> > Maybe Nitz the Bloody was on to something when he condemned the public in the Marvel Universe as a collection of idiots who make the citizens of Springfield on The Simpsons look intelligent.
> True, but I maintain that it's been that way since the 1960's ( when the Comics Code forbid explicit questioning of authority, though Stan and his collaborators snuck plenty of the implicit kind in ). The makeup of Springfield excluding Lisa may be more stupid than the real American people, but they're still satirizing the many forms of mass ignorance in the real world. The excesses of Homer and co. merely take it to a humorous extreme.
> I have no problem with Marvel exaggerating the stupidity of the American people, because there's more than enough material to work with there. Ellis, the original author of Norman-as-legitimate-politician, did this especially well in Thunderbolts; Norman's serial killing as the Green Goblin being excused by a disease he overcame through prayer ( and while anyone who didn't get that reference wasn't paying attention, it still was a good way to satirize Christianity-as-arsehole license ). It's only when the satire is done badly, like Civil War, that it becomes a problem...
When it comes to exaggerating the stupidity of the public's reaction to anyone who looks even the slightest bit different (and your remarks about how mutants and other people like Spider-Man and the Hulk repeatedly suffer attacks for being 'different' could just as easily apply to Sleepwalker, who early in his career was confused and angered by the way people attacked him even after he'd rescued them from muggers or robbers, to the point where Alyssa Conover feared he'd stop altogether) then that's part and parcel of the Marvel tradition.
I'd still argue, though, that that comparing Norman Osborn to Hitler is still a case of apples and oranges. From everything I can recall, Hitler was not already known as a mass murderer and sociopathic criminal by the time he seized power (and things like the beer hall putsch could be easily spun as rebelling against the indolent and corrupt democracy he had seized power from in the beginning), while Norman is already a known criminal who's publicly known as having murdered multiple people. Same thing with George W. Bush-and we'll stay the HELL away from discussing what kind of "crimes" he might or might not be responsible for-he's never killed anyone, never raped anyone, nothing like that.
Even if Norman really had found God and turned over a new leaf, that still doesn't justify recruiting a collection of known criminals, many of whom are known serial killers or terrorists-and in the case of Venom, a known cop killer-and giving them official political power as law enforcement agents. Ordinary, non-powered police departments and military organizations have sanity checks to filter out the lunatics who might try and enlist to get some destructive power...so how is it suddenly alright to suddenly put together a whole paramilitary unit of repeat offenders?
It's like creating an entire Special Forces branch out of the lifers at Attica, headed by Charles Manson with David Koresh, Aileen Wuornos, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, the Columbine killers, and the Unabomber as his lieutenants. A whole band of maniacs, sociopaths and high-risk offenders with official government sanction, legal access to firepower, and the ability to use it...
Someone care to explain how that's a good idea again?
Then there's the fact that anyone who gets superhuman powers, even if it's completely by accident, ends up being required by law to join the Initiative and runs the risk of being called up for government service whether they like it or not...
This is a topic for another thread, but as a Canadian I'll just state that I never thought I'd see the day when (fictional) Americans would approve of laws requiring their fellow citizens to being called up for mandatory government service and being forced to use their abilities whether they wanted to or not, and generally being segregated from the rest of society. I mean, even the Mutant Registration Act didn't state that mutants could run the risk of being called up at any time to use their powers in government service without giving them a choice in the matter!
> I'd still argue, though, that that comparing Norman Osborn to Hitler is still a case of apples and oranges. From everything I can recall, Hitler was not already known as a mass murderer and sociopathic criminal by the time he seized power (and things like the beer hall putsch could be easily spun as rebelling against the indolent and corrupt democracy he had seized power from in the beginning), while Norman is already a known criminal who's publicly known as having murdered multiple people. Same thing with George W. Bush-and we'll stay the HELL away from discussing what kind of "crimes" he might or might not be responsible for-he's never killed anyone, never raped anyone, nothing like that.
To start with Hitler. This guy acheived support by basically stating his intention to lead his country to war, he wanted 'living space' for his people and the only way to acheive that, as he clearly pointed out, was to invade to the east and west of his country's borders. Second of all he rallied support based on his theory of racism (white supremecy) and prejudice towards the jewish people. While the NAzi party had a voice in governemnt before they took power, they managed to take power gaining support based on these theories. True hitler was not a convicted murderer before he took power, but, what difference does it make if the whole premise of what you are about is to commit murder anyway? Those who supported hitler certainly didnt think he was a saint, or he was going to be when he took charge, they realised war and death would follow, it was the only logical consequence of his intended actions. I wasn't trying to directly compare norman to hitler, lol, merely trying to point out that when a group of people feel that the chips are down and there isn't another alternative they look to the radical to solve their problems. This is present throughout all of history, anceint and modern. WHen things go wrong people as a group look to the most effective method of saving themselves. Whther it be a nazi party, communist party or terrorist actions people will as a group while condone death to some extent to save themselves. Just as the people in the mu, who after just being invaded by aliens (WTF!!!) will look toward the one man who did the best job of stopping them in their eyes.
Lastly i was not saying GWB is a murderer or anything like that at all, he was proving the point too. WHether he lied to the american peope or not, the fact was that his actions had cost the lives of american troops and civilians in iraq. However when confronted with the choice of supporting him or chosing a new leader, the american people felt he was the best man (whether right or wrong) to do the job of fighting terrorism. They put certain feelings to the side and supported a man to fight the greater evil, just what is being done in the MU now. If people across the country can be whipped up into a fury about terrorism and allow their government to pass anti-democratic laws witholding the rights of suspected terrosits etc etc then it is not too far a stretch of the imagination that people might support norman after his actions in SI. It is natural in history for people to condone death and war to fight the greater evil. In the MU at this point the greater evil is preventing another alien attack and keeping those with powers under control, norman is in their eyes the best guy for the job.