>>3420

But Ozy probably didnt know that.
just as this guy said >>3419, he was probably just as unaware of other characters inconsistancys as his own

>>1750
Roar-shock or Roar-shack

>>3425

Ozy knows, he says it himself at the end. "Morally, you're in checkmate, like Blake."

>>3432 actually roar-shock, but the "oc" should have that really long "o" like in "Doc Ock" from spider-man, i've heard people say either "shohck" or "shahck" or some variation in between. I myself kind of have a light "open up and say AH" kind of sound. Hermann Rorschach was a scientist from Zurich, so it kind of has that eruopean flair, and thus the longer O.

Before the (bullshitty and poor excuse) shutdown of 7chan not to mention ANY announcement about the Watchmen movie there was a link to download this comic. Now I wonder would anyone care to let the nubberz take a gander at this well written comic, before what was a 50 cent comic collecting dust, sky-rockets to Ten dollars-Thousands of dollars on the black comic market. ...Hrmm, damn you DC or Marvel Yiff in Hell!!! Saaaaaaaaaage to Admin for not backing up all the links and stickies. Damn pussbucket *rants off into infinetly and obsenity directed mostly at Admin, Bush, Obama, Hilary still looking like a defeated housewife after finding out Clinton didn't cheat on her with an Ugly mule.*

12 issues of watchmen in cbr format
www.megaupload.com/?d=355b4hqb


http://rapidshare.com/files/76022559/Watchmen_1-4_.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/76027572/Watchmen_5-_8.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/76101492/Watchmen_9-12.rar

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20080818/121911997700.html

Just going to leave that there.

>>1833, I can appreciate that any normal person would be driven to insanity over Ozy's plan, but i can't really see the comedian's reaction as logical in the least.

>>3591
That's fair, but it seems like the comedian was just a tab unstable to begin with

Just 'cos he's stopped a few muggers, has the right connections, we're not sure sure of ourselves anymore.

this is the kind of justification Vandal Savage or Luthor or Ras'al Ghul would have come up with.

(New World )Order or Conformity that justifies any means to get there.

It's not who was right, it's reminds us how people who claim themselves better can get away with murder 'cos they have a great PR, own their own toy line and media hype.

>>6378

No, that's the reason why people side with him. Because he was willing to make principled and unpopular decisions, and was doing it for the good of mankind. He represents the ultimate Utilitarian.

all he said was "possibly homosexual? must remember to investigate further."


also his entire fucking office and suit was purple, he wasnt married nor had a girlfriend. It was a perfectly logical to be curious about his sexuality. I mean for a man with that kind of rep and money he could've had any woman he wanted yet he has never been seen with one.

omg i thought most /co/mrades are smart, yet i see so many fail posts (arguments that are all CLAIMS, no substance).

If you should defend a side, consider for a moment if what shit spouts from your mind is coherent or not.

Ozy is a struggling perfectionist while Ror was a fucking pussy to let Doc kill him.

He rocked all the way until i saw him fucking cry, which contradicted the image that he had (tough,uncompromising). By being alive he could have done something to what Ozycunt did, but no he chose the easy way out.

Stating good and bad simply becomes an ambiguous term depending on the point of view one uses. Utilitarian, Humanist, etc.

>>6399

You're a fucking idiot. He cries because even in the face of what he KNOWS is the "right" choice for humanity, his passion for justice drives him onwards. "Never compromise, not even in the face of apocalypse." And he knows damn well that his choice is to die for justice, or defect from his principals. No win solution, but he chooses to stick to his principals. In the same position, everyone else defects from their principals. Everyone but Rorsh. He dies alone, the last free man of his society. Even in death, he gets word out of the greatest crime ever, and dooms humanity as a result, via his journal. He never compromises, but he chooses death to ensure concealment of that last unexpected strike.

>>6399
That's what the theme of this thread kind of became anyway, utilitarian versus extreme objectivity.

>>6401

So basically, he's an idiot. He chooses to condemn humanity over his personal morals, instead of giving it SOME kind of chance?

>>6406

People do this sort of thing all the time. Besides, Rorschach's point might very well have been that humanity is no longer worth saving. Also, I am fairly confident that Moore wanted to portray heroes as feeble, sick and unscrupulous, ie. human. Humans fail sometimes man.

>>1573 There was no right side to choose.
>>6406 Strong morals, unlike laws, have no limits on their jurisdiction.

>>6399 >>6401 >>6407
The characters have great power but for the most part do not self-reflect. The Comedian did and it cost him his life. Rorschach did reflect, but was powerless to stop Ozy. Ozy had great power and used it to (in his mind) save the world. He begins to reflect - "Did I do the right thing?" but Manhattan just tells him "nothing ends." To me, Manhattan, who can perceive all of human history simultaneously, said this "Humanity has always been rotten, that'll never change, so go do what you want, rich boy, I gotta go."

>>6409

4606 here. What do you mean, strong morals have no limits on their jurisdiction? Yes they do. If you're a cannibal from that place that had all those outbreaks of Kuru, it's well within your moral right- nay, it's a moral prerogative to eat your neighbors, while we Westerners are appalled.

If you think that all criminal scum must be killed in a most gruesome way, without regard to the law which is used to deal with these criminals... do you see where I'm going with this?

Just because you have a strong conviction, doesn't make it right. If you act based on your moral principles, it still doesn't make it right.

>>6411

Read what he says, not what you think he says.

"Strong morals, unlike laws, have no limit on jurisdiction."

He's not making a comment on whether those morals are right or wrong, simply observing that to the people who hold those convictions as absolute, there is NO point at which they become untenable.

I hold, as a moral truth, that rapists should be put to death. Whether you agree or not, whether I'm right or wrong, is besides the point. It remains fact that I would go out of my way to terminate a known, convicted rapist.

I don't believe I'm always right. I simply believe that in this case, I'm always right. There is no limit to this particular morals jurisdiction, as far as I am concerned. Others may disagree, and I may find myself in confrontation with them. Again, besides the point.

>>6416

So, that's even worse then. That's basically... you think you're right, and in your own skewed version of the world, you are always right due to moral convictions?

>>6422

*facepalm* No. NO NO NO! It's not a case of right or wrong. You cannot apply those terms to something like this. It is an intense, personal codex of morality. Calling it right or wrong is pointless. Your perception of it being right or wrong is by default meaningless, because you have no real concept of the purity of focus and drive behind it. It doesn't occur to me that I'm right or wrong. It never occurs to me to ASK.
Outside morality never penetrates the issue. Right and wrong are abstracts that don't apply. It simply IS. Everything else may be a open to perception and interpretation, but this one thing, is absolute.

>>6422
In regards to Rorsharch's extremism, you would be correct if in any way could you prove what a moral law or fact is. That is to say, because it is beyond the faculties of any human being to definitively know a moral fact. Somebody like Dr. Manhattan may have been able to possibly discover some concrete moral fact that is independent of humans and exists, but he never mentions anything about this.

>>6431

Okay, fine, not right and wrong, but so basically what you are saying is that his mind is so askew that he accepts his delusions (from our perspective) as reality?

>>6434

Well, we're not talking about morals. Wait, we are. What I mean to say is, it's two world views. One is based on the principle that "evil should not go unpunished," the other "the ends justify the means" (to simplify). I'm sure there's no such thing as a moral component outside of humanity, but don't you think that after New York was already wiped out, that it's kinda stupid to prevent it?

>>6437

You still have a couple sticking points.
Firstly, reality is based on perception, not the other way round. So each individuals "reality" is different then everyone else'.

In Rorsh's case, his reality is that terminal retaliation to crimes committed against others MUST happen. It's not open to debate, it's an iron rule. Simply because you don't perceive the need, doesn't make it any less immediate and real to him.

We're not talking about trying to "prevent" anything. Rorsh is a reaction based individual. Crime, then punishment. Half of NY is dead, thus, the guilty party must be punished. Direct physical punishment proves ineffective, so Rorsh chooses to utilize the only remaining option at his disposal, sacrificing his life to ensure its concealment until the opportune moment.

Because he perceives it as an unquestionable reality that this MUST happen, in the same vein as you or I perceive gravity, it never becomes an option for him to abandon his goal, the revealing of the crime and the punishment of its perpetrator. That this dooms humanity in the process, is our own damn fault. Rorsh isn't interested in SAVING folk, merely punishing the guilty.

>>6452

Oh, okay. Well, I'm a materialist- perception is a reflection of reality, not the other way around. And I see the point you're making, but that's basically insanity.

>>6452
You give Rorschach too much credit. It's not that he believes criminals should be brought to justice. He doesn't believe in justice. It's not that peoples actions deserve retribution, it's that certain PEOPLE deserve retribution. The Comedian was much worse than most of the criminals Rorschach faced, but Rorschach couldn't give two shits that he was a rapist. He likes the Comedian, so the Comedian is a good guy. There isn't a right or wrong, there is just With Us or Against Us.

think into the future of the world after Ozy's plan.

humanity will eventually stop caring about what happened. they will eventually forget. after both ww1 and ww2 everyone told themselves that after the horrors no one would ever fight a war again. and then everyone who was alive then grows old and dies, then the younger generation who doesn't truly know how much war sucks, makes war.

he just stalled what may be inevitable. also, if it ever got out that it was a con it would erupt into full blown war fast as each side would blame each other for the "attack" of new york.

oh real world international relations

"End? It never ends."

I would probably side with Roschach just because if you make a friendship with him he'll stick to it. Veidt on the other hand will kill you the second you become inconvenient for him.

Holy crap this is reminding me of
Captain America vs Iron-Man

>>6514

Yeah. And Iron Man was right. Super-powered individuals WOULD need to be controlled.

>>6530
RAGEEEEEE

>>6530 Looking back at Illuminati, Stark did not say how regulation would help actual crimefighting, just that it was demanded by the citizens, and disobeying would create problems.

Certainly not going to side with the ugly retard.

>>6639

Yeah, because he did bring up a good point. A superhero that lets his powers go out of control- like the Hulk, for example- would lead to a lot of civilians getting hurt.

Of course, there could be an alternative. Make everybody super-powered, kinda like what Syndrome wanted to do in The Incredibles. That way, the average person could protect himself.

>>6647
I don't think Syndrome's plan would work at all. The average civ with super powers could protect against the average attacker, not The Hulk or any hero used to fighting, for that matter.

I posted 6639 and I wasn't supporting Stark. He chose order and security over freedom. An individual who is superpowered, supergadgeted, superskilled, or whatever and works for the government is part of a police force, and that's not what a superhero is or should be.

>>6651
super rich

>>6651

Yes it is. He's doing this to protect the maximum amount of people. Why do you think that vigilantism was replaced by police forces? Because they were a) more efficient, and b) the vigilante would interpret the law based through his own world-view, basically adhering to the spirit of the law, not the letter. And sad as it is, we can only have a functional society if we adhere to the letter, not the spirit.

>>6648

Well, in Syndrome's case, he was able to immobilize the strongest individual on the planet. So, in Marvel terms, it'd be as though Reed Richards DID develop something that could hold the Hulk.

>>6653 Stark did what he thought was right, out of good intentions, but that does not make him right. I'm not saying police shouldn't exist, but that superheroes have a different function. Police apprehend criminals, superheroes fight villainy. Criminals are disruptive to society, but they don't necessarily do things that are wrong. A government often makes no distinction between illegal behavior and injustice. Superheroes CAN make that distinction (usually) and have the power to do things about that which the law does not cover or in ways that the law prevents others from doing so.

>>6655

Not really. Most superheroes are basically cops with super powers, and most villains are criminals with super powers. The same restrictions apply.

>>6655

Stark acknowledged he was wrong, but the whole civil war was kinda played down the middle.
(even though its based on the patriot act)

Both sides of the conflict could be seen as "right reason" "wrong reason" "right intentions" "wrong intentions"

Stark had the right intentions, but he went about it the wrong way, He knew that if he, a silhouette of Super Hero community came out in support of the Act, he could prevent much worse scenarios from coming into reality, such as with the Sentinels, even though deep down he knew the Act was wrong.

Captain America was against the Act for the right reason, but for the wrong intentions. He believed in a persons liberties and he acknowledges when the government over steps its boundaries, as can be seen when he's talking to spider-man about the Mark Twain passage. He had the wrong intentions of assuming is outdated role as "caretaker" of the people. He was more against the act for selfish reasons than anything, which came to light during his interview with that chick (whats her name?)and during his fistfight with Stark

so is captain america dead or what

>>6696 Steve Rogers is dead, but Bucky is the new Cap.

which reminds me... i need to finish posting the war..

>>6401
Dooms humanity? How? His journal was submitted to the newspaper before he went to see Veidt. All it says is that Veidt was the lead suspect in Rorschach's mask-killer theory. His journal had no notes about GIANT SPACE SQUID!

While I do agree that Ozy's plan was likely the best solution to the war, I think it's fair to claim that he was being blinded by his own egotism. While his theory would stop the brewing war for the moment, he was so caught up in how he saved everyone that he failed to realize that it would just start up again.

Rorschach was out of his mind, lost in a world of ideals and truths. His anger at Ozy's plan was out of him hiding the truth from the people. I think that if Ozzy had used himself as the "enemy of the world" instead of the space squid, Rorschach might have not only agreed with the plan, but respected him as well.

PRONOUNCED RAWSHARK FAGGOTS

TAKE A GODDAMN PSYCHOLOGY COURSE

>>8563

Obvious troll is obvious.

>>8563
SHUT UP U MOTHERFUCKER
ITS ROAR-SHACK!!!!!!1!!!