I think we can say with confidence that there is a lot going on in the Watchmen, but one of the stronger themes in the book deals with the legitimacy of authority. If Watchmen were told using traditional superhero’s the point may not be as clear (I mean traditional in character, not appearance). However, as they are, emotionally stirred (or disturbed) and sometimes morally dubious, there is a justified question that arises in “What gave these people the authority?” We certainly didn’t elect them. The practice that they use to legitimize their vigilantism predates elections. In some ways the way that these people took power is an ancient practice. A war hero comes to power and legitimacy because he proves that he can protect the people, or strike fear into them. In the case of the Nite Owl and even more so, the Silk Specter, it is hereditary. With the type of behavior that the “heroes” in Watchmen exhibit, there is little wonder why the people would pass the Keene Act.

The Keene act which forces the masked avengers into retirement or registration. Most of these masks did retire, and the Comedian and Dr. Manhattan went on to work for the state. The only one who refused to hang up his uniform, was Rorschach.  Like Batman, Rorschach refuses to retire, and we see the desire for justice pushed to the limits of understanding. Both of these characters are so unrelenting in their own particular view of good and evil, justice and wrong, that they paint targets on their heads… They ultimately become an obstacle for the peace of other people, among a great many other problems. Nevertheless, the reader is usually inclined to side with the renegade hero. This usually is because the heroes are thought to be made of stronger moral metal than the state. They are fulfilling a role that the state should, but is unable to do so because it is weak or compromising. Rorschach says this in his own fun way when he staples a note that says “Never” to the body of a serial rapist, left dead outside a police station (Never, of course, referring to when he will retire). He is saying that, the state, or the system by which we legitimize our leaders is forever broken and will always need his assistance in doing their job. He caught the rapist after all, and took from him the opportunity of due process and possible release (or improvement) by killing him. I can’t assume to know your own reaction to this, but for me, and I suspect others, there was a certain degree of satisfaction in this action. However, later, Rorschach crosses the line. Breaking fingers in a bar is pretty bad, especially doing so on a whim. Even worse, Rorschach, accosts the ex-villain Moloch in his own home. Despite being living proof that criminals can reform, Rorschach still shows his justice is uncompromising by pinning and interrogating the old man, who also happens to have cancer.

I think that, despite the obviously limited reach of a character like Rorschach, we will see that giving power to any one person do dole out their own brand of justice has serious problems. For the same reason that we do (try our best at) not legislating morality, we cannot hand over our rights and our justice system to someone just because they have shown strength. Alan Moore, seems to be tackling this idea more than anything.