The Great Hippo wrote:1) Why not just shoot him, poison him, or blow him up, 2) Why was he willing to involve secondary hitmen in his other plots but not this one, 3) If this was about penance, why do we have the iconic image of him covered in blood watching Comedian plummet, staring with what seems to be grim satisfaction--and why do we have the subplot about his first defeat at the Comedian's hand (and why is it so close in proximity to his description of his second success)?
Saying "This evidence is probably an example of Moore being dramatic, so we should ignore it" is cheating. What other evidence should we dismiss because it's just Moore being dramatic?
1) Ozy is the best hand to hand fighter in the world. He has never been seen using guns. He may simply be sticking to what he knows he can do. And like I said, him using his hands might have been out of penance. Walking in and shooting him in the head would have been a disservice to someone Ozy has explicitly said to be the source of his resolution, the Comedian's nihilism brought the true threat to humanity into perspective for Ozy. And again, like I said, it may have just been for a dramatic introduction to the comic series. An expert fighter being killed in hand to hand combat with an unknown assailant adds mystery. The reader knows he isn't a typical crook. It's so much better for the comic than Ozy simply walking in and blowing the Comedian's brains out. It may be a cheat, but it is just one of several interpretations. Your interpretation is far from rock solid since every point has possible alternatives. 2) He used a secondary hitman ONCE, and that was to stage his own attempted assassination, something he obviously couldn't have done himself. Every other part of his plan he did himself no matter how minute. He wanted to keep the fewest loose ends possible.3) I do not have my comic on me at the moment nor do I remember any such image of Ozy smiling at the death of the Comedian. If I remember correctly Ozy said the Comedian's involvement was a tragic circumstance, I can't be sure though. But like I said, all of these have many alternative interpretations. The Comedian's death cannot be used for either side of the debate.
The Great Hippo wrote:The smartest man on earth left a fucking riddle that a kid in a middle school history class could have solved as the password on the critical files that would lead them straight to him? Also, he clearly did not intend to kill Rorschach or Nightowl before Doctor Manhattan showed up (either that, or he intended to explain his plot to them in a highly condescending manner, then kill them--either way, pretty fucking vain).
1) He has Rorschach framed for murder and he is aware that Nightowl is out of his game. Nightowl and the Silk Specter deciding to break Rorschach out of prison and continue an investiagion, that Ozy did not initiate, that would lead them to Ozy's office is such a chance occurrence that Ozy couldn't have orchestrated it. For your accusation that his password is the culmination of an elaborate plan to get Rorschach and the Nightowl to his Antarctic base would mean he intended on the Comedian finding out (and killing him despite the Comedian deciding NOT to tell), Rorschach putting all the pieces together, staging his own attempted assassination (for the lulz apparently since he wanted them to find him out), framing Rorschach (apparently also for lulz), predicting that the fat and bloated Nightowl will come out of retirement and break Rorschach out, predicting that they will end up in his office and that they will start randomly typing passwords into his desk computer. It's absurd. 2) His plan had already been carried out by that point. He couldn't be stopped and he knew any logical person would keep it under wraps after the fact even if they wouldn't have let it happen beforehand. And remember, Ozy is still human and these were his friends. He probably gave them at least some chance to live. If they weren't "logical" and decided instead to inform the public, he could have killed them. Unlike the your password argument, the monologuing argument has merit, but there are alternative interpretations.
The Great Hippo wrote:Also, why not kill Nightowl and Silk Spectre after Manhattan has left? Why let them leave alive? Manhattan has expressed his noninterest in interfering anymore; now is his perfect opportunity to make sure his secret is 100% safe (and considering the stakes...). What stops him then?
Dr. M may seem like a true nihilist, but he obviously has emotions and cares for his friends. Dr. M may have been leaving Earth, but had he ever even once came back at some point in the future he would have known whether or not Ozy intended on killing them and would have stopped him before even leaving. Ozy couldn't be sure Dr. M wouldn't come back. After all, Ozy didn't intend on Dr. M coming back the first time. Given Dr. M tied up the Rorschach loose end and Nightowl and Silk Specter agreeing to keep quiet, killing them wasn't worth the risk of justice from on high.
THE REAL ISSUE:
I have already admitted that Moore intended on making Ozy look like a narcissist because of his name because I can't explain why he chose "King of Kings". Besides for the idea that he intended on people finding out about his plan, all of your arguments are at least possible interpretations. As I have said, I now merely argue that Moore's message was that Ozy's motivations were gray given his interview at the end of one of the later chapters where he says he believes anyone can attain his physical and mental abilities through shear determination. Ozy is objectively stronger and faster and more intelligent than any other human, and I believe that Moore tried to communicate the narcissism that would go along with that position that is usually ignored in superhero characters like Superman. However Watchmen not only tackles the psychological repercussions of true superheros but also matters of what is moral. Ozy is also supposed to represents moral pragmatism, which wouldn't be true if his motivations were nothing but his own vanity. The way I see it now is that Ozy is a satire of Superman and the complaints lodged against most superheros. Why do these beings with so much power fight petty thugs? And doesn't being objectively BETTER than everyone at nearly everything make one a narcissist/elitist by definition?
If you believe that one life shouldn't be sacrificed for millions then it doesn't make sense for me to argue with you about Ozy's motivations as you will never accept the logic of moral pragmatism. So I'll ask you, if there were a 99% chance that a million people are about to die and only a 1% chance those million people would die if you killed one of those million people yourself, would you do it? If you answer no for any reason then we must agree to disagree because the numbers don't lie, one should act.