The difference is, Eddie doesn't give a damn about morality. Everything is tickety boo as long as he can do what he wants. Veidt has no morality, but BELEIVES he is moral. That's how he can commit atrocities while believing he is doing the right thing.

Listen. This has been fun. I (and others) believe that Veidt is a raging psychopath. You are obviously not interested in listening to this viewpoint as you wish to see him as some sort of Saint who has cold blooded murdered 3 million innocents for noble reasons. I'm OK with that as long as you understand that I believe you are dead wrong.

I don't see any point in discussing this any further.

I would urge you, however, to consult the works or Robert Hare if only for your own protection.

Good Luck.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Ok, let's take this as true - it amounts to the same thing. Veidt takes an interest in the preservation of the pen collection. He still remains unbiased and invested in the survival of humanity.


Yes, but let's take a look at where these morals come from. They're based on Rorschach's past experiences, and his resultant emotions. His aversion to sex/his opinion of its amorality stems from his memories of his mother. His decision to never tolerate 'immoral' acts (whether reasonable or not, the whole 'never compromise' deal) comes from his emotional reaction upon entering the kidnapper's house. Before that, you'll note, he supported Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb (in his papers) - which Moore obviously intends as a parallel to Veidt's massacre, what with the Hiroshima lovers and all those other little hints. Oh, you'll also notice that that emotional reaction also caused his shift to killing most criminals. Because that's moral, right? Right?

_________________
.
.

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

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

Veidt is often referred to as "the smartest man in the world" in quotes. I always liked that.

There wasn't any alternative plan because Veidt didn't work on one.

Veidt's spiffing idea involved certain post mollusc long-term planning. Totally cut off from any immediate feelings of concerna as to "Am I doing the right thing??" he concocts a mind-bending shock on a scale worthy of Ray Harryhausen or Toho.

He steps over bodies to reach his aims... (bodies he put there)

... selling more stuff.





As to selling the Veidt line of toys. I was thinking about the way he rejects all other heroes/villains except himself. Choosing to invent new ones due to "copyright problems". Shades of Charlton, what?

This guy can think of copyright law over a subsequent toy line at the same time as contemplating the eradication of millions. /shudders


And don't worry about the essays, DW. They are fun to read.

_________________

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

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

I don't! But if he did, I'm sure Uncle Alan would have told us about it, through Veidt, during Ozy's proud "soliloquy".

_________________

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

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

True.

But if he's so damned "smart" he wouldn't contemplate a dud.



But, of course, you are right. He might well have had other plans, and rejected them. For me, that's unimportant. What is important is the way he calculates. Creepy.


And if he was really anguished about what had happened he would have been over to NY with a mop and a bucket. But he's not looking for popularity points any more. He already has those bagged.

_________________

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

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

Veidt's whole plan hinges around the inevitability of nuclear war, of which he was informed by Eddie Blake. Armageddon by nuclear fissionable material was at best arguable. At the beginning of the GN, the USSR and the USA are at a stalemate with the US having the upper hand due to Doc Manhattan. The nuclear clock is at 5 to midnight, the same place it's been since the 1950's.

As Veidt's plan develops, it BECOMES inevitable by virtue of his own machinations. Make no mistake about this. It is soon after that the Russians start to rattle their sabres, agitating as they are because of being cowed by the United States for so long.

It has been argued that Jon was going to leave anyway. This is not proven. He was becoming increasingly emotionally distant, but had no immediate reason to leave the earth. Would he leave because Laurie walked out on him? Perhaps. Laurie may have had a change of mind... in fact she was on her way back when she discovered Jon had left for Mars - after the cancer accusations. Could they have patched things up? Unknowable, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Fact: it was Veidt who made Jon leave and helped the nuclear clock move forward.

With regard to alternate plans? Here I think Veidt's psychopathy is very much the issue. Remember, he was CONVINCED nuclear war was inevitable. (Actually, he was pretty much dared by the Comedian to prevent it) This idea of reference is in itself a sign of insanity. He was consumed by this concept with a monomania of epic proportions. It influenced all of his decisions.

He had twenty years to plan (and manipulate public opinion and politicians). A more sane person would have looked at other alternatives and consulted others...

Politics? Veidt wouldn't touch it with a 20 foot pole. His psychopathy (specifically his paranoia and narcissism) wouldn't permit the kind personal scrutiny that public office demands, despite the fact that he's publicly admired.

Bill Gates type philantropy? With his personal fortune it was doable. Other than a display of gymnastics, there's no evidence of any whatsoever. In fact, I suspect most of his assets were tied up in his little science project called Saving The World or advertising the Veidt trademark worldwide.

No.. He was insanely stuck on this. He could have done good if that was what really important to him. He chose to put all his sociopathic energies in a huge sham of a project that was his biggest lie of all.

Just thought I'd add this...

From a historical perpective, is anyone aware of a case/leader who exterminated millions for the greater good and wasn't later reviled??

All the mass murderers of history tried to couch their atrocities in noble terms. The Great Leap Forward. Lebensraum. Racial Purity. Stalin's purges, while being characterized as a fight against enemies of the state, mostly involved minorities. Pol Pot exterminated "intellectuals" (defined as anyone with an education) to protect his doctrine.

One more thing. Forgive me if this seems arrogant. It's not in any way meant that way. I lived half my life under the threat of nuclear war. I was almost thirty when Watchmen came out. As a child, I was in fear of of the bomb. Probably as most children nowadays fear global warming. I was so sure it was going to happen in my lifetime, as did many of my friends.

Perhaps this explains my somewhat cavalier attitude towards the end of the world. I suspect that should it ever really happen, it's really out of our hands. In the meantime, the sane amongst us must assume that life goes on. Nothing ever really ends.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

_________________