Does he have a point?

Alright, have a last (you).

Oh no!

...

yfw

>Tony didn't get them hooked on the drug, they just tasted perfection and wanted more.
Sure, they're not addicted in the sense that they'd go through withdrawals without it but the methodology isn't all that much different from how it's used in media. Moreover, an individual who has been on Extremis for an extended period of time might find it difficult to return to or even imagine a life without Extremis; i.e. they would be psychologically dependent on the drug.

Comics have never pretended to be high art. Your statement is as pointless as "water is wet".

This is completely unrealistic. When I use my calculator to calculate the cosine of something and I am in the "wrong" units I immediately notice that the value I get is not the value I was expecting. You have to be really dumb to not realize you are in the wrong units after the first time.

To an autistic everyone is a fucking retard.

Also, your brain = calculator

Cohomology/Isomorphism. These are things.

Someone ban this brainlet tripfag.

I'm not using any tripcode. This is just a name field to populate.

Then you're a namefag. Very little difference. We want you out either way.

Is the we you speak of an 'us' or a 'them'?

Just fuck off.

Are you a scientist, shitposter, or a mathematician?

This board only really recognizes one of those three (Engineers gtfo).

Would it have been better if Tony announced what Extremis was and didn't do the free trial? Sure. But I don't think he wanted to hurt people. Like he said in issue 3, he just wants people to work harder for it, now that they know what it can do. Ifhe was evil, he'd have killed Matt, Teen Abomination, even Pepper. As it stands, he was misguided, but he genuinely wanted to help the world, just through his own means.

>Using old shitty dead maymays
Don't expect people to take you seriously my sweet tripfag friend.

...

...

...

imo I think infants born with severe disabilities should be mandatory organ donors and kept alive until they are needed then euthanized and harvested. Just imagine how many lives they could save.

Enjoy your population who does not breed, without the resources to maintain your society and a collapsed economy...

South America it is not overpopulated, China won't be soon, Africa will starve out soon, if they don't change their practices...

please leave Reddit poster.
Jesus Christ is lord and king.

Sorry, I meant Veeky Forums gold member and namefag.

B.C. will soon become B.S.

HAHA, LE EPIC MEMD MEIN AFRICAN AMERICAN!

t = 0

This Alpha is making a Bet on your alpha-bet's alphabet!

How does it feel to let Tyrone dominate your ass?
I wouldn't know.

Also thanks for confirming my suspicions you worthless excuse for a human being.

Thank god for my phenotype.

And Amber Blank is 'muy caliente' in my book, pendejo.

I think the idea is that Tony is so brilliant that he purposefully did it this way (free trial, infect water supply) because he knew it would work more effectively and everything that followed after that was part of his plan.

It's like the difference between tricking a child into taking some bad tasting medicine and explaining to them that it's good for them. I think you're right in that Tony wasn't completely malicious and really did want to save the world; but certainly the other characters didn't see it that way.

Marvel tends to do these sorts of arcs where a character (or group of characters) wants to save the world but meets lots of resistance from everyone else because they're not doing it "the right way". Off the top of my head there is:
>Cable (Deadpool & Cable series) wants to establish world peace, end world hunger, etc... Instead it freaks out everyone (including powerful countries who see their power threatened) and he meets resistance from everyone from The X-Men to Captain America to The Silver Surfer.
>Phoenix Five (AvX). Five X-Men obtain Phoenix powers and use them to end world hunger, help the third world, avert natural disasters, etc... Instead everyone else does everything they can to stop them.
>Inverted Tony Stark (Superior Iron Man), see ITT.
>Otto Octavious in Peter Parker's body (Superior Spider Man) he felt he owed Peter and wanted to live up to him. Mass surveillance, private police force, kind of ruthless.
>Ultimate Reed Richards (Ultimate Fantastic Four) didn't read this one so I may be wrong but I think he did some shit to end world hunger that left a bunch of governments and corporations buttblasted.

I think Civil War II was basically a spin on this theme as well.

This is stupid. You need people to do shit. Killing them means you have more problems not less

>Marvel tends to do these sorts of arcs where a character (or group of characters) wants to save the world but meets lots of resistance from everyone else because they're not doing it "the right way".
Probably a reflection of inter-office politics with regard to creative licenses.

>This is stupid. You need people to do shit. Killing them means you have more problems not less
But he didn't talk about killing people.

CW II was trash so I won't comment on that, but the rest were solid. Ult!Reed did make the world a better place, but he did it radically and was unstable,so the Ultimates went all "muh" and BTFOed him. Somehow. After Hickman left the title turned to shit.

Back to Tony, Inverted or Not, he has a serious Control Freak Syndrome. Back in the 80s, during Armor Wars, he beat the hit out of an aquatic hero, Stingray (so basically the most harmless guy around) because he thought he was using illegal Starktech. During CW he created Sentinels, and had Adamantium Sentinel prototypes.

The main argument with Extremis was "why don't you give it for free", which has an easy counter. Give EVERYONE unlimited power and perfection, and then it loses its meaning. It wouldn't be gained, it would've been given. People wouldn't grow, they wouldn't learn. They would've just been spoiled children dependent on Tony. His way was the logical choice.

>Wouldn't "sacrificing" the already worthless AIDS-babes be one of the first steps?
No, because people with AIDS provide us with invaluable insight into the workings of the immune system. I find it funny when people propose edgylord bullshit as "rational" solutions to big problems. If you think mass murder is a rational solution to anything, there's something deeply wrong with you that prevents you from thinking logically.

>No, because people with AIDS provide us with invaluable insight into the workings of the immune system.
We don't need hundreds of them. And he's not talking about killing anyone. Merely uplifting the actual normal people and letting those, already doomed to do so, die. Doesn't a kid in Africa die every 2 minutes? What he's talking about is preventing the birth of more of those kids.

*millions

>Merely uplifting the actual normal people and letting those, already doomed to do so, die.
So essentially what we do already.

>Give EVERYONE unlimited power and perfection, and then it loses its meaning. It wouldn't be gained, it would've been given. People wouldn't grow, they wouldn't learn. They would've just been spoiled children dependent on Tony. His way was the logical choice.
I haven't read that arc since it came out but that does sound like what Tony would say. I also remember him BTFO of Daredevil by giving him his eyesight back, lmao.

>Somehow. After Hickman left the title turned to shit.
In general I never read much Ultimate (except for Ultimate FF because that shit was a trainwreck in art, writing, and just everything). I've debated on checking it out though cause Hickman is brilliant and imo one of the best writers who has worked for Marvel (even though he rushes through climaxes like he ran out of time). Does that title at least wrap up major story arcs before Hickman takes off?

Speaking of Hickman, I'm kinda worried about the dude. Recently I checked his twitter to see what he's been doing since he left Marvel and the dude had deleted all his tweets. No idea what the deal is, but I hope he's alright cause I would like to see more of his work.
twitter.com/JHickman

Well yeah, but his "uplifting" means turning people into literal gods. The catch is that they have to work for it.

>I haven't read that arc since it came out but that does sound like what Tony would say. I also remember him BTFO of Daredevil by giving him his eyesight back, lmao.
Tony actually did say something similar at some point (Pre-Superior) but I cannot find the scan. Pic Related is the 2nd time he said it, but his logic is sound. Give people perfection for free, and it loses its meaning. As for DD, yeah, that was a good BTFO.

>Ultimates
Hickman stayed on the Ultimate Universe for just one arc of Ultimates, which was brilliant, but the ending was rushed and the follow-up awful (Marvel moved him to the main Avengers books). 1610 Marvel has some gems, but it's mostly rubbish, especially Post-Ultimatum.

>Hickman
Dunno, he's just writting East of West at the moment. He hinted at some DC Stuff last year, but nothing came out of it. Same with his return at Marvel. He announced an indie book at Image, Frontier, but that's still MIA.

Thanks for the synopsis.

Sounds too similar to the antagonist of Watchmen-- What's-his-face basically nukes a few major cities with fake aliens to unite humanity and usher in a golden age.

>If you were wealthy enough and had the abillity to influence people, what would be the best way in going about to saving the planet?
I hate to get philosophical, but the best way to govern is via a singular person who is knowledgeable in all worldly affairs, someone who can identify real experts and get those experts to work on the world's problems... a "philosopher-king" ala Plato's Republic.

In other words, you educate yourself enough to know which heads-of-industry can be trusted and which cannot, and you hire those people to create solutions in their field. E.g. maybe you'd be like, "Gee Elon Musk sure seems to know a lot about Space Programs, he's going to head my Department of Space"

>Wouldn't "sacrificing" the already worthless AIDS-babes be one of the first steps?
Maybe, maybe not. Consider that for every action there is a reaction. If you sacrifice the AIDS babies, are you going to spawn an insurrection? Maybe it's better to shove the AIDS babies into some program where they live to adulthood and can do grunt-work that nobody else wants to do.

>Well yeah, but his "uplifting" means turning people into literal gods. The catch is that they have to work for it.
Oh, we're talking about the comic? If I remember the arc correctly, Tony infects a portion of the population with a version of Extremis that makes them physically and mentally perfect. In which case, it could probably cure AIDS. And I think he was trying to save the world from the multiverse collapsing or something idk. None of this is relevant to the real world though.

>What's-his-face basically nukes a few major cities with fake aliens to unite humanity and usher in a golden age.
His name was Ozymandias, but his plan wasn't that well thought-out, as Doc Manhattan points out.

>Philosopher King
That'd be ideal, but it's not like many such people exist.

>AIDS Babes
Yeah, the grunt work thing makes more sense, but I guess what he was talking about is "I'm gonna concern myself with the developed world and just let the developing one die off".

I was taking in general, because it's really not worth getting into the comic, due to Hickman's Time Runs Out and all that. Basically Pepper and Daredevil want him to either retire the drug or give it for free, and Tony's response is that by making it free and giving it to everyone, you'd have a new race of "perfect" people who had everything handed right to them. They wouldn't have strived for it, and so they couldn't understand its importance. That would realistically create a movement that would make the Nazis' eugenics look tame.

The thing is, until 2012 or so, Tony was always like that. Overprotective of his IPs to the the death. Dunno if you've played Mass Effect, but Tony's fate, no matter the future, is that he always turns into an Illusive Man -esque guy. He wants to help, but he's obsessed with control. He's not like Doom who wants to save the world through fear, Tony wants to do that gradually. That means ignoring certain developing areas, strenghtening his position, using propaganda and good PR, etc, etc.

Trusting only your own morality is stupid, you're a brainlet if you don't realise you will always be biased and often poorly informed. Therefore decisions should be made openly and democratically.

Mass murder is so outdated, just sterilize a huge portion of the population with sedentary life styles, chemicals in plastic water bottles and female masculinization.

>His name was Ozymandias, but his plan wasn't that well thought-out, as Doc Manhattan points out.
Totally off-topic, but I really hated the ending of Watchmen...

Ozymandias is this insanely brilliant human who not only catches a bullet with his bare hands, but also executes his master plan against a virtual god.

Yet 10 minutes later he's a wet noodle begging Dr. Manhattan to reveal the future because he's worried things are going to fall apart, and we're supposed to believe that somehow he failed to account for something and his plans have a net detriment to humanity.

If you read into it (too much) Moore is basically saying that human efforts to make the world better are ultimately futile since the most capable human to ever exist can't succeed.

I think that's what he was getting at. Superior Tony was a bi amoral, not a mass murderer. I think the world would benefit if India and Africa stopped pumping out babies anyway.

I liked it, DESU. At its core, Watchmen was about "regular people". Ozymandias wasn't Doom or Lex Luthor with bullshit super-science and magic. He was extremely smart, but still needed people to perform certain tasks he couldn't. He was so caught up in his vision for the world and fantasy that he was Alexander 2.0 or another Pharaoh, that when he did, and realized he killed millions of people, the "illusion" wore off and he faced the consequences of his actions.

Does it make sense from a "cape comic" standpoint? No, not really, since the biggest, baddest "ends justify the means" guy always has to have a willpower stronger than God. But from a storytelling standpoint, it does. Ozzy wasn't a madman who couldn't feel remorse, he was just dedicated to the cause and high on his own self-importance.

As for the point, I think it was that you just cannot force the world to change, which is why Doom or Luthor or Ras don't work. Sure, you enslaved everyone, cured disease, yadda, yadda. The people are now whipped little sheep that hang on you, and the moment you're gone, it's over. You have to change the world gradually, which is why I thought that Superior Tony's approach was fresh, even if we never got to see it.

Practices like emigrating into yurop? :

> At its core, Watchmen was about "regular people". Ozymandias wasn't Doom or Lex Luthor
>But from a storytelling standpoint, it does.
I disagree on both points. I mean yes, ostensibly Watchmen was "regular people" but that doesn't mean any of them were convincingly normal (except Owl man or the Comedian). Up until the very end I believe Ozymandias was a Doom or Luthor with a more believable backstory (Ozymandias consciously and actively tried to become an ubermensch-type character from a young age, vs. Doom or Luthor who sort of fell into it).

Having Ozymandias show regret or remorse when hitherto he had shown nothing but narcissism and confidence reeks of railroading a character to fit a moral/philosophical point. Only idealized people change their views in response to evidence. Real people will find any excuse to maintain the fantasy.

You essentially have three camps in Watchmen. On one side is Rorschach whose commitment to "doing the right thing" extends unto death. In the middle you have Owl man and Dr. Manhattan who are sort of wishy-washy, impotent characters who have neither the conviction to go along with Ozymandias nor the conviction to expose him. On the other side is Ozymandias, who up until the end is the, "Man forges the world in his image" guy, but then at the very end he falls apart and begs a "god" to guide him.

From a character perspective AND from a narrative theme perspective, having Ozymandias show remorse is a bad move and detracts from the work of art that is Watchmen.

...

>From a character perspective AND from a narrative theme perspective, having Ozymandias show remorse is a bad move and detracts from the work of art that is Watchmen.
Eh, like I said, I liked it. I can see why some people dislike it, but it's a moment of weakness that helps make Ozzy more human. It wasn't some widely publicized moment anyway, it was a quiet one, with him being alone with Manhattan. It's not like he broke down in front of the whole world. Everyone has doubts. I find it difficult to believe that there are people who underake such tasks, and don't have any. Again, I can see where you're coming from, but I personally liked it.

As for the Ubermensch, both Luthor and Doom did that. Luthor by killing his parents and going into the tech business, and Doom by well... all of that stuff. I will agree that Ozzy was more believable though. No awful parents, no demons or devils, justa guy with a conviction. It'swhy I've grown to dislike Doom, TBQH. His origin is crapshoot, and he gets wanked too much.

>Everyone has doubts. I find it difficult to believe that there are people who underake such tasks, and don't have any.
Yes, absolutely. However based on how the character was described up until that time it felt jarring to me which is why I criticize it. Ozymandias is this stereotypical, "all according to keikaku", Batman-type guy who has planned so extensively that he can somehow outplay an otherwise omniscient character (Dr. M) and execute his plot before the "heroes" even find him.

I could absolutely see the character Ozymandias wrestling with his decision beforehand, questioning himself the entire time he's putting the plan into motion... but his whole motive was practicality and expediency. If he's murdering millions simply because it's the most PRACTICAL option-- not because it's right, not necessarily because it needs to be done, but rather because it's the quickest way for him to take power and tip the scales in favor of peace--

If Ozymandias is this guy that murders millions based on the idea that it's more practical to kill millions to improve the lives of billions, why would he make a fuss after the fact? Crying over spilt milk is utterly impractical. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by having Dr. M validate Ozymandias's plans other than easing his conscience, because you can't bring back the dead and Ozy would have known that.

Imo the themes and messages of Watchmen rely on Rorschach and Ozymandias being these two opposing pillars of philosophy. On one hand you have Rorschach who believes in absolute morality, that no good can come of an evil act; on the other you have Ozymandias who believes that the ends justify the means and killing people is acceptable so long as it makes the world a better place.

At the crucial moment, Rorschach stuck to his convictions whereas Ozymandias wavered, and I believe that undermines Ozymandias' philosophical position and tilts the reader towards supporting Rorschach.

P.S.
But who knows, maybe Alan Moore was one step ahead and wanted to portray Rorschach as taking the easy way out in dying while Ozymandias has the hard road in living with his guilt?

Anyway the end just bothers me.

>At the crucial moment, Rorschach stuck to his convictions whereas Ozymandias wavered, and I believe that undermines Ozymandias' philosophical position and tilts the reader towards supporting Rorschach.
Maybe that was the point. For all of his talk, Ozzy was still not sure, because he was human. As for not getting any hints about, the novel didn't really explore his personal life that much. I did like the Before Watchmen Ozymandias mini though, and it did shed some light on his motivations. As far as cashgrabs went, it was decent.