The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
There is no greater moral good in Tyranny. No matter how well meaning if SUperman or Thor made the decision to take control of the world people would rise up and they would have the right to cast them out. They arn't God or any absolute moral authority.
and the state is?
The state at least has the intention of following the will of the people and an agreement that when the time comes that the State no longer serves the people that it should be changed or destroyed. Not so much for an Omnipotent possibly ageless Tyrant.
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
AM: The idea that it is not the place of two white men to ‘reclaim’ (although I’m not certain that’s exactly what we were doing) or otherwise utilise a contentious black character, unless I am to understand that this principle only applies to white men using black characters, would appear to be predicated upon an assumption that no author or artist should presume to use characters who are of a different race to themselves. Since I can think of no obvious reason why this principle should only relate to the issue of race – and specifically to black people and white people – then I assume it must be extended to characters of different ethnicities, genders, sexualities, religions, political persuasions and, possibly most uncomfortably of all for many people considering these issues, social classes. I cannot assume, of course, that my perception of such a prohibition as self-evidently ridiculous and unworkable is one that will be shared unanimously, and indeed this would
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
There is no greater moral good in Tyranny. No matter how well meaning if SUperman or Thor made the decision to take control of the world people would rise up and they would have the right to cast them out. They arn't God or any absolute moral authority.
and the state is?
The state, for all its flaws, is composed of many.
It has a system of checks and balances, and room for progressive change when demanded by the people that comprise it.
And the state, as opposed to any one being, has its morality influenced and dictated by the vast society comprising it.
the idea of thor, as a dude from space, giving extinct incredibly delicious space fruit as a last meal to a prisoner is one I really like
but anti is right that thor, as a powerful superhero, so compliantly letting the state kill a person is kind of fucked up?
maybe the scene would have worked better if it was someone else who would have access to delicious space fruit but would not have the power to save the guy
Why shouldn't Thor support the death penalty? Or at least tacitly accept it is the official policy of the nation he is in?
We can dance around the question a bit, but from the looks of things, that's the issue here.
And I mean, I personally don't see a reason, clearly, but I'm interested to hear what you would have to say.
because that guy is thor's friend and he would prefer to see him not die, and he values his life more than the ramifications of interfering with the american legal system
like if thor picked him up and flew out the building and dropped him in valhalla or whatever, what would the united states government do to thor when he came back
Wait
Where are you getting this
if my language is unclear I am suggesting why he shouldn't support the death penalty as per the question you asked
it is clear from the pages that him valuing that guy's life over legal ramifications is not the case
But where are you getting that?
Why would that be the case?
that would be the case if the author had written that to be the case, and it would be a reason why thor would not support the death penalty
that is the answer I am giving to your question "why shouldn't thor support the death penalty"
the idea of thor, as a dude from space, giving extinct incredibly delicious space fruit as a last meal to a prisoner is one I really like
but anti is right that thor, as a powerful superhero, so compliantly letting the state kill a person is kind of fucked up?
maybe the scene would have worked better if it was someone else who would have access to delicious space fruit but would not have the power to save the guy
Why shouldn't Thor support the death penalty? Or at least tacitly accept it is the official policy of the nation he is in?
We can dance around the question a bit, but from the looks of things, that's the issue here.
And I mean, I personally don't see a reason, clearly, but I'm interested to hear what you would have to say.
because that guy is thor's friend and he would prefer to see him not die, and he values his life more than the ramifications of interfering with the american legal system
like if thor picked him up and flew out the building and dropped him in valhalla or whatever, what would the united states government do to thor when he came back
Probably sick SHIELD or even the rest of the Avengers after him and should any of them refuse and Thor is able to escape any consequences then bang looks like Thor rules the earth. ANything that Thor doesn't like is forbidden and anything that Thor demands must be done.
Sure hope nobody has any strong moral reservations about the way Thor's world works!
sick shield on him? for busting out a prisoner and taking him far away from where he could do any harm to any humans? geez I would think nick fury would just give him a stern talking to
It turns out breaking people out of prison is against the law and when the Police can't handle a threat the states response isn't "well I guess he just get to do what ever he likes then!".
But they don't, because in some capacity they still value the law, and they are not activists. They are warriors.
Being a warrior has nothing to do with the law
That's true
But I'm not seeing the point in reiteration, here?
They protect humanity by busting chops, not by changing the law or even attempting to
And there is an ethical argument that they should reconsider their position
I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said; I'm not making an ethical argument, I'm making a statement of fact.
And I'm making an ethical argument that perhaps what your fact reveals about these people suggests that they are being somewhat unethical
(from my point of view)
Man I knew you disagreed with Thor from the start here
I appreciate you trying to clarify for me but you're not telling me anything you didn't tell me with your first post in this particular discussion
Certainly, I am against the death penalty
However, that is not to say that Thor would also be, and that even if he is, that he would not consider it better to allow humanity to govern itself, which I believe he would
And it is also not to say that it is not a good scene
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
the idea of thor, as a dude from space, giving extinct incredibly delicious space fruit as a last meal to a prisoner is one I really like
but anti is right that thor, as a powerful superhero, so compliantly letting the state kill a person is kind of fucked up?
maybe the scene would have worked better if it was someone else who would have access to delicious space fruit but would not have the power to save the guy
Why shouldn't Thor support the death penalty? Or at least tacitly accept it is the official policy of the nation he is in?
We can dance around the question a bit, but from the looks of things, that's the issue here.
And I mean, I personally don't see a reason, clearly, but I'm interested to hear what you would have to say.
because that guy is thor's friend and he would prefer to see him not die, and he values his life more than the ramifications of interfering with the american legal system
like if thor picked him up and flew out the building and dropped him in valhalla or whatever, what would the united states government do to thor when he came back
Wait
Where are you getting this
if my language is unclear I am suggesting why he shouldn't support the death penalty as per the question you asked
it is clear from the pages that him valuing that guy's life over legal ramifications is not the case
But where are you getting that?
Why would that be the case?
that would be the case if the author had written that to be the case, and it would be a reason why thor would not support the death penalty
that is the answer I am giving to your question "why shouldn't thor support the death penalty"
Well, it sort of is
It's an answer to a very similar question, at least
Yeah, best case scenario they try to negotiate with Thor through SHIELD or the Avengers.
But, by the logic of him breaking the law by busting him out in the first place, Thor would say no.
The US Government isn't going to just go "Well, that's that." because they then acknowledge Thor is, literally, a higher power than they are and carries more authority.
0
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
What are the escalating implications with Thor stopping an execution via the state?
Does Thor use his physical force to stop all death penalties in the world?
Does Thor decide, through only himself, that none shall die by a democratic judicial system?
Will he enforce his personal morality through divine strength?
And if the people he swore to defend and guide decide to oppose him will he strike them down? Will he impose his morality until they cower in fear and give in?
Because that doesn't sound like a hero to me.
What if he saved lots of people's lives doing that?
What if he made the world a better place?
This is not a simple question and I am not looking for a simple answer
All I am saying is that the power of Thor has no more inherent legitimacy than the power of the state
what matters is how that power is used, and our opinions on that are going to depend, as they always will do, regardless of the source of power, on the decisions made there.
I'd say there is a difference between the power of Thor and the power of the state.
Thor has a very physical sense of power. He has actual power.
The state has power through its resources and citizens, but all of its power is only real if those comprising it agree towards its goals/morals.
I'm going to preface this by saying: that scene was beautiful and anyone who didn't like it, well, we have different value sets when it comes to beautiful writing
Anyways, Zero is a super-spy book that's told in a sort of broken back structure. It leaps from decade to decade with each issue and changes artists, as well. Every issue is this incredibly brutal episode in this secret agent's life. So far we've had two super humans running amok in a near future Gaza strip, the Hogwarts School for Young Assassins, a kickstarter for terrorists, and a fistfight against a retired secret agent in a favela.
It's a bit like Casanova if Casanova made sense and then had some serious, horrific violence injected into it. I wouldn't say that Zero is a series with incredible levity, but if you like spy-fi or war stories that have a dash of superheroics in it, Zero is a great book to pick up. It's also worth saying that I think Zero might have been made for me.
No, I liked Dune Messiah. It was, like 200 pages and it had a bunch of weird mutants trying to kill a god-emperor with. . . radiation, I think? Children of Dune is the one I hated. I'm thinking about starting it again just so I can quit it again.
masterofmetroidHave you ever looked at a worldand seen it as a kind of challenge?Registered Userregular
I am uncomfortable with the assertion that anyone who enforces or allows rule of law to be giving tacit agreement to all facets of that version of law, matters of power or lack thereof notwithstanding.
That might be a personal thing since i'm planning on being a cop, but i'm just saying its kind of a lot to put on even a superhero.
does shield care enough about executing prisoners to start a war against thor for the ability to do it
this tyrant, this threat to democratic principles, flying death row inmates to space that nick fury must strike down or else america will never be able to execute a prisoner again
I mean, you're saying that Thor has the right to go rogue and bust him out of prison because he has the power to do so.
How is that any different from, say, a general of the armed forces staging a coup of the US Government because they think BILL X is morally wrong and dangerous to the American people?
He has the power to do so and is doing what he believes will help people?
The only difference is Thor is one person, which is arguably worse since the general presumably has his troops that agree with him.
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
There is no greater moral good in Tyranny. No matter how well meaning if SUperman or Thor made the decision to take control of the world people would rise up and they would have the right to cast them out. They arn't God or any absolute moral authority.
and the state is?
The state, for all its flaws, is composed of many.
It has a system of checks and balances, and room for progressive change when demanded by the people that comprise it.
And the state, as opposed to any one being, has its morality influenced and dictated by the vast society comprising it.
Suppose, though, that the state acts in a way that is immoral
Suppose that it is acting in this way with the express goodwill of the majority of the people
Consider that the state, as the US government does now (used because that is the government force expressed in the comic book), does something morally wrong but legally right
Then what
Now you can say that a superhuman breaking the law as they see fit is morally wrong
However that is not true (not necessarily)
What it is is illegal
And whether acting illegally is immoral depends very much on a number of things, and there is certainly an argument which says that if the state is doing something legal, and immoral, and you have the power to stop that, then you should. Other states do it all the time. Often they fuck up in the process. But we have rules for that as well, UN resolutions have been formed on that basis. So using force to resist the actions of a state, even if it is acting according to it's own laws, is hardly a new idea here.
What makes them morally right? What makes anything morally right? Consider, Thor goes to Saudi Arabia, and frees a man from being imprisoned because he is gay. Illegal, yet moral.
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
Anyways, Zero is a super-spy book that's told in a sort of broken back structure. It leaps from decade to decade with each issue and changes artists, as well. Every issue is this incredibly brutal episode in this secret agent's life. So far we've had two super humans running amok in a near future Gaza strip, the Hogwarts School for Young Assassins, a kickstarter for terrorists, and a fistfight against a retired secret agent in a favela.
It's a bit like Casanova if Casanova made sense and then had some serious, horrific violence injected into it. I wouldn't say that Zero is a series with incredible levity, but if you like spy-fi or war stories that have a dash of superheroics in it, Zero is a great book to pick up. It's also worth saying that I think Zero might have been made for me.
No, I liked Dune Messiah. It was, like 200 pages and it had a bunch of weird mutants trying to kill a god-emperor with. . . radiation, I think? Children of Dune is the one I hated. I'm thinking about starting it again just so I can quit it again.
Now I'm also going to say that it would be a very, very interesting story for someone, some superhero - Hell, we'll say it's Franklin Richards as a teenager. He's a good pick.
He becomes pen pals with a prisoner in a state pen as part of a school program. Turns out they're on death row.
Franklin do how he do and takes them out of there, to someplace else. Somewhere without an extradition treaty with the US.
This of course causes an enormous legal incident, and Franklin is arrested, and stands trial, and uses it as a platform for activism whereby he argues that it is not wrong to fight against the death penalty. Maybe he'd actually get change implemented?
Now that I have that written out it feels way, way too preachy and political, but when I first thought of it it felt pretty neat
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
so the imposition of morality is okay as long as it's your morality, is kind of what you're saying here.
This is absolutely true in anyone's case
It absolutely is not something I would support. Ever.
Anyways, Zero is a super-spy book that's told in a sort of broken back structure. It leaps from decade to decade with each issue and changes artists, as well. Every issue is this incredibly brutal episode in this secret agent's life. So far we've had two super humans running amok in a near future Gaza strip, the Hogwarts School for Young Assassins, a kickstarter for terrorists, and a fistfight against a retired secret agent in a favela.
It's a bit like Casanova if Casanova made sense and then had some serious, horrific violence injected into it. I wouldn't say that Zero is a series with incredible levity, but if you like spy-fi or war stories that have a dash of superheroics in it, Zero is a great book to pick up. It's also worth saying that I think Zero might have been made for me.
No, I liked Dune Messiah. It was, like 200 pages and it had a bunch of weird mutants trying to kill a god-emperor with. . . radiation, I think? Children of Dune is the one I hated. I'm thinking about starting it again just so I can quit it again.
Yeah I've heard good things about it, and if there's one thing I know about Ales Kot is that he can write superspy shit incredibly well.
What are the escalating implications with Thor stopping an execution via the state?
Does Thor use his physical force to stop all death penalties in the world?
Does Thor decide, through only himself, that none shall die by a democratic judicial system?
Will he enforce his personal morality through divine strength?
And if the people he swore to defend and guide decide to oppose him will he strike them down? Will he impose his morality until they cower in fear and give in?
Because that doesn't sound like a hero to me.
What if he saved lots of people's lives doing that?
What if he made the world a better place?
This is not a simple question and I am not looking for a simple answer
All I am saying is that the power of Thor has no more inherent legitimacy than the power of the state
what matters is how that power is used, and our opinions on that are going to depend, as they always will do, regardless of the source of power, on the decisions made there.
I'd say there is a difference between the power of Thor and the power of the state.
Thor has a very physical sense of power. He has actual power.
The state has power through its resources and citizens, but all of its power is only real if those comprising it agree towards its goals/morals.
The state isn't one.
The difference between jet fighters and Thor, ethically speaking, is non existent
does shield care enough about executing prisoners to start a war against thor for the ability to do it
this tyrant, this threat to democratic principles, flying death row inmates to space that nick fury must strike down or else america will never be able to execute a prisoner again
SHIELD likely doesn't, because it is an international organization.
However, if Thor refuses to negotiate with the US Armed Forces at all? Yeah, they would definitely take military action against him.
And then if Thor gives reprisal, that would likely be enough to get SHIELD involved because Thor has become a threat to the international community by attacking a nation.
the idea of thor, as a dude from space, giving extinct incredibly delicious space fruit as a last meal to a prisoner is one I really like
but anti is right that thor, as a powerful superhero, so compliantly letting the state kill a person is kind of fucked up?
maybe the scene would have worked better if it was someone else who would have access to delicious space fruit but would not have the power to save the guy
Why shouldn't Thor support the death penalty? Or at least tacitly accept it is the official policy of the nation he is in?
We can dance around the question a bit, but from the looks of things, that's the issue here.
And I mean, I personally don't see a reason, clearly, but I'm interested to hear what you would have to say.
because that guy is thor's friend and he would prefer to see him not die, and he values his life more than the ramifications of interfering with the american legal system
like if thor picked him up and flew out the building and dropped him in valhalla or whatever, what would the united states government do to thor when he came back
Wait
Where are you getting this
if my language is unclear I am suggesting why he shouldn't support the death penalty as per the question you asked
it is clear from the pages that him valuing that guy's life over legal ramifications is not the case
But where are you getting that?
Why would that be the case?
that would be the case if the author had written that to be the case, and it would be a reason why thor would not support the death penalty
that is the answer I am giving to your question "why shouldn't thor support the death penalty"
Well, it sort of is
It's an answer to a very similar question, at least
"Why wouldn't Thor support the death penalty?"
But it is not an answer to the question I asked
well if you're asking me why shouldn't thor support the death penalty, at least tacitly, under the characterization that he currently has then I can't answer because he clearly does support the death penalty, at least tacitly, under his current characterization
but I don't think he should, and reasons why he should not are there in my previous posts
What are the escalating implications with Thor stopping an execution via the state?
Does Thor use his physical force to stop all death penalties in the world?
Does Thor decide, through only himself, that none shall die by a democratic judicial system?
Will he enforce his personal morality through divine strength?
And if the people he swore to defend and guide decide to oppose him will he strike them down? Will he impose his morality until they cower in fear and give in?
Because that doesn't sound like a hero to me.
What if he saved lots of people's lives doing that?
What if he made the world a better place?
This is not a simple question and I am not looking for a simple answer
All I am saying is that the power of Thor has no more inherent legitimacy than the power of the state
what matters is how that power is used, and our opinions on that are going to depend, as they always will do, regardless of the source of power, on the decisions made there.
The democratic state has legitimacy because it is a representative of the people. Its systems work on behalf of the people and it is beholden to the people.
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
so the imposition of morality is okay as long as it's your morality, is kind of what you're saying here.
This is absolutely true in anyone's case
It absolutely is not something I would support. Ever.
Sure it is
You support laws that stop people from killing other people out of hand, right?
That's you, imposing your morality on other people
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, we do it all the time. It's the basis of society, essentially
I mean, you're saying that Thor has the right to go rogue and bust him out of prison because he has the power to do so.
How is that any different from, say, a general of the armed forces staging a coup of the US Government because they think BILL X is morally wrong and dangerous to the American people?
He has the power to do so and is doing what he believes will help people?
The only difference is Thor is one person, which is arguably worse since the general presumably has his troops that agree with him.
I happen to know that you are rather a big fan of President George Washington
And you should therefore be aware that Mr Washington did exactly what you outlined there, excepting that he did not stage a coup against the entire British Empire, but rather one of it's provinces
It's all well and good to talk about superheroes being big moral authorities who just do a thing because plebeians have it wrong
And it turns out super cool when someone like Miracle Man does it and turns us all into gods
But what if Thor was an asshole
What then, people
What happens when he decides gay sex is hella gross and hey, who the Hell said anything about state-funded healthcare, and starts kicking the shit out of people based on that
does shield care enough about executing prisoners to start a war against thor for the ability to do it
this tyrant, this threat to democratic principles, flying death row inmates to space that nick fury must strike down or else america will never be able to execute a prisoner again
SHIELD likely doesn't, because it is an international organization.
However, if Thor refuses to negotiate at all? Yeah, they would definitely take military action against him.
And then if Thor gives reprisal, that would likely be enough to get SHIELD involved because Thor has become a threat to the international community by attacking a nation.
well yeah if thor starts attacking people in the course of saving the dude then military action would be justified
I don't see why he would ever need to attack the prison guards though
and if iron man, or someone else who actually could pose a threat to thor, shows up and says "yo thor stop flying this guy to space" and thor says "no" then is tony really going to attack him over it
It's all well and good to talk about superheroes being big moral authorities who just do a thing because plebeians have it wrong
And it turns out super cool when someone like Miracle Man does it and turns us all into gods
But what if Thor was an asshole
What then, people
What happens when he decides gay sex is hella gross and hey, who the Hell said anything about state-funded healthcare, and starts kicking the shit out of people based on that
What happens when a state decides that
Same thing, really
0
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Like you guys are arguing in favor of the first step of a dozen Elseworlds and What Ifs? From Injustice to Red Son.
which are perpetually cynical and unable to think that maybe the world could improve with superheroes that actually use their power for a greater moral good
There is no greater moral good in Tyranny. No matter how well meaning if SUperman or Thor made the decision to take control of the world people would rise up and they would have the right to cast them out. They arn't God or any absolute moral authority.
and the state is?
The state, for all its flaws, is composed of many.
It has a system of checks and balances, and room for progressive change when demanded by the people that comprise it.
And the state, as opposed to any one being, has its morality influenced and dictated by the vast society comprising it.
Suppose, though, that the state acts in a way that is immoral
Suppose that it is acting in this way with the express goodwill of the majority of the people
Consider that the state, as the US government does now (used because that is the government force expressed in the comic book), does something morally wrong but legally right
Then what
Now you can say that a superhuman breaking the law as they see fit is morally wrong
However that is not true (not necessarily)
What it is is illegal
And whether acting illegally is immoral depends very much on a number of things, and there is certainly an argument which says that if the state is doing something legal, and immoral, and you have the power to stop that, then you should. Other states do it all the time. Often they fuck up in the process. But we have rules for that as well, UN resolutions have been formed on that basis. So using force to resist the actions of a state, even if it is acting according to it's own laws, is hardly a new idea here.
What makes them morally right? What makes anything morally right? Consider, Thor goes to Saudi Arabia, and frees a man from being imprisoned because he is gay. Illegal, yet moral.
I'd first start off with saying legality is not connected to morality. Morality influences legality, and rarely should it operate the other way around.
But I guess the question here is: is it morally permissible for one to exert their own morality/values over another should they possess the force/strength to do so?
And off the bat an answer like, "yes," seems right, but I can't oblige such an answer. Because while we should stand up for our morals & beliefs we should respect others views and hope to institute change in a more positive manner.
I mean, you're saying that Thor has the right to go rogue and bust him out of prison because he has the power to do so.
How is that any different from, say, a general of the armed forces staging a coup of the US Government because they think BILL X is morally wrong and dangerous to the American people?
He has the power to do so and is doing what he believes will help people?
The only difference is Thor is one person, which is arguably worse since the general presumably has his troops that agree with him.
I happen to know that you are rather a big fan of President George Washington
And you should therefore be aware that Mr Washington did exactly what you outlined there, excepting that he did not stage a coup against the entire British Empire, but rather one of it's provinces
Yeah, he started a war
Should Thor start a war to save one of his worshippers from the death sentence?
Posts
I haven't read Zero PI
but you can talk to me
I'll listen
we both hated Dune Messiah
The state at least has the intention of following the will of the people and an agreement that when the time comes that the State no longer serves the people that it should be changed or destroyed. Not so much for an Omnipotent possibly ageless Tyrant.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
use of verboten word in the link
The state, for all its flaws, is composed of many.
It has a system of checks and balances, and room for progressive change when demanded by the people that comprise it.
And the state, as opposed to any one being, has its morality influenced and dictated by the vast society comprising it.
Man I knew you disagreed with Thor from the start here
I appreciate you trying to clarify for me but you're not telling me anything you didn't tell me with your first post in this particular discussion
that would be the case if the author had written that to be the case, and it would be a reason why thor would not support the death penalty
that is the answer I am giving to your question "why shouldn't thor support the death penalty"
It turns out breaking people out of prison is against the law and when the Police can't handle a threat the states response isn't "well I guess he just get to do what ever he likes then!".
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
Certainly, I am against the death penalty
However, that is not to say that Thor would also be, and that even if he is, that he would not consider it better to allow humanity to govern itself, which I believe he would
And it is also not to say that it is not a good scene
Well, it sort of is
It's an answer to a very similar question, at least
"Why wouldn't Thor support the death penalty?"
But it is not an answer to the question I asked
But, by the logic of him breaking the law by busting him out in the first place, Thor would say no.
The US Government isn't going to just go "Well, that's that." because they then acknowledge Thor is, literally, a higher power than they are and carries more authority.
I'd say there is a difference between the power of Thor and the power of the state.
Thor has a very physical sense of power. He has actual power.
The state has power through its resources and citizens, but all of its power is only real if those comprising it agree towards its goals/morals.
The state isn't one.
I'm going to preface this by saying: that scene was beautiful and anyone who didn't like it, well, we have different value sets when it comes to beautiful writing
And I'm gonna let this post sit here for a minute
It's a bit like Casanova if Casanova made sense and then had some serious, horrific violence injected into it. I wouldn't say that Zero is a series with incredible levity, but if you like spy-fi or war stories that have a dash of superheroics in it, Zero is a great book to pick up. It's also worth saying that I think Zero might have been made for me.
No, I liked Dune Messiah. It was, like 200 pages and it had a bunch of weird mutants trying to kill a god-emperor with. . . radiation, I think? Children of Dune is the one I hated. I'm thinking about starting it again just so I can quit it again.
That might be a personal thing since i'm planning on being a cop, but i'm just saying its kind of a lot to put on even a superhero.
this tyrant, this threat to democratic principles, flying death row inmates to space that nick fury must strike down or else america will never be able to execute a prisoner again
Even if I could leap tall buildings and lift a school bus, there are lots of people like that in the Marvel U, and they might disagree with my views
It could start a Civil War
How is that any different from, say, a general of the armed forces staging a coup of the US Government because they think BILL X is morally wrong and dangerous to the American people?
He has the power to do so and is doing what he believes will help people?
The only difference is Thor is one person, which is arguably worse since the general presumably has his troops that agree with him.
Suppose, though, that the state acts in a way that is immoral
Suppose that it is acting in this way with the express goodwill of the majority of the people
Consider that the state, as the US government does now (used because that is the government force expressed in the comic book), does something morally wrong but legally right
Then what
Now you can say that a superhuman breaking the law as they see fit is morally wrong
However that is not true (not necessarily)
What it is is illegal
And whether acting illegally is immoral depends very much on a number of things, and there is certainly an argument which says that if the state is doing something legal, and immoral, and you have the power to stop that, then you should. Other states do it all the time. Often they fuck up in the process. But we have rules for that as well, UN resolutions have been formed on that basis. So using force to resist the actions of a state, even if it is acting according to it's own laws, is hardly a new idea here.
What makes them morally right? What makes anything morally right? Consider, Thor goes to Saudi Arabia, and frees a man from being imprisoned because he is gay. Illegal, yet moral.
Oh
Oh that sounds really good
He becomes pen pals with a prisoner in a state pen as part of a school program. Turns out they're on death row.
Franklin do how he do and takes them out of there, to someplace else. Somewhere without an extradition treaty with the US.
This of course causes an enormous legal incident, and Franklin is arrested, and stands trial, and uses it as a platform for activism whereby he argues that it is not wrong to fight against the death penalty. Maybe he'd actually get change implemented?
Now that I have that written out it feels way, way too preachy and political, but when I first thought of it it felt pretty neat
It absolutely is not something I would support. Ever.
Yeah I've heard good things about it, and if there's one thing I know about Ales Kot is that he can write superspy shit incredibly well.
The difference between jet fighters and Thor, ethically speaking, is non existent
However, if Thor refuses to negotiate with the US Armed Forces at all? Yeah, they would definitely take military action against him.
And then if Thor gives reprisal, that would likely be enough to get SHIELD involved because Thor has become a threat to the international community by attacking a nation.
well if you're asking me why shouldn't thor support the death penalty, at least tacitly, under the characterization that he currently has then I can't answer because he clearly does support the death penalty, at least tacitly, under his current characterization
but I don't think he should, and reasons why he should not are there in my previous posts
Hand-written?
Now that's tyranny.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
The democratic state has legitimacy because it is a representative of the people. Its systems work on behalf of the people and it is beholden to the people.
Thor is not beholden to anyone
Sure it is
You support laws that stop people from killing other people out of hand, right?
That's you, imposing your morality on other people
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, we do it all the time. It's the basis of society, essentially
I happen to know that you are rather a big fan of President George Washington
And you should therefore be aware that Mr Washington did exactly what you outlined there, excepting that he did not stage a coup against the entire British Empire, but rather one of it's provinces
And it turns out super cool when someone like Miracle Man does it and turns us all into gods
But what if Thor was an asshole
What then, people
What happens when he decides gay sex is hella gross and hey, who the Hell said anything about state-funded healthcare, and starts kicking the shit out of people based on that
well yeah if thor starts attacking people in the course of saving the dude then military action would be justified
I don't see why he would ever need to attack the prison guards though
and if iron man, or someone else who actually could pose a threat to thor, shows up and says "yo thor stop flying this guy to space" and thor says "no" then is tony really going to attack him over it
What happens when a state decides that
Same thing, really
I'd first start off with saying legality is not connected to morality. Morality influences legality, and rarely should it operate the other way around.
But I guess the question here is: is it morally permissible for one to exert their own morality/values over another should they possess the force/strength to do so?
And off the bat an answer like, "yes," seems right, but I can't oblige such an answer. Because while we should stand up for our morals & beliefs we should respect others views and hope to institute change in a more positive manner.
What you are describing is Might Makes Right.
Yeah, he started a war
Should Thor start a war to save one of his worshippers from the death sentence?