Multiple Issues

Jamie Madrox has the mutant power of schizophrenia. Ok, so maybe that's not accurate, but at the very least he has very many, very distinct, and very visible personalities. Madrox, otherwise known as the Multiple Man, has the power of creating a duplicate of himself any time he absorbs kinetic energy (i.e. getting punched or snapping his fingers). This allows Multiple Man to create a veritable army of Multiple Men, something quite useful in a fight. What is interesting about this power is that each duplicate, or 'dupe', of Madrox exemplifies a unique facet of Madrox's personality. For example, one dupe might be 'the funny one' or one might be 'the scholarly one', some have training as doctors while others are simply soldiers. Unfortunately, as neat as this power is, as is the case whenever the law of conservation of mass is broken, there are plenty of problems...

Whenever Madrox creates a dupe, at some point he must reabsorb it. The absorption of duplicate Jamies can be accomplished by a simple touch from the original Madrox. The dupes are usually very accommodating in regards to this process, however this is not always the case. In a recent issue of Wolverine First Class (which runs in a time line more in touch with the X-Men comic books of the 1980s) the problem of a renegade dupe arises. Madrox 'Prime' (as the true Jamie is sometimes referred to)has created a dupe who is determined to live his own life. Equally determined is Madrox Prime in his quest to reabsorb the dupe. His reasoning is that if the dupe does anything wrong he would be responsible, and as such must preempt this possibly negative scenario. Kitty Pryde, the youngest member of the X-Men, sides with the dupe in this conflict and attempts to persuade Madrox Prime from his attempts at reabsorbing the dupe, accusing him of trying to kill the dupe. Madrox retorts that it wouldn't be killing him, that "He's a part of me! He's like...a toenail clipping! Or hair! If my hair started begging not to be cut, how seriously would you take it?" Kitty's response is a very sarcastic "If your hair started talking, that would be pretty cool," and she continues making her point asking "How am I supposed to say that this guy is less deserving of life than you are...?"



This scene very much reminds me of debates on abortion. People often justify abortion by getting into technical debates over what makes a life. Unborn children are referred to as nothing more than clumps of tissue (not much different than what Madrox Prime says when he likens his dupe to hair or toenail clippings). However, these 'clumps of tissues' grow into something that can talk, and I, like Kitty, do not understand why they are considered any less deserving of life than we are.

This parallel is made even more explicit in an issue of the comic book X-Factor (#39 to be precise), the monthly series that features Multiple Man as the head of what is essentially a mutant detective agency. In this issue (many spoilers to come, though I strongly recommend that you read this series as it is very smart and thought-provoking) the character Theresa Cassiday (aka Siryn, a mutant who wields a 'sonic scream' who you might have seen briefly in the raid on the X-Mansion in the second X-Men movie) gives birth to a son...Madrox's child, quickly christened Sean. This moment of joy turns very sour when the happy couple finds out that the child's father is not exactly who it was thought...Madrox is not literally the father, instead it is one of his dupes. This is revealed when Madrox Prime takes the infant in his arms and accidentally reabsorbs him. It turns out that "the offspring of a dupe isn't really anything more than a dupe". This incident puts the already hot-headed Siryn into a murderous rage and sends Jamie towards grief-stricken insanity (he later is rescued from his own suicide attempts). Clearly this issue is not to be taken lightly. While the 'death' of Sean very much mirrors an abortion, even in the language used in referral to it, the actions taken in response to it demonstrate a sense of loss that surely does not come from the loss of some tissue. Yes, the infant dupe is easier to identify with as it takes the form of a completely developed baby, but the parallels are there. The loss of something that "isn't really anything more than a dupe" causes Jamie's fiancee to threaten to kill him upon next seeing him and drives Madrox himself on a suicidal path. The actions taken by these characters speaks louder than their words, life is precious and should not be taken.

There is one case of a dupe that is not absorbed. Jamie, in a quest to absorb all his dupes, finds one duplicate who has created a life that is entirely his own. Going by the name John Madrox, the dupe is a pastor with his own congregation, church, and family.



Needless to say, the voice that answers John from off panel in the above picture is not that of the God he is praying to. Instead he turns to find a very cynical, very depressed, Madrox Prime. In their initial encounter John makes his case and eventually convinces Jamie to not absorb him. I find it interesting that the one dupe who receives his own life becomes a priest. This alerts to the scriptural approach we should take towards the issues represented by Multiple Man. The Bible plainly states that we are not to kill (Exodus 20:13), and while people may go on and on suggesting that abortion is okay because it is nothing more than removing a clump of tissue, my thought is that it would be pretty cool if that little clump of tissue started talking...

'Nuff Said
-Cable

The Greater Good?

In the first week of class we briefly touched on what we refer to as 'the greater good', the term we use as the justification for 'the ends that justify the means'. We often argue that compromises can be made, so long as the end result is better than what would have resulted had we not compromised. In class it was suggested that Batman does this, and while he may sacrifice a lot in pursuit of the greater good, as I discussed last post there is one law he will never break. Let's look at what several other sources have to say about this matter:

In Marvel's recent relaunch of its classic team of the Avengers in Ultimate Avengers #1 and 2 there is a surprising revelation at the very beginning. (Spoiler Alert) The Red Skull, Captain America's arch nemesis (look for him in the upcoming movie, I'm sure he'll be there) is revealed to be the son of the very patriotic hero himself.

In the second issue of this series the origins of the Red Skull are discussed in greater detail. When Captain America was believed dead, his fiancee was essentially forced by the government agency who created him to give the child up for adoption. They claimed to have found a loving 'All-American' family who would raise the child as their own. However, in reality the government, seeking to replicate the success of the super soldier program that created Captain America, takes the child to a government facility where he is essentially used as a lab rat and raised as a soldier. The child is pushed to the limit, treated like a prisoner and a test subject, undergoing inhumane treatment that would not be tolerated by the law. The government allows all of this in the name of the greater good. They reason that their treatment of this child is justified in creating a weapon that can protect the United States.

There is obviously a lesson to the contrary involved when the young boy turns on the scientists who raised him. He murders the entire staff of the facility (a staggering 247 people) and becomes the Red Skull (pictured at the beginning of the post). By their harsh mistreatment of the child in the name of the greater good, those in charge were responsible for the deaths of all those people, along with the countless others the villain has killed.

This reminds me of a scene from the most excellent movie Hot Fuzz (it is actually relevant to the overall point of the movie, but the specific scene I am thinking of, where the town justifies their actions can be viewed here). This scene (spoiler alert again) comes near the climax of the movie, where the main character, Sgt. Angel finds out that the town he works in is killing off any criminals in order to lower the crime rate so that they can win the 'best village' award. It's all for 'the greater good' (the greater good). It's a bit of a ridiculous exaggeration to see the concept stretched so much, but that seems to be a commentary on how ridiculous the idea of compromise is.

A far more serious look at this topic, one that more obviously answers the question at hand, can be seen in the character of Rorschach from the Watchmen graphic novel and movie. This character, at the end of the story is presented with the choice of allowing thousands of deaths in order to potentially save the entire world. While all the rest of the heroes are willing to lie in order to let this happen, Rorschach states that 'Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this."



This stance seems to be the most right. Compromise is not acceptable, and all the examples I have discussed seem to speak to this fact. The writers of Ultimate Avengers show the disastrous consequences of compromise, while those behind Hot Fuzz depict it as something outright ridiculous. Rorschach says it explicitly. There is no excuse for compromise. When God gave us the Ten Commandments, He did not give any loopholes. There is no context for 'thou shalt not lie' and 'thou shalt nor murder' to be taken out of...they are inflexible, and they are complete. There is no excuse for compromise, even in the face of Armageddon.

'Nuff Said!
-Cable

The Batmanic Covenant

All the talk in class this Friday in regards to covenants got me thinking: How can I relate covenants to comic books?

My conclusion is that I can do it quite well...

We defined covenants as an agreement that is eternal, one with God as the witness. I feel that this definition applies very well to the foundation that most superheroes operate from. In this post I will be looking at how this relates to the Batman universe, specifically to the character of Robin.

Batman, as was discussed in class, operates outside of the law. He is a vigilante, and often breaks the law in order to enforce his vision of justice so that the greater good is achieved. While there are many rules he will break, Batman has one law that he will never break: the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill. No matter what the situation, even if following this law may lead to more deaths, Batman refuses to resort to killing. This one golden rule is the one that every hero related to Batman (Nightwing, Robin, Batgirl, etc.) is sworn to uphold.

This binding rule in many ways exemplifies a covenant. Batman and his allies are sworn to never take a life, upholding one of God's law and in return they maintain a degree of sanity and credibility. These characters journey after justice through the night in a world that is full of 'gray' areas, and they are constantly in moral battles. In such a situation it would be a simple matter for one to make the shift from hero to villain. However, by keeping their covenant and not killing, they are able to continue in their quest for justice while having an uncrossable line that prevents them from becoming that which they seek to destroy. As the Batman family does not work with the law, there is no one to enforce this covenant, God is the only witness that it exists, and God is the only one who is powerful enough to bring retribution of the heroes cross the line.

The character of Robin, Batman's sidekick and a hero in his own right, is one that has always kept this covenant. At one point, believing that he had killed (even though it was in order to save a life), Robin hung up his cape and chose to return to a normal life as Tim Drake. Only when it was proved that the villain had indeed survived did Robin choose to return to crime-fighting. He was perhaps the character who took this covenant most seriously, never even threatening people with death. However, this covenant has begun to be threatened in light of Batman's recent supposed death. Tim Drake refuses to believe that Batman is dead and goes on a quest to find his mentor. In doing so he dons a new costume, that of Red Robin. Please turn your attention to the following panels...read the text.

As seen in the panels above Robin becomes Red Robin because the new costume is one that exists outside of the covenant. It is interesting reading the current adventures of Tim Drake because he is constantly having to compromise, working with one of his worst enemies in hopes of saving the adopted father he has in Batman. While Red Robin has not yet crossed the ultimate line and killed anyone, readers can already see the torment that walking on the edge of his covenant has caused him.

This seems to imply that if one is to enter into a covenant, they should keep with it entirely. The closer one walks towards the edge of a covenant, the closer they walk to very undesirable results.

'Nuff Said?
-Cable