Who is innocent? The one that didn't do anything to you? The one about whose crimes no one knows? The one who committed his crimes for good purposes? There was a book ... It was called a Metal Skeleton by Taylor Col. There it was told about the researcher that survey the tribe in Africa. There was no crime or crime in the tribe, and she thought that if a society was created on its basis, then it would be an ideal society. But one day the tribe disappeared. In search of them, she ended up on an artificially created island where someone transported them. The bottom line is that there was very little food on the island, so the tribe began to eat people who died from their death traps. They did not have criminals and the principle of crimes and punishments, since they considered killing and eating another person quite normal. They didn't do it when there was a lot of food. But if food was scarce, was it in the order of things to kill someone and eat? Different countries, different cultures, different peoples are still arguing about what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is evil. Some African countries are now returning to legal slavery. In Muslim countries, you know the attitude towards gays and women. Attitude towards Muslims in China. Muslims believe that it is immoral to eat pork. In Christianity, suicide is considered a sin, while in Buddhism it is quite positive to suicide. If it's legal, is it right thing? Is this good? In our history, there are many things that were considered good, but now are considered evil. Who knows how many things now that we consider good, but in a couple of years we will condemn them as evil. Who decides who is guilty of what? Can someone judge someone? How many innocent people have suffered at the hands of so-called justice? How many villains are they portrayed as heroes in history? People harm the environment. Who knows when things get to the point of no return? Does this mean that killing people to save humanity is a good deed. "Kill millions to save billions." Ozymandias If you were deceived, then your villainy is not counted? Then many villains also need to be forgiven for their atrocities. Someone will say that Loki are deceived by someone else... What is the ratio of good and bad deeds to be considered a good or bad person? Do motives influence whether an action is considered good or bad? If you do heroic actions for personal bad reasons, then they are not counted? If you do evil deeds with good intentions, then villainy is not counted? "I'm of the mind that if you kill someone who is causing mass destruction then you are doing a service to mankind." Is humanity better than and deserving of other forms of life? We have the right to decide who lives and who dies among all other intelligent life forms ... Since people are messengers of kindness. Our prisons are just packed with the best incarnations of good. Murder without trial and investigation in the name of good goals. What are good goals? To whom is it given to decide what are good goals? What crimes deserve the death penalty? Everything starts with murder to save the world, and ends with the murder of all those who disagree. What if it turns out that the villain the hero killed was actually a good guy ... That he was framed or he was a spy. Did the hero who killed him in the name of good become a villain? Or is he forgiven because he's a good guy? The whole world is on the edge of a knife, and too strong a distortion in any direction is a strong alteration of the surrounding world with suffering, unhappiness and death for people. Too much kindness leads to fatalism and self-sacrifice. Too much ambition leads to greed. Too much justice leads to dictatorship. Too much freedom leads to chaos and anarchy.... PS: Jupiter's Legacy and Watchmen raises some of these questions.
I remember Ozymandias (If this is how it's written) from Watchmen. He seems evil to kill millions, but he saved billions. He is a hero in my eyes.
I haven't seen the marvel Loki in entirety but I really enjoy trickster gods. They very often do bad or ridiculous things for selfish reasons. They aren't dumb, not in a classic way... But they are dumb in a very particular way of never being capable of overcoming their fatal flaw. And like any charming idiot, we can't help but get infuriated but also forgive them and hope for better next time. They seem like they should know better because they are always really clever, so we expect them to learn. We give them chance after chance but they have godly ADHD. Willy Wonka is a great modern trickster. He's a total ass who tortures kids but he's playful, charming, and fun. He has candy! He did nearly kill a bunch of kids but it's so non malicious and goofy it's hard to muster up the gumption to call him a villain. All he wanted was someone to help him make candy! Who cares about the dead kids? I mean, nearly dead... He did also seem to have a lot of fun scaring everyone so bad they screamed and cried. Willy Wonka is stressful and abusive but you *want* to like him. Beetlejuice is another I like. Loveable bastard. Why? Because he's fun and in the end becomes harmless. Some tricksters are worst than others but in the end they always lose and always end up their own worst enemy. And that also makes us pity them a bit and feel like they aren't as threatening as a true villain. Plus they have that nasty habit of being the hero on occasion. I like this book about tricksters. Trickster Makes the World by Hyde: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374532559/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_CZ23HNGEXREPBHAWA1CD You know, I think there are a couple more aspects that make them loveable too. They are really non judgemental and a lot of them really want to be well liked/impressive. It makes for a person you want to like, it's only through repeated horrible situations you finally start to consider that you hate them.
Comment I just saw under a video about the show: Why does it looks like a terrible fanfiction made by a Loki's fangirl shipping her own self-insert mary-sue OC with Loki? I think this pretty much explains the issues with the show.
My takeaway from the show is: selfcest--do we like it? And then some Disney worker waiting for our answer, pen hovering over the next episode's incomplete script. Honestly, I do like Loki being in love with himself but I wish it wasn't limited to girl Loki or even human Lokis. That he just can't help from being madly enamoured with all versions of himself. Would be pretty funny.
I'm more with Rorschach on that, at least from the movie. It didn't seem like it was certain enough that billions of people were going to die to warrant what he did, but maybe the comics made it more clear. It's sort of like the 'Trolley Problem' dilemma but you only hear the train.
I think the narrative covered for that uncertainty by telling us that Ozy was the smartest man in the world. Even in retrospect, it will have been the best possible idea at the time.
Humanity was one step from nuclear holocaust, there were to be many more victims.. Indeed, the trolley problem (if we are talking about the same thing) is such a complex matter. So I guess he was the kind of man who decides to change the railroad to kill less...
This is not only a difficult question, but also the fact that depending on the choice, everything goes to hell very quickly. As I said..."Everything starts with murder to save the world, and ends with the murder of all those who disagree." Did they need to kill Rorschach? We are shown that they seemed to have no choice, but who would have believed him? Most likely he would have been hid in a psychiatric hospital. The author himself admitted that Rorshak is not completely sane. There is no evidence and no witnesses to his words, except for the words of one madman. Who would believed him? But he was killed on the excuse that he could tell. Although, in fact, he would have turned out to be just another crazy person telling everyone another conspiracy theory.
Yes, but he was brought to this view of the world by a Comedian. Which was much more stupid than him? Maybe it was fear that limited his ability to seek opportunity, or his savior complex made him choose the most radical path. But even so, the fact that he is the smartest does not change the fact that his way of thinking did not differ from most of us. Was it really the only way or emotions got the better of his mind and he began to see only one way?
I draw parallel with the merciful WW1 soldier who saw a young wounded Adolf and chose to not to shoot him. That's still the best decision at the time. Sure, we can think of a better outcome now, but retrospect still approves of the rationale. That applies to Ozy, though only in a very ruthless, calculating sense. We have to assume his mind weighed the variables and could understand the eventualities better than any other person alive. I think even the god-like Manhattan acknowledged his intellect. Dude watches 20 TVs at a time and can... catch bullets or something. They indicated pretty heavily that he had an unbelievable, even superhuman amount of juice upstairs. The cynicism brought on by Comedian was a justifiable emotion. Humans suck sometimes: look at all of the senseless death in the 20th century. Add: Dr. Manhattan was indicating that even though he could save humanity from the World War 3, he might very well not. Ramping international pressure and solid insight forced Ozy to act. Edit: I agree that killing Rorschach was unnecessary. The plan could easily be dismissed as Alex Jones level conspiracy. Note that Ozy didn't pull that trigger, though.
I've had issues with all three of the MCU Disney+ shows. I feel Loki was the best so far, but to me it really suffered from a few things, not the least of which was the nature of Loki himself. While I generally like Hiddleston's depiction of Loki, I've never *really* got the sense he was a villain. A back-stabbing coward with a heart of gold, maybe, but not a character who is deserving of the word "villain". In the show, he's so far removed from even his central MCU appearances that I felt I was seeing a different character. The biggest gripe I have about Loki is that while he calls himself a "god" numerous times, and is referred to -somewhat ironically as such by others - he seemed about as godlike as you or me. A comment further up likened the show to Loki fanfiction, and while I hadn't thought of it in those terms, that description seems really appropriate looking back on it.
I love Willy Wonka as well and I played Willy Wonka in a high school play lol. My only comment would be that most tricksters don't go on killing sprees, thats the only distinction with Loki's character I guess. Every so often he does a good thing, but most of the time he's starting wars and killing wantonly.
Loki falling in love with someone also felt weird to me, especially in such a short time. Seemed rushed and forced.
