Galactus is no longer the Lifebringer but the World Devourer again. The Silver Surfer decides that keeping Ultron from taking over the universe and enlists Lifebringer Galactus to devour the planet that Ultron is on to stop him. That this tradeoff is worth it is extremely debatable. I don't like that any future genocides committed by Galactus are now directly the Surfer's moral responsibility.

Well SUrfer has been morally responsible for Galactu since his original run as his herald.

Remember when he was zapped into the Soul Gem by Thanos? Gamora could sense something was wrong with his spirit, Warlock confirmed it had to be when Galactus made him into the Surfer.

As soon as he could, Surfer confronts Galactus and Galactus reluctantly agrees to undo the spiritual tampering he did so that Surfer could feel the guilt.

What you just wrote says the opposite - that Galactus tampered with the Surfer's spirit so that Surfer wasn't morally responsible for all the planets he led Galactus to until Galactus removed his tampering.

But when the Surfer was told he was tampered with, he confronted Galactus, the tampering was removed and Surfer has come to slowly but surely accept his role and unless he was tampered with again, he still feels the guilt and accepts the responsibility.

So yes he is morally responsible for all the planets and lives lost when he was herald. he knows this, he's confronted it and learned to live with it.

Galactus could have just as easily left the tampering in place and erased Surfer's memory of the tampering.

In fact when Surfer collapsed under the sudden guilt and hallcuinations of drowning in blood, Galactus told him he could restore the tampering if Surfer so wished.

This is a bullshit reason to turn Galactus back into the Devourer of worlds.
A being like Galactus could just as easily destroy a planet with everything on it. Or he could let his ships do it.
There was no need for him to consume this planet and give up being the Lifebringer.

Crappy easy writing.

Pretty sure she's Gamora.

Regardless, the tampering should relieve some of Surfer's responsibility in the genocides. Now the Surfer has full responsibility.

The Surfer's relationship with Galactus has always been complicated.

There are times when the two have been shown to genuinely respect each other. There have even been times of, not quite affection.

There is also the question of if it is really genocide. Genocide implies it is done with malice. Galactus only devours to survive. He is no more committing genocide then we would be if we ate all the cows on Earth.

I squashed a spider a few minutes ago, does that make me a murderer?

Is pneumonia a serial killer??

it is a concept that doesn't apply.

The Surfer has usually seemed to understand that, never condemning Galactus, but rather heralds who could lead him to other planets, but don't.

That having been said, the Surfer has always taken issue with Galactus not preferring uninhabited planets. In fact in issue #1 of volume 1, Lee tries to subtly imply that Earth may have been the first inhabited world Galactus came to.

Obviously that was proven false.

NOw, that is a complicated issue, but one thing is for sure, choosing to return Galactus to the devourer is out of character.

Any acceptance The Surfer had was based on the fact that Galactus simply is. He does what is his nature, and does it with out malice.

Changing him back is to alter a state that is more beneficial. it became, Galactus simply is... something better than he was.

I could understand this choice being made IF say the whole of life in the universe were threatened. That unleashing Galactus on unknown numbers of worlds would still be smaller in comparison.

I don't think this is that.

I don't mind them turning Galactus back from the Lifebringer! I like the idea, but Marvel hasn't done much with the Lifebringer. I'd like to see where the Surfer's story goes from here.

Quote:
But when the Surfer was told he was tampered with, he confronted Galactus, the tampering was removed and Surfer has come to slowly but surely accept his role and unless he was tampered with again, he still feels the guilt and accepts the responsibility.

Quote:
So yes he is morally responsible for all the planets and lives lost when he was herald. he knows this, he's confronted it and learned to live with it.

um...he's responsible for all the lives he's taken for Galactus every time he's returned to his service AFTER that scene (like that planet he led Galactus to in DnA's Nova series). But that scene you describe absolves Norrin of all responsibility for the crimes he committed BEFORE Galactus removed the tampering.

Silver Surfer's personality was altered to make him a pliant herald. So he's off the hook for those original deaths as he wasn't himself. But as I understand it Norrin has went back into Galactus's service multiple times since that incident...any deaths Galactus caused after that are Norrin's fault.

Quote:
Galactus could have just as easily left the tampering in place and erased Surfer's memory of the tampering.

Are we talking about guilt or moral culpability. Silver Surfer feels guilty for those deaths during his original tenure as herald but we can't find him guilty of those deaths....his personality was altered without his knowledge.

When Norrin made the deal presumably he either didn't think about the ramifications of the deal or planned to manipulate Galactus into only going to unpopulated worlds...Galactus wouldn't have it so he altered Norrin's personality to minimize his humanity.

Quote:
In fact when Surfer collapsed under the sudden guilt and hallcuinations of drowning in blood, Galactus told him he could restore the tampering if Surfer so wished.

But that doesn't MAKE Norrin guilty. He FELT guilty. But he's not responsible because his personality had been rewritten by Galactus.

Not a fan. I was sort of against Life Bringer at the start but this seems like a stretch. One has to imagine that Galactus on that sort of level could destroy a world without eating it.

One could even argue that he could do it, despite being for life, if the scales are weighted. I have not read any of these yet though.

But that is the point, it is Norrin that thinks he is guilty for all the deaths when he first served as herald and after the tampering was removed the blocked emotions came literally flooding back into him.

He then later had to face his past and his issues when he was a prisoner of Virtual Reality during the Infinity Gauntlet.

Yes but I think Surfer also understands that there are times Galactus needs to be reminded that he is a force of nature and not of malice.

Back in ish1 of the 90's series, he gains freedom from Earth and saves Nova who was captured by the Skrulls and Galactus then decides in anger to wipe out the skrulls one world at a time.

Surfer risks his newly gained freedom to remind Galactus of what he is supposed to be and Galactus agrees.

Galactus also at the time may have had feelings for Nova despite the fact he is supposed to be....Galactus.

If we ate all the cows on Earth, that would be morally reprehensible.




Spiders are not people. Galactus kills people.




Pneumonia is not sentient. Galactus is. Galactus is aware of the ethical implications of his actions and has been haunted by it. When Dr. Strange used the images of Ikonn to show Galactus the ghosts of all he had killed, Galactus had to shut down his own mind.




It does for the reasons I've given above.




Why should that matter if Galactus should not be condemned?




Sometimes Galactus does things without malice, sometimes he does things with malice. Galactus has clearly been depicted as an emotional being.

While I would agree to a point, Marvel has also gone out of their way to also indicate that he often does not consider lesser beings either. There are some examples either way.







One could make a case that it is immoral to eat them in the first place if one had a mind to do so.































Although that has varied a bit depending on who is writing him. He throws more temper tantrums in some eras than others.

I think the most important moral issue with Galactus leads into his purpose. It was said before that all he has done will be countered at some point. Be it spanning another universe or whatever else.

The whole doing what is necessary sort of situation and it being true makes this situation different than a standard serial killer. I guess the only way I could see it being similar would be if the serial killer had to kill people or the world as a whole would end or something akin to it. And even that is not a great example.

Quote:
If we ate all the cows on Earth, that would be morally reprehensible.

What we do to them now is reprehensible. But we like to eat. We could live on vegetables and nuts but most of us (myself included) don't want to.

Quote:
Spiders are not people. Galactus kills people.

Galactus doesn't see people as people. We're insects to him.

Quote:
Pneumonia is not sentient. Galactus is. Galactus is aware of the ethical implications of his actions and has been haunted by it. When Dr. Strange used the images of Ikonn to show Galactus the ghosts of all he had killed, Galactus had to shut down his own mind.

Sometimes he's haunted. Sometimes he doesn't care. He doesn't just want to eat to survive. He wants to eat something tasty (life). He doesn't want to eat the planetary equivalent of rice cakes until the end of time.

How? We as a species have already hunted countless animals into extinction. The only reason that we didn't do that to cows is because we found domesticating them was a more efficient way of getting the meat.

In fact, before they were domesticated, thousands of years ago, they were far more vicious and dangerous creatures. We robbed them of that, and took away all of their survival instincts and abikities. If you did that to a human, you may say they were better off dead.

Basic rule of biology: Survival of the fittest.

Galactus is higher on the food chain.




But to a spider on its web, who never encounters a predator, it is the highest life form.

In a universe full of aliens, cosmic beings, living planets, Gods, Celestials, and countless concepts beyond our knowledge, what makes people so great?

We have a vested interest in Humans, because we are them. The main focus of the Marvel universe is based around them. But why should a higher being avoid a planet, just because there are beings on it.

Galactus even calls humans insects. I know spiders are arachnids, but the point is still valid.





No, it IS, for the reasons I and other people have stated.

Galactus is so far beyond us, different species see him differently.




Because the Silver Surfer is arguably the being that most knows Galactus. If he understands it, why shouldn't humans.

The Surfer isn't Galactus. Just because the Big G doesn't care doesn't mean the Surfer doesn't.




I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING without malice, I said he didn't consume worlds out of malice.

So, I hope next time you trip over an ant hill, you pray to what ever God you old dear fore forgiveness, or ask for punishment for teh cops.

Because if that sounds ridiculous to you... well, that is how Galactus would feel, slick.

I always find Galactus' relationship with his heralds interesting. He responds differently with each of them

He treats Silver Surfer like an old friend, who chose a path he didn't agree with. Often showing respect for him

Firelord - I actually don't remember much of Firelord AS Galacus herald, I would have to go back and check. Afterwards, it was as a betrayer.

Terrax - He was colder then in other times, and viewed him afterwards as an upstart.

Nova - There were times where he was almost like husband and wife with her. Not quite, but somewhat close.

Morgue - I don't think that even he liked Morgue. Iremember an annoyance, even contempt.


I have a theory. The Power Cosmis is supposed to be this primal force in the universe right? Well, it also lifts beings up from their natural status as a species. Makes them more.

I think the combination of those two things kind of tap into the man who WAS Galan.

Because I was never trying to imply he NEVER served his own purpose, just that devouring planets was not a part of it.

I had actually forgotten about that... which makes me angry, because I love that run.

You are right. To save one of his heralds.

TYhereare actually parts from Stan Lee stories that reflect his connection wioth his heralds.

In Epic Illustrated #1,Galactus talks to the Surfer about the universe, and seems to want to guide him in learning.

In the Silver Surfer Grapic Novel, from the 70s, Galactus seems hurt that the Surfer rejected him.

Of course, the last one is out of continuity.

I would say that even the Surfer wanting to tell Galactus that he is free, is a sign of respect for his former mater.

That is one of teh things that bugged me about Slott's run. One of many. He stripped away the complex and interesting relationship between the two.

Because Galactus, when a writer takes the time, is complex. A being that powerful should be.

Sorry, I got off on a whole thing.

You are right, I should have specified more.

I actually thought they should have made the Silver Surfer the Lifebringer Galactus's herald. At least for a bit.

It seems both obvious, and ripe for possibilities.

Unless I missed some comics, somewhere. It si possible, I pick up most Silver Surfer centered stories that come out, but my interest in Marvel these days has been less than total.

Quote:
I always find Galactus' relationship with his heralds interesting. He responds differently with each of them

Quote:
He treats Silver Surfer like an old friend, who chose a path he didn't agree with. Often showing respect for him

Quote:
Firelord - I actually don't remember much of Firelord AS Galacus herald, I would have to go back and check. Afterwards, it was as a betrayer.

Quote:
Terrax - He was colder then in other times, and viewed him afterwards as an upstart.

Quote:
Nova - There were times where he was almost like husband and wife with her. Not quite, but somewhat close.

Quote:
Morgue - I don't think that even he liked Morgue. Iremember an annoyance, even contempt.

I don't remember it that way at all. He did like Morg at first. Morg was loyal. Morg didn't have morals like Norrin and wasn't ambitious like Terrax. Morg was like a really good herald and Galactus appreciated his efficency.

Morg was happy to be the lackey as long as he was allowed to kill. Galactus was miffed that Morg killed Nova (his favorite or 2nd favorite herald IMO). But Galactus brought Morg back to life very soon after Terrax killed him...so he apparently didn't hold a grudge for that long.

Morg is that employee you may not personally like but you know his work is going to be top notch. None of the heralds were as loyal or as committed to their job as Morg IMO.

Quote:

I have a theory. The Power Cosmis is supposed to be this primal force in the universe right? Well, it also lifts beings up from their natural status as a species. Makes them more.

Quote:
I think the combination of those two things kind of tap into the man who WAS Galan.

Quote:
Because I was never trying to imply he NEVER served his own purpose, just that devouring planets was not a part of it.

Quote:
I had actually forgotten about that... which makes me angry, because I love that run.

Quote:
You are right. To save one of his heralds.

Quote:
TYhereare actually parts from Stan Lee stories that reflect his connection wioth his heralds.

Quote:
In Epic Illustrated #1,Galactus talks to the Surfer about the universe, and seems to want to guide him in learning.

Quote:
In the Silver Surfer Grapic Novel, from the 70s, Galactus seems hurt that the Surfer rejected him.

Quote:
Of course, the last one is out of continuity.

Quote:
I would say that even the Surfer wanting to tell Galactus that he is free, is a sign of respect for his former mater.

Quote:
That is one of teh things that bugged me about Slott's run. One of many. He stripped away the complex and interesting relationship between the two.

Quote:
Because Galactus, when a writer takes the time, is complex. A being that powerful should be.

Quote:
Sorry, I got off on a whole thing.

Quote:
You are right, I should have specified more.

Quote:
I actually thought they should have made the Silver Surfer the Lifebringer Galactus's herald. At least for a bit.

Then they could make him the Golden Surfer!

Quote:
It seems both obvious, and ripe for possibilities.

Quote:
Unless I missed some comics, somewhere. It si possible, I pick up most Silver Surfer centered stories that come out, but my interest in Marvel these days has been less than total.

Quote:

Pretty sure she's Gamora.

Better than Nebula IMO. If it's Nebula that's pretty weak.

Quote:
This is a bullshit reason to turn Galactus back into the Devourer of worlds.
A being like Galactus could just as easily destroy a planet with everything on it. Or he could let his ships do it.
There was no need for him to consume this planet and give up being the Lifebringer.

But there's no poetry in that story. Galactus's herald who has often railed against Galactus's eating of planets being forced to plea for Galactus to go back to eating a planet has a poetry or irony to it.

Quote:
Crappy easy writing.

I think the writer IS crappy (his Deadpool work...awful)...but I don't think he made the wrong decision here. Some writer was eventually going to have Galactus fall off the wagon and eat populated worlds. The idea that Norrin will now have to know he's responsible for Galactus's future actions instead of Galactus being responsible for Norrin's past actions is a decent twist. Silver Surfer had the Galactus he always wanted and changed him back to the version he loathed for what he saw as the greater good. There's some drama there to work with at least.

That is immoral too. You honestly have no problem with wiping out an entire species? No wonder you have no problem with Galactus.




Interesting that you make this moral judgment about what we've done to cows but somehow it doesn't extend to wiping them out as a species. Why?




Biological behaviors aren't necessarily moral. Rape occurs in numerous species. That doesn't make rape moral.




Higher in what sense? Might makes right?




People don't have to be great in order for them to have a right to life. Based on your standards, why can't I go around killing people who have Down Syndrome or are in comas? There are laws against abusing or killing pets. Do you think it's fine for a person to kill their dog because we are "higher" up on the food chain?




Because life is special and amazing and fleeting enough as it is, even life forms "lower" than humans.




And I'd find anyone who singlehandedly wiped out all spiders on Earth to be morally repugnant.




But you haven't explained exactly why Galactus is so far "above" us, whatever that means, enough to justify he can kill us with no regard.




But sometimes he does.




Obviously the police would not involve themselves since this is not illegal, but yes, I'd feel bad about crushing an ant hill and in the process probably killing many ants and ruining all their work.

Quote:
That is immoral too. You honestly have no problem with wiping out an entire species? No wonder you have no problem with Galactus.

I wouldn't have a problem with wiping out a species of insects. Galactus sees us as insects.

Quote:
That having been said, the Surfer has always taken issue with Galactus not preferring uninhabited planets. In fact in issue #1 of volume 1, Lee tries to subtly imply that Earth may have been the first inhabited world Galactus came to.

It was said outright in Fantastic Four #49 in the conversation between Galactus and Watcher. Watcher reminds him that every world Galactus ate prior to that issue had been a dead world.

BUT...neither interpretation of those characters still holds true today.

When Galactus was introduced he wasn't in a trinity of beings with Eternity and Death. He wasn't a survivor of a previous universe. He wasn't a manifestation of an M-Body that a cosmic being uses to interface with the physical universe that appears differently to everyone who sees him. He wasn't a mass murderer who had wiped out sentient life for eons. He wasn't any of that useless cruft. He was a giant hungry alien from the same universe as everyone else that needed to eat planets. (a later Stan Lee Thor story establishes that Uatu saved Galen from a giant star that mutated him after Galen's world got wiped out by a plague...I think none of that Stan Lee story can be salvaged with the later retcons we got)

Watcher wasn't one watcher of many. He was a singular being and Galactus considered Uatu's level of power on par with his own.

So my long winded point is: Yes you're right. That's what early Galactus was. But he's been so heavily retconned since then those early Galactus appearances by Lee and Kirby are NOT consistent with the modern Galactus we know today.

I fully admit my memory of that era is not all it could be. Or rather, I was less preoccupied with Galactus and his herald, than the others. Not a huge Morg fan.

However, you have jogged some memories within me.

Yeah, I do remember a sort of, Galactus even wanting a herald he wouldn't get attached to, like previous ones.

Of course this may have been my inferred understanding... it has been a while.

IF it means me or my species continuing to exist? Would you? If it were you, everyone you care about, your whole species (remember Galactus is a species of one) would you really care?

Don't just state it is "immoral," make a case. If the animals are being genuinely used as part of the food process, and sustaining other life. No waste.

How is that immoral? Animals eat animals to survive.

Just killing them willy nilly is one thing, but doing it for survival (as Galactus does) is another.




Actually, slick, my point was that human standards of morality don't apply to animals.

WHen humans were (and sadly in many places in the world still are) used and viewed as live sock, I find it horrifying.

I don't feel that way about cows.




Rape, unlike eating, is not a biological imperative. At least not for me. Sex is, but eating requires something to be converted into energy. Fruit is potential life, meat is dead animals, potatoes are roots that get a plant water.

Rape is a thing because humans evolved to the point where we have a concept of individual rights and consent.

Rape is not a "biological behavior" it is a choice someone makes. A Horrible one, but still a choice.

ut even if you look at the bare bones of sex, a human can survive without it... it would just be terrible.

Animals don't have morality. Humans do. Humans have morality MOSTLY applied to each otehr, with human life usually superseding animal life.

Would you put a squirrel on trial for rape? No? Its almost like more evolved beings don't view lesser as being on the same level as themselves. Like... Galactus maybe would?




Evolutionary. Obviously. Any being that is perceived by different species in different ways, just by them gazing upon them is higher on the voilutionary ladder.

No not, "might makes right." Needing to survive.

If GAlactus were real, I would want the military, superheroes, whatever to stop him. I would not want my planet sacrificed to feed him.

That does not mean it is immoral. Galactus is just doing what Galactus does... to live.






Wow, that is not even remotely accurate, and I am pretty sure you know that.

For starters, your quite frankly disgusting implication about people with Down Syndrome.

A person with Down Syndrome is still a person (or do you not realize that?) we are on the same level of the food chain.

Yes, I have a higher belief in the sanctity of life for people than animals. And I don't apologize for that.

And AGAIN, Galactus is not human. He's only really humanoid depending on who is viewing him.

As for harming Dos (or the like), I don't think it is good. I think it makes the person an asshole.

But I don't think say puppy mills are as bad as say the slave trade. I don't think raising chickens in a coup is as bad as the Holocaust.

Even your point on laws makes no sense, there are states with the death penalty. No state kills you for killing cat... to a lot of cats.

That is the whole point, different concepts for those lower on the evolutionary... just go back and read all the times I types it already.




ON the exact same level? Then go punish an ant-eater for eating ants. It snuffed out a lot of life.

Life is beautiful. It is also brutal. Life is amazing. It is also horrifying.

But, one could argue that "beauty" is a human concept, that exists only in higher brain functions.

So, is it?

It is enjoyable, on most levels of the animal kingdom. That doesn't mean much to someone who only gets to enjoy life longer by eating a lower spot on the food chain.




Even if it was for survival?

No, lets taking eating out of the equation. Lets get to some thing else.

What if they found a cure for cancer. The only thing that did it was something in a spider, and taking it out kills it. The amounts are so low that it would take every Spider on Earth.

More than cure cancer, this will help humans develop an ability to avoid cancer as a species.

Would that still be morally repugnant?




Higher on the evolutionary scale. A higher consciousness.

For the same reason bears don't have to think about killing salmon with no regard.

Why didn't you consider the trees and wild life that were there before your house was there? About if your dinner wanted to be on your plate?

It isn't about whether he should, it is about if there is any expectation that he would think about it.

Why would he. Not should, but would, that is the word to think about.

Why WOULD Galactus care about a group he refers to as insects.

Why Would you care about the bugs that want to eat your fruits and vegetables before you get a chance? That farmers work to keep off of them... leading many to starve when it is successful.

That's all we are to him. The bugs in the orchard.



BY the way... your genocide point is just factually inaccurate.

This is the definition of genocide...

"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

Deliberate, that is the operative word. It doesn't matter to Galactus if sentient beings are on the planet or not. If they are all teleported off the planet the minute his ship arrives, he doesn't care.

He doesn't hunt down Species if they are off world and finish the job.

With very rare exceptions he doesn't care what world he comes to, it is just about food.

And if it is just about the food, there is no reason why he should have to be any more moral than we are as a species with ours.

We eat food to survive. We put our continued existence above that of other species. We place ourselves as a higher priority, you yourself pointed out that the law does this.

Why wouldn't Galactus?

Applying morality, even given he is a fictional creature, is like trying to apply morality to a bear for killing bees when it gets honey. Or person for swatting a bug for coming towards their picnic.

I think in Galactus's mind he was sick of heralds and their sass mouthing him. If it wasn't Nova and Silver Surfer whining about innocent life it's Firelord being too distracted about Air Walker to do the job or Terrax trying to betray him. Galactus wanted someone loyal. Then he realized this yes man he's hired loves killing. Galactus usually only kills to survive and he usually doesn't enjoy it. So he finally found the perfect loyal employee he always wanted yet this guy is like a PR nightmare who angers everyone making Galactus look bad.

To my knowledge I don't remember Norrin ever taking Galactus to task for resurrecting Morg right after he was killed in the herald ordeal. Galactus more or less lied and told Norrin making Morg a herald was a mistake after Terrax killed Morg...and then Galactus brings Morg back two issues later.

Galactus doesn't lie. It has been stated any times by cosmic entities, that Galactus doesn't lie, because he has no need to lie.

I think it is far more likely, that Galctus just viewed it as the best option instead of getting yet another herald.

Norrin Radd, probably saw the same logic that Galactus did.

Yes, Galactus saw Morg as suitable, and as someone who would have no designs on rebelling. That does not meant that it wasn't a mistake,just one he could live with.

Quote:


Quote:

To my knowledge I don't remember Norrin ever taking Galactus to task for resurrecting Morg right after he was killed in the herald ordeal. Galactus more or less lied and told Norrin making Morg a herald was a mistake after Terrax killed Morg...and then Galactus brings Morg back two issues later.

Quote:

Galactus doesn't lie. It has been stated any times by cosmic entities, that Galactus doesn't lie, because he has no need to lie.

Galactus doesn't have to explain himself if he does lie. He's Galactus.

It's like when a king lies. You can't call the king a liar even when he does lie. The king simply...changed his mind.

Quote:
I think it is far more likely, that Galctus just viewed it as the best option instead of getting yet another herald.

1. He told Norrin that Morg was ill suited to being a herald after Terrax kills Morg.
2. He goes behind Norrin's back and begins resurrecting Morg the very next issue.

I mean come on...he did lie. But he's Galactus...you can't call him a liar.

Quote:
Norrin Radd, probably saw the same logic that Galactus did.

Quote:
Yes, Galactus saw Morg as suitable, and as someone who would have no designs on rebelling. That does not meant that it wasn't a mistake,just one he could live with.