would be fun

  • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I would contend you’re supposed to dislike all of them, Rorschach is a moral absolutist who can’t accept the other characters’ tolerance of Veidt’s plan but that is not a redeeming quality, he has violent fantasies of hurting people for petty crime.

    Watchmen is a send up of Superheroes as an idea, Moore basically posits that real superheroes would be a horrendous disaster because they would all be bad.

    You’re right that the heroes agree. I guess I interpreted the OP as asking for an example of a correct villain in the sense that they correctly pursue a real good end against the hero, not "a guy who does 9/11 to a city and convinces a bunch of fascists that he was correct to do that. "

    • vegeta1 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seeing how police, military act and how most people act once they get such power I can’t help but agree with Moore. Unless society changes drastically it will be a disaster more times than not.

      • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah I think that’s the main point, that American society would produce superheroes that participate in Vietnam and beat up people in the streets and do 9/11 because they think they know best. They would act the way the CIA or the police or the military act.

        Because they’re not Great Men, they’re the product of America.

        kamala-coconut-tree

        • vegeta1 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          There would be a hell of a lot more homelanders than clark kents thats for sure. Could you imagine giving people prof xaviers power? That is just scary to me. Most people already abuse boundaries.

        • Nacarbac [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ozymandias simply took superheroism to the logically insane extreme that overwhelming violence could bully the entire world into not being so naughty. Since that was more or less how all the other vigilantes behaved on their smaller scale, it’s no surprise that they’d bow before it - they were still punching atomized symptoms in the face and he’s the Very Smart lad who stood up and said “what if we live in a society and that is the bad guy… so what if we punched society”. He’s perhaps not quite as far gone as the Dark Judges, but…

          ___

          Well, maybe. His scheme relies first on trusting the immediate decision-making of a couple hundred military and political types around the world, “society” is pretty much out of the loop until a few days after they avoid triggering MAD by reflex.

    • soyoyo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah that’s a good analysis and I didn’t mean to say I think Rorschach is right or good, but I do like him in that he’s an interesting characters as are others. The “technically right” part of OP’s question is open to some interpretation I guess since Ozymandias is successful in his plot despite it being evil. I mean, the premise here is that a villain is right so it’s tricky to say they’re doing something “correct”, but actually still a villain. He’s successful. His plan works at least up until the end of the written story and the protagonists agree with him (mostly). Oh man, mentioning Watchmen opens a can of worms!