Thor does kill when he deems it necessary, and he's killed Loki before (he got better). That led to the whole Masterson era because it was a huge no-no under Odin, so Odin banished Thor into Masterson's mind (although I don't think he knew that at the time).
Regarding Loki's past, we don't actually know that he's screwed with Asgardians for that long. In many of the flashbacks we've seen--and, indeed, in the myths themselves--Loki's vaguely annoying but he rarely does anything to directly harm Asgard or his fellow gods. Obviously, killing Balder is a major exception, but Balder's remained alive in the Marvel universe so presumably Loki's punishment for that was more lenient in the Marvel universe as well. Regardless, Odin felt a duty toward Loki, which saw him bringing Loki back into the fold after every transgression. So that's why Loki kept coming back in the past. This is actually the first time Thor himself has accepted Loki into Asgard's community because this is the first time he's been in a position to do so.
Of course Odin always cut Loki a break; he was Loki's father. Thor wasn't so it made sense that Thor didn't offer Loki as many chances. Loki's schemes often had to be undone by Thor so it often seemed to Thor that Loki was a constant nuisance and threat. I don't see why Thor feels such a duty to Loki; honoring his father's wishes is one thing, but Thor wants to be his own god.
TheCorpulent1 said:
In the present, Thor had effectively granted amnesty to all Asgardians for their big second chance on Earth, so he would effectively be a giant hypocrite if he excepted Loki from that. By his own words, he was honor-bound to take Loki at his word and judge him as if his past crimes were absolved. That leaves him with Loki as a woman who's done nothing wrong so far (that Thor knows about, anyway), so he had to let him back into Asgard. You're right, no Asgardian would've challenged him if he'd told Loki to pack his bags, but he would've been compromising his own power by not being just and, frankly, the other Asgardians don't have a say in Thor's decisions. That's why he's lord of Asgard, not president of Asgard.
But Thor isn't a hypocrite when he feels it is fine to slay norse monsters? When Balder got into trouble with the cops for killing some orcs, Thor didn't feel the orcs were denied due justice. He has been concerned that plenty of Asgardian monsters could also be unleashed on Earth as well. Would he offer them a chance to live in Asgard if they asked? Would it even occur to him?
My point is that being a ruler in any position, president or king, requires some degree of hypocrisy. Simply being alive requires being a hypocrite at times. Thor out of all people should be aware that in the end Loki will seek to undermine him at least, destroy him and Asgard at most, and meddle with Midguard in unfriendly ways in-between. Why should Thor decide to be "inhumanely just" against the ONE BEING that out of any would seek to topple his New Asgard?
It's like when you watch a TV show, and you may like it, and see the hero allow the villain to settle into a place that the plot requires. It may be the best written plot in the universe. But the viewer will have usually known better from the start, and may shake their head with a wry smirk and mumble, "Idiot."
I don't think Thor should have so easily and eagerly allowed Loki new life as well as a place in Asgard with easy access to all it's secrets. There should have been some sort of probationary period beyond a verbal threat. When Thor found Loki, he was encountering "meddling" with reviving people. He still hasn't found Sif. The orcs were led by Loki into going outside to involve Balder with the cops and Loki was working with Dr. Doom. Now Thor doesn't know all thus, but c'mon. If a wall crumbles at random in New Asgard, all eyes should be on Loki. It's like He-Man allowing Skeletor to live in Castle Greyskull with a mere verbal promise to behave and a change in gender, with full access to all of his family & friends and ever chamber of the lair.
So now Loki's working his little machinations again but, like in the myths, he hasn't actually done anything to overtly challenge Thor's rule or harm Asgardians.
Yes, he has. Loki was working with Dr. Doom for some nefarious purpose. She manipulated Thor into reviving EVERY creature from Asgard on Earth, even monsters, somewhere. She set up Balder for that fight with the orcs and only turned on the orcs at the last second. Loki is keeping Sif prisoner, which is akin to Spider-Man allowing Norman Osborn to be his roommate and Norman has MJ locked in a basement somewhere. Loki's "revelations" regarding Balder were specifically to set him up as a ruler more open to manipulation and for all we know such "reveals" could have been lies. Thor doesn't know alot of this...but c'mon! It's Loki! It's like the X-Men allowing Magneto to join the team and then being surprised when he starts to kill some humans or plot to take over the world.
TheCorpulent1 said:
Regarding Balder, all he's doing there is exposing Balder to certain truths. Sure, he's skewing the picture to guide Balder into certain decisions, but he's not telling any outright lies; the Asgardians are sort of stuck on Asgard or made to keep a low profile if they do venture out into the world, and they are chafing against it because their whole culture is built on lives of adventure, and Thor is sort of being hypocritical again by leaving Asgard and putting the affairs of mortals above those of his own people daily. These are facts that could easily be perceived as faults in Thor's leadership or insensitivity to his people's needs. That's the artfulness of Loki's current manipulations: he's gone from the world's most obnoxious trickster to the world's slyest politician.
Personally, I was kind of annoyed at Balder's gullibility at first, but as I mentioned in my comments on the issue earlier in this thread, if you look at it from another perspective, his gullibility could easily be described as insightfulness. He's suspicious of Loki, but he sees those aforementioned truths Loki is showing him and can't help considering their validity because they are, in fact, valid. As much as he might want to just write Loki off as a liar and give his unquestioning loyalty to Thor, he can't because that's not how his mind works. If he sees something that's unjust, it sticks with him. We've seen this manifest before in his eventual betrayal of Thor in the future of The Reigning--again, he saw that Thor was being unjust and tried to go along with it, but ultimately his own nobility got the better of him. Loki seems to be using all of those same good qualities Balder has--nobility, a desire for truth and justice, and the intelligence to question things--and pointing them at twisted truths that force him to question his loyalty to Thor.
I do agree that Loki is revealing certain "inconvenient truths" about Thor's rule thus far. SI:THOR recently had Thor literally abandoning his mates in battle to deliver a sole mortal infant in another town as Donald Blake. True, he returned at the right moment and saved the day, but the point does stand. Some might be irked at Thor's willingness to work with local police rather than supersede their authority.
The biggest problem of all this is that IT IS COMING FROM LOKI and everyone looks like a complete ****** for listening to him. It's like if a dark secret about the U.S. President was revealed by Red Skull and Captain America swallowed it without a moment's hesitation.
Like I said above, I think the Loki situation should have been handled differently. The stuff with Balder is potentially interesting, but if only Loki were in some alternate form and they didn't KNOW that this newfound advisor was Loki him/herself, they wouldn't appear to be silly for believing him. Maybe if Loki had somehow swapped bodies with Sif or something so that Thor's bethrothed was thought to be an ex-villain while their longtime ally is really the enemy. There are any number of ways to have this situation play out in the way you like without the horrible elephant in the room of "Thor & Asgard's #1 enemy was allowed back in without any hesitation, and is being listened to by their second in command without any hesitation". That's a bit of a large fish for me to swallow.
It isn't helped by frustration with this subplot taking 1-3 issues longer than it needs to in order to go anywhere dramatic.
Oh, I wasn't saying you had anything against him (his character was developed very little in the past) I was just saying this is by far his best showing. I was just saying I couldn't recommend this highly enough. Every single issue has made me laugh out loud at least once, contains a surprisingly good story and ties into the original myths. Even cho, whom I used to dispise is actually a good character (once the first arc is over and cho realizes he's not that smart after all) and someone you'll probably end up liking believe it or not.
If I happen to see some trades or a HC somewhere and enough spare green I may give it a look. It depends on my desire to hunt for back issues on any particular day. Still, it has only been about a year or so since the shift, so there shouldn't be THAT many. It took me longer to catch up on INVINCIBLE in contrast (two HC's, three trades).
I just want to make a quick point about loki's current machinations in thor and why people who shouldn't trust her are. She's telling the truth. Rather than lying about this or that, she hasn't really directly lied to anyone since she was brought back by thor (I'm pretty sure). It's an interesting tactic, and she is lying by omission often but when she's talking to others they either have the choice of dealing with the truth or consciously living in forced ignorance. And by doing this she's gaining some semblence of believability to others. Should they trust her? Hell no, of course not. But if your mortal enemy came up to you and laid down a bunch of truth's you didn't know, you'd be forced to at least deal with the issues despite the source, and that's what I'm seeing happening so far.
If my mortal enemy came up to me and started telling me things, I would automatically presume it was not accurate. They're a MORTAL ENEMY. The entire point of that distinction is that they seek your overall and eventual destruction. Who gives a damn if they save your life today if they are just going to try to end it next month?
Even if I did decide to listen to what they say, I certainly wouldn't take it at face value, or allow them to wander about unwatched throughout my entire home and interact freely with all of my friends and loved ones. That's asking for a dagger to the back.
