Who is more evil, Ultimate Hulk or the Maestro?

[E.Vi.L.]

And besides that, he gave 2 reasons for doing it:

1) He missed "being big". Pretty said, not evil.

2) He wanted to give the Ultimates something to fight to justify their existance. Stupid, but with good intentions in a twisted way.

Stop right there.

"evil" is subjective, sure, but remember that no one outside of a comic book consider himself evil. They all have a rationalization to offer, such as "Missed being big" or "Wanted to give you something to fight so the team (and therefore my own) financement doesn't go down the drain." Every last psychopath has a justification, a rationalization or an excuse to offer.

Hitler has his own book full of rationalization. If you just read Mein Kampf out of context, you could interpret it as being just the misguided but sincere manifesto of a patriot who loves his country but has the wrong idea of how to fix it.

...

I might as well get out of the evil debate. As an atheist, I'm not big on absolute morals. By I understand Law and Justice. Let's just say that the guilty verdict against Banner was deserved and then some. He deliberately unleashed the Hulk and in term of law that's exactly the same as deliberately detonating an exploding device in dowtown Manhattan.

I guess you could substitude "who is most evil" by "who would get the heftier prison sentence".

 

[The Overlord]

Stop right there.

"evil" is subjective, sure, but remember that no one outside of a comic book consider himself evil. They all have a rationalization to offer, such as "Missed being big" or "Wanted to give you something to fight so the team (and therefore my own) financement doesn't go down the drain." Every last psychopath has a justification, a rationalization or an excuse to offer.

Hitler has his own book full of rationalization. If you just read Mein Kampf out of context, you could interpret it as being just the misguided but sincere manifesto of a patriot who loves his country but has the wrong idea of how to fix it.

...

I might as well get out of the evil debate. As an atheist, I'm not big on absolute morals. By I understand Law and Justice. Let's just say that the guilty verdict against Banner was deserved and then some. He deliberately and unleashed the Hulk and in term of law that's exactly the same as deliberately detonating an exploding device in dowtown Manhattan.

I guess you could substitude "who is most evil" by "who would get the heftier prison sentence".

I perfer a more philosophical debate than a legalstic one, its just more fun that way. Besides I have seen many atheists who have very rigid moral codes. Also I don't see how you can apply the law to the Maestro, he lives in time when the US government has collasped, how can you apply the law to someone who comes from a time when the law doesn't exist.

 

[E.Vi.L.]

Besides I have seen many atheists who have very rigid moral codes.

Well, sure. Though I prefer the term strong to rigid. You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who claims to know absolute truth about what's right or wrong. Usually it's one of those hard core atheist who feels he has managed to prove the inexistence of God (Most atheist don't believe in God which isn't quite the same thing as believing God doesn't exist).

I know what I feel to be right or wrong. Doesn't mean I believe I'm right.

If Maestro lives a "might makes right" world, it tends to make him less "evil" since these are the mores of the time.

I mean, for example, Thomas Jefferson had slaves and yet I don't think less of the man. (Of course, while you can't blame people for accepting what everybody else does, you have to tip your hat to those who first go against the norm and try to change it)