Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
Piotr W.

In Reply To
BlakGard

Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:58:51 am EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:24:23 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".

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.
____________________


> 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.

Exactly. Being a clone is not exclusive with being a cyborg.

Clor is a clone with robotic parts added.

> 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.).

Good point.

Maybe I should make my point clear: me beef with Clor's "mindlessness" is that Thor *was not* mindless. I wanted to point at the observation that Clor is Thor's clone created with imperfect mind. Stark & Co didn't simply clone Thor, they did it in a way that made Clor subservient to them. It was somewhat like creating a clone gene-engineered to have intelligence much lower than original DNA donor.

I agree that I might've misinterpreted the facts and that Clor has some degree of free will after all... But my general point still stands: Stark & Co created Thor's clone - and then messed somewhat with his mind.

I wonder how many readers defending Clor's creation would do the same, if the deed was done by somebody like Red Skull. If Red Skull created Captain America's clone and then brainwashed him to make him obedient - would that be still considered moral? And that's exactly what was done with Clor.

> 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.

Agreed. And it's really beyond me how anybody might not consider it despicable.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Good point. There's also the possibility that Marvel didn't suspect there will be such controversy regarding Thor. Maybe there was some silent change of plans - and Marvel's trying to brush Clor under the carpet and make him just another LMD?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software