This is absurd. With great power comes great power, nothing more...

This is absurd. With great power comes great power, nothing more. Why should he chain himself to the slave morality of lesser men?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymotion.com/video/x288wfj
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because there will always be people more powerful than him.

Man is a social animal. No man is an island. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

There are no 'lesser men', fag.

Will you fight? Or will you perish, like a dog?

Osborn, don't you have better things to do with your time?

Because his writers are under contract to stick to the status quo. People love christ figures.

Snyder, please go.

Cause Peter isn't a sperg like you user.

Because if he didn´t his name would be Norman Osborn.

this

the main difference between heroes and villains is that heroes took responsibility for their actions

You're responsible for what you do with it

Haven't you watch that Secret Wars episode?
Everything is explained there

dailymotion.com/video/x288wfj

You daft fuck, responsibility doesn't just mean "slaving" to the whim of the world or whatever baby's first philosophy shit you digest, it refers to sheer culpability in life.

How can someone so completely miss the repeat illustrated point in this short story that Peter's every action had consequence? It's not long, it's not complex. It's extremely blunt.
>Inb4 the predictably inane question of what if someone doesn't have the power to stop something
Then it wouldn't be their fucking responsibility would it?
But Peter could stop him, and he knows that, and he purposefully didn't, and he knows that, so no amount of beating his chest about how powerful he is lets him escape from the fact he is powerless to the cause and effect of choice.

And fact is it's in your power to choose to do whatever you like, and if you've chosen to be a disappointment that's your responsibility now.

Kind of weird that an objectivist Randroid like Ditko would do stories about selfless heroism.

Spider-Man is so shit.

>>lesser men

Cartoons in the 90s were srs bsnss.

He's referencing Ditko, you fucking dumbass. I hate moviefags so goddamn much.

>selfishness is bad
He who can't support and edify himself can not do the same for others.

>No man is an island.
Tell that to Island-Man's face.

I remember a comic where a kid wakes up one morning and finds he has super-strength. The usual "developed when he hit puberty" trope. He's stronger than _any_ of the "established" heroes.
So he kills his drunk & abusive father. He goes to school and takes revenge on all the kids who bullied him.

Finally comes down to a confrontation between him and 20 or 30 heroes. Looks like it's going to be a heck of a fight with heavy casualties because none of them, individually, can face the kid.
Instead, they try reasoning with him. But he's just screaming "I'm the strongest there is! No one can stop me!"
They point out that he may be right, but what happens after he beats them all up? Everyone will be after him. He'll have to keep hiding, keep running, trust no one, and eventually he'll be caught. Can't fight the whole world. He'll be locked up until they find a way to remove his powers. That what he wants? It's still not too late.
He surrenders and goes quietly.

I think they brought him back once. Some powerful megalomaniac seems unstoppable. The heroes bring in the kid. This 60 lb. shrimp walks up to the villain who's (figuratively) laughing his head off and removes said head (actually) with a flick of a finger. Then the kid goes back to wherever they've been keeping him.

Something about
>individuals/corporations/whatever have to be the responsible ones, not the state
probably.

I didn't say that selfishness was inherently bad. I just said that Ayn Rand considers selflessness to be inherently bad, to her a man risking his life to save another with no expectation of reward is wrong.

>Ayn Rand
The same who signed up for Social Security because she couldn't pay private doctors for her cancer?

Settle down Moviebob.

If Snyder is an Objectivist then why are his characters altruists? It's so weird! Is he saying that humanity is inherently selfish but that an altruistic martyr goes beyond humanity, and that's what we should strive for?

Yeah, that one.
Though Randroids will tell you she was only taking back the money she herself put in by paying into social security for years. They conveniently ignore the fact that for decades she'd been condemnig anyone that took government money.

It was different time

lol

Shut up, Zack.

I think he just doesn't know what the thread is about and simply wants to derail it.
See?

And you wonder why God doesn't give us super powers. Sup Forums is the perfect example of what would happen if your actions are unaccountable, especially actions of people who are bottom of the barrel

Shut the fuck up, Rand.

Did you read the panel? It says
>"With great power THERE MUST ALSO COME great responsibility

Not with "Great powers comes great responsibility" like it's parroted a lot by casuals, the meaning changes with the second one.

Great power doesn't bring great responsibility but it should, that's what it's trying to say.

Also yeah Ditko was an objectivist, blaah blaah blaah.

The throughline in most of Spider-Man is Peter continually being at battle with his inferiority complex and swapping between "fuck everything I don't owe anyone shit" and "no, I need to do everything for everyone, I must!" sometimes in the same damn story.

The fact that Peter only gets it for brief flashes at key points in his life (like most people with their biggest problems IRL) makes the audience miss it as well. They take Peter at face value instead of reading into him.

I'm starting to wonder if there's a correlation between Peter's character decay that has less to do with reinterpretation from preferences between one writer to the next, and more misinterpretation from the lapse you just described.
I suppose it could be both, still I feel a Chicken or the Egg situation is at work here.

>Ayn Rand considers selflessness to be inherently bad
Funny. I never got that from anything I read. I got that she most definitely considered enforced selflessness to be bad. The kind of selflessness that someone else, be that government, society, what-have-you forces upon one because it's the law/don't act better than others/people deserve things more than you/etc.