Marvel Universe >> View Post
Post By
BlakGard

In Reply To
Piotr W.

Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:24:23 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 03:32:08 pm EDT

Previous Post

> He had a part in it yes...though its not really a clone but a Cyborg.

It's true that Clor's exact nature is not completely known. But I'd like to point you at the words of one of Clor's creators, Hank Pym: "I still don't believe we cloned a god".

*Cloned*. Not "built a cyborg resembling Thor".

> > - was *Clor* a sentient being with free will?
>
> This part is up in the air actually.
> It's not clear he was a sentient being...if anything he seems more like a Terminator...a robot with a flesh coating.
> Free will...who knows, not clear he seems like a robot with programming and yet that programming seemed to have a glitch.

I'd say that the fact that Reed Richards was able to shut Clor down implies very strongly that he hadn't free will. And surely wasn't treated as a person with free will by his creators.

When it comes to the "glitch"... if my computer has a glitch, it doesn't mean it's glitching due to free will. It means that the software is faulty and / or I'm not using the computer right.

But if you want to argue that Clor was sentient and had free will, then please realise that it doesn't put Pro-Reg side into better light. Actually, it adds another immoral deed to the list: an enslavent of sentient being.

> When Hercules obliterated Thors head...ALL we saw was machine.'

And yet, Hank Pym referred to Clor creation as *cloning*.

> He probably didnt say here take this DNA...but the Hulk's DNA has been taken by others...like a certain Mr. Peter Parker and such just in case he went rogue. Heck JMS did a whole arc on Peter talking about how ALL the brainy hereos do this in some unwritten code so they can stop one of their own from going rogue. And yet all you heard from people about this was yeeeaahhh!!! Pete's sure using his brain here, yayyyy!!!! Someone else does it (Tony) and now it's EVIL!

Sorry, but the example you cited has absolutely no bearing to this discussion. You can't justify Stark by deeds of Peter Parker shown in completely different story.

I repeat my question: did Thor give his permission to collect and use his DNA?

> Not at all...hene why the terrible accident happened. Then again there were many terrible accidents that lead to deaths on both sides. Hopefully both sides learn to not make thiese kind of mistakes again.

So basically, you agree that Stark & Co didn't do they "job" right and created a being whose actions they couldn't predict and control?

> Pointed out where some of those facts are "questionable" above.

And I rebutted \:\-\)

> "The creation of a mindless berserker clone." Is a very biased way of stating that(mindless and beserker are not usually positive words).

Oh, I used "mindless" in purely descriptive manner. And Clor actions might be characterised as "berserker". But OK, I will rephrase:

Stark & Co created non-sentient clone with no conscience prone to using excessive (and deadly) force in combat, despite the fact that his creators didn't intend him to do it.

Is that objective enough way of putting things?

> Let me give you an example that can put it in a good light...
>
> The glorious scientific creation of a being using the DNA of the Hero Thor. A cyborg created to better serve mankind and save countless lives in the future. Due to unfortunate circumstances something went wrong and when threatened for the first time with physical violence from a literal powerful giant of a man responded with greater force then required to subdue his opponent. We grieve for the ensuing loss but redoubled our efforts to see that such an event never again comes to pass.

Heh. I could use the same rhetoric to defend Doom's conquest of Earth in Emperor Doom \:\-D

> Are you sure thats what they did? Thats what you "think" they did. Nowhere was it stated they fully cloned Thor's adult body and scooped his brain out. He looked VERY robotic after Herc's bashing. What if it is a Terminator like thing...i.e. the dna used to make a flesh sheathing to give the cyborg great strength.

I really don't want to repeat myself, but if Stark & Co simply created a cyborg that looked like Thor, Hank Pym wouldn't refer to it as "cloning".

> Not in general...but you do realize that certain moral standards DO CHANGE in times of war. The geneva act is an example of trying to keep some morality even in times of war.
>
> Killing in peacetime = jail time.
> Killing in war time = unfortunate but neccesary act.

The problem is that Civil War wasnt' actually a *war*. And even if it was... even in war some things aren't allowed. And that's what I'm arguing: that Stark crossed the moral line with Clor.

> > He had a part in it yes...though its not really a clone but a
> > Cyborg.
>
> It's true that Clor's exact nature is not completely known. But I'd
> like to point you at the words of one of Clor's creators, Hank Pym:
> "I still don't believe we cloned a god".
>
> *Cloned*. Not "built a cyborg resembling Thor".

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

Clones and cyborgs are not mutually exclusive terms. A clone is a genetic duplicate. A cyborg is an organism that has robotics grafted into it. So, what happens if you take a clone and graft robotics into it? That is what Clor is. They cloned a god, then grafted robotics into him.

> > > - was *Clor* a sentient being with free will?
> >
> > This part is up in the air actually.
> > It's not clear he was a sentient being...if anything he seems more
> > like a Terminator...a robot with a flesh coating.
> > Free will...who knows, not clear he seems like a robot with
> > programming and yet that programming seemed to have a glitch.
>
> I'd say that the fact that Reed Richards was able to shut Clor down
> implies very strongly that he hadn't free will. And surely wasn't
> treated as a person with free will by his creators.

I disagree. He had free will to a point. Just because Clor was given a post-hypnotic trigger to stop doesn't mean that his free will was completely removed. Up until he heard those exact words, he had free will. After SHIELD gets Clor back to the helicarrier, Clor is shown in various states of sapience (arguing with people, etc.).

IMO, Clor had to be aged very rapidly. He likely has the mind of a child, no doubt butchered by whatever else Tony, Reed, and Hank did to him.

> But if you want to argue that Clor was sentient and had free will,
> then please realise that it doesn't put Pro-Reg side into better
> light. Actually, it adds another immoral deed to the list: an
> enslavent of sentient being.

Precisely.

If Clor has a free will, then they're guilty of enslaving a sapient being, plus they're guilty of sending an amoral killer that simply did whatever it wanted. If Clor doesn't have a free will, then they're guilty of creating a weapon that's run amok. Either way, they're guilty of a horrible crime.

And according to Quesada (or it might have been Brevoort), we haven't seen the last of Clor. He's said that Clor will be turning up in the upcoming THOR series. I'm not so sure that the thing Hercules stopped was the actual Clor.
____________________