Changing the Future by Killing Today What Will be Bad Tomorrow

Posted by RazzaTazz (9450 posts) - - Show Bio

 

 I am a bit of a late arrival to Uncanny X-Force.  I started into the series on the recommendation of a friend, but I have to say in the early stages I was quite confused about a lot of the back story.  Regardless I don’t have to be.  I have finished the first two story arcs and I am now ten issues from being caught up.  Decently written stuff with interesting plots and deeper characters.  Suffice to say I am not sure if they have dealt with this aspect of the character Fantomex yet, but the way he is written I found quite interesting (there will be spoilers ahead).  In the first story arc the team journeys to the moon to deal to intercept a young Apocalypse, who the X-Men know will be responsible for a lot of bad in the future.   The team is there ostensibly to kill him, but at the moment of decision the team has a bit of a moral crisis, they can’t kill a child.  Incidentally I am also reading 52 at the moment and a similar crisis hit Renee Montoya with child suicide bomber but she had to make shot, essentially one death is better than tens or thousands.  In Uncanny X-Force  Fantomex made the same decision, though by himself (as Renee had Vic Sage telling her that she needed to do it.)  Of course it is hard decision to make and the complex morals of it means that there are no absolute right or wrong in such a case, but what makes it so much more interesting is what happens in the next story arc.  This was hard for me because I guess Fantomex is building some kind of future utopia called the World, or at least that he is trying to help shape it.  The problem is that the World goes bad occasionally and starts sending back evil soldiers from the future.  When asked why he doesn’t just destroy it he responds that it has much more capacity for good than it does for evil, and that it can’t be destroyed just because one version of it created something bad.  Here is a bit of a contradiction though, in that in one case he will destroy to save the future and in the other case he will not.   The difference?  This has to do with determinism, basically that with the proper conditions that certain things will happen.  In this case it also sort of touches on how mankind regards the universe.  Mankind cannot control other men, therefore the best option it to kill Apocalypse.  Mankind can control machines though (or at least Fantomex thinks so) so destroying the world is an unnecessary reaction to something which can be saved.  Like I said, it is an interesting moral structure which is going on inside his head, and again there are no right and wrong in this case of ethics, it is just interesting that the interpretation can be so different with only a small change in conditions.

Moderator
#1 Posted by Daveyo520 (2447 posts) - - Show Bio

If video games have taught me anything it is if I go back and kill Hitler the Russians will take over the world.

#2 Posted by GambitXRemy (62 posts) - - Show Bio

apocalypse is part summers

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.