Rorschach

[Tyrant]

The question is whether Veidt is right, whether his analysis was objective, whether he seriously considered the plausible alternatives. I don't think so. I think Veidt was too quick to adopt a plan that would allow him to take all the credit for "saving the world;" even one with a considerable risk of backfiring, even one that made him personally responsible for the deaths of millions.

I get what you are saying, but he can't take credit for saving the world due to the very nature of the plan. A whole two people on the entire planet aside from him know what he did. I didn't take him to be so petty as to wipe out half of New York to be able to basically say "I won, you failed" to Dan and Laurie. I believe he wanted to save mankind. After the Comedian's comments he realised that fighting criminals won't actually change anything because crime is the symptom, not the disease. He eventually saw that the real root of the problem was the state of the world and that was what had to change. Maybe he was arrogant in believing he could do that. Maybe there was an alternative. I just don't see reasons within the story to believe that there were viable alternatives. I believe he became single minded in his goal and left morality behind when it got in the way.

This makes me suspect that the plan he carried out was one he actually wanted to carry out: he wanted to be the man of destiny, one who slaughters and saves on a scale most people can barely imagine, with enough power to decide the fate of the world. He wanted personal responsibility for all of this, and he didn't want to share the credit. Even though that meant taking risks both with himself and with the world, he showed no sign of having a problem with that.

He can't take credit though. He knows, of course. But no one else who matters does. He won't be remembered in history as the man who saved the world. He'll be remembered as a really smart and really rich guy. The only way he will be remembered as a savior if he actually does become a savior in his public persona, which is a legacy he could have attempted securing without wiping out half of New York.

In short, Veidt wanted to be the savior of the world more than he wanted the world to be saved. And that's not an honorable motivation to start with when you're planning to carry out world-shaking actions.

I disagree. I believe that he does want personal glory, but that caused him to search for a real problem and not create one (or solve it in a way that benefitted him as the case may be). Maybe I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because the story offers no compelling counter argument. There's ample opportunity at the end, but no one says anything.

[Dervag]

I get what you are saying, but he can't take credit for saving the world due to the very nature of the plan.

He doesn't get to tell everyone; that wasn't my point. He gets the self-gratification of knowing he did it, by his own efforts, that no one else could have done it. He doesn't have to share, the way he would have if he'd run for president, won, and started a program of detenté with the Soviets.

That is the thing I think he was after. Not the fame of having done it, but the personal vindication.

I believe he wanted to save mankind. After the Comedian's comments he realised that fighting criminals won't actually change anything because crime is the symptom, not the disease. He eventually saw that the real root of the problem was the state of the world and that was what had to change. Maybe he was arrogant in believing he could do that. Maybe there was an alternative. I just don't see reasons within the story to believe that there were viable alternatives. I believe he became single minded in his goal and left morality behind when it got in the way.

All strictly true; what bothers me is that his motivations seem too personal, too much aimed at satisfying his own ambition and desire to be THE hero (even if the plebs never know he did it).

He put so much effort into achieving his goal by foul means (that, coincidentally, left him in total control of every step of the process, with no need for cooperation from anyone else) that I find it hard to believe he could have failed to get the same results by fair means. Remember, Veidt is basically set up as the most talented man alive- he's the richest man in the world, the smartest man in the world, one of the most popular men in the world. If he can accomplish so much with a ludicrously complicated plan that no sane person would go along with while he was planning and executing it, what could he not accomplish with an honorable plan that he could admit to having in public?

I disagree. I believe that he does want personal glory, but that caused him to search for a real problem and not create one (or solve it in a way that benefitted him as the case may be). Maybe I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because the story offers no compelling counter argument. There's ample opportunity at the end, but no one says anything.

That's because he's up against flawed characters who are either crushed by the magnitude of what he's done or too detached to raise relatively obvious objections.

Seriously, why on Earth should we expect that just because Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan didn't think to say it, it isn't a valid rebuttal of Veidt's ideas? Remember that Moore was intentionally trying to set up a morally ambiguous ending, where all the characters could be viewed in varying lights as either good or bad. In my opinion, he failed with Veidt, or at least didn't succeed as thoroughly as he ideally might have.

[Yulian]

He put so much effort into achieving his goal by foul means (that, coincidentally, left him in total control of every step of the process, with no need for cooperation from anyone else) that I find it hard to believe he could have failed to get the same results by fair means. Remember, Veidt is basically set up as the most talented man alive- he's the richest man in the world, the smartest man in the world, one of the most popular men in the world. If he can accomplish so much with a ludicrously complicated plan that no sane person would go along with while he was planning and executing it, what could he not accomplish with an honorable plan that he could admit to having in public?

I think the problem there is that Veidt absolutely does not and will not trust "the masses" or "the governments" to do what is logically in the best interests of everyone.

Unfortunately, real-world history demonstrates that that is unfortunately sometimes true, governments act in ways contrary to the best interests of their citizenry or the world at large.

Of course, Veidt is so arrogant, he can't even imagine that anyone else would see that whatever he came up with is obviously the best thing to do. He's frustrated and stymied by the fact that he isn't King Big-Nuts of the whole world.

Rorschach, generally speaking, has a fairly keen understanding or morality in a general sense. There is no morality save that which we choose to impose, and he chose to be...well, "good" insofar as he understood the concept.

Of course his methodology is seriously flawed and his inability to even relate to other people indicates that while he may have a moral center, he refuses to even try to understand the things that other people see as worth fighting for, like love. The fact that Dan wanted more from life than just crime-fighting, and the fact that that is the cause of his and Rorschach's split, shows that pretty clearly.

- Yulian

[Pocketa]

I prefer V.

Case in point:

I have a very attractive friend.
He cosplayed (if you can use that term for these sorts of things) as V and as Rorsach within a month period (Halloween and Guy Fawkes).

He looked better as V.

I pick V.

Also, V is eloquent.
Rorsach is blobby.

I do not like Rorsach if he is not as good as V.
There can only be one.

[Dervag]

I think the problem there is that Veidt absolutely does not and will not trust "the masses" or "the governments" to do what is logically in the best interests of everyone...

Of course, Veidt is so arrogant, he can't even imagine that anyone else would see that whatever he came up with is obviously the best thing to do. He's frustrated and stymied by the fact that he isn't King Big-Nuts of the whole world.

This is kind of what I'm getting at. His frustration at his own lack of absolute power overwhelms his judgement, because he distrusts "the masses" and "the governments" so much he isn't even willing to manipulate them. He goes completely outside the system, as far as I can tell for no better reason than that he can't be bothered to deal with it. And he kills millions of people in the process.

Rorschach, generally speaking, has a fairly keen understanding or morality in a general sense. There is no morality save that which we choose to impose, and he chose to be...well, "good" insofar as he understood the concept.

Of course his methodology is seriously flawed and his inability to even relate to other people indicates that while he may have a moral center, he refuses to even try to understand the things that other people see as worth fighting for, like love. The fact that Dan wanted more from life than just crime-fighting, and the fact that that is the cause of his and Rorschach's split, shows that pretty clearly.
- Yulian

While I am a moral absolutist and so disagree with you on one comment you make, I think your analysis of Rorschach is spot-on.

[GoC]

Could you expand on that? I think I see what you're getting at, and if I'm right you most likely have a point... but since I don't know, I'm not sure how to respond.

It's just an impression I got.

You need to separate the two different moral situations:
In one you know of Veidt's plans before he implements them and have to decide what to do about them.
In the other you find out afterwards and have to decide whether to punish him.

You have not made it clear what time you are dealing with when you use "justified" and "right". The answers to those two different situations are different to me and could be to other people as well. Though there is way too little information to tell the viability of alternatives and more importantly how much research Veidt has done on them and his plan.

While I am a moral absolutist

What does that mean in real terms?

EDIT: I think your theory regarding his motivations is plausible but not certain.

[Shatteredtower]

Rorshach: a guy that found life so horrible that he had to take a simplistic view of the world to keep going. It is no surprise that he would prefer his own death or a world in jeopardy to keeping the truth behind a mass murder secret.

Veidt: a guy so caught up in himself that he seized upon a plan that would let him keep all the glory to himself. By all indications, he worked out one long plan to the exclusion of trying others. After all the effort to manipulate Jon to leave, he winds up learning just how badly he's underestimated the possibilities that had been open to him, had he been more open to those he chose to manipulate.

As for Jon, we see him teleport scores of people in a Washington crowd to their own homes, even though he had almost certainly never met any of them before. He suffers no disadvantage from being fifty feet tall, multitasking in three bodies at once, or even disintegrated. He knows where Laurie and Adrian are instantly, so he can act without seeing. Disarmament? Child's play.

[Tyrant]

He doesn't get to tell everyone; that wasn't my point. He gets the self-gratification of knowing he did it, by his own efforts, that no one else could have done it.

To me, that just doesn't work with what I see of him in the story and what people here are saying. If he wants all the glory, and wants to emulate Alexander then he has to tell people (if that is his sole motivation). He is a very public figure. He told people he was a costumed crime fighter. He is very rich. He very clearly cares a great deal for this public persona and having people like him. To me, that doesn't jive with saving the world and not caring if people know or not. The rest of his character, and the impression some people here seem to have of him, says that if he could he would tell everyone he saved the world. As is, he knows he can't. If personal glory were his lone motivation he would have found a way to tell people he was responsible. His character is clearly one who craves attention and publicity and that doesn't work with doing what could be considered one of the most important things in world history and keeping it a secret. Either he's a self centered glory hound or he isn't. I don't think it works 50/50.

He doesn't have to share, the way he would have if he'd run for president, won, and started a program of detenté with the Soviets.

Honestly, what could he possibly offer the Soviets that both sides would agree to? If it doesn't involve Manhattan leaving, why would they agree to it? If it does, well we saw what they did the moment he was gone so that's not really the best plan either. I honestly don't see a possible, realistic diplomatic solution to their situation. Sometimes there just isn't one and after a certain point attempting one may do more harm than good.

All strictly true; what bothers me is that his motivations seem too personal, too much aimed at satisfying his own ambition and desire to be THE hero (even if the plebs never know he did it).

Again I just have a hard time believing he can be so self centered, so public about everything, and be okay with not telling everyone he saved the world. His accomplishments thus far have all been public and have earned him fame and fortune.

He put so much effort into achieving his goal by foul means (that, coincidentally, left him in total control of every step of the process, with no need for cooperation from anyone else) that I find it hard to believe he could have failed to get the same results by fair means. Remember, Veidt is basically set up as the most talented man alive- he's the richest man in the world, the smartest man in the world, one of the most popular men in the world. If he can accomplish so much with a ludicrously complicated plan that no sane person would go along with while he was planning and executing it, what could he not accomplish with an honorable plan that he could admit to having in public?

I keep coming back to my question at thoughts like this. What else could he really do? What can he offer the Soviets? Will they even listen? Both sides were to blame and he can only realistically hope to control one side through peaceful means and even that is iffy. I believe that within the set up of the story there may have truly been no better options. Sometimes there aren't peaceful means to solve problems and sometimes that means doing nasty things without people's knowledge. For just about anything less than the fate of mankind, I mostly agree with the idea that people should keep looking for another solution for as long as they can. For the fate of mankind though, I say do whatever must be done to ensure that there is a future where people can debate the morality of your actions because there are still people.

That's because he's up against flawed characters who are either crushed by the magnitude of what he's done or too detached to raise relatively obvious objections.

Seriously, why on Earth should we expect that just because Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan didn't think to say it, it isn't a valid rebuttal of Veidt's ideas?

I would expect it because they are all standing around right after it happens and they agree to go along with it instead of attempting any serious debate. He point blank asks Manhattan if he did the right thing and he got exactly the type of response I expect from the Manhattan we saw at the start of the book who has tremendous power yet lacks the will to try to change things. The Manhattan who talked with Laurie on Mars and vaporized Rorschach for the sake of mankind maybe having a future should have said something if there was something to be said. In short, the set up was there for a debate of some type to happen and nothing is said other than Rorschach's insanity. Even afterward Dan and Laurie don't try to talk about it amongst themselves. To me, that means there is no plausible counter argument that those characters could come up with given the state of their world. So, I believe it to be entirely within the realm of possibility that there was no better way. Sometimes there really isn't and this was set up as a no win situation.

Remember that Moore was intentionally trying to set up a morally ambiguous ending, where all the characters could be viewed in varying lights as either good or bad. In my opinion, he failed with Veidt, or at least didn't succeed as thoroughly as he ideally might have.

I personally believe he suceeded with Veidt because I can't call him a villain. Or a hero for that matter, though I believe his intentions to be heroic. The other characters may (and I stress that part) have a higher moral ground to stand on, but he actually accomplished something (for now anyway). They had a lot of talk and ran around fighting criminals. He saved the world.

I see that we view the character quite differently. I admit that my view is based entirely in my opinion and my interpretation of the material so I could be wrong. I don't believe I am (obviously), but I do admit to the possibility. Eitehr way, I do appreciate that your points are thought out and not the usual "why didn't Manhattan just save the world while reading the newspaper" type arguments that I see a lot.

Veidt: a guy so caught up in himself that he seized upon a plan that would let him keep all the glory to himself. By all indications, he worked out one long plan to the exclusion of trying others. After all the effort to manipulate Jon to leave, he winds up learning just how badly he's underestimated the possibilities that had been open to him, had he been more open to those he chose to manipulate.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with that last part. I never saw him seriously regret not including his former comrades. The only regret I saw from him was that he had to kill so many people to save the world.

As for Jon, we see him teleport scores of people in a Washington crowd to their own homes, even though he had almost certainly never met any of them before. He suffers no disadvantage from being fifty feet tall, multitasking in three bodies at once, or even disintegrated. He knows where Laurie and Adrian are instantly, so he can act without seeing. Disarmament? Child's play.

So I take it you are in the "why didn't Manhattan just do X, Y, or Z even though there is asolutely no reason to believe he can do these things camp? I may as well come back with something like "why didn't Veidt just give himself superpowers" if we're going to play that game. It's pointless saying he should have done things we have no way of knowing if he could. Again, neither Manhattan nor Veidt were stupid. Far from it. If it were that simple there would be no story and the two of them would rule the world. Remember, Vietnam took a week for Manhattan. If he were all powerful that should have taken less than a day (probably less than an hour). It didn't, so clearly the story isn't lying when it says he has limits on his powers.

[Tiktakkat]

As for Jon, we see him teleport scores of people in a Washington crowd to their own homes, even though he had almost certainly never met any of them before. He suffers no disadvantage from being fifty feet tall, multitasking in three bodies at once, or even disintegrated. He knows where Laurie and Adrian are instantly, so he can act without seeing. Disarmament? Child's play.

Indeed. Then add in the ability to observe quantum events occuring at barely distinguishable speeds.
All key reasons why I find it really difficult to accept that he could not simply "delete" all nuclear weapons from the world whenever he so chose (provided he made such a choice of course).

[Tyrant]

Indeed. Then add in the ability to observe quantum events occuring at barely distinguishable speeds.
All key reasons why I find it really difficult to accept that he could not simply "delete" all nuclear weapons from the world whenever he so chose (provided he made such a choice of course).

And yet it took a week for him to win Vietnam via brute force, with military back up. Via both examples and character dialogue, we know for a fact that his powers have limits.

I'm wondering more and more if some of the folks who have a problem with Veidt and his plan are trying to add things to the story that simply aren't there. The constant "Manhattan could have fixed this whole thing while having tea" mentality is making me think this. If you think that way, I can see why you (the generic you that believes these things, not the specific you I am quoting above) would believe there had to be another way because you believe Manhattan can snap his fingers and make literally anything happen.

[Tiktakkat]

And yet it took a week for him to win Vietnam via brute force, with military back up. Via both examples and character dialogue, we know for a fact that his powers have limits.

No, it took a week for there to be a surrender in Vietnam. That is a different effect from instrinsically subtracting every nuclear weapon out of existence.
It is also as I, and the Comedian for that matter, said: "provided he made such a choice of course". His actions in Vietnam were all predicated on his specific choices. A surrender could easily have come in one hour had he exerted himself in some other fashion. Indeed, a lack of need for a surrender due to total absence of anyone to surrender could have happened.

[Tyrant]

No, it took a week for there to be a surrender in Vietnam. That is a different effect from instrinsically subtracting every nuclear weapon out of existence.

So we're back to him being able to snap his fingers and change the world then? If you truly believe that, then why didn't he? Again, he was pretty far from stupid and yet to you this seems like an obvious choice. The smartest man in the world didn't come up with that either. Nor did the Joint Chiefs and the President. Clearly, something here doesn't work the way you insist it does.

This is honestly on par with asking why they didn't use the Eagles to fly the One Ring into Mount Doom based on only watching the movies (as I recall there was a reason in the books). Either you accept that there is a good reason why they don't do something that is pretty obvious, or you don't and the story doesn't work for you.

His actions in Vietnam were all predicated on his specific choices. A surrender could easily have come in one hour had he exerted himself in some other fashion.

So he chose to do it the slow way is what you are saying? You're absolutely positive he could have done it quicker and simply chose not to for god only knows what reason? If you're right, and I don't think you are, then what hope is there to convince him to do anything you are talking about him doing? Either he can do anything and simply chooses not to, or as both the story and the characters in it demonstrate there are limits to his powers. In either case, he is of no use for this problem. If he has the power, he has clearly chosen not to use it because to be honest the suggestions are pretty much "duh" level stuff that a 10 year old could come up with as far as him using his powers. In that case, he doesn't care and there's probably nothing you can do or say to make him care. Or, we can assume for one moment that at least one person he interacts with has a functioning brain and asked him to do the very thing you are suggesting and he explained that he can't. Not won't (though that just puts back at option one), but can't. So, no matter how you look at it, he is going to be useless for solving this problem and is only making matters worse. So I guess you can take your pick between doesn't care and isn't all powerful though I'm pretty sure it's both.

[Dienekes]

Actually the comics themselves give the reason why Manhattan won't do everything his power would imply he can, and then create a complex floating device in a seconds time.

"We're all puppets Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."

He won't do what he knows he doesn't or won't do without a real reason given except that he doesn't or won't do it.

Also Tyrant to your reasoning about Veidt needing to tell people, really he specifically says that he needs to tell certain people. He wants to be able to go up and flaunt his victories before Alexander the Great and Ramses personally. He doesn't care about the wee people, they're not the ones he compares himself too.

[Tyrant]

Actually the comics themselves give the reason why Manhattan won't do everything his power would imply he can, and then create a complex floating device in a seconds time.

"We're all puppets Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."

He won't do what he knows he doesn't or won't do without a real reason given except that he doesn't or won't do it.

So that means he's about as useful as Reed Richards seems to be when it comes to actually fixing the world, in other words. That really doesn't help the case for him lifting a finger to stop this.

Also Tyrant to your reasoning about Veidt needing to tell people, really he specifically says that he needs to tell certain people. He wants to be able to go up and flaunt his victories before Alexander the Great and Ramses personally. He doesn't care about the wee people, they're not the ones he compares himself too.

But Alexander the Great and Ramses are remembered throughout history because the wee people knew about their accomplishments. They had no need to hide because they actually did rule. He hasn't topped their achievements because only three people on Earth know what he did and he won't go down in history as the man who saved the world (for this act anyway). To me, that's an important part of the equation. His heroes achieved the closest thing to immortality a person can hope to achieve. They are remembered for great and fantastic deeds in history long after their deaths. He won't be. Maybe that doesn't matter to him and I am wrong. However, I believe that if such a meeting were to occur in the afterlife the other two would share my view of the need to be remembered by the world which happens to primarily be the wee people. You don't build a monument like the one Ozy has that is supposed to have been built by Ramses without wanting everyone to know exactly what you have done. That inscription speaks pretty clearly to that intent. Like I said, to me that would seem like something he would want, though I could be wrong.

[Dienekes]

So that means he's about as useful as Reed Richards seems to be when it comes to actually fixing the world, in other words. That really doesn't help the case for him lifting a finger to stop this.

Just about. I do find it interesting that even when the Tachyons were distorting his view of what will happen, instead of interfering and saving the world he once again does nothing.

But Alexander the Great and Ramses are remembered throughout history because the wee people knew about their accomplishments. They had no need to hide because they actually did rule. He hasn't topped their achievements because only three people on Earth know what he did and he won't go down in history as the man who saved the world (for this act anyway). To me, that's an important part of the equation. His heroes achieved the closest thing to immortality a person can hope to achieve. They are remembered for great and fantastic deeds in history long after their deaths. He won't be. Maybe that doesn't matter to him and I am wrong. However, I believe that if such a meeting were to occur in the afterlife the other two would share my view of the need to be remembered by the world which happens to primarily be the wee people. You don't build a monument like the one Ozy has that is supposed to have been built by Ramses without wanting everyone to know exactly what you have done. That inscription speaks pretty clearly to that intent. Like I said, to me that would seem like something he would want, though I could be wrong.

You're logic makes sense, however if you do read his lines he definitively states that pretty much his entire life was dedicated to one upping old Alexander and Ramses (or so I remember, don't have it with me). This is what gives a lot of us who don't trust him reason not to trust him as this goal is really kinda insane.

[Tiktakkat]

So that means he's about as useful as Reed Richards seems to be when it comes to actually fixing the world, in other words. That really doesn't help the case for him lifting a finger to stop this.

Yes, but for a different reason.

Reed Richards is paralyzed by his morality - he does not believe he has the right to save the world from itself.

Dr. Manhattan is paralyzed by his nihilism driven ennui - he does not believe he has the free will to act on his own initiative.

Where things would get interesting is when you start comparing them to others.
Say for example Uncle Ben and his prescription that "With great power comes great responsibility, like it or not, want it or not." Thus as the Comedian harangued Dr. Manhattan, he could have changed the bullet to steam, the gun to mercury, or the bottle to snowflakes, but he just did not care enough.
Or we compare the decisions at Karnak to Squadron Supreme, where world peace was achieved, but that was not "good" enough for some heroes.

You're logic makes sense, however if you do read his lines he definitively states that pretty much his entire life was dedicated to one upping old Alexander and Ramses (or so I remember, don't have it with me). This is what gives a lot of us who don't trust him reason not to trust him as this goal is really kinda insane.

First he wanted to one up Alexander the Great.
Then he had a drug induced epiphany, and wanted to channel the power of the pharoahs ala Rameses II (Ozymandias to the Greeks).
"Insane" is a rather generous description of such motivations.

With Veidt's own definition of himself, just how was Rorschach wrong in thinking it was not a good idea to compromise on morals and trade the looming threat of MAD for the reign of a monomaniacal mass murderer?

[GoC]

Reed Richards is paralyzed by his morality - he does not believe he has the right to save the world from itself.

Hehe. I love what happens when you use a duties model instead of a rights model. "Reed Richards believes he has a duty not to save the world (from itself)."

With Veidt's own definition of himself, just how was Rorschach wrong in thinking it was not a good idea to compromise on morals and trade the looming threat of MAD for the reign of a monomaniacal mass murderer?

Because the latter actually leaves people still standing and happy? A monomaniacal mass murderer who is also a genius is likely going to increase the standard of living of the average person (compare it to being dead or having loved ones dead).

[Shatteredtower]

The story makes it obvious that Jon barely applies himself as he goes through the motions. Had it ever been indicated that he was drained by any use of his power or needed recharge time, there would be an argument for limits to what he could do, rather than just going through predetermined motions.

Someone like that isn't trying to save power by doing up cufflinks by hand, not after putting everything else on with telekinesis. He doesn't walk across water or through walls because it's easier than teleporting.

Veidt didn't try to manipulate his departure because he knew it was inevitable. It was inevitable because it was the only course Adrian would try. Did Jon have the power to locate or create an inhabitable world to which he could relocate whole nations? Yes, if the right person requested it. Next to that, disarmament is nothing.

As for Veidt, he killed Blake as payback. He doesn't care that the world won't know he'd masterminded his ascendance because it just assures him he deserves to rule.

[Tiktakkat]

Hehe. I love what happens when you use a duties model instead of a rights model. "Reed Richards believes he has a duty not to save the world (from itself)."

Just to save it from everything external to itself?
Or umm . . . at least from villains like Ozymandias? (You know, like Doctor Doom.)
Actually, Reed Richards seems to have a very subjective sense of his "duty", or his right to exert his personal power, or whatever it is. Maybe that is why people are regularly drawn to "honest" villains like Dr. Doom and Magneto.

Because the latter actually leaves people still standing and happy? A monomaniacal mass murderer who is also a genius is likely going to increase the standard of living of the average person (compare it to being dead or having loved ones dead).

Does it?
Seriously, does submitting to Ozymandias leave people still standing and happy?
It left several million people dead, and all their survivors less than happy.

And no, a monomaniacal mass murderer who is also a genius is likely going to kill you or your loved ones.
He might, possibly, increase your standard of living if you are one of the people he does not kill, and if it fits in with his desire for self-aggrandizement. And he might do it incidentally, as a consequence of building the infrastructure he needs to advance his personal desires. He will not however set out to deliberately increase your standard of living purely for your sake, or even just generally.
Overall, he is significantly more likely to just kill you or your loved ones later rather than actively improve your standard of living.

Oh, and let us also not forget Dr. Manhattan's parting wisdom: "Nothing ever ends."
So millions sacrificed so Ozymandias could wallow in his self-aggrandizement, and the fake peace he engendered will last . . . how long? And he will kill how many more to continue it? And it will survive him for how long?
The Comedian mocked him saying he would be the smartest man on the cinder. Maybe he should have suggested he would have the greatest legacy on the cinder:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Oh, I guess Shelley already did.

[mshady]

To go all cross media... Ozymandias/Veidt reminds me of Leto Atriedies II, the God Emperor of Dune who lived 3,500 years, was known as the Tyrant and shattered organized humanity.

Dune sort of answers the question in the very end, that The Golden Path was terribly but neccesary. Was Veidt?

I'm not entirely sure. But on some level we all went "Hmmmm" when we read or watched it.

The whole nuclear showdown was caused by the disappearance of Dr. Manhattan in the end. Based on Veidt's (accurate) psychological profile that he was a super being becoming more out of touch with humanity, his absence would cause a crisis. Some manipulation here and a bad press conference, and he's off to Mars. Fragile guy. His presence is described as stabilizing the world in America's favor because the Soviets were paraylyzed against him. The second he was gone, America would defend its hegemony and the Soviets would try to establish a bi polar world. Conflict was guaranteed in this perverted Cold War scenario.

Dr. Manhattan made the world a worst place. He created a hyper-arms race and the moment his protection was gone, things were going to readjust radically. Just like if we underook instant nuclear disarmment in the face of the Soviets. As a Political Scientist, I can't disagree with that logic. That was Cold War logic, something a lot of people don't quite recall anymore. I just turned 30, but even I remember duck and cover drills in the 80s and feeling like Judgement Day was a button away potentially.

What was Cold War logic? It was a zero sum gain. One side could not really gain without the other side losing. It was not until the very, very end when real compromise happened.

Living in that world, with that zero sum logic and a powerful vacuum inevitable, Ozymandias was trying to break that paradigm and create a threat so much more than each other that the East and West WOULD compromise. Moreso with the movie, where both sides were threatened by Dr. Manhattan now instead of relying on him to keep the peace.

It's a terrible logic, but it works for me. The conflict was inevitable when Dr. Manhattan finally did leave. Ozymandias provoked the inevitable to control the timeline of events. If he had not changed the paradigm, humanity would have wiped itself out.

I also think most here are missing the point in regards to Ozymandias comparing himself to Ramses and particularly Alexander. Ozymandias was a pacifist and a vegetarian. He was not looking at either figure for their military accomplishments. I'm not too familar with Ramses, but Alexender conquered the known world. More importantly, he civilized it by spreading Greek culture far and wide. He changed the paradigm of much of the world. Very quickly.

[Shatteredtower]

You call Adrian a pacifist as if that were a good thing.

He deliberately murdered millions, several before the big event, and traumatized countless more, to avoid what he believed (not knew) to be a certainty. His pacifism only makes his actions more monstrous.

As for the Cold War politics, we know now that compromise was the result of economic reality. Alan Moore didn't have the benefit of that hindsight, but omitting any mention of China in events is less forgivable. Was its trade status with the U.S. much different, or had circumstances somehow forced it to become more in line with the U.S.S.R.? Even in the latter case, Soviet expansionism would have provoked a reaction.

In spite of a walking SDI, the American side of the arms race looks to have remained the same. There is also no reason to believe the Soviets would have an easier time in Afghanistan in this timeline either. The author can be pardoned for not taking this into consideration.

Veidt gets no such pass.

[Dervag]

It's just an impression I got.

You need to separate the two different moral situations:
In one you know of Veidt's plans before he implements them and have to decide what to do about them.
In the other you find out afterwards and have to decide whether to punish him.

You have not made it clear what time you are dealing with when you use "justified" and "right". The answers to those two different situations are different to me and could be to other people as well. Though there is way too little information to tell the viability of alternatives and more importantly how much research Veidt has done on them and his plan.

I am using "justified" and "right" as synonyms, because I am talking about ethical justification. From an ethical standpoint, does he have the grounds to take the risks he does and knowingly sacrifice so many lives to achieve his goals? I contend that he does not. Therefore, his actions are not justified by the situation, and therefore they were wrong.

Therefore, I think it would be best to try to stop him before the fact (when there is no reason to assume his plan will work), and to punish him after the fact (when there is no reason to assume he had a right to do what he did even if it did work). What he did was wrong.

This does not mean it would be appropriate to punish him by revealing his plot to the world, of course, since that could likewise have horrible side effects and could reasonably be called wrong in its own right, so to speak.

What does that [moral absolutism] mean in real terms?

It means that I think there are absolute moral rules that can be applied to everything. This does not guarantee that I know them all, or that I am applying them correctly in all situations, so it would be insane for me to make a jackass of myself over it. But it does lead me to disagree with people who claim localized morality (such that "wrong for X" does not equal "wrong for Y," and neither equals "wrong in general")
_______

To me, that just doesn't work with what I see of him in the story and what people here are saying. If he wants all the glory, and wants to emulate Alexander then he has to tell people (if that is his sole motivation)... He very clearly cares a great deal for this public persona and having people like him. To me, that doesn't jive with saving the world and not caring if people know or not. The rest of his character, and the impression some people here seem to have of him, says that if he could he would tell everyone he saved the world. As is, he knows he can't. If personal glory were his lone motivation he would have found a way to tell people he was responsible.

Gah. Not personal glory in the sense that, say, Achilles craved glory (other people knowing how awesome you are), personal vindication (you knowing how awesome you are). People who want vindication will still enjoy having glory, because it helps validate their desire for vindication. But that won't stop them from trying to vindicate themselves by achieving things that no one else knows about if those things would be sufficiently awesome, or if the person thinks they are necessary.

He wants to achieve and he wants his achievements to be known, but he won't deliberately avoid great achievements merely because they happen in private.
_______

So I think you're oversimplifying my picture of Veidt's motivations. Whatever the man is, he's not shallow. He's smart, he's a thinker. The question is: what drives him? Clearly, he desires power; he has a lot of it when the story begins, and the ending shows that he hopes to acquire more. He has a great deal of pride: think about his quote about how to become a superhero- "unlock your inner potential." He's proud to have done this, and he's done more of it than anyone else. He is obviously very concerned about his public image, as you have proven.

All these things flow together when it comes to his motives for his plan. He desires power, power that he and he alone controls; he can't get that by working within an existing political structure. He has pride; this stops him from working very closely with Dr. Manhattan, who could help him achieve his goals by more normal means. He's concerned with his public image, but he can't use his public image to save the world, because he isn't willing to play with others.

So he ends up having to come up with a secret plan, and killing three million people with a psychic squid attack is the best he can come up with. Yes, no one will know he did it; that's necessary. Anything he could do alone to end the Cold War would have to be so earth-shaking that he couldn't tell people about it. While he'd probably like to have everyone hail him as savior of the world, he's willing to sacrifice that desire to be the savior of the world.

Whereas if he were more concerned with actually saving the world and less with being the savior, he could work publically and get more public attention and admiration. But he couldn't tell himself that he'd done it alone, and I think that's a critical factor for Veidt. He wants to be entirely self-made and completely autonomous. So he has to try to save the world by committing secret crimes and not public boons.
_______

Honestly, what could he possibly offer the Soviets that both sides would agree to? If it doesn't involve Manhattan leaving, why would they agree to it? If it does, well we saw what they did the moment he was gone so that's not really the best plan either. I honestly don't see a possible, realistic diplomatic solution to their situation. Sometimes there just isn't one and after a certain point attempting one may do more harm than good.

A simple stand-down of the US's aggressive foreign policies would help a lot. While the US alone has Dr. Manhattan, if the Soviets didn't feel that the US was using this advantage to muscle in on their sphere of influence, they would be less jittery and hostile. That sort of thing is what a detenté policy is all about: both sides back down from the brink.

Or Veidt could appeal to Manhattan personally, either before or after becoming powerful in US political circles. If Manhattan is willing to do things for the US government, surely he's willing to offer similar good to the world if the government asks him to. How would the Soviets feel if the President of the United States called them and asked "what would you like Dr. Osterman to do for you? Need any mountains moved? Would you like a million tons of rare earth elements?"

There are a lot of options for at least cooling down the tensions between the two sides to the point where nuclear war becomes less likely.

I say do whatever must be done to ensure that there is a future where people can debate the morality of your actions because there are still people.

That begs the question, though: How do you know whether what you did was what must be done? Veidt didn't know beforehand but he did it anyway; that's what bothers me so much.

[Wardog]

A simple stand-down of the US's aggressive foreign policies would help a lot. While the US alone has Dr. Manhattan, if the Soviets didn't feel that the US was using this advantage to muscle in on their sphere of influence, they would be less jittery and hostile. That sort of thing is what a detenté policy is all about: both sides back down from the brink.

Or Veidt could appeal to Manhattan personally, either before or after becoming powerful in US political circles. If Manhattan is willing to do things for the US government, surely he's willing to offer similar good to the world if the government asks him to. How would the Soviets feel if the President of the United States called them and asked "what would you like Dr. Osterman to do for you? Need any mountains moved? Would you like a million tons of rare earth elements?"

There are a lot of options for at least cooling down the tensions between the two sides to the point where nuclear war becomes less likely.

Or maybe even just to say: "I've had enough of your fear and beligerance. In six month's time, I'm going to emigrate to Mars. I suggest you start negotiating an arms reduction treaty".

If Manhatten leaving was enough to potentially provoke nuclear war, then presumably Manhatten threatening to leave would (or may) be enough to force people to find an alternative solution.

That begs the question, though: How do you know whether what you did was what must be done? Veidt didn't know beforehand but he did it anyway; that's what bothers me so much.

Same here. Additionally (although this may be my error), I was never convinced in the book that nuclear war was absolutely inevitable. Likely, yes, maybe even probable, but not 100% definite. Which just serves to increase my feeling that not only was Veidt's solution wrong, but that he should have had that concern too.

And I think the book supports that view as well, Veidt seemed absolutely, unquestioningly convinced that what he did was the right thing to do, and any agonizing he did was about what he had to do, not whether he should do it - right up until Dr Manhatten's parting words.

(Although I suppose that's a slightly different reason - the possibility that nucleear war would happen even with his plan, rather than the possibility of no war without his plan. But either way, it indicates that the smartest man in the world didn't think of everything. And its not even something that you would have to be a Dr Manhatten to think of.)

[Tyrant]

In spite of a walking SDI, the American side of the arms race looks to have remained the same.

The Soviet side, however, has considerably more nuclear weapons. We also do not know if the US has the same stockpile or if they stopped amassing them once Manhattan came along. Either way, the world ends if the two sides decide to throw down. But, both sides believed that if they had more they could scare the other so the difference in warhead counts is important on at least a psychological level.

There is also no reason to believe the Soviets would have an easier time in Afghanistan in this timeline either.

There's also no reason to believe they will have any major difficulties. With a different President, and at least the possibility of different Senators, CIA personel, etc, there is no reason to automatically assume the US would aid the Afghan rebels. Also, Afghanistan was only the first part. They were massing to push into Europe as well.

The author can be pardoned for not taking this into consideration.

Veidt gets no such pass.

So, just to make sure I understand, the author who wrote the book gets a pass for not being able to predict the future. However, a character in the book, written by said non gifted-with-foresight author, doesn't get the same pass? That's nonsensical. That's like saying a parent isn't responsible for the actions of their child, right before blaming them for whatever little Timmy has done.

That begs the question, though: How do you know whether what you did was what must be done? Veidt didn't know beforehand but he did it anyway; that's what bothers me so much.

So I have to ask, what is your threshold for absolutely knowing that nuclear war is imminent? How can you be absolutely certain short of a large chunk of the human race dying in a nuclear inferno?

Or maybe even just to say: "I've had enough of your fear and beligerance. In six month's time, I'm going to emigrate to Mars. I suggest you start negotiating an arms reduction treaty".

If Manhatten leaving was enough to potentially provoke nuclear war, then presumably Manhatten threatening to leave would (or may) be enough to force people to find an alternative solution.

What will compel the Soviets to come to the table in that scenario? The moment Manhattan leaves they basically hold all the cards. We know that, in universe, the Soviets had a level they considered an acceptable loss and that the moment Manhattan left they began invading their neighbors. We know, with as much certainty as anyone can ever have, that the Soviets will go on the offensive when they believe they have the advantage. We know this will happen. Any discussion involving Manhattan leaving has to take that into account.

Same here. Additionally (although this may be my error), I was never convinced in the book that nuclear war was absolutely inevitable. Likely, yes, maybe even probable, but not 100% definite. Which just serves to increase my feeling that not only was Veidt's solution wrong, but that he should have had that concern too.

The only way to know it is absolutely inevitable is when the missiles are flying. At that point, it's also far too late to stop the destruction of the human race. This is one of those things where I am fine living with the guy who is most likely able to predict these things saying he is sure it will probably happen. Waiting until the definite proof of numerous mushroom clouds isn't a viable solution. There are some things, and I believe this is one of them, where "likely" is all the closer it should ever have to get before action is taken to prevent it.

Disagree with the action that was taken all you want. That's fine. To not agree that action of some type was necessary though seems silly to me. This isn't a car bomb. It isn't one city. It isn't one country. It's the death of the human race via nuclear destruction. That's not something I want people waiting until they are absolutely certain it will happen before they take action.

And I think the book supports that view as well, Veidt seemed absolutely, unquestioningly convinced that what he did was the right thing to do, and any agonizing he did was about what he had to do, not whether he should do it - right up until Dr Manhatten's parting words.

(Although I suppose that's a slightly different reason - the possibility that nucleear war would happen even with his plan, rather than the possibility of no war without his plan. But either way, it indicates that the smartest man in the world didn't think of everything. And its not even something that you would have to be a Dr Manhatten to think of.)

So he should have just sat back and hoped for a miracle? That's what the counterargument to action boils down to. He's human and can't see all possible outcomes so he should do nothing when he has the power to do so. I can't see all outcomes but I still make decisions with the information I have all the time. Everyone does, including people that really do make life and death decisions on a global scale. They aren't omniscient either yet no one has the realistic expectation that they will make absolutely certain that something will happen before they act. No one can be absolutely certain of what will happen in the future but we all have to act anyway. Why is Ozy expected to wait until the bombs are falling to act?

I understand having problems with the plan itself or how he went about it. I get that. But not believing that something had to be done? That's ridiculous.

[thorgrim29]

Funny how a thread about Rorsach shifted.... Anyway, I think Ozy was completely insane, in a coldly logical sort of way. Think about it, you're the smartest human on the globe. At first, you use that to try and help, but nothing works because of big brutes like Blake. It must be a bit like standing in the middle of a herd of lemmings rushing to their doom, who only go around you when you try to keep them away from the cliff. To make things worse, there is someone who could make the world better, but he doesn't give a flying piece of crap about most humans.

So what do you do? You do something about it, but by that point your opinion of humanity has sunk pretty low, and you've lost all hope in the god-being doing anything else then science. So you figure, if the unwashed masses, the whores and politicians so to speak, won't listen to reason, you're going to have to scare them back on the straight and narrow path of survival. Coming to that conclusion probably destroys whatever shreds of sanity and capability to see the small pictures you had left. You're going to save the world, whether it likes it or not, by whatever means necessary. By that point you've spent most of your waking hours convincing yourself you're a good guy, that it's all for the greater good, etcetera etcetera. Still, a doubt subsides, the only thing left of the young man who set out to travel the world all those years ago. So, you make sure everything's perfect, and you retreat in complete solitude after killing all your collaborators, far away from the judging eyes of humanity. Hoping everything works out. Until finally your plan comes to fruition. Unfortunately, a few people found out, probably the only people you ever considered peers, if only for a few years. You can't bring yourself to kill them too, probably because, being your peers, their opinion is the only one that matters for you anymore. Finally, disgusted, they agree to keep your secret, but never want to see you again. Crushed, you ask the god-being if you were right, but he leaves with a cryptic and none too reassuring comment. You're left well and truly alone in the world.

To me, there's no question that Ozy was evil and wrong, but still, I found him very sympathetic in his own way.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I think the question we have to ask is, should Ozy have acted or refrain from acting, knowing what he knew?

If you think it's better leave humanity's destiny into Fate's hand, then he was wrong.
If you think it's better for him to have acted to preserve humanity, then it was his decision to make. You are being an armchair hero by telling: "Yhea, you were better to act, but you should have done X instead of Y".

It's easy to judge and criticize when you are in the position of the sideliner. That is why people in the opposition of a country usually have such an easy time letting crap fly past the radar: they don't have any way to be wrong. They just can throw criticism after one another without having to make any call that will make a real decision. Hell, even if the one in power listen to their call, it won't satisfy them, and they will just keep protesting about anything that turns wrong because they aren't the one in charge. They aren't the ones responsible.

Ozymandia did what he though was the best. Either you let him act, or you don't. But don't say "he should have done X instead".

[hamishspence]

If you think it's better leave humanity's destiny into Fate's hand, then he was wrong.
If you think it's better for him to have acted to preserve humanity, then it was his decision to make. You are being an armchair hero by telling: "Yhea, you were better to act, but you should have done X instead of Y".

What exactly is wrong with being an armchair hero?

Ozymandia did what he though was the best. Either you let him act, or you don't. But don't say "he should have done X instead".

Why not? If his action appears immoral, and total inaction appears immoral, then one logical conclusion is- he should have acted- but, his action should have been different.

[SolkaTruesilver]

What exactly is wrong with being an armchair hero?

Being an armchair anything is a bad thing. You don't get any of the flak if what you propose is wrong, but you might get credit for calling (based on luck or not) the good calls. The thing is, you might get away with calling/predicting the most ludicrous possible things, you never have to live up with the consequence of your calls/predictions, and if you turn up being right, you get credit for it.

It's a coward position. You are safe in impotency. In having no responsibilities, no duties. Just a loud voice where you can try to bring down those who have power, responsibilities and duties.

Why not? If his action appears immoral, and total inaction appears immoral, then one logical conclusion is- he should have acted- but, his action should have been different.

You say AFTER THE FACT that his actions APPEAR immoral. To criticise the guy because he did not had a "dream solution" where happy birds and butterflies sing around the hero at the end.

The guy succeeded as best as he could have. He saved the world from itself. He saved the world from Dr. Manhattan's interference. He is still in position to do more good.

Yet the only thing you care to say is "he should have done something else".

[hamishspence]

A person does not have to have had power themselves, to recognize when it is being abused.

Any plan that begins with "murder millions of people" is basically suspect.

Ozymandias's boils down to "murder millions of people, to unite the population of the world against a common threat."

For a parallel- you don't have to be a doctor, to recognize both, that a doctor doing nothing in a medical crisis situation where lots of people are in danger of dying, is immoral,

and, that a doctor murdering those who are in great danger of death, to get the blood and organs to save those who aren't in immediate danger of death (but will die fairly soon without treatment) is immoral.

[SolkaTruesilver]

AFor a parallel- you don't have to be a doctor, to recognize both, that a doctor doing nothing in a medical crisis situation where lots of people are in danger of dying, is immoral,

and, that a doctor murdering those who are in great danger of death, to get the blood and organs to save those who aren't in immediate danger of death (but will die fairly soon without treatment) is immoral.

I'd call "die fairly soon without treatment" to be in "immediate danger of death". You know they will die, the threat is real, clear, and incoming. You shouldn't try dealing with it in the "near future" if you could try to tackle it right away.

If you have a doctor on the scene, and the doctor gives you the choice: Either I don't do anything, or I do something I deem necessary.

What you do is effectively saying, after giving a greenlight, that the doctor is a bad person because he deemed necessary to amputate the whole hand rather than just the finger. The doc says it was necessary, but you call him an amoral arrogant jerk with a Messiah complex.

You are playing Armchair Doctor, criticising the calls without having to live up to the consequence of any action, and to top it off, you actually go as far as creating pseudo psycho-justification based on the doctor's role model. Eh, that Doctor's role model was Pasteur, so he probably was looking for another way of "inflicting some harm to help the patient", right? I mean, because the Doctor was in admiration for Pasteur, any kind of operation he will do is tainted by his clouded judgement because he will be on the lookout "to harm the patient in order to help him".

Armchair psychologist, armchair doctor. Armchair moralist. Armchair hero.

Ozymandia might be a lot of things, but the last thing he isn't is being a man who sits on his lap telling other people what they should be doing. He does thing, and try to help the world/people around him.