Which villain did you feel for more Rami Sandman or MCU Vulture

Sandman made no sense and the frustration from that made it hard to appreciate him. Vulture was well developed and believable, brought up valid issues with Iron Man and the government and had a background that left me kinda rooting for him.

Definitely Sandman.

Vulture. Sandman wasn't handled very well. Doc Ock was more sympathetic than him.

Sandman, but I got where Vulture was coming from. Corporations putting their boots on the neck of the little guy and all.

Sandman. Vulture was not sympathetic at all. The government is obviously going to take over alien tech, not just let random criminal citizens have it.

@jayc1324: He had legally gained a contract to do it though, it wasn't just him walking up to Grand Central Station and deciding he'd clean it up and take the tech for himself. His job was to clean up New York and Tony made Damage Control likely without even checking if any other companies had taken up a contract to clean the area. The very least he could have done was pay Toomes and his crew the difference for the rented equipment and the work they had already completed. Tony has made a habit of making big corporate decisions that negatively affect people he clearly does not give enough of a damn about to consider the ramifications (Iron Man 1), and this is the first time we see how it directly affected someone who was simply trying to make an honest living.

Sandman. Vulture was a joke

WTF! Seriously!

@naamah_obyzouth: what?

Raimi Sandman was too blatantly emotionally manipulative to work.

MCU Vulture was clearly a sociopath who used the predictable "feel sorry for me" excuse to distract Peter and kill him, so no feels for him either. He was definitely a lot more entertaining, though.

@saberscar223:

Vulture was superior to Sandman... Not that Sandman was bad, just not Vulture solid.

Sure they could have paid them for what they already did but they weren't responsible for Toomes renting equipment or contracting him to work. They don't owe him anything. And I certainly don't feel sympathy for him just because he lost out on some equipment money and maybe wasted a couple of days time cleaning.

Flint and Toomes had similar motivations but Vulture's was done a lot better and made more sense in context. Flint's whole motivation was "my daughter is sick so I'll steal money I don't have to help her" which doesn't tell us much about him besides the fact that he cares about his family. He obviously had a conscience since he turned himself in right after Uncle Ben died and decided to become a better person at the end, but that effect is diminished since we were never given a chance to see exactly what kind of a person he was before he started committing crimes. With Toomes we saw him as an average joe, his life taking a divebomb because of the carelessness of a "hero" and the extent he would go to make sure he could support his family. Vulture wasn't evil or even a "bad" guy, he just did what most of us would consider if we were put in similar circumstances. He just had the gumption to make it work and it did.

But they didn't, not one word from Tony. How else is he supposed to do his job? He's a smalltime salvage company who just got probably the biggest contract of his career. You think he has all those trucks and moving machinery just lying around his front yard? He didn't just rent "some equipment", it was everything he had for a guaranteed payout if Tony wasn't an asshole and went above the city of New York without doing a bit of research (or just making one of his assistants do it). Those days of work are days he doesn't get money for because he didn't get complete his contract, that's how construction contracts work. Tony quite literally screwed him out of the biggest deal he had gotten every right to complete, right in the middle of it and he didn't even care enough to have someone contact him to see if they could work something out before or after the fact. Tony could have easily just paid his crew for the work they already did.

It'd have been different if Toomes was trying to get the contract and Tony just used Damage Control to get the job before he could, but he did probably the most jackass thing he could and kicked him out right in the middle of their work. Tony went out of his way to put Toomes and his crew into unemployment and bankruptcy at best and crippling poverty at worst so hell yes he owes him.

Sandman >

Vulture

Although I agree that Vulture was the more complex and better handled character, I have to say that most people probably wouldn't turn to illegal weapon's dealing if put in a similar circumstance. And while his motive was clear and relatable, the fact that he did just that does make him a "bad" guy by most people's definitions.

@truemoonchilde: You're right, most people wouldn't. Most people don't have the leadership qualities, technical skill, street smarts and nerve to do what Toomes did. But if they could realistically choose between illegal arms dealing and basically letting their families go hungry then I would think any chance to save their families future well-being that didn't involve the most heinous crimes would be a reasonable option.

He's a criminal if that alone is enough to fit one's definition of a bad person, but considering his circumstances and crime I don't think it's that clear cut. Would you blame him for the guys that robbed the ATM destroying the corner store owner's shop?

@juiceboks: I would at the very least partially blame him for any deaths that happened from his weapons.

@wispymatt: I probably would as well to a certain extent. I think one of the points they were trying to make with Vulture is that technically he's only doing what the government probably would have done anyway as it has in the past, only on a smaller scale. In fact it's very similar to what's happened to Tony Stark with the Jericho missiles and Ultron, and he's still lauded as a hero (or at the very least not a criminal) even though he's responsible for the deaths of everyone that was in Sokovia.

@juiceboks: I think the main difference between the two is intetion, Tony intended for only the US Military to have the weapons and when he found out the enemy was using them he stopped them from getting the weapons while Vulture was selling to criminals directly and didn't care what they did with them.

@wispymatt: To be fair the U.S military has had it's fair share of morally questionable operations. I'm sure Tony didn't intend for his inventions to be used in malicious ways but I don't think he'd be so naive as to think it not be a possibility. We never saw anybody use Vulture's weapons to commit murders or acts of terrorism, not saying it didn't happen but Vulture clearly had morals and most likely would have drawn the line somewhere.

Regardless of intent, I believe they both should be held at least partially responsible for what happens with their inventions. Also not everything Vulture sold was a weapon. Stuff like the gravity gun or the portal gun could be used for plenty of practical purposes.