Now that the dust has settled, who was in the wrong here?

It's possible for both to be in the wrong, while also both having noble reasons. They are both deeply flawed people, Rorschach more from his environment while Ozy more from his own self image.

Ozy did not have noble reasons. He just wanted to surpass Alexander. Saving the world was more to satisfy his ego than anything else

Watchmen is complex enough that there can be multiple viewpoints that are simultaneously true. Yes, the things that lead Ozy to his decision are egomaniacal, and there's enough evidence in the narrative to show that no amount of humility can hide just how highly he thinks of himself. However, the question that has to be asked is if he is completely aware of this part of himself, or if he really has bought into the notion that he is doing what he is for the right reasons.

It was both, Moore's characters are well-written enough to have more than one overruling motivation. Ozy wants to satisfy his ego by changing the world, yes, but he also cares about the world and takes measures to make sure he feels as much guilt as possible for when it happens - hence the tv array and the black freighter. Just like how Rorschach agreed with Ozy enough to ask Manhattan for euthanasia, but also cared enough about justice to keep the journal a secret. They're both men with very selfish and very selfless sides to them that often work in tangent.

Reminder that you missed the point if you came out the end of Watchmen thinking peace was guaranteed by Veidt's actions.

Attached: 1493489985513.jpg (640x480, 47.18K)

Rorschach the nihilist ironically had more faith in humanity. Ozy, the epitome of a perfect man, didn't. Why bother saving people?

tbf most people read it as a teenager and then don't read it again.

He may be widely reviled, but he gave a logical reasoning for the events that occurred that night--that is enough for doubt to form, and for people to start chanting for Veidt to be pinned for his conspiracy against his country.

His phony humility when talking to Manhattan about how hard it was to kill all those people when he'd cheered in exhilaration about getting away with it seems pretty conclusive on the subject.

When Rorschach turned to leave Nite-Owl called out to him that they needed to "compromise", but in the sense of negotiation, in a compromise both sides have to give up something to come to an agreement; the "heroes" gave up on bringing Ozymandias to justice for his crimes, but what did he give up? It seems more like a surrender on their part. I think this might be one reason people respected Rorschach's defiance despite it being portrayed as pathetic.

both

Attached: neutral-3.gif (318x472, 30.26K)

>Hurr durr I can't into visual storytelling

Attached: i-did-it_cke.jpg (620x310, 88.29K)

Hadrian's knot isn't a good example since people treat Hadrian as right for cutting it. A good example would be the Doomsday Clock reappearing on the guy's shirt the second he reaches for Walter's journal, signalling that things have gone back to square one.

Eh, even that is hard to say. He was cheering at the news that hostilities had ceased and that peace talks between the US and the USSR were being opened. I think an important part of the relationship between his character and the reader is the uncertainty is he really does believe in his own bullshit or if there is another layer of calculations behind his outer veneer.

user, check out the position of Adrian's arms.

That's the Gordian Knot, user, and Alexander cut it. Hadrian had a wall.

Speaking of which, the usual interpretation of the Gordian Knot story is that Alexander used the simple, effective solution that no one had thought of, but in another slightly different version of the story, the legend is that the one who *unties* the knot will rule Asia, so Alexander cutting it apart is brutish "cheating" and prevents anyone from every doing it properly.

Attached: hadrians-wall-sunsett.jpg (1440x960, 157.07K)

>It seems more like a surrender on their part.
This is the truth. Ozy left them in a choiceless situation, even Rorschach's show of defiance ends up meaningless. Hell, if he had surrendered alongside them he could have made it back to civilization and defend the publication of his journal once it comes out--his death is more hurtful to his own cause than the opposite. But he's just too prideful to be able to sit back and say,
>"I give in."
even as a lie. That's why he's so admirable, he sticks to his guns even when it would have been so much easier to lie, go home, and prepare for retaliation.

It's the sheer symbol of Adrian's arms only going to 10 from midnight is all that's needed.
And FFS, symbolizing going back to the start? You mean like the ketchup on the smiley shirt mimicking the blood on the button?

Attached: watchmenlastpage.jpg (663x1024, 768.01K)

The first time I heard o Hadrian's knot as a kid it was foreshadowing Alexander's failure because despite his Greatness he failed in his conquest of the known world.
Similar Ozy pulls off the greatest conspiracy in the world, but it'll still be for naught.

Gordian.

Are we supposed to have any respect for Dan's surrender, as as he immediately lies and calls it a compromise? Are we supposed to give a shit about this guy?

Dan is deluding himself again, he gives up easily as we saw with his fling with Laurie, she had to keep re-initiating after his stumbles. We're most supposed to feel bad for him I get the feeling.

Watchmen is demoralization propaganda made by a communist limey bitter that conservatives were in leadership in Britain and America.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, but given that humanity has endlessly proven it will take any stupid excuse or lie to kill each other, it wasn't a bad gamble on a stupid excuse to get them to stop.

He portrayed both sides in a neutral way.

Teenagers agree with Rorschach.