WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

But the world leaders are different.


But Laurie would have gotten old, or died, or become unappealing to Manhattan. That, too, is fact - and Manhattan says that she was his one remaining link.


Actually, I don't think that Veidt took the Comedian on his word. Take a look at his charts on the wall, detailing different crises and their convergences. He heard the Comedian - and then looked into it, and confirmed it. And hell, if I was dubbed the smartest man in the world and I had immeasurable fortunes, I'd feel guilty for not being consumed with trying to find a solution.


Consult whom? Who can Veidt possibly trust with thinking objectively? How do we know he didn't consider alternatives? You say it's not certain that Manhattan would leave, but it's strongly implied in the graphic novel - then you say that it's certain that Veidt considered no alternatives, when nothing is said regarding that, and Veidt wouldn't be likely to discuss them.


Veidt already plays the public eye and submits himself to public scrutiny. He gives interviews, performances, designs advertising and product campaigns - he has no problem giving off an image to the public or being examined by them.


Advertising costs, much like Veidt's plan to save the world, are all about investment versus return. Obviously Veidt makes huge profits through his advertising, so that's not a waste of money that could go towards philanthropy - it's the accumulation of more money that could potentially be donated. Also, we know he donated his initial fortune, and Bernie says he donated to charities. It's presumable that Veidt would, what with maintaining the image of an ex-crimefighter. Once again, double standard for evidence - there's ample evidence that Veidt donated to charity, yet it's denied for some reason.

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.


All of the leaders and instances you mention came from the idea of personal advancement. Veidt does it to save the world. He wouldn't even have told anyone. It doesn't benefit him especially in any way. Stalin did it to solidify his power. Hitler did it to win public support. Etc. The only reasonable comparison by any stretch is the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, and even then, there are contingencies there that separate it from Veidt's plan.


This makes me wonder - who are we to judge Veidt? He took action when the people of the world would not. He prevented nuclear war. Did anyone else step forward to help, for all the naysayers and moralists? Did anyone propose an alternate solution? Who was working to ensure that this did not happen? Veidt took action, he ended the problem, and it resulted in the loss of exponentially less lives than if he had not. Everyone else sat around and watched, waited, reminisced, moaned and groaned and lounged and got on with the mundane things in their life, worrying about jobs and relationships. Veidt saved the freaking world. To complain about it ex post facto is almost, well, ungrateful. He did the job nobody else was willing to do. If people like Veidt aren't to be trusted to make decisions for humanity, then the people who are qualified to prevent things like nuclear war should have stepped forward and taken action. They did not.

_________________
.
.

We are. The readers of a Graphic Novel named Watchmen. A fictional situation where someone takes it upon themselves to "save the world" without consulting the world. Where same said person is of arguable ethics and sanity (this is what we're arguing about, right?). Where even his whole pretense for saving the world is itself arguable (or we wouldn't be having this discussion, I think). Involving a grandiose, outrageous plan with a fake killer alien and banishing the one individual holding the world in balance. Where his plan for saving the world involves dealing millions of death sentences for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and countless more for simply helping him out.

He has acted as judge and jury, deciding who lives and dies without a second of remorse. Like any historical figure committing a horrendous act, he deserves judgement.



Yes, but the general world situation is almost exactly the same. The Russians simply waited 5 years to enter Afghanistan. During the real 80's , there were several incidents where many thought the nukes were going to go flying. Reagan may have had nerves of steel, but diplomacy wasn't his strong suit (ironically, it was Nixon's, who was the first American leader to go to mainland China). Cooler heads prevailed. To call nuclear war inevitable is mostly conjecture. Mutually Assured Destruction pretty much mad sure of that. Also, when Nixon is in the War Room, the projections for damage are certainly bad, but they're not quite up to the Apocalyptic Scale. It would not be surprising if the russians were sitting in their silos looking at the damage the US would inflict to them. I don't think either side was in a hurry to press the button. It is likely the leaders of both sides would have to lives with the consequences of whatever came next.



You certainly post lots, but you don't read much...or at least come up with a new argumetn so I can come up with a new rebuttal... I've said this once before, (and kindly pay attention please) Yes, but Jon could have found another honey. The world situation could have changed. There is no way of knowing the "alternate" future here. What you say is not fact, but pure conjecture and open to argument. Please stay on topic.



Sigh... given the mess he created in saving the world... certainly not himself.



I completely disagree. He has the means to completely control his public image and persona. The only interview we see of him is in a magazine he owns and distributes. He is the medium and the message. We see of Veidt what he wants us to see. No more, no less.

In politics, opponents go looking for dirt. They go looking for the bodies. Veidt's vanity and emotional distance from the world will not tolerate any outside scrutiny. His paranoia would permit it even less.

.

On that, we agree.



In our world, they did. In Watchmen, they were not given the opportunity.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Once again, Gorbachev and Reagan's combined efforts were pretty much the sole reason for the end of the cold war. In Watchmen, Nixon seems much more willing to engage in a first strike - just look at the conversation in the War Room. The Watchmen Cold War is far, far less reliable than the one that came about in our world. The only reason the projections for the damage didn't cover the entire US is because, if I recall, that was a projection for a US FIRST STRIKE. Meaning that Russia would pretty much be completely gone, along with a huge chunk of Europe and over half of the US, and who knows what else.


Jon wouldn't have found another 'honey.' He only fell in love when he was a naive crimefighter, unaware of the deeper mystery of the universe and more concerned with humanity. Hell, he's barely even interested in his wife, his only link to humanity - he loses her, he's not going to be interested in anyone else. It's been past that point of no return for a long time in Watchmen. But really, I fail to see that this heavily-alluded-to contingency is more of a conjecture than, say, 'Veidt didn't think of other plans,' or 'the world would have resolved the conflict on its own.' Hurm.


Looking at NYC a while later, I don't see much of a 'mess.' If you're referring to the bodies, well, that's rather like complaining about a glass of juice that got spilled in the process of saving the entire carton.


And this is somehow different from politicians? Veidt is already at that level of 'scrutiny.' If he was in politics, he would not be under any more, really, except for maybe a closer watch on where he was going. You really think that nobody has tried to look for dirt on Veidt, who's rich beyond imagination?


In Watchmen, they weren't there.

_________________
.
.

The first time "First Strike" is mentioned, Nixon looks at the numbers and says We'll wait a week and see.

Later, in chapter X Nixon resists pressure to employ first strike tactics quite firmly. His intention is to sit and wait. He's NOT contemplating anything rash.

Doesn't sound the kind of man who's willing to sacrifice a whole whack of lives on pure conjecture. And unlike our putative villain, I don't think the Russians are either.



I stand by that. They were definitely there. Nixon and his Russian counterpart never had a chance to defuse a situation that Veidt started by sending Jon off planet.

You don't have to agree, but that's my point of view.

You've been repeating yourself ad nauseum at me for I don't know how many pages. You've failed to convince me. I've ttried a variety of logical arguments that you either fail to read or fail to address. I'm doing a piss poor job of convincing you. Aren't you finding this tedious??

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

No, he's not contemplating being pressured to do something rash. Major difference there.


Then by the same logic, drop your arguments that Veidt didn't consider other plans and that the situation would have been otherwise resolved - because those represent much more ridiculous conjecture, with absolutely no basis. But that's right - conjecture is ok, so long as it's not supporting my argument. "I said, often, that you were my only link, my only concern with the world." "You're driftin' outta touch, Doc. You're turnin' into a flake." The whole issue with Janey Slater where he dumped her because she wasn't physically appealing while he was still caught up in the adventuring euphoria (the deterioration of which - along with the deterioration of his link with humanity - is obviously represented by the gradual decrease in the amount of clothing he wears). When he picks up both girls, he has the 'full body' costume, or at least a reasonable amount of clothing (i.e., attachment). He's completely naked during the 'present' Watchmen. He has no links other than Laurie. Laurie leaves or becomes uninteresting to him, he is gone. Somehow, this would be more than enough evidence for many other threads, many other conclusions we make in Watchmen, but here, huge amounts of evidence result in a verdict of 'conjecture.'


Oh, you mean like right after what you quoted, where I say

That mess? Because if that's what you were referring to, then I'd have to ask you to please pay attention and read more than half of a two-sentence comment.


Did they look like they wanted to? Nixon runs off to his bunker and puts his hand on the button box, with absolutely no evidence that he's even considered talking to Russian politicians about the crisis.


I'm taking pains to address every argument thoroughly. Honestly, I feel like both you and Vynson have resorted much more to a derogatory tone, emotional appeals, and double standards than logical arguments. I respond to your points; you've chosen not to respond to half of my responses. But really, when I'm defending against the same accusations over and over again, I can see how it would get repetitive.

Moore intentionally creates the perfect moral dilemma. He includes these clues about Manhattan leaving, about Nixon's extended terms resulting in horrendous extension and worsening of the Cold War, about the inevitability of a nuclear holocaust in order to make us think about the tradeoff Veidt chooses to make. Obviously, he disagrees with Veidt, using copious Nazi allusions to do so, few of which have any bearing in comparison to the situation. It's a sanitized version of the Hiroshima situation, really - a mass slaughter invoked in order to save even more lives, with citizens on both sides of the issue instead of contrasting the death of American soldiers with Japanese citizens (which, to me, is the major moral issue of Hiroshima). This is what Moore asks: if the world is heading to catastrophe and there's no sign of the situation being resolved, to what extent is it moral to take matters into one's own hands, invoking a solution that results in the death of innocents but prevents a much greater crisis? I say that it is moral, provided that no other path was similarly reliable.

Yes, you can argue about the minutiae of what Moore included in Watchmen 'ad nauseam' (it's 'am', not 'um') if you want - he only had 300-some pages in which to establish an entire world, after all, and he prefers to show rather than to tell, so straightforward expository conversations/writings that would normally resolve this quickly are unavailable. However, when he includes minor expositions of personalities or world situations, we can be fairly sure they're intended to give us a grasp on the bigger picture (though this doesn't apply to his Hitler allusions with Veidt - that's more of making a judgment about a character, since there are very few non-superficial comparisons between the two).

_________________
.
.

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

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

_________________

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

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

And one person's raging psychopath another's semi-retired philanthropist doing what he can for the common good.



And another thought... Why New York? Why not Paris? Moscow? Slough? I realize the book centers around those offices in back of Bernie's stand, but those offices could have been anywhere else.

I just mention this because I would imagine there were many people who would have thought that the "thing" wasn't from any other dimension at all. (Which it wasn't) And wasn't an "alien" presence either. (Which it wasn't).

1985 was the year the personal computer broke out and after a few years the Internet was up for grabs, accelerated by the use of browsers and message groups.

Think of the conspiracy theories surrounding squiddly-deadly. As well as the possible exposé of the ultra conservative and missing "hero" Rorschach's mad scribblings. I'd say the shit would hit the fan pretty soon enough.

_________________

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

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

All of this comes down to point of view. Let's do a compare and contrast...

Let's say Veidt did consider other plans to save the world. In the end, he chose the squidgina plan that results in 3 million deaths. In his mind, that was the only plan that would work. He shows sympathy for those innocent lives lost, but it "had to be done" for the "greater good."

George W. Bush considered other courses of action to bring democracty to Iraq, In the end, he chose to go to war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American and partnering soldiers. In his mind, going to war in Iraq was the only plan that would work. Bush shows sympathy for those innocent lives lost, but it "had to be done" for the "greater good."

Do you see my point?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

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

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

Yes, but GW is the president. He's not a genius, but he's not as stupid as he often appears. Also, the decision to go to war was not 100% his. There were countless advisors - military, civilian and otherwise - whose intelligence was brought to bear on the Iraq issue, and still the course of war was chosen. I think the anology stands.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

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

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

I don't think so. Adrian is one man. It would be easier for him to miscalculate, even if he is a genius. It's harder for an entire group to do so.


First, Adrian gains the knowledge that it was he alone that saved the world. His ego benefits. He's not Mother Teresa. Plus, when did Bush say the war is about oil and unfinished business. That's what you have inferred from his "bad" unilateral decision. His reasons for going to war are almost as "noble" as Veidt's. Bush is saving the world from terrorism and the evil tyranny of Iraq's regine that is bent on the destruction of th efree world. Sounds like the stakes are pretty high whether you believe it or not.


But "taking credit" for the plan undermines Veidt's plan entirely. The nature of Veidt's plan hinges on the US and Russia believing there's a real threat of alien invasion. Bush's plan does not require him to keep it a secret.


Again, you see Bush's decision to go to war as a fight for cheap oil. Listen to Bush's rhetoric. It's about keeping the world safe from madmen and terrorists who want to destroy the Western world. You and I may not believe that those are the motives, but Bush does (or has at least convinced himself that those are the motives).

Adrain has also convinced himself that his plan is the only way as well. Nothing else will work. Not diplomacy. Nothing. Three million must die in NY at the hands of a perceived alien. Period. Just because you believe that he had no other option, so can some Americans believe the same thing about the Iraq war.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to infer that Bush or Veidt are right or wrong. It's open to interpretation. The truth is Bush and Veidt acted unilaterally with no reguard for the damage that would be done, and the truth is, their decision could easily have been the wrong one.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

I was with you until you brought Michael into it...


Michael did indeed commit murder and ordered the murder of others. I don't recall if any of the murders were murders of innocents though. These were people threatening the family; people who shot his father.

I mean, Michael was a guy who already tasted death in war, much to his distain. He was brought back in because of his family, and the emotional ties that come with it. It's the nature of the business to kill.

Adrian has no family, or any emotional ties to anyone. His plan is not emotionally based- a plan that took nearly twenty years to commit. That's alot of dedication to an ideal without apparent emotional tie.

_________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
.........................................................................................................SEE YOU, SPACE COWBOY...

Bush is not similar to Veidt. The situation is not comparable. Bush acted on, essentially, hearsay regarding nuclear weapons, with absolutely no evidence to back it up besides ridiculous claims made by Hussein. They showed no interest in using these weapons offensively unless attacked - in fact, that's why Hussein lied about them - to scare countries into not attacking Iraq. Bush ended hundreds of thousands of innocent lives on hearsay and whim, with no evidence of a present or potential danger. Bush has not saved lives. In fact, after no WMDs turned up, he switched his tact to deposing a dictator - essentially imposing a form of government on another, unwilling country.

Veidt acted with knowledge of the weapons' existence, knowledge of their destructive capabilities, knowledge of how many lives would be lost if they were ever used. He acted with the sole intent of saving as many lives as possible as reliably as possible.

Huge difference.

Oh, and yeah, Bush is retarded.

_________________
.
.

A few things I'd like to point out. Forgive me ahead of time for being long winded.

As far as Jon leaving is without Veidt's help is concerned, it is not fact but a conjecture. Yes, the stolen psych reports indicated mental withdrawal, but that does NOT necessarily translate to him taking an unplanned vacation on Mars. Even the loss of Laurie, his only link to humanity, doesn't guarantee it. He seemed quite content puttering around in his lab at home. As long as nobody took that away from him, I don't see why he would WANT to leave.

It took (false) evidence that he was a danger to those around him to drive him away.



Yes, but by never more than a few minutes. Ask anyone born in the 50's or 60's. The birds could have been flying at any minute. It was real.

So, is Nixon a trigger happy guy ready to end the world? Let's see what Moore puts in his mouth.

First in the war room:





Later in the Bunker...



Things are certainly tense for ol' Tricky Dickie. Amazingly, he's holding up well under pressure. He's thinking of the stakes. And they're mighty big. Grace under pressure. Oh yes, look at that last panel on X:3. The finger isn't on the trigger. The keys are safely locked in the football. Chained to his wrist. He's NOT in a hurry to do anything. And he's not going to unless the Russians force his hand.

You might want to contrast Nixon's dilemma with Adrian's own pushing of the button scene. Pretty relaxed and calm for a guy unrolling the end of the world for a paltry 3 million people. There's no dilemma for him. No soul searching. La-de-da, let's take out the trash...

So, let's take a closer look at our philanthropic genius who's taken on the noble task of saving the world. I think his own words say a lot about who he is and where he's coming from. Let's read his rationale for doing what he has to do, as he explains it to Dan and Rorscach:



Moving. Bravo. Well said. (Pardon my sarcasm, I really do enjoy Moore's writing)

Except, what's all this purple prose in aid of, anyway?? On the surface, he's talking about things. Yes, mentions humanity (according to Merriam-Webster: the quality or state of being human), but most of this passage seems more concerned with the trappings of the human race than said race itself.

Where is the concern for the collossal loss of human life the end of the world would entail?? It is mentioned, at best, in a passing manner. For Christ's Sake, Adrian has a captive audience here, and he's justifying his plan. Why can't he just simply say think of all the people that would die if they dropped the bomb ??? (...and I wouldn't fault him for saying it more eloquently)

But he doesn't. He's more concerned about the things people have built and accomplished. That's what he really cares about. Humanity is an abstract concept to him.

Let's continue. I won't go in to the plan in detail (since there's no argument about the substance of the plan) other than to point out another thing or two...

Let's skip ahead to his discussion of Eddie Blake...



Why does Veidt even say this? Why is this important to him? Eddie never struck me as a jealous type. Brutal, yes. Amoral, obviously. But jealous?? Psychologists refer to the act of transferring emotions to others in order to avoid responsibility as mirroring. You are angry at your spouse, but you blame your spouse for being angry at you. Is this what is going on here? Who is really jealous?

Anyway, Rorschach accuses Adrian of murdering Blake.



He's sidestepping the accusation. Again, avoiding responsibility.

The next quote is a gem...



Let's grant for a moment that Blake happened to fly by serendipidously. He sees a boat there. Why is he automatically suspicious of Sandinistas? Why does he resolve to investigate? Sure, good ol' Eddie is a long standing operative for Uncle Sam, and as thourough and succesful as he is, can anyone point to me an example where he took it upon himself to investigate something without prior orders? Or did a little bird tell him where he could find the Sandinistas? Too many coincidences here for my personal taste. Just one more thing.

I love the second panel on XI:26. Not one, but TWO bloody smiley faces. Adrian loves his job.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Holy crap, and you talk about conjecture!?

_________________
.
.

But it is when you look at the fact that a unilateral decision was made for a course of action based primarily on a "gut feeling." Even during the Bay of Pigs incident, no nukes were launched. There is a human factor that the cold caluculating Veidt may have had no faith in. The may have never been a WWIII. There's no way of knowing.


Not so much. Veidt, based on his interpretation of the world around him, surmised that a nuclear war was imminent, and he acted to prevent it. Bush, based on the intellegence presented to him and his knowledge of how Saddam's regime behaves surmised that Iraq was a very big terrorist threat and acted to prevent another 911-like attack on Western soil.


Well, I never voted for him.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin