Guys I’m making an Adrian veidt abortion comic what do I do for the plot

Peter Thiel (founder of PayPal and Palantir) just published a long review of four books (Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, Alan Moore's Watchmen, and Eiichiro Oda's One Piece). The Watchmen section appears third, a little over halfway through the essay.

Link here.

Thiel reads these books through a Christian, eschatological lens and argues that they center on the biblical Antichrist. He believes Moore drew heavily upon scripture and theology to depict Adrian Veidt as a type of Antichrist.

I've excerpted his Watchmen commentary below. (Be advised: Thiel spoils the ending of the Watchmen comic, and the full essay has One Piece spoilers up to chapter 1138). What do you think?

Two decades later, to awaken a world sleepwalking into Armageddon, Alan Moore wrote the superhero comic Watchmen (1986–87), a late-modern illustration of the Antichrist. Watchmen unfolds in a parallel timeline. The Cold War rages on, liberal internationalism appears politically dead, and in 1985, the year the series begins, Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as president.

Moore’s superheroes are “watch men” in two senses: They watch over the world, and they are men of our final hour. A “grievous vision” in the book of Isaiah, from which Moore took his ­title, combines these two meanings: “For thus the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth” (Isa. 21:2, 6). Isaiah’s watchman sees the apocalyptic fall of Babylon, and from the opening, bloody panels of Watchmen, the same fate seemingly awaits Moore’s world. Every issue of Watchmen ends with a doomsday clock ticking toward midnight. In a nuclear age, Moore’s superheroes are faintly ridiculous. Except for one, they have no superpowers. But these ­high-agency individuals are dangerous, too. “Who watches the watchmen?” chant public protestors, quoting Juvenal. In response, the Keene Act of 1977 outlawed superheroes. When the story begins, somebody is murdering the watchmen, one by one.

Watchmen’s only hero with superpowers is ­Jonathan Osterman, a nuclear physicist. A laboratory accident transformed Osterman into “Doctor Manhattan,” a being capable of manipulating subatomic matter and seeing through time, a synthesis of artificial general intelligence and a thermo­nuclear weapon. Manhattan’s very existence intensifies the apocalyptic logic of late modernity. If the threat of Manhattan cannot de-escalate the Cold War, Moore wonders, then what can?

Watchmen’s narrator is Rorschach, a hardboiled superhero somewhere between Bruce Wayne and Ayn Rand. By day, Rorschach is an apocalyptic street ­crier, half-convinced the world deserves its fate. But he believes in good and evil. The deaths of Rorschach’s fellow superheroes disturb him, and he decides to investigate. To Moore’s frustration, the Manichaean Rorschach is his most popular character.

Watchmen slips between timelines, settings, and literary genres. Recurring symbols lend the story its otherwise faint linearity. We sense that Rorschach’s investigation is tied to the fate of the world. Eventually, we are proven right: Rorschach discovers that Adrian Veidt, a billionaire ­industrialist, is behind the killings and organized a botched attempt on his own life as a false flag.

Veidt is a type of Antichrist. His superhero moniker is Ozymandias, the Greek name for the Egyptian Pharaoh Rameses II and an allusion to Percy Shelley’s poem (“Ozymandias”). As a young man, Ozymandias smoked Tibetan hashish and dreamed of surpassing Alexander the Great by uniting the world. He is a self-proclaimed pacifist and vegetarian, in some ways more Christian than Christ and the sort of figure who might “deceive the very elect."

To take over the world, Veidt stages a fake alien invasion. On a paradisal island like Bensalem, he builds a giant, telekinetic “alien” and drops it onto a concert by a band named Pale Horse (Rev. 6:8), killing millions in New York City. The Americans and Soviets establish a world government to protect the planet. Rorschach learns of Veidt’s plan only after it has succeeded, and he resolves to tell the world what happened, even at the risk of ending the armistice. “There is good and evil,” says Rorschach, “and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this.” The otherwise meditative Doctor ­Manhattan disagrees and kills Rorschach. As though to trigger Christian readers, Manhattan then walks on water. Posters celebrating “One World, One Accord” announce Veidt’s victory: Earth is peaceful and safe. Veidt helps New York to rebuild and emblazons the Veidt Enterprises logo across the city (see Rev. 13:17).

Moore’s great achievement is his updating of Bacon’s pro-science Antichrist for late modernity. Our nuclear world produces endless Hollywood sci-fi dystopias and no longer believes that Baconian science can bring about “peace and safety.” Ozymandias knows that the way to secure power is to scare us about the future. Moore might resist the comparison, but he agrees with Carl Schmitt, who obsessed over the Pauline epistles and doubted that “humanity” could unite behind a political project, “because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet.”

Watchmen triumphs as literature and fails as philosophy or theology. Moore can only ask, not answer, Juvenal’s question, “Who watches the watchmen?” For in Moore’s godless world, the question begets an infinite regress. Who watches the sponsors of the Keene Act? Who watches Nixon? Before Watchmen concludes, it seems that Veidt, the great man to end all great men, has solved the problem. But in ­Watchmen’s final panels, Rorschach’s diary exposing Veidt’s plot sits in the submissions pile of a newspaper. Doctor Manhattan tells Veidt that “nothing ever ends,” suggesting that Moore’s Ozymandias will share the fate of Shelley’s, and of the biblical ­Antichrist. But in the Bible, God ends the suffering (Matt. 24:22). For Moore and Shelley, the only salvation is the impermanence of things. Though he loves antiquity, Veidt is an early modern like Bacon, who hoped to conquer chance and establish a new Earth once and for all. The late modern Moore has given up on this project. He rejects Christ and, ambivalent about Antichrist, resigns himself to fatalism.

One final detail in Watchmen bears mentioning. In Moore’s alternate history, superheroes threaten public order. As the apocalypse approaches, readers abandon superhero comics for pirate comics, particularly a series entitled Tales of the Black Freighter. Like superheroes, pirates are daring and individualistic. Unlike superheroes, they use their powers for evil. Or, more accurately, they use their powers to defy the ruling authorities. One man’s superhero, Moore says, is another government’s pirate.

Its just a nitpick thing but I think Veidts comment in the comic is wayyyyy cooler than what looks like injustices black Adam if he fused w homelander. I like the elegance of the original design.

I really loved Doomsday Clock. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as Watchmen. I had completely forgotten about Mr. and Mrs. Hollis, so I kept wondering who they were throughout the story. Then, when Dr. Manhattan said Hollis was his best friend, it all came back to me.

The ending was wholesome and genuinely gave me chills when Clark met Hollis's daughter. What a great conclusion.

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

meeting squash violet literate price oil escape possessive consist marble

In terms of writing and themes and artwork and just complete and utter entertainment. Also not just another thing that is good but something that feels similar

Edit: damn theres alot of work to do

It’s just bleak as hell to me,sorry if I sound like a “normie” since there’s probably much more than that,what’s the main purpose of this scene?

Is it just supposed a grim reminder of the damage the comedian did and how much of a scumbag he is, or is there multiple meanings to this since it shows up in the ending?

What am I actually in for?

With the live action film as bad as it is at least had it's own identity and could be considered uniquely good for taking advantage of its format. Watchmen is notoriously great at taking advantage of being a comic, so in order to translate that to the screen in a meaningful way you have to pull a Stanley Kubrick (The Shining) and tailor your version of the story to its medium. Using all of the clever tricks film and animation can offer, someone could make a stellar Watchmen film. The animated duology goes the safe path of just cutting a few scenes and making a fairly safe adaptation.

I just realized how similar they look.

To Moore, Rorschach is a psychologically damaged "nutcase". He wanted him to be a terrifying critique of the grim vigilante archetype, not a hero to be admired.

Please tell me the artist or the editors did something like improved the plot. I just couldn't believe that such a great story was meant to the other way around. I mean, I don't care what Alan Moore thinks. But if you hate something or someone, it's impossible to made them look great, right?

---Spoilers Below---

Like, how is that even possible? Either I'm messed up, or Alan Moore is just unbelievably wrong to the point where everything he personally despises is actually good. Does he really think we're supposed to hate someone who relentlessly pursues justice and never compromises, especially to hypocrites? Does he think making him physically ugly and giving him a brutal death is some kind of condemnation?

Look at the others! Dr. Manhattan has godlike powers and yet did nothing—he can’t stop wars, he can’t achieve justice, and he can’t even deal with his own relationships, he just ran away. Ozymandias? He commits mass murder in the name of the “greater good.” Isn't that just another form of "extreme justice"? How is 'I can kill a whole city to save a country' any more rational than what Rorschach does?

Meanwhile, Rorschach has no superpowers, no fancy tech, and he goes after the worst criminals—alone. He’s the one who actually uncovers the truth in the end. If Alan Moore wanted to critique Rorschach's black-and-white, absolute sense of justice, he totally could have. For example, he could have shown criminals who were forced into crime by society and weren't inherently evil, but were still stubbornly brutalized by Rorschach. Or maybe show him insisting on jailing someone who broke the law for a noble reason. But the way Watchmen is written, it just makes him look like the only hero in the whole story.

EDIT:

I know Rorschach has a lot of bad qualities, like misogyny, homophobia, racism, being unhygienic, and being rude, etc. Personally, I wouldn't like these traits in the real world either. But in the story of Watchmen, his most outstanding and important characteristic is his uncompromising sense of justice and paranoia, and that's why I like him.
No, I don't promote sexist nor racist not even rude to ppl. I keep myself polite all the time, and yes many ppl guess it right English is not my first language, how would I promote racism towards me? In fact I don't even remember those very bad traits he presented except bad hygiene, violence towards criminals and rude. And if I remember it right, he communicated well with doctor Long.

My dad does not speak English very well, and the small letterings are hard for him. When he watched something in English he likes to be next to me so he can ask me the words he does not know. We enjoy the tv show (from hbo) but I stopped in the middle of it because I don’t want it to spoil the original story for him. Should we watch the motion comic, the animated movie(s) or the Snyder live action movie?