Goodwill
Well-Known Member
Now that this thread has been made, I think that, if the traitor were to be Tony, it would make for the most interesting story. 
Excellent job!
Excellent job!
The Ultimate Iron Man Manifesto
- Thread starter ourchair
- Start date
ourchair
Well-Known Member
I know I said "tomorrow" when promising to follow up ideas on Iron Man as traitor, but it took forever to download scans for Ultimates v2. Now before you all cry foul, bear in mind, I do actually buy the comics monthly, I just don't own a scanner. Besides, they don't make acid-free scanners yet.
Okay, first off --- Over the past few weeks, I've realized how utterly impossible it is to guarantee the accuracy of placing Iron Man as traitor because first and foremost, there're just way too many variables to account for. But more importantly, tracing the motivations of Tony Stark like I have and trying to account for hus current and future behavior doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with the traitor at all.
To put it simply: Even if I were absolutely on the mark about what makes Tony tick, it still makes things awfully difficult to predict, simply because it is difficult to define what we mean by "traitor". How do we define "traitor" within the Ultimates? Is it:
(a) The individual responsible for leaking information about the identity of the Hulk?
(B) The individual who will inevitably become disenchanted with the state of America, the interventionist use of the Ultimates and the gradual induction of army grunts to fill in roles like the Giant-Men?
(c) The individual who is currently dissatisfied with the state of America NOW, and is trying to court Pym into considering an alliance?
(d) Or an individual who is in league with the people currently responsible for the sudden change in the policies that govern Ultimate missions?
I myself am going so crazy, that I'm beginning to believe that just about EVERYONE on the Ultimates will become a traitor at some point --- if you assume the multiple definitions of traitors. In fact, the only person I actually trust is Hawkeye, and I'm convinced that the team is a combination of lesser traitors and greater traitors. The only other thing I am certain of is that the above four "traitor-concepts" are probably not all the same person.
Remember, Loki talks of a "they", which means that more than one individual is allied with forces friendly with the God of Mischief. And more importantly, these multiple traitor-threads cannot all be the same person. The fact is that Millar has written the concept of the traitor to be so loose that we've become so hung up on "distrusting" everyone --- trying to pin down anyone who appears shaky and unreliable.
Trying to resolve one individual to account as a candidate for all these "traitor-concepts" is nigh impossible and well, crazy. Traitors in the Ultimates can be defined in many ways: Are they faithful to the government or not? Are they in league with Loki or ignorant of his presence? Does the team take priority or their own beliefs?
But back to Iron Man/Tony Stark --- How do I define him as a traitor candidate? Well to answer that entails reiterating the points I've made in both this thread and in Bass' Traitor Manifesto Thread, which I'll do just for the sake of making this thread self-contained and so that Bass' Thread remains focused on discussing EVIDENCE rather than THEORIES.
Tony Stark believes in a world of harmonious compromise. Like Thor, Tony believes that the world needs to be saved. But whereas Thor believes that people must learn to govern themselves in order to save themselves, Tony believes in something else: LEADERSHIP. This means that he does not believe that people can be expected to save themselves --- that only guidance upon great individuals and/or institutions is what is needed.
If conscientious people can rise to power, it is their obligation to use that power to better mankind. Tony believes that he and Fury can fill that role. The very reason Tony Stark signed up to be an Ultimate in the first place was because he believed that working for a large institution like SHIELD meant doing SOMETHING good. For him, membership in the Ultimates was a thought out decision, a rationalized choice.
Now "The Plan". As I've said, we have little to no evidence about what This Plan is. But I think it is safe to infer that it has something to do with Tony's benevolent ideals. The Plan's goals were certainly supposed to be compatible with his partnership and friendship with Fury. Notice how frequently Fury and Stark spend time together in Volume One. It's probably the number one visual reason people tend to mistakenly think of Stark as being one of the "founders" of the Ultimates.
This is Tony's motivation: These missions into Third World countries --- offensive tactical strikes meant to cripple the military capabilities of those nations --- are clearly in conflict to what Tony believes in, and what his Plan could possibly be: Tony wants America to compromise and cooperate, NOT to go bully nations around with preemptive strikes. He doesn't want to become a Martini-swilling smart bomb, as he says.
This is Tony's motivation: If the Ultimates have broken their promise, then not only are all his ideals for naught, but he has been "used" to an extent. The government has seen him as a tool, instead of learning to look past its own interests. Instead of taking the opportunity of seeing superhumans as a tool to foster harmony, they have used them as a tool for gain, to bleed the world and other foreign nations dry.
As of issue # 6, I doubt Tony is the man speaking to Pym. But if Tony isn't a traitor yet, he will be.
NEXT: Insanely Impossible Scenario or "Iron Man Against The World"
Okay, first off --- Over the past few weeks, I've realized how utterly impossible it is to guarantee the accuracy of placing Iron Man as traitor because first and foremost, there're just way too many variables to account for. But more importantly, tracing the motivations of Tony Stark like I have and trying to account for hus current and future behavior doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with the traitor at all.
To put it simply: Even if I were absolutely on the mark about what makes Tony tick, it still makes things awfully difficult to predict, simply because it is difficult to define what we mean by "traitor". How do we define "traitor" within the Ultimates? Is it:
(a) The individual responsible for leaking information about the identity of the Hulk?
(B) The individual who will inevitably become disenchanted with the state of America, the interventionist use of the Ultimates and the gradual induction of army grunts to fill in roles like the Giant-Men?
(c) The individual who is currently dissatisfied with the state of America NOW, and is trying to court Pym into considering an alliance?
(d) Or an individual who is in league with the people currently responsible for the sudden change in the policies that govern Ultimate missions?
I myself am going so crazy, that I'm beginning to believe that just about EVERYONE on the Ultimates will become a traitor at some point --- if you assume the multiple definitions of traitors. In fact, the only person I actually trust is Hawkeye, and I'm convinced that the team is a combination of lesser traitors and greater traitors. The only other thing I am certain of is that the above four "traitor-concepts" are probably not all the same person.
Remember, Loki talks of a "they", which means that more than one individual is allied with forces friendly with the God of Mischief. And more importantly, these multiple traitor-threads cannot all be the same person. The fact is that Millar has written the concept of the traitor to be so loose that we've become so hung up on "distrusting" everyone --- trying to pin down anyone who appears shaky and unreliable.
Trying to resolve one individual to account as a candidate for all these "traitor-concepts" is nigh impossible and well, crazy. Traitors in the Ultimates can be defined in many ways: Are they faithful to the government or not? Are they in league with Loki or ignorant of his presence? Does the team take priority or their own beliefs?
But back to Iron Man/Tony Stark --- How do I define him as a traitor candidate? Well to answer that entails reiterating the points I've made in both this thread and in Bass' Traitor Manifesto Thread, which I'll do just for the sake of making this thread self-contained and so that Bass' Thread remains focused on discussing EVIDENCE rather than THEORIES.
Tony Stark believes in a world of harmonious compromise. Like Thor, Tony believes that the world needs to be saved. But whereas Thor believes that people must learn to govern themselves in order to save themselves, Tony believes in something else: LEADERSHIP. This means that he does not believe that people can be expected to save themselves --- that only guidance upon great individuals and/or institutions is what is needed.
If conscientious people can rise to power, it is their obligation to use that power to better mankind. Tony believes that he and Fury can fill that role. The very reason Tony Stark signed up to be an Ultimate in the first place was because he believed that working for a large institution like SHIELD meant doing SOMETHING good. For him, membership in the Ultimates was a thought out decision, a rationalized choice.
Now "The Plan". As I've said, we have little to no evidence about what This Plan is. But I think it is safe to infer that it has something to do with Tony's benevolent ideals. The Plan's goals were certainly supposed to be compatible with his partnership and friendship with Fury. Notice how frequently Fury and Stark spend time together in Volume One. It's probably the number one visual reason people tend to mistakenly think of Stark as being one of the "founders" of the Ultimates.
This is Tony's motivation: These missions into Third World countries --- offensive tactical strikes meant to cripple the military capabilities of those nations --- are clearly in conflict to what Tony believes in, and what his Plan could possibly be: Tony wants America to compromise and cooperate, NOT to go bully nations around with preemptive strikes. He doesn't want to become a Martini-swilling smart bomb, as he says.
This is Tony's motivation: If the Ultimates have broken their promise, then not only are all his ideals for naught, but he has been "used" to an extent. The government has seen him as a tool, instead of learning to look past its own interests. Instead of taking the opportunity of seeing superhumans as a tool to foster harmony, they have used them as a tool for gain, to bleed the world and other foreign nations dry.
As of issue # 6, I doubt Tony is the man speaking to Pym. But if Tony isn't a traitor yet, he will be.
NEXT: Insanely Impossible Scenario or "Iron Man Against The World"
Last edited:
Friday
Well-Known Member
HA! We've broken your confidance!ourchair said:
Actualy, i agree with most of your points. Everyone on the team, short of Hawkeye, has deffinate motivations and probably machinations that go against the ideals and plans of The Ultimates (Hawkeye mainly being excempt due to our lack of information on him. He's an archer, has a GF and a few kids, but what else do we know? Not much) Tony himself is one of the few members with both the resources and skills to accomplish everything that the traitor has done, but I'm still not completly sold on him.
ourchair
Well-Known Member
Actually, as testament to our high-speed culture, my confidence wavered before I even started this thread. That's because my brain had to process all the theories and as we've all agreed, everyone just seemed so likely.Baxter said:
The thing is, I've already said it on the first post that I'm less interested in the factual accuracy of Tony being the traitor than I am in the storytelling allure it holds. The whole Ozymandias hoo-ha and all that.
