fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2022 ]

[ SECRET POST #2022 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2022 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #289.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't necessary think that villains are more untrustworthy than heroes, when it comes to their followers/sidekicks/whatever! In fact, sometimes I almost think they're more loyal -- I can think of a few examples where a bad guy sticks with their partner only because s/he cares for them, despite the fact that s/he disagrees with their methods.

Yeah, but once they rule the world, they have all at their beck and call. And you are probably a liability.

The thing about the kinda sociopath that will kill babies and rape dogs? They aren't good with the whole loyalty thing.

And those are the types that wanna rule the world. That, or they are cold emotionless logic robots that won't care about you.

Not necessarily. Evil isn't a black and white thing; in order to want to rule the world you don't HAVE to be a sociopath who kills babies and rapes dogs. In fact, I quite believe the sociopathic types would rather destroy the world instead of ruling over it...! But really, evil isn't limited to "crazy sociopath", "moustache-twirling creep" and "emotionless drone". It's a big rainbow made out of shades of eeeeeevil!!

No, but the rest would be stopped before they succeed. You'd either have to be a supergenius devoid of emotion or a complete bastard to pull it off.

Um, why exactly would they be stopped? And why do you need to be devoid of emotion in order to be a supergenius? :|

Consider how many of these types actually succeed. It's never the ones you'd be okay with running things. It's the ones that if you love, you'll put the bullet in the back of their head yourself.

Edited 2012-07-17 00:32 (UTC)

I wonder if conquerors throughout history were all "crazy sociopath", "moustache-twirling creep" or "emotionless drone". I doubt it. Still, I'd keep on their good side.

And none of them actually conquered the world.

Re: Unnecessary Overthinking

grammarie - 2012-07-17 05:59 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unnecessary Overthinking

insanenoodlyguy - 2012-07-17 11:20 (UTC) - Expand

What about the villains who want to rule the world because they think they'd make it a better place?

They very rarely win.

Unless it's Doom.

Doom let demons flay his one true love alive and wore her skin for arcane power.

Edited 2012-07-17 00:33 (UTC)

That storyline was pure unadulterated bullshit, for numerous reasons. Waid didn't like that other writers had written Doom as a noble villain and decided to make him an evil ratbastard instead. It was like what Grant Morrison did to Magneto in Planet X.

Also, the idea that Doom would even need make a deal with demons (and the same demons who had tortured his mother in Hell, no less) for magic instead of just getting the magic himself is also ridiculous.

Darth Vader won for 20 years.

Darth Vader was Palpatines Bitch. He wasn't in charge, he was the help.

And Palpatine was that big a bastard.

Re: Unnecessary Overthinking

majorshipper - 2012-07-17 05:17 (UTC) - Expand

In other words, someone so arrogant they think they have the answer to all the world's problems? Yeah, imagine what would happen if you tell them you think they're doing something wrong...

Are they arrogant if they're right?

YES! Even if they lucked into being really super right for one shining moment, they would still be a human being (for most fictional cases), and therefore, very fallible. And the more power someone has, the correspondingly huger the consequences when they do make mistakes.

Look at Russell Edgington and Talbot.

A particular bad guy might be everything you said, but you could never be sure of that. To paraphrase from one of the awesome narrations from Burn Notice, if you steal with a guy, you know he's a thief; if you kill with a guy, you know he's a murderer; if you do any crime at all with him, you know he's a liar; and if you take over the world with him, you know he doesn't like to share power. So, unless this scenario involves telepathy, you could never know if he was thinking of turning on you at some point. Ever. Trust problems are standard issue on the evil side of the morality spectrum.

That is the best quote ever for this. +1!

Trust problems are standard issue in every relationship, whatever morals someone may claim to have. With good guys, you also can never be sure of when or why they'll justify an exception to their own morals or promises to you (especially for the "greater good"), and if you'll be in the middle of those consequences. An outright villain, if you're practical dealing with them, there's no such illusions, no expectation of blind faith. If you know he steals, you don't leave shit lying around; you know he kills, you make yourself valuable alive; you know he lies, you verify his claims instead of trusting them. You know already, so while you can't pinpoint the exact moment of future betrayal, you know it's coming and have an option to prepare or accept. There is no trust to lose.

Not saying any of this is a smart life plan, but it's about as smart as blind faith in someone's largely theoretical morality. Some people would rather know the devil than take a chance in the deep blue sea.

So, since you know that this person can't be trusted at the outset...don't go falling in love with them and assuming they'll let you share their power when they take over the world!

Also, we're not talking about theoretical morality, we're talking about someone's observable actions and the conclusions you can draw from them. With good guys, once you observe that they are good, you can pretty safely figure they won't betray your trust without some pretty exceptional circumstances to push them into it. With bad guys, well...they're bad. They're not trustworthy by definition.

Nah, I didn't say anything about love or making assumptions. Knowing that your partner is bad, if you're practical, like I said, you'll know to be wary of them at all times. Good guys tend to feel entitled to trust by virtue of being good and react badly at being treated with wariness, even if it's just common sense to do so.

But, okay, let's go with proven morality. I think you're wrongfully conflating being "good" with being "trustworthy". Say you trust something illegal you've done with your partner and they decide to turn you in because it's the good thing to do, even if it betrays your trust. They decided they'd make a concession to general morality (i.e. being loyal) in a specific case. Because they mean well, they're still good guys, but it doesn't change the harm they've done to you, personally. I don't see how that's an improvement over a bad guy turning on you for a less moral reason. You've been betrayed either way. So, not saying the bad guy is trustworthy, I'm saying that nobody is, but at least the bad guy, you might expect it.

I have such a thing for the way Jeffery Donovan narrates that show. Just the tone of his voice man!

IKR? I love the deadpan/ironic narration. TBH I miss it, since it seems like there's less of it in the past few seasons.