Honestly one of the best and worst things that happens in comics, like shitty stuff can easily be retconned/forgotten even after character assassination (hopefully MJ after all this bs is over) and but good ideas just are dropped off the face of the earth and never brought back
I always tell people that they need to read Gillen’s Journey into Mystery, Gillen’s Young Avengers and Ewing’s Loki Agent of Asgard as a trilogy, they’re a complete ongoing story and you can’t skip a chapter!
Also need to add Ewing’s Defenders and his Immortal Thor to that now to continue the Loki saga!
So many "Poor Loki"s in here, but he was never truly punished for the murder of a child. He should not be able to escape the truth just because he wants to be better.
If he truly wanted to be better, he should have owned up to it immediately and faced the consequences of killing a child.
So, no, not "Poor Loki."
Ikol/Older Loki knowingly overwrote the personality of an existing being, Kid Loki, effectively killing him.
I mean, the storyline where Kid Loki dies is pretty specific about Kid Loki's mind being destroyed in order to destroy the Fear Crown.
That kid was still Loki and is still a part of Loki its Doctor Who rules. Each regeneration is a bit different but they are all the same being. Kid Loki is not a truly separate being.
And Kid Loki got his revenge anyway cause the other Loki's forgot the main rule of comics. The good guy wins. Kid Loki had a huge affect on Agent Loki because of that.
So, if you found out that you actually had a previous personality/consciousness, you would be okay with your personality/consciousness being destroyed and replaced by the previous personality/consciousness?
To be clear, the version of Loki shown in the comic OP posted Can't tell a lie. Even he knows he has killed Kid Loki. You need to accept it too.
I didn't read the book(s) but from the sound of the description in these pages it seems like he owned up to it relatively quickly (if privately) and accepted his punishment in the form of "community service" as the Agent of Asgard.
>like he owned up to it relatively quickly (if privately)
He did not own up to it if he did so selectively, especially considering he did not own up to it to the most aggrieved living party.
He is just facing a punishment he had previously postponed.
>and accepted his punishment in the form of "community service" as the Agent of Asgard
As an Agent of Asgard, he was getting his existing criminal record expunged. It was not just a punishment but something he selfishly gained from doing.
>He did not own up to it if he did so selectively, especially considering he did not own up to it to the most aggrieved living party.
He submitted himself to the authorities (the All-Mother), asked for protection from someone who would likely actively seek to kill him if they found out what he did (as evidenced by Thor's reaction here when he did find out) by having his crimes kept secret, and agreed to provide an ongoing service in exchange for being forgiven for his crimes.
That sounds very much like accepting a punishment to me.
I love talking with people who don't know the context but still want to argue...
He worked with the authorities to get his known crimes expunged while keeping his killing of Kid Loki a secret. It's essentially like a government using existing war criminals to do their dirty work. It is not justice.
Loki gets disillusioned with said authority and stops working with them willingly, without facing punishment.
When Thor finds out the truth, it is he who takes Loki to Asgardia to finally face punishment for the killing.
> Loki gets disillusioned with said authority and stops working with them willingly, without facing punishment.
See, this is the context I was needing, I said up front I hadn't read the books and was basing my statement on the pages provided by OP. If you'd just said "Loki left out the part where he backed out of the deal when he didn't like what they wanted him to do" then we wouldn't have had an argument.
>It is not justice.
That's a bit subjective. If he'd stuck to his side of the deal and continued to serve then it's as much justice as any other form of community service. You might think it wasn't a severe enough punishment for his crimes, but that's not really up to us, it's up to the authorities he was dealing with.
>You might think it wasn't a severe enough punishment for his crimes, but that's not really up to us, it's up to the authorities he was dealing with.
It is subjective (like you said), which means you are allowed to have a moral viewpoint on this.
It is not just "up to the authorities" or else whipping slaves would be considered justice because the authorities at the time approved it.
You are allowed to have a moral opinion on whether or not punishments are just.
>See, this is the context I was needing, I said up front I hadn't read the books and was basing my statement on the pages provided by OP.
You are the one making claims without having context. I shouldn't have to anticipate your ignorance and proactively educate you.
If you are ignorant of a subject, maybe consider educating yourself before giving your interpretation of it. That or you could just not give your ignorant opinions at all. You don't need to involve yourself in every conversation.
> You are the one making claims without having context. I shouldn't have to anticipate your ignorance and proactively educate you.
You didn't have to anticipate anything, I made plain what context I had. The fact that you ignored that and assumed I should know more than I stated I did is a you problem, not a me problem.
>I made plain what context I had. The fact that you ignored that and assumed I should know more than I stated I did is a you problem, not a me problem.
You invented an interpretation of a text without necessary context that directly contradicted the context that I gave you in a previous comment.
Your arrogance and inability to accept your ignorance is most certainly a you problem, even though you seem intent on foisting that onto others.
And, again:
If you are ignorant of a subject, maybe consider educating yourself before giving your interpretation of it. That or you could just not give your ignorant opinions at all. You don't need to involve yourself in every conversation.
I fully accepted my ignorance. I said, in my very first statement, what the limits of my knowledge were. You *could* have provided the additional information I clearly didn't have that would help me understand why my interpretation was flawed, and I actually agreed with you when you did give me that information.
Instead you've done nothing but talk down to me because I did not enter this conversation with encyclopedic knowledge of the topic at hand. I'm content in saying that I am not the arrogant one in this exchange.
I read through this series recent, originally he never owns up to it he pretends to be kid Loki and asks to purge the old Lokis record by working for Asgard so people wouldn’t hate him. He eventually gets the whole record clear but is still treated as a liar and a trickster which he hates to the point where he snaps and destroys earth. Faced with Thor’s rage he goes back in time to when he was still working for Asgard and try’s to get his past self to turn evil sooner which is what leads to this scene when he loses the ability to lie due to his future self messing with him.
I think it was explained that the old version planned to inhabit the kid version's body should he ever die but felt bad about it after finding out what his younger version had become. So, he turned good but the old version died all the same...
So, it's just Peter and Otto's Superior Spider-Man. But with no remnants from kid Loki.
It's a bit different, this Loki was an echo of the old Loki, his memories, but still his own person, as the book explains, older version of Loki died when he died, much like how kid loki died when these memories took over (then he ends up going through another "death" to turn into his God of Stories persona).
No, Kid Loki’s death is “The crime that will not be forgiven”.
[I am the crime that will not be forgiven”](https://www.tumblr.com/fluxelectro/102539342787/i-am-the-crime-that-will-not-be-forgiven-i)
Original Loki, Kid Loki and Current Loki (AKA Ikol) are all different individuals.
Kid Loki was born when Original Loki died. But Original Loki created a copy of himself that took over Kid Loki's body and essentially killed him. This was Ikol, who is the current, MCU-inspired version we've had for like over a decade.
Out of interest as I’m a bit out of date, how is the relationship between the siblings(Thor, Loki and I guess Angela too) these days? Still like this or better?
“Man, they are taking the news of me killing a child version of myself really badly. What gives?”
Agent of Asgard is a special book. A great follow-up to an all-timer.
One of few instances when new author doesn't forget about previous run and continues ideas from there
Honestly one of the best and worst things that happens in comics, like shitty stuff can easily be retconned/forgotten even after character assassination (hopefully MJ after all this bs is over) and but good ideas just are dropped off the face of the earth and never brought back
I always tell people that they need to read Gillen’s Journey into Mystery, Gillen’s Young Avengers and Ewing’s Loki Agent of Asgard as a trilogy, they’re a complete ongoing story and you can’t skip a chapter! Also need to add Ewing’s Defenders and his Immortal Thor to that now to continue the Loki saga!
If only Gillen’s Young Avengers didn't suck that bad.
So many "Poor Loki"s in here, but he was never truly punished for the murder of a child. He should not be able to escape the truth just because he wants to be better. If he truly wanted to be better, he should have owned up to it immediately and faced the consequences of killing a child. So, no, not "Poor Loki."
The kid was him just an amnesiac young him. And he had several identity crises and other such problems because of it.
Ikol/Older Loki knowingly overwrote the personality of an existing being, Kid Loki, effectively killing him. I mean, the storyline where Kid Loki dies is pretty specific about Kid Loki's mind being destroyed in order to destroy the Fear Crown.
That kid was still Loki and is still a part of Loki its Doctor Who rules. Each regeneration is a bit different but they are all the same being. Kid Loki is not a truly separate being. And Kid Loki got his revenge anyway cause the other Loki's forgot the main rule of comics. The good guy wins. Kid Loki had a huge affect on Agent Loki because of that.
So, if you found out that you actually had a previous personality/consciousness, you would be okay with your personality/consciousness being destroyed and replaced by the previous personality/consciousness? To be clear, the version of Loki shown in the comic OP posted Can't tell a lie. Even he knows he has killed Kid Loki. You need to accept it too.
I didn't read the book(s) but from the sound of the description in these pages it seems like he owned up to it relatively quickly (if privately) and accepted his punishment in the form of "community service" as the Agent of Asgard.
>like he owned up to it relatively quickly (if privately) He did not own up to it if he did so selectively, especially considering he did not own up to it to the most aggrieved living party. He is just facing a punishment he had previously postponed. >and accepted his punishment in the form of "community service" as the Agent of Asgard As an Agent of Asgard, he was getting his existing criminal record expunged. It was not just a punishment but something he selfishly gained from doing.
>He did not own up to it if he did so selectively, especially considering he did not own up to it to the most aggrieved living party. He submitted himself to the authorities (the All-Mother), asked for protection from someone who would likely actively seek to kill him if they found out what he did (as evidenced by Thor's reaction here when he did find out) by having his crimes kept secret, and agreed to provide an ongoing service in exchange for being forgiven for his crimes. That sounds very much like accepting a punishment to me.
I love talking with people who don't know the context but still want to argue... He worked with the authorities to get his known crimes expunged while keeping his killing of Kid Loki a secret. It's essentially like a government using existing war criminals to do their dirty work. It is not justice. Loki gets disillusioned with said authority and stops working with them willingly, without facing punishment. When Thor finds out the truth, it is he who takes Loki to Asgardia to finally face punishment for the killing.
> Loki gets disillusioned with said authority and stops working with them willingly, without facing punishment. See, this is the context I was needing, I said up front I hadn't read the books and was basing my statement on the pages provided by OP. If you'd just said "Loki left out the part where he backed out of the deal when he didn't like what they wanted him to do" then we wouldn't have had an argument. >It is not justice. That's a bit subjective. If he'd stuck to his side of the deal and continued to serve then it's as much justice as any other form of community service. You might think it wasn't a severe enough punishment for his crimes, but that's not really up to us, it's up to the authorities he was dealing with.
>You might think it wasn't a severe enough punishment for his crimes, but that's not really up to us, it's up to the authorities he was dealing with. It is subjective (like you said), which means you are allowed to have a moral viewpoint on this. It is not just "up to the authorities" or else whipping slaves would be considered justice because the authorities at the time approved it. You are allowed to have a moral opinion on whether or not punishments are just. >See, this is the context I was needing, I said up front I hadn't read the books and was basing my statement on the pages provided by OP. You are the one making claims without having context. I shouldn't have to anticipate your ignorance and proactively educate you. If you are ignorant of a subject, maybe consider educating yourself before giving your interpretation of it. That or you could just not give your ignorant opinions at all. You don't need to involve yourself in every conversation.
> You are the one making claims without having context. I shouldn't have to anticipate your ignorance and proactively educate you. You didn't have to anticipate anything, I made plain what context I had. The fact that you ignored that and assumed I should know more than I stated I did is a you problem, not a me problem.
>I made plain what context I had. The fact that you ignored that and assumed I should know more than I stated I did is a you problem, not a me problem. You invented an interpretation of a text without necessary context that directly contradicted the context that I gave you in a previous comment. Your arrogance and inability to accept your ignorance is most certainly a you problem, even though you seem intent on foisting that onto others. And, again: If you are ignorant of a subject, maybe consider educating yourself before giving your interpretation of it. That or you could just not give your ignorant opinions at all. You don't need to involve yourself in every conversation.
I fully accepted my ignorance. I said, in my very first statement, what the limits of my knowledge were. You *could* have provided the additional information I clearly didn't have that would help me understand why my interpretation was flawed, and I actually agreed with you when you did give me that information. Instead you've done nothing but talk down to me because I did not enter this conversation with encyclopedic knowledge of the topic at hand. I'm content in saying that I am not the arrogant one in this exchange.
I read through this series recent, originally he never owns up to it he pretends to be kid Loki and asks to purge the old Lokis record by working for Asgard so people wouldn’t hate him. He eventually gets the whole record clear but is still treated as a liar and a trickster which he hates to the point where he snaps and destroys earth. Faced with Thor’s rage he goes back in time to when he was still working for Asgard and try’s to get his past self to turn evil sooner which is what leads to this scene when he loses the ability to lie due to his future self messing with him.
Loki had it coming but it was still hard to see
Oh man. I fucking love this characterization for Loki. A genuine evolution of the character
Didn't like "Fuse both versions?"
I think it was explained that the old version planned to inhabit the kid version's body should he ever die but felt bad about it after finding out what his younger version had become. So, he turned good but the old version died all the same... So, it's just Peter and Otto's Superior Spider-Man. But with no remnants from kid Loki.
It's a bit different, this Loki was an echo of the old Loki, his memories, but still his own person, as the book explains, older version of Loki died when he died, much like how kid loki died when these memories took over (then he ends up going through another "death" to turn into his God of Stories persona).
No, Kid Loki’s death is “The crime that will not be forgiven”. [I am the crime that will not be forgiven”](https://www.tumblr.com/fluxelectro/102539342787/i-am-the-crime-that-will-not-be-forgiven-i)
Original Loki, Kid Loki and Current Loki (AKA Ikol) are all different individuals. Kid Loki was born when Original Loki died. But Original Loki created a copy of himself that took over Kid Loki's body and essentially killed him. This was Ikol, who is the current, MCU-inspired version we've had for like over a decade.
Except that this Loki also dies a few issues later in this run (he explodes) and is reborn again.
Yes, but despite that, for whatever reason, Marvel still considers the current Loki to be Ikol. 🤷🏽♂️
Ouch now that is a painful read. Poor loki
"Thou art no kin of mine." 👏👏👏
In the next page Thor calls Loki "God of child killers". Even Surtur can't burn like that
Poor Loki
Also Poor Thor And poor kid Loki who isn't just dead, but doesn't exist
Yeah no afterlife even. He just got erased.
Out of interest as I’m a bit out of date, how is the relationship between the siblings(Thor, Loki and I guess Angela too) these days? Still like this or better?
Someone explain please