Rorschach was a horrible, morally crippled person and if he enjoyed killing those who deserved it. The thing is, I think, that he knew he was a monster. Which is perhaps why he didn't feel that he had the right to make moral decisions for all of humanity the way the other guy did.

Interesting thought… maybe the Comedian understood that he was a monster, too, which is why he refused to cooperate at the beginning.

It is a classic case of PCS. Plato's Chosen Syndrome. This is where someone gets power and decides they are smarter than everyone else and then controlls everyone exactly like a tyrant would but consoles themselves that it is becasse no one else understands their genius.

Liberals are Nero.

It is a classic case of PCS. Plato's Chosen Syndrome. This is where someone gets power and decides they are smarter than everyone else and then controlls everyone exactly like a tyrant would but consoles themselves that it is becasse no one else understands their genious.

Liberals are Nero.

Rorschach is described as a psychopath, but in fact he is the movie’s legalist, the deontologist who adheres ruthlessly to the strict letter of the law. The Comedian is perhaps a hedonist, doing only that which gives him pleasure, though it may not be “good” for him. Nite Owl, like his doppelganger, Batman, is an aretaic; he wants to do the right thing in any given situation, as does Silk Specter, although that sometimes means crossing the law. Ozymandias is a utilitarian, willing to sacrifice some to save many. And Dr. Manhattan is the ultimate existential materialist: he exists in Time, not Space, and sees life itself as matter.

In an interview, Alan Moore stated, “And yes, Watchmen came to be about power. About power and about the idea of the superman manifest within society.” The idea of a Nitzschean “superman” is perfect for the conception of a superhero. Similarly, power and the “superman” is what “The Dark Knight” is about as well. In that film, power is wielded by criminal gangs, by the police, by Batman, and by the Joker. Each of them has a different ethic in their use of violence. The police are deontological, placing the law above all other considerations. The criminal gangs and corrupt police officers are utilitarians: whatever action benefits them the most is the best action. Batman operates on virtue theory: the action must be “right” because it is intrinsically the right thing to do, whether it is legal (deontological) in the eyes of the law or beneficial (utilitarian) to him doesn’t matter. The Joker is non-ethical. He is the supreme nihilist and doesn’t even recognize a value system with “good” or “bad” as descriptors. Seen from this perspective, societal conflict is a conflict of value systems and force.
http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2009...

There's a scene in the GN and in the directors-cut that I wish was in the movie, where Rorschach espouses how glad he is that the "generous" night has provided him an encounter with a woman who's being raped. He doesn't care about her, other than being GLAD for the assault because it gives him chance to brutalize the rapist. But, is he still cool? Of course he's cool! Bullies usually are

There's a scene in the GN and in the directors-cut that I wish was in the movie, where Rorschach espouses how glad he is that the "generous" night has provided him an encounter with a woman who's being raped. He doesn't care about her, other than being GLAD for the assault because it gives him chance to brutalize the rapist.