TF Views

What Prowl said. I think we've arrived at the "agree to disagree" point. Sparky is basically saying he needs to trust the people he deals with while the rest of us don't. I mean, when I go to Toys R Us, I just need the clerk to take the money and give me my toys, that doesn't mean I trust them, nor do I need to for the transaction to be completed. As for examples from history there have been plenty of turncoats throughout history. I mean, how did Native Americans get guns? They had to buy them from settlers, often the very settlers they were fighting.

Haven't read these books, myself. But that said:

It's not without precedent for Swindle to be selling weapons to the Autobots. His G1 bio pretty much says he'll sell to anyone who can meet his price. And if you're looking for anti-Transformer weaponry, a Transformer arms dealer would seem like a really good place to find that kind of thing. So the whole thing sounds plausible to me.

As for whether or not you need to trust someone in order to make a deal with 'em, well, people deal with crackheads all the time. And people deal with crack dealers, too. Neither of those two sorts are exactly known for being trustworthy. And people do, in fact, get burned rather often in those sorts of deals. But that whole underground economy seems to do okay, so trust isn't something you strictly need in a shady business relationship.

BWprowl wrote: One place I think we’re getting stuck (or I am, with you, in this case) is the way your problem with the story seems to be that they ‘made Spike a bad guy’ when at the end of ‘Police Action’, I still don’t see him as a ‘bad guy’. I see him as a cocky jerk, yes. A poor leader who made some bad decisions and now has the Autobots after his ass because of it, but hardly a ‘bad guy’.

That's basically how I view him too. I didn't think he was necessarily evil. A jerkass and a poor leader and all that, but not an out and out bad-guy. But then the final issue has him on the run as a criminal. So yeah. Costa's multi-faceted, gray area antagonist is reduced to just a criminal on the run.

Shockwave wrote:What Prowl said. I think we've arrived at the "agree to disagree" point.

Looks like it.

138 Scourge wrote: It's not without precedent for Swindle to be selling weapons to the Autobots. His G1 bio pretty much says he'll sell to anyone who can meet his price. And if you're looking for anti-Transformer weaponry, a Transformer arms dealer would seem like a really good place to find that kind of thing. So the whole thing sounds plausible to me.

It's plenty plausible. I have no issue with the idea of Swindle selling weapons and tech to humans. I honestly don't even have that much of a deal with Spike being the buyer, though it does seem out of character for him. I could see it all happening. My problem is with the way none of this was shown or even hinted at prior to the last issue.

It's like, if you ever saw the movie, "A Kid if King Arthur's Court." The kid is sent back in time to save Camelot. Yadda yadda yadda. Ultimately the kid fails and a black knight rides in out of nowhere to save the day. And sure, maybe there was 30 seconds at the start of the movie that established the black knight, but then we don't see him (her!) until the very end of the movie. Just because they established there being a Black Knight doesn't really add anything to the resolution when s/he shows up again. Just a plot device to wrap it up.

So yeah, Swindle was a big player in the first few issues of the Ongoing, but then he just disappears until the very end. He doesn't do anything for that entire time and he's never talked about except once to note his absence. Noting his absence is not the same as setting up an arms dealing subplot. Oh yeah, and even during the first arc, nowhere was it ever even hinted that he had some backroom dealings going on (Spike either).

Swindle is the Black Knight riding in to quickly resolve everything and help those end credits roll.

Aaaand, that's all I got. Agree to disagree shall we?

BWprowl wrote:I think the issue we’re having with Sparky is just a difference in worldviews, honestly. He’s basically saying, “In my experience, there’s no way anyone in Spike’s situation would deal with Swindle” while we’re saying “In my experience, someone like Spike would totally deal with Swindle”. Or maybe more accurately those should start with “If I was in Spike’s situation…”. Anyway, it basically makes the whole thing irreconcilable, since it’s all grounded in our life experiences and how we see the world.

Shockwave wrote:Sparky is basically saying he needs to trust the people he deals with while the rest of us don't.

It's more than that. Again, keep in mind the Decepticons had just devastated the entire planet while trying to wipe out the human race. It's not just whether or not Spike could trust Swindle, but if he could put his hatred of the Transformers aside to deal with him in the first place. I just can't see Spike doing that given everything about his behavior towards the Transformers exemplifies his hatred and mistrust of them, up until the alliance they make with the Autobots. And even then, he shows a lack of trust on his part when he goes AWOL to kill Scrapper.

Shockwave wrote:I mean, when I go to Toys R Us, I just need the clerk to take the money and give me my toys, that doesn't mean I trust them, nor do I need to for the transaction to be completed.

A couple things... You're not really buying it from the clerk, you're buying it from the company that the clerk happens to work for. And the company establishes itself as a trustworthy business dealer with warranties and return policies and what ever else. Plus, it's not like Toys R Us was trying to wipe out everyone on the planet before you walked into the store.

As for examples from history there have been plenty of turncoats throughout history. I mean, how did Native Americans get guns? They had to buy them from settlers, often the very settlers they were fighting.

Ok, I can see that working as an example for this, although I would say you're overgeneralizing it a bit. Not all the settlers were hostile towards Native Americans (and vise versa) and freely traded with each other.

I think we've arrived at the "agree to disagree" point.

Yeah, things don't seem to be moving with the conversation anymore.

Sparky Prime wrote:A couple things... You're not really buying it from the clerk, you're buying it from the company that the clerk happens to work for. And the company establishes itself as a trustworthy business dealer with warranties and return policies and what ever else. Plus, it's not like Toys R Us was trying to wipe out everyone on the planet before you walked into the store.

I guess the ultimate point here is that trust doesn't enter into a business transaction. Or, at the very least, it's certainly not a requirement. Now, that's just talking about the transaction itself.

Sparky Prime wrote:

As for examples from history there have been plenty of turncoats throughout history. I mean, how did Native Americans get guns? They had to buy them from settlers, often the very settlers they were fighting.

Ok, I can see that working as an example for this, although I would say you're overgeneralizing it a bit. Not all the settlers were hostile towards Native Americans (and vise versa) and freely traded with each other.

It's still the same concept. A technologically advanced force came in and started wiping people out. So what do they do? They buy the weapons that are being used against them from the people that are using them. I mean, do you really think that at the end of the day the Native Americans really saw the settlers they traded with any differently than the ones that were shooting them? I think there were plenty of battles that were fought that would prove otherwise. And there is certainly a history of Native Americans attacking non military settlers as well. In fact, it reached a point where wagon trains would have to circle frequently as a means of protection from just such an unprovoked attack. So there is certainly plenty of historical evidence showing that they saw pretty much all settlers as the enemy but were still willing to buy weapons from them. So, it's not really an overgeneralization at all, but makes a perfect example of what we're talking about.

Sparky Prime wrote:

I think we've arrived at the "agree to disagree" point.

Yeah, things don't seem to be moving with the conversation anymore.

Yeah, I was gonna let this go, but I still feel some need to address the specific points. I promise I'll shut up after this.

Mako Crab wrote:

BWprowl wrote: One place I think we’re getting stuck (or I am, with you, in this case) is the way your problem with the story seems to be that they ‘made Spike a bad guy’ when at the end of ‘Police Action’, I still don’t see him as a ‘bad guy’. I see him as a cocky jerk, yes. A poor leader who made some bad decisions and now has the Autobots after his ass because of it, but hardly a ‘bad guy’.

That's basically how I view him too. I didn't think he was necessarily evil. A jerkass and a poor leader and all that, but not an out and out bad-guy. But then the final issue has him on the run as a criminal. So yeah. Costa's multi-faceted, gray area antagonist is reduced to just a criminal on the run.

Shockwave wrote:What Prowl said. I think we've arrived at the "agree to disagree" point.

Looks like it.

138 Scourge wrote: It's not without precedent for Swindle to be selling weapons to the Autobots. His G1 bio pretty much says he'll sell to anyone who can meet his price. And if you're looking for anti-Transformer weaponry, a Transformer arms dealer would seem like a really good place to find that kind of thing. So the whole thing sounds plausible to me.

It's plenty plausible. I have no issue with the idea of Swindle selling weapons and tech to humans. I honestly don't even have that much of a deal with Spike being the buyer, though it does seem out of character for him. I could see it all happening. My problem is with the way none of this was shown or even hinted at prior to the last issue.

It's like, if you ever saw the movie, "A Kid if King Arthur's Court." The kid is sent back in time to save Camelot. Yadda yadda yadda. Ultimately the kid fails and a black knight rides in out of nowhere to save the day. And sure, maybe there was 30 seconds at the start of the movie that established the black knight, but then we don't see him (her!) until the very end of the movie. Just because they established there being a Black Knight doesn't really add anything to the resolution when s/he shows up again. Just a plot device to wrap it up.

So yeah, Swindle was a big player in the first few issues of the Ongoing, but then he just disappears until the very end. He doesn't do anything for that entire time and he's never talked about except once to note his absence. Noting his absence is not the same as setting up an arms dealing subplot. Oh yeah, and even during the first arc, nowhere was it ever even hinted that he had some backroom dealings going on (Spike either).

Swindle is the Black Knight riding in to quickly resolve everything and help those end credits roll.

Aaaand, that's all I got. Agree to disagree shall we?

There was a lot going on in the ongoing, what exactly would you have wanted to see? See, here's the thing, if Costa had tried to cram every little subplot into the ongoing, the pacing would be reaaaaaally slow. Costa's problem is exactly what Dom said it was, assuming that we're smart enough to fill in some of this ourselves. Besides, I haven't even read this issue and I still like the idea that there's a plot thread there that I didn't see coming. I mean, it just seems like your whole argument boils down to "writers need to give us warning!" To which, sorry, but I call bullshit. It's honestly nice to once in a while see something unexpected, especially in Transformers. Apparently this means that GI Joe fans can infer some subplots while Transfans need to see every tiny little detail of absolutely everything.

Shockwave wrote:I guess the ultimate point here is that trust doesn't enter into a business transaction. Or, at the very least, it's certainly not a requirement. Now, that's just talking about the transaction itself.

I just don't see that being true at all. To a certain extent, the buyer is trusting that they are getting a good product and/or deal out of it. The seller is trusting the buyer provides credible compensation (usually monetarily) for the product and/or services.

It's still the same concept. A technologically advanced force came in and started wiping people out. So what do they do? They buy the weapons that are being used against them from the people that are using them. I mean, do you really think that at the end of the day the Native Americans really saw the settlers they traded with any differently than the ones that were shooting them? I think there were plenty of battles that were fought that would prove otherwise. And there is certainly a history of Native Americans attacking non military settlers as well. In fact, it reached a point where wagon trains would have to circle frequently as a means of protection from just such an unprovoked attack. So there is certainly plenty of historical evidence showing that they saw pretty much all settlers as the enemy but were still willing to buy weapons from them. So, it's not really an overgeneralization at all, but makes a perfect example of what we're talking about.

No, you are overgeneralizing things quite a bit actually. European settlers didn't just show up and start wiping out Native Americans. Not intentionally at least. Europeans introduced a number of diseases Native Americans had never been exposed to before which caused a lot of damage. Things started out peacefully though, until Europeans started getting overly greedy and trying to force tribes to convert to European ideals. Naturally, Native Americans started to defend themselves. But that doesn't mean they saw all settlers as a threat from then on or viewed them all the same way. There is a much bigger dynamic here than you're accounting. Like I said, I can see this as a working example, but it's really not quite the same thing either.

Yeah, I was gonna let this go, but I still feel some need to address the specific points. I promise I'll shut up after this.

Likewise.

Shockwave wrote: There was a lot going on in the ongoing, what exactly would you have wanted to see? See, here's the thing, if Costa had tried to cram every little subplot into the ongoing, the pacing would be reaaaaaally slow. Costa's problem is exactly what Dom said it was, assuming that we're smart enough to fill in some of this ourselves.

Some? Don't you mean ALL?

Besides, I haven't even read this issue and I still like the idea that there's a plot thread there that I didn't see coming. I mean, it just seems like your whole argument boils down to "writers need to give us warning!" To which, sorry, but I call bullshit. It's honestly nice to once in a while see something unexpected, especially in Transformers.

This plot twist didn't feel planned. It didn't feel natural. It felt like Costa wrote himself into a corner, realized that no one gives a shit about Spike killing Scrapper, realized Prowl's the last person to lecture him about morals, and realized he needed a quick way out. It feels cheap and tacked on. It's not *entirely* that it came out of nowhere, though that is a big part of it. It's also that it feels completely forced and fake, and requires the reader to construct the entire subplot in their minds and fill in all the holes of logic themselves. Yeah, we can do it, but that doesn't stop it from being a load of bullshit.

Apparently this means that GI Joe fans can infer some subplots while Transfans need to see every tiny little detail of absolutely everything.

Or that they're more accepting of poor quality.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Yeah, I was gonna let this go, but I still feel some need to address the specific points. I promise I'll shut up after this.

Likewise.

Thirded. We're all just repeating ourselves at this point anyway.

One place I think we’re getting stuck (or I am, with you, in this case) is the way your problem with the story seems to be that they ‘made Spike a bad guy’ when at the end of ‘Police Action’, I still don’t see him as a ‘bad guy’. I see him as a cocky jerk, yes

I would disagree. Spike is a bad guy here. Gratned, that is based on what I see as a more or less omniscient reader. (Meaning that if I was in setting with Spike, I would likely not know that he was a bad guy, and would thus have no problem with him.) But, yeah, Spike is a bad guy.

He abuses his station, (which it is implied he was given more than having earned for himself), while not even acting in a manner becoming of it. He misappropriates public resources for personal vendettas. He makes impulsive and personal decisions with tactical and strategic implications. Spike is far from heroic, admirable, or even acceptable.

(Again, that is based on what I can see an an omniscient reader.)

Spike represents a human viewpoint that prioritizes humans and wants to be prepared against Transformer threats via any means necessary, even if that means *temporarily* dealing with a member of that same species.

I read Spike's justification as a convenient post-hoc rationale for things he would have done anyway. He was more of an opportunist than principled.

that there’ve been less clearly-defined ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ and more just multiple sides among the Transformers and Humans each with their own agenda, going about achieving them their own ways.

This I agree with.

Pennington and the whistle-blower (whose name eludes me) are distinct from Spike. The whiste-blower undermined her boss' objectives and interests, but arguably had legitimate reasons. Penington was a good guy all around.

On the TF side, Jazz had legitimate reasons to kill that cop, even while the cop had completely sensible reasons for wanting to kill Bumblebee and the other injured Autobots.

Can anyone really blame the Russians for thinking about nuking the TFs in North Korea? (I mean, wouldn't you consider it?)

Again, that's not the same thing.

Every example I gave involved trusting an enemy in a high-stakes situation.

Oh yeah, and even during the first arc, nowhere was it ever even hinted that he had some backroom dealings going on (Spike either).

Spike is shown to have all kinds of stuff going on. That man liked to dip his fingers in to a bit of everything. Buying from Swindle was just one more thing. We do not need a page showing Spike buying weapons from a shady robot in a trenchcoat. Nor do we need the big reveal to be a "mwahahahahahaha" moment complete with flashbacks and a play by play. Either would actually be kind of stupid.

And even then, he shows a lack of trust on his part when he goes AWOL to kill Scrapper.

That was not a lack of trust. That was a question of Spike effectively breaking the law for personal reasons and wisely trying to not get caught. If nothing else, he did not tell his human superiors about killing Scrapper or any of his extra-curricular activities.

This plot twist didn't feel planned. It didn't feel natural. It felt like Costa wrote himself into a corner, realized that no one gives a shit about Spike killing Scrapper, realized Prowl's the last person to lecture him about morals, and realized he needed a quick way out.

There are two things wrong with this.

-Nobody cared about Scrapper getting killed because they missed the whole damned point of Spike killing Scraper. That is the fault of the readers, not the Costa. (As noted in the comics thread, I may have missed an important plot-point or two in "Moon Knight". That is my fault for being lazy/hasty in reading the comics, not Bendis' fault in writing them.) Costa assumed that people would recognize what Spike was actually, rather than just sitting back ans saying "well, Scrapper was a bad guy, so it is okay to kill him". And, yes, killing Scrapper probably made everybody a little safer. But, the real reason Spike killed Scrapper should make everybody, including Prowl, a little nervous.

-Does anybody really think that Costa, or any writer, just throws together their product at the last minute? Does it really make sense that Costa would have realized that Prowl had been underhanded in the past when he was halfway through writing issue 29, or maybe, just maybe Costa deliberately chose Prowl for just that reason?


Dom
-thinking it more this fandom actually.

This needs to be said...

Dominic wrote:Every example I gave involved trusting an enemy in a high-stakes situation.

None of the examples you gave were even remotely like the situation in this story. Most of them are about people infiltrating the enemy who doesn't know who they really are, not known enemies dealing with each other.

That was not a lack of trust. That was a question of Spike effectively breaking the law for personal reasons and wisely trying to not get caught. If nothing else, he did not tell his human superiors about killing Scrapper or any of his extra-curricular activities.

Breaking the law, not telling his superiors, killing a Transformer despite the alliance with the Autobots.... Sounds like a lack of trust to me.

Sparky Prime wrote:This needs to be said...

Dominic wrote:Every example I gave involved trusting an enemy in a high-stakes situation.

None of the examples you gave were even remotely like the situation in this story. Most of them are about people infiltrating the enemy who doesn't know who they really are, not known enemies dealing with each other.

That was not a lack of trust. That was a question of Spike effectively breaking the law for personal reasons and wisely trying to not get caught. If nothing else, he did not tell his human superiors about killing Scrapper or any of his extra-curricular activities.

Breaking the law, not telling his superiors, killing a Transformer despite the alliance with the Autobots.... Sounds like a lack of trust to me.

When you put it that way, it sounds like Spike doesn't trust anyone.

I maintain that Spike could have been dealing with Swindle without knowing it. Remember the first episode of Animated that had Swindle in it? He assembled an entire team of criminals and none of them knew who they were working for until the last minute. Why? Because Swindle is just that good at BSing people.

Sparky, I do get what you're saying about not wanting to deal or have relations with a species that's bent on eradicating us, but the thing you're forgetting is that they're robots... IN DISGUISE! Animated has given us a story where Swindle was able to manipulate things without making himself known so why is it so hard to accept in comic book form?

Shockwave
-How the Predicons don't just stick out like a sore thumb is beyond me. And it would probably help my argument if I'd actually read the issue.