PDA

View Full Version : Civil War... whose side are you on?



Pages : [1] 2

Jibar
2006-08-02, 01:48 PM
At the moment, Marvel is in the middle of Civil War.
After a supervillain manages to kill a large number of civilians during a failed mission, the government tries to pass the Superhero Regeistration Act. But the superhero community is torn in two by this decision.
Tony Stark a.k.a Iron Man is a firm supporter of the act, and has been elected to help enforce it.
Captain America has ended up leading the opposition against Stark, and many heroes have flocked to his banner.
Spider-man is stuck right in the middle, torn between his already support of the act by revealing himself, and the fact that he is being brought into conflict with his hero and mentor Caps.

So whose side are you on?

Tiberian
2006-08-02, 02:52 PM
I definately support Cap, Iron Man is pissing me off. I really like Spider-Man's arguement in the "Mr. Parker goes to Washington" arc. And, based on that arguement, Spidey agrees with Cap, but is duty-bound to Tony.

tape_measure
2006-08-02, 05:27 PM
sounds liek another Genosha* to me. Rather the same principle. of course, this is spurrned from my hatred of organized religions and authorities on a whole.

Damn the Man! Save the Empire!

(*That is the right idea I had, yes?Small islands whre mutants were kept until magneto blasted teh crap out of it and took it over to form a free land for all mutantkind. Sorry, it's been a while.)

Dhavaer
2006-08-02, 05:32 PM
I'd like to destroy Cap, but that's nothing to do with civil war. I support his cause in this case, however.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-03, 12:09 AM
Yet another reason to read Watchmen. After the Keene Act is passed, all of the super heroes are forced to either retire or unmask before Congress and anonymous masked vigilantism is once again made illegal. The social ramifications of the rise and fall of the mysteryman in the Watchmen universe is interesting to say the least.

Tiberian
2006-08-03, 12:27 AM
I just finished Watchmen, it was very good. * I think that's an understatement*. I drew many parallels with Wild Cards and the Civil War from it.

Jerthanis
2006-08-03, 02:14 AM
I've gotta say, I'm with Spidey on this one. The merits of super hero registration could enable the efforts of superheroes to be spread to the locations they're most needed, so LA and Detroit would get some of New York's excess Superheros (seriously, exactly how many superheroes operate out of New York or the New York area?) and as fully deputized members of the law they'd get a salary, freeing them from non-heroic time drains like work and such. So clearly there's plenty of good reasons to support it...

and yet...

It goes against everything it's meant to be a superhero for fifty years. To be a superhero was to be like a god. Worshiped, exalted, as much a force of nature as a person. These were the embodiments of free will, the salvation of mankind because they took their incredible powers and instead of using them to push people down, they use them to help people up. If they were to become agents of the government they'd become... one step up from beat cops. People would see "Superhero reimbursement tax" on thier W2s and shout "Damn, why do I gotta pay for those DAMN superheroes?" no one would like superheroes anymore.

Worse than that... Superheroes would become a weapon governments could field in ways previously unimaginable. Anything from spy missions to overt strike forces would be spearheaded by the supers. Whichever government got the most supers working for it would have great power.

...so ultimately I'm against registration, but damn if it isn't a good idea in a lot of ways.

KayJay
2006-08-03, 06:08 AM
I think Marvel wants us to root for the underdogs... It seems like noone WANTS the law, they're only really behind it because they are superheroes and are meant to follow the law. Plus people like Iron Man and Mr Fantastic are being painted as pretty callous when they are referring to what needs to be done. Hunting down heroes and arresting them because they want to stay anonymous? I don't really see the good in that. Imagine if all this man-power they're using to enforce a silly law was used to squelch superpowered crime before.... We'd have a utopia.

shadow_messanger
2006-08-03, 08:47 AM
i support capt. america and seriously you gotta look at the cost and manpower issues if some masked stay masked, say for example the x-men stays masked they have proven themselves 3 steps ahead of the police in brains, brawn, and tech so to find and fight him could cost the goverment thousands of dollars and a ton of men to win, throw in hulk and caps and you could have beaten doom, venom, carnage, and magneto easily. Otherwords this bill gets past the goverment has a supers riot on there hands.Can you guess the money and men that would lose them ??? cause my calculater doesn't go that high ;D

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-03, 11:34 AM
I think Marvel wants us to root for the underdogs... It seems like noone WANTS the law, they're only really behind it because they are superheroes and are meant to follow the law. Plus people like Iron Man and Mr Fantastic are being painted as pretty callous when they are referring to what needs to be done. Hunting down heroes and arresting them because they want to stay anonymous? I don't really see the good in that. Imagine if all this man-power they're using to enforce a silly law was used to squelch superpowered crime before.... We'd have a utopia.

Superpowered utopias sound better than they are. Check out Neil Gaiman's run on Miracleman (if you can afford it!)


If they were to become agents of the government they'd become... one step up from beat cops. People would see "Superhero reimbursement tax" on thier W2s and shout "Damn, why do I gotta pay for those DAMN superheroes?" no one would like superheroes anymore.

Worse than that... Superheroes would become a weapon governments could field in ways previously unimaginable. Anything from spy missions to overt strike forces would be spearheaded by the supers. Whichever government got the most supers working for it would have great power.

...so ultimately I'm against registration, but damn if it isn't a good idea in a lot of ways.

If you haven't already, you MUST read The Ultimates by Bryan Hitch and Mark Millar. Not the animated movie, the book. Particularly the "Grand Theft America" storyline. It paints a very chilling picture indeed. Essentially, The Ultimates (Ultimate version of the Avengers) are formed in order to maintain a government-controlled team of super heroes in order to combat what they call post-human threats. At the outset of the Grand Theft America storyline, however, the Ultimates have crossed the line and have been sent by SHIELD to destroy the nuclear arsenal of a Middle Eastern country, thereby relegating them to a bunch of super-commandos rather than super heroes.

For an entirely different take on super heroes and the government check out Kingdom Come by Alex Ross and Mark Waid.

Brother_Hood
2006-08-03, 05:52 PM
I think, personally, the whole thing stinks plotwise. You have characters with 50+ years of background suddenly acting contrary to established personality (Mr Fantastic, anyone? Cap? Iron Man?)

From what I've read writing wise, I'm similarly underwhelmed. They're going to have to work hard to make this more than Crisis Lite.

Logic
2006-08-04, 12:20 AM
I think, personally, the whole thing stinks plotwise. *You have characters with 50+ years of background suddenly acting contrary to established personality (Mr Fantastic, anyone? Cap? Iron Man?)

From what I've read writing wise, I'm similarly underwhelmed. *They're going to have to work hard to make this more than Crisis Lite.



contrary to what you may believe, characters evolve the same as people. honestly ask yourself how much of the last 50- years of comics you have read, and compare that to your supposed knowledge of the major events. it is my opinion that none of the characters are acting contrary, and the only thing i think marvel should have done was keep the names of the heroes private, the same way that the US Gov. has the Privacy Act of 1974. So, spidermans television unmasking was a little stupid to me, but ontherwise i see the whole story arc as potentially uplifting to the whole marvel universe.


EDIT: I am more on Captain America's Side, since the Government has no right to tell people that "If you are gifted, you gotta tell us or go to jail when we find out" Especially people that had no choice in the matter. E.G. Mutants, accidents.....

Ing
2006-08-04, 03:10 PM
The real nature of the civil war is not the issues of the two sides, it is the environment that creates the inevitbility of civil war. There is no debate on the issue, that has been made clear, if you are not with the goverment you are agianst them and and are seen as rogue agents. THis was greatly visiualized in Tony's attempt to bully the x-men into support making vieled threats that their protected status could be revoked and reminding them the school is surronded by giant former mutant killing robots. People like TOny have taken the stance that all that stand agianst them have to be elliminated. Its the downgrading of demoncracy in favor of a governing body that exists for the soul purpose of self-perpetuating its existance rather than serving people.

Beleriphon
2006-08-04, 08:50 PM
Very true Ing, but you also have to keep in mind that Tony hopes to pressure all to accept this in favour of something much worse. While I certainly don't agree, I understand that perspective. Both Tony and Reed see it the same way, that no matter what something of this nature is inevitable, so its best to sign up now when its easy and doesn't really hurt. The other option is to wait, and then have people come knocking at your door and taking you away.

Foeofthelance
2006-08-04, 11:02 PM
I side with Cap and his crew on this one. Making Superheroes culpable for their actions is one thing. Registering them as government agents? It just seems a bad idea for quite a large number of reasons.

Government:
-Now has personal control over heroes
-Will have to deal with the ramifications of Super actions
-Will be unable to protect said identities (Cases in point: Repeated reports of hacking of government mainframes, recent thefts of two Navy laptops carrying cadet personal info, including S.S. numbers, birth information, residency info, etc.)

Supers:
-Now have to deal with government watchdogs. (Why did you chose to throw that particular vehicle? Would not this one have worked better? Next time, we suggest bringing your own vehicle or a rental to a fight for the purposes of throwing.)
-Will have their identities made vulnerable
-Will have no recourse for dealing with villains
-Will be under constant threat of "Use of excessive force" complaints
-Will be responsible for property damage

And these are just the ones I can think of. And now that I'm thinking about it.

"Do you have any idea how much trouble you ould have caused? Flying across international borders, by passing customs, travel without a passport, total violation of immigration laws! That's jjust part of the list!"
"I just have one question. If i wish to travel anywhere in the world, who's going to stop me?" Mark Milton, Supreme Power. Which is also a good book, also about heroes under government control.

Now, for the players themselves:

Cap is standing up for what he believes in. He sees personal rights as being more important then any act of congress, and that includes the right to privacy.

Tony Stark is getting something out of this, though I have yet to decide what. Personal control of the American superhero community seems probable, not to mention the many lucrative contracts for Stark Industries. The political oppurtunities don't seem to be lost on him either.

Reed Richards seems to be less then human lately. It was mentioned in Wolverine: Enemy of the State, when he was discussing bed time habits with Sue. He point blank admitted it wasn't him reading bed time stories, but an AI program he'd devoloped based of of his son's behavior. Ignoring Johnny's beating, and basing his reaction entirely off of statistics, seems just like him.

Spidey...I have no clue. Stark is manipulating him, but he seems to change from book to book. In CW#2 he seemed hesitant about his identity being made public, yet in #3 he seemed almost ecstatic to be beating on Cap. Shall wait to make a determination.

Steward
2006-08-04, 11:06 PM
-Will be responsible for property damage

It's about time! I want Tony Stark to pay for my hospital care/automobile repair each time he decides to throw my car into a building. Maybe they'll think twice before voluntarily fighting in a city instead of in space or something.

Jibar
2006-08-05, 05:02 AM
Give them a break though, usually it's the villains who start those fights and force them to go to such measures.
I also thought I'd mention that I'm sort of in the middle...by revealing their identities, the government could help protect loved ones and other family, so that the superheroes won't always have to worry about them. But their methods are way off for recruiting, Stark is really going about it the wrong way.

Also thought I'd mention I don't actually read the comics...nowhere around here stocks any of the good stuff...

Foeofthelance
2006-08-05, 12:26 PM
Actually, I think the heroes tend to do much more damage to the area then the villians. Most of the villians bring their own weapons to the throw down.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-05, 12:58 PM
You mean you guys have never heard of Damage Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_Control_%28comics%29)?

Logic
2006-08-06, 11:04 PM
wow. i never thought i would see people supporting the government instead of the superheros. after all, its the government's fault gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon.

Ing
2006-08-06, 11:55 PM
wow. i never thought i would see people supporting the government in stead of the superheros. after all, its the government's fault gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon.

I blame Lex Luthor for stealing pies.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-07, 04:46 PM
wow. i never thought i would see people supporting the government in stead of the superheros. after all, its the government's fault gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon.

I'm a little surprised as well. Isn't anybody a fan of personal freedom anymore?

Ing
2006-08-07, 09:54 PM
I'm a little surprised as well. Isn't anybody a fan of personal freedom anymore?

the goverment says we're not allowed to be fans of personal freedom.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-08, 12:32 AM
the goverment says we're not allowed to be fans of personal freedom.

FREEDOM FOREVER!

As for the Civil War... I have to admit that I'm not sure how they're going to end the series without creating a major rift in the Marvel universe. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Beleriphon
2006-08-08, 01:44 AM
I personally think that Scarlet Witch will just fix everything, or Magneto will reverse the Earth's magnetic field, then the Infinity Gauntlet will be used backwards/upside down/sidways and fix everything.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-08, 12:45 PM
I personally think that Scarlet Witch will just fix everything, or Magneto will reverse the Earth's magnetic field, then the Infinity Gauntlet will be used backwards/upside down/sidways and fix everything.

Hehe, good one. Made me laugh out loud there. Or maybe Warlock will merge with Magus again and summon the Beyonder for all of the heroes to fight, but the heroes will band together and placate the angry demigod with some Hostess Fruit Pies.

Smashymcsmash
2006-08-08, 01:01 PM
Mmmmm... hostess fruit pies

Steward
2006-08-08, 01:02 PM
wow. i never thought i would see people supporting the government in stead of the superheros. after all, its the government's fault gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon.

I don't think that anyone on this thread so far as supported Tony Stark. And, having seen some of Civil War, I can really see why. Tony Stark's idea is a classic example of a 'strawman', designed to be about as unpalatable to the target audience as Galactus's idea to swallow the Earth.

Ing
2006-08-08, 10:00 PM
I don't think that anyone on this thread so far as supported Tony Stark. And, having seen some of Civil War, I can really see why. Tony Stark's idea is a classic example of a 'strawman', designed to be about as unpalatable to the target audience as Galactus's idea to swallow the Earth.

HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY

I am behind Galactus's platform 110%

If he does not eat the earth (as proposed in prop. 88b5) then the terrorists win!

Foeofthelance
2006-08-08, 11:54 PM
Out of curiosity, does any one else consider Ing's replies to be slightly more humorous due to his choice of Avatar? Or am I simply more insane then previously believed? ;D

Sophistemon
2006-08-09, 12:54 AM
Yeah, I thought so too.

Ing
2006-08-10, 01:22 PM
I think the idea of big G running for office under the anti-war, cutting property taxes, and consuming the earth platform would be a great comic.

Beleriphon
2006-08-10, 04:58 PM
I think the idea of big G running for office under the anti-war, cutting property taxes, and consuming the earth platform would be a great comic.

Too bad Galactus has been put down. Stupid other universal concepts turned creatures of doom.

Falkus
2006-08-14, 02:26 PM
I'm a little surprised as well. Isn't anybody a fan of personal freedom anymore?

What's personnel freedom got to do with it? The whole anonymous vigilante bit has always been what's irritated me the most about superheros. Law enforcement shouldn't be something anybdoy takes into their own hands.


after all, its the government's fault gas prices are over 3 dollars a gallon.

That has to be must absurd thing I've ever heard.

Steward
2006-08-14, 05:27 PM
You don't think that gas prices have anything to do with the super-powered freaks who are constantly throwing oil tankers into giant dinosaurs.

Jibar
2006-08-15, 05:03 AM
"Dude look, giant dino!"
"Cool! Lemme see now...car...lamppost, anti-dino can, old lady, I know, let's throw an oil tanker at him!"
"Right on!"

Poor giant dinosaurs, no wonder they're close to extinction.

Dalius
2006-08-16, 03:37 AM
Well, looks like I'm the first one to post as a full proponent of the Registration Act.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater of civil rights and freedoms, nor a supporter of oppression. I see very valid points on both sides, and I do recognize that the leaders of each side are being quite stubborn, as evidenced in Black Panther #18.

Now, to back up my position: The government isn't trying to manipulate the Super community. Well, not everyone in the government wants to. There's well-meaning behind this, and I think it can work out if people play ball.

If you read New Avengers: The Illuminati, you'll see the idea has already been conceived to consolidate resources and pool information, knowing that in a pinch, having everyone in the loop would be a huge asset. And this idea was created by Supers, the Illuminati specifically. While they didn't all agree on it, the idea is one that has come up now and again.

Now, the reasoning behind the Act is quite different, though still accomplishing the same goal, with certain added benefits. After Stamford, there was a need for accountability among Supers. In order to establish that accountability, regulation is needed. The people just want to know that someone is keeping track of who is who, and that if a Super steps out of line again, that someone can do something to stop them before another Stamford happens.

I heard a point made earlier that they shouldn't be forced into special rules just because of the way they are. The fact is, they're not. If you're a superhero, you don't have to register. But if you choose not to register, you have to stop fighting crime. If you're going to enforce the law, you have to work for the law. Just because a dude has a shotgun doesn't mean he should be allowed to go shoot whoever he wants just because he thinks they're evil. Vigilante-ism is frowned upon in this country for a reason. You can still fly, you can still be stretchy, you can still walk around in power armour and flex your robot muscles... you just can't play law enforcement with no responsibility or repurcussions.

Now of course, no situation is perfect. Yes, there are flaws. The risk of confidential information being leaked. The fact that the government can approach them like they did to Wonder Man in Civil War: Front Line #5 and blackmail them into doing something. And, obviously, the fact that there will be opposition.

Tony Stark is stubborn. Just about as stubborn as they get. But he's not just being callous for no reason. It's tough love; he knows, like everyone does, that "pretty please" doesn't change a Super's mind. They're used to getting what they want, when they want it, and not being told what to do.

Steve Rogers, on the other hand, is just as stubborn, and isn't thinking clearly about what consequences his actions will have. Does he really want to split the entire community and pit them against each other? What possible good could that bring? Does he think he's going to win and change the way the government works? Does he want to risk his friends' lives and liberties? He's not fighting for freedom. This isn't a war for rights. He's leading a war against the principles of this country that he has fought for, for the past 60+ years.

Wow, that's a lot to read. I don't expect anyone to read it, or respond, or agree, but I've been reading Civil War since the beginning, and I haven't found an outlet online to rant on until now. For the record, I like Captain America more than I like Iron Man. I'm pretty sure I missed a few points, and stretched a few points thin, but it's late. I hope no-one minds the rambling thoughts of a newbie. ;D

Ing
2006-08-17, 12:00 AM
The problem will come next time the registered heros are sent out in response to some college protestors....

If you can't trust the goverment with guns and national guard, you are going to trust them with Omega level super powers?

Falkus
2006-08-17, 12:25 AM
If you can't trust the goverment with guns and national guard, you are going to trust them with Omega level super powers?

If you don't trust the government with that power, how in the hell can you justify trusting an individual with it? The goverment's nominally responsible to the people, at least, an individual superhero is responsible to no-one.

Foeofthelance
2006-08-18, 12:58 AM
Because so far the individuals with omega level powers have always countered themselves. For every Magneto there was the X-Men, for Each Ultron there's the Avengers, etc.

The united states forestry service denied landing permission to helicopter rescue crew that had found a missing child of about 12 years of age. This was despite the fact that the boy was in a large open field, with no obstructions to threaten the helicopter. The decision was made based on a "No Vehicles in the Park" rule. Could you imagine if the F4 had to walk to their next battle with the Moleman because the U.S. Forestry service wouldn't let Reed Richards park the jet in a field?

Ing
2006-08-18, 01:08 AM
Because so far the individuals with omega level powers have always countered themselves. For every Magneto there was the X-Men, for Each Ultron there's the Avengers, etc.

The united states forestry service denied landing permission to helicopter rescue crew that had found a missing child of about 12 years of age. This was despite the fact that the boy was in a large open field, with no obstructions to threaten the helicopter. The decision was made based on a "No Vehicles in the Park" rule. Could you imagine if the F4 had to walk to their next battle with the Moleman because the U.S. Forestry service wouldn't let Reed Richards park the jet in a field?


But Moleman will be just as vexed with his fines for illegal construction without permit and safty examination.

Ing
2006-08-18, 01:09 AM
If you don't trust the government with that power, how in the hell can you justify trusting an individual with it? The goverment's nominally responsible to the people, at least, an individual superhero is responsible to no-one.


There is a formula that states the more people you have to do a given takes beyond the number actually needed the greater your chances of failure.

the heros have actually proven themselves to more or less not be compleatly insane with power.

Falkus
2006-08-18, 11:19 AM
Because so far the individuals with omega level powers have always countered themselves. For every Magneto there was the X-Men, for Each Ultron there's the Avengers, etc.

That's seem like an insane sort of situation to allow.


The united states forestry service denied landing permission to helicopter rescue crew that had found a missing child of about 12 years of age.

I would prefer a real argument rather than an annecdote.


There is a formula that states the more people you have to do a given takes beyond the number actually needed the greater your chances of failure.

And there's another formula that states that the only way to ensure that governments and police officers don't abuse their authority is to have them be responsible to someone else.


the heros have actually proven themselves to more or less not be compleatly insane with power.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's proven itself true time and time again throughout human history.

Jibar
2006-08-18, 11:50 AM
That's seem like an insane sort of situation to allow.

And without steeping too much into politics; there is somebody in Africa being just as bad as big ol' S, but he doesn't have oil.
And he's going scott free.
Crazy old world huh?


And there's another formula that states that the only way to ensure that governments and police officers don't abuse their authority is to have them be responsible to someone else.

Yeah, and they all answer to Superheros. How many times have Batman, Spawn and other heros taken down corrupt cops?
Seriously. It's ridiculous what Superheros have to put up with.


Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's proven itself true time and time again throughout human history.

There's a really nice teaching that Ghost says at the beginning of Enter the Matrix.
Basically (because I can't find it) he says that you should never act based on experience. You may drop the stone every day, and every day it may fall to the ground. But what if one day it doesn't? What if one day it falls up to the sky? what will you do then?

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-18, 12:54 PM
Superheroes aren't lawmen. Superheroes are vigilantes. Superheroes are criminals. They don't have to deal with things like warrants, due process, etc. They would never get anything done in any sort of short order if they went with the pro-registration because it's a gateway law. Regulate their registration and soon there will be committees, watchdog groups, and other special interests telling them what they can and can't do.

It doesn't work on supervillains because where most superheroes at least respect the spirit of the law, supervillains do not. Therefore, where the F4 might actually conceivably submit to some kind of crappy "no parking zone" ticket or misdemeanor charge, Mole Man would simply say "bwahaha" to the fines charged against him and hole up in the core of the earth or whatever.

loial77
2006-08-18, 01:33 PM
I'll take a shot at this. I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are sticking with Marvel history and government, as I don't want to venture into real world politics.

(1) Accountability:

We are talking about a world in which heroes have existed for decades without significant incident of civilian causalty. Heroes who "cross the line" in some manner (e.g., lethal force and other questional methods) have been dealt with by other heroes during this time. Off the top of my head, I believe that the condemation and opposition to Stark's attacks on US government officials during the "Armor Wars" and the various attempts to shut down "vigilante" killers such as the Scourge and the Punisher consistute effective examples of the superhero community policing its own.

Also, more established heroes already provide training and protection to new heroes (New Avengers, Xavier's school, etc.) that is as good or better than the training that would likely be provided by the government. If we look at the Stamford tragedy, the heroes involved had been active for some time. This was not the result of inexperience.

The example given above of running around with a shotgun is fallicious given the context of the Marvel Superhero. To begin with, a shotgun, in the real world, provides a particularly vivid image of lethal force. Incidents of heroes in the Marvel universe resorting to lethal force (note: I don't understand how eyebeams that can supposedly level a mountain and the like are "non-lethal", but in the Marvel world, targets of these powers rarely suffer permanent injury) are rare and heroes that resort to these methods are generally subject to some form of sanction by the superhero community.

Continuing this point, the recipient of our proprosed shotgun blast is unlikely to escape serious injury. In fact, the wielder of our shotgun can reasonably expect to be the last word in the guilt and punishment of the target in question. The typical superhero action against a human or human-like opponent involves incapacitation or neutralization of the opponent's abilities and detainment of the opponent for legitimate law enforcement. Accordingly, the typical Marvel villian receives humane detention and the effective benefits of the due process of law. This provides a second layer of accountability, as repeated forceful incapacitation of individuals later found to be innocent will likely be forcefully discouraged by the authorities and other heroes.

(2) Consolidation of Power

In the Marvel Unvierse, the government generally holds its own in conflict with individual heroes and hero groups. SHIELD, the various sentinel projects, and the friendly relationship between SHIELD and many of the existing groups provide the government with a number of options when dealing with a perceived superpowered threat. The Avengers, in many incarnations, have existed as a nominally independent wing of SHIELD. Is it really necessary to place all superpowered heroes under government control, increasing the power under direct government control and reducing independent checks on this power? As have been noted previously, unchecked power tends to corrupt.

This is complicated by the fact that, in the Marvel Universe, the government has a fairly lousy track record on security. Again, off the top of my head, the Red Skull was once the Secretary of Defense, the Sentinel project has been coopted at least once by a government official as part of their own agenda, and the head of SHIELD and the president have both been replaced or nearly replaced by doppelgangers of some sort at various times. Even where nothing particular shady was happening, the government has made its share of mistakes (See, e.g., Mutant Registration Act). The ability of heroes to effectively oppose the govenrment during times such as these allowed the situtations to be discovered and rectified. Giving heroes the options of turning their backs on gifts that could save lives or working only at the whim of the government seems like a recipe for disaster.

Falkus
2006-08-18, 02:27 PM
And without steeping too much into politics; there is somebody in Africa being just as bad as big ol' S, but he doesn't have oil.

Which is relevant to my statement how?


Yeah, and they all answer to Superheros. How many times have Batman, Spawn and other heros taken down corrupt cops?

If there was any sort of realism in these comics, they coudn't. Superheros have no legal authority, if they took down a crooked cop, the only thing that could happen would be that the police department would sue the superhero in question, and have him arrested for assault on a police officer.


Basically (because I can't find it) he says that you should never act based on experience. You may drop the stone every day, and every day it may fall to the ground. But what if one day it doesn't? What if one day it falls up to the sky? what will you do then?

That has to be easily the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The entire basis of learning and logic is based off of past experience. If you believe that idiotic statement, you can't do anything. If you don't act off of experience, you can't act period.

Jibar
2006-08-18, 03:15 PM
1. Read the comment below that one.

2. By take down, I mean prove he was one via collecting the evidence, or at least lead the police to the clus so they can arrest them themselves.

3. You can act spontaneously. Spontaneously doesn't require previous experience.
Besides, going hrough the whole learning process, a lot of it doesn't really make sense.

4. I think you may be being a bit serious for a comic book discussion.

Dalius
2006-08-18, 07:39 PM
We are talking about a world in which heroes have existed for decades without significant incident of civilian causalty.
'Significant' being the key word*here. It has happened. And now, a 'significant' incident has happened as well. In the real world, we had laxed security at airports for years without 'significant' incident of civilian casualty. Then something big happened, and the government began regulations that will do everything they can to prevent it from happening again. Will it happen again? Who knows. But it's the government's responsibility to do everything it can to prevent it.


Also, more established heroes already provide training and protection to new heroes (New Avengers, Xavier's school, etc.) that is as good or better than the training that would likely be provided by the government. *If we look at the Stamford tragedy, the heroes involved had been active for some time. *This was not the result of inexperience.
I beg to differ, this was definitely the result of inexperience. I wouldn't say they've been around that long. And not just inexperience, but immaturity and a lack of self-control. Not to mention questionable ethics. Would Captain America go on a reality TV show to fight crime? No, because he's an adult. The Superhero Registration Act would keep them from going out and risking themselves and others until they were ready to.

And the training, as far as I remember, isn't just going to be a bunch of guys in suits teaching them what to look for; it's going to be for Supers, by Supers. Joe FBI doesn't know what to do in case of an inbound Galactus, so they'd be a fool to "train" them in such a way. However, the goverment will be able to coordinate its military's efforts with the Superhero community in case of a large-scale problem, much like they're having to do now to bring in the stubborn Resistant Superheroes.


The example given above of running around with a shotgun is fallicious given the context of the Marvel Superhero. *To begin with, a shotgun, in the real world, provides a particularly vivid image of lethal force. *Incidents of heroes in the Marvel universe resorting to lethal force (note: I don't understand how eyebeams that can supposedly level a mountain and the like are "non-lethal", but in the Marvel world, targets of these powers rarely suffer permanent injury) are rare and heroes that resort to these methods are generally subject to some form of sanction by the superhero community.

Continuing this point, the recipient of our proprosed shotgun blast is unlikely to escape serious injury. In fact, the wielder of our shotgun can reasonably expect to be the last word in the guilt and punishment of the target in question. The typical superhero action against a human or human-like opponent involves incapacitation or neutralization of the opponent's abilities and detainment of the opponent for legitimate law enforcement. Accordingly, the typical Marvel villian receives humane detention and the effective benefits of the due process of law. This provides a second layer of accountability, as repeated forceful incapacitation of individuals later found to be innocent will likely be forcefully discouraged by the authorities and other heroes.

The point I was trying to make is that vigilantism is no good. Scrap the shotgun; just give the vigilante a rope. He's still acting outside of(or above, depending on how you see it) the law. If you want to uphold the law, join the law. All the Act is doing is giving them official jurisdiction.*


(2) Consolidation of Power

In the Marvel Unvierse, the government generally holds its own in conflict with individual heroes and hero groups. *SHIELD, the various sentinel projects, and the friendly relationship between SHIELD and many of the existing groups provide the government with a number of options when dealing with a perceived superpowered threat. *The Avengers, in many incarnations, have existed as a nominally independent wing of SHIELD. *Is it really necessary to place all superpowered heroes under government control, increasing the power under direct government control and reducing independent checks on this power? *As have been noted previously, unchecked power tends to corrupt.
And? Goverments are just large bodies of people, and people make mistakes. Our government made dealings with Saddam Hussein previously. Our government prohibited alcohol for 13 years. And the government IS checked. By us.


This is complicated by the fact that, in the Marvel Universe, the government has a fairly lousy track record on security. *Again, off the top of my head, the Red Skull was once the Secretary of Defense, the Sentinel project has been coopted at least once by a government official as part of their own agenda, and the head of SHIELD and the president have both been replaced or nearly replaced by doppelgangers of some sort at various times. *Even where nothing particular shady was happening, the government has made its share of mistakes (See, e.g., Mutant Registration Act). *The ability of heroes to effectively oppose the govenrment during times such as these allowed the situtations to be discovered and rectified. *Giving heroes the options of turning their backs on gifts that could save lives or working only at the whim of the government seems like a recipe for disaster.
I just want all heroes to act responsibly. Some already do. Had all heroes registered, life would not have changed much for most heroes, except now they'd be getting a paycheck, have vast government resources at their fingertips, be informed of threats quickly, and have any training they might need.

P.S. I'm a very liberal-minded individual in real life, and while I do believe in this case that the Superhero Registration Act is okay, I also enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. I love a good debate. (:

Logic
2006-08-19, 12:57 AM
I heard a point made earlier that they shouldn't be forced into special rules just because of the way they are. The fact is, they're not. If you're a superhero, you don't have to register. But if you choose not to register, you have to stop fighting crime. If you're going to enforce the law, you have to work for the law. Just because a dude has a shotgun doesn't mean he should be allowed to go shoot whoever he wants just because he thinks they're evil. Vigilante-ism is frowned upon in this country for a reason. You can still fly, you can still be stretchy, you can still walk around in power armour and flex your robot muscles... you just can't play law enforcement with no responsibility or repurcussions.

.


one point that i know for a fact that you are not entirely right about., anyone that has ever been a vigilante, has to register, which is why luke Cage's wife (jessica something) went to canada, cause she would have had to register as well.
And they are forcing ANYONE with superhuman abilities to register, its not the SUPERHEROES registration act, its the SUPERHUMAN registration act
THAT is the part that is wrong. If you are special, sign up or go to jail.
anyone that disagrees with the draft for men only should disagree with THE ACT as well.

[edit: for simplicity's sake, i have chosen to refer to THE ACT as such]

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-19, 07:59 AM
In the Marvel Unvierse, the government generally holds its own in conflict with individual heroes and hero groups. SHIELD, the various sentinel projects, and the friendly relationship between SHIELD and many of the existing groups provide the government with a number of options when dealing with a perceived superpowered threat. The Avengers, in many incarnations, have existed as a nominally independent wing of SHIELD. Is it really necessary to place all superpowered heroes under government control, increasing the power under direct government control and reducing independent checks on this power? As have been noted previously, unchecked power tends to corrupt.

This is complicated by the fact that, in the Marvel Universe, the government has a fairly lousy track record on security. Again, off the top of my head, the Red Skull was once the Secretary of Defense, the Sentinel project has been coopted at least once by a government official as part of their own agenda, and the head of SHIELD and the president have both been replaced or nearly replaced by doppelgangers of some sort at various times. Even where nothing particular shady was happening, the government has made its share of mistakes (See, e.g., Mutant Registration Act). The ability of heroes to effectively oppose the govenrment during times such as these allowed the situtations to be discovered and rectified. Giving heroes the options of turning their backs on gifts that could save lives or working only at the whim of the government seems like a recipe for disaster.




I guess you haven't read too much since the Secret War, but SHIELD is anything but friendly to superheroes in the Marvel Universe these days. This doesn't disprove your point, just a little food for thought. The Registration Act may well be SHIELD's first step towards neutralizing or controlling the Marvel superheroes as we know them.

loial77
2006-08-19, 04:45 PM
'Significant' being the key word*here. It has happened. And now, a 'significant' incident has happened as well. In the real world, we had laxed security at airports for years without 'significant' incident of civilian casualty. Then something big happened, and the government began regulations that will do everything they can to prevent it from happening again. Will it happen again? Who knows. But it's the government's responsibility to do everything it can to prevent it.

I can't fully answer that without straying into real world politics. Given that the pool of superhuman vigilantes is somewhat limited, and that most of the existing ones are fairly experienced, the likelihood of another Stamford, at least one preventable through training, remains fairly low.


I beg to differ, this was definitely the result of inexperience. I wouldn't say they've been around that long. And not just inexperience, but immaturity and a lack of self-control. Not to mention questionable ethics. Would Captain America go on a reality TV show to fight crime? No, because he's an adult. The Superhero Registration Act would keep them from going out and risking themselves and others until they were ready to.

There is no doubt that the heroes involved were acting irresponsibly. I have a hard time keeping real time and comic time apart, so I can't argue this effectively, but Speedball has been around since the eighties, and I throught Namorita hd been around for some time as well. What this means in a world where Peter Parker spent two decades as a teenager is debatable. Also, using knowledge available to us and most likely not available to the U.S. government policy makers in the Marvel Universe, the decision to take down Nitro might not have been the mistake it turned out to be without outside interference. Absent knowledge of the MGH used by Nitro, would a trained group of heroes fared any better (e.g., would they have been aware that Nitro was a sufficient threat to avoid engaging the group). For example, the group of capekillers emloyed by SHIELD and Wolverine were surprised by Nitro's enhanced abilities as well. That debacle was not a result of lack of training.


And the training, as far as I remember, isn't just going to be a bunch of guys in suits teaching them what to look for; it's going to be for Supers, by Supers. Joe FBI doesn't know what to do in case of an inbound Galactus, so they'd be a fool to "train" them in such a way. However, the goverment will be able to coordinate its military's efforts with the Superhero community in case of a large-scale problem, much like they're having to do now to bring in the stubborn Resistant Superheroes.

In most cases, that is exactly what happens now, but without government interference. I believe Speedball was mentored by various X-men, Cable, and for a brief time (during a failed attempt to join the Avengers), taught by Captain America himself. I love the Galactus example, by the way.


The point I was trying to make is that vigilantism is no good. Scrap the shotgun; just give the vigilante a rope. He's still acting outside of(or above, depending on how you see it) the law. If you want to uphold the law, join the law. All the Act is doing is giving them official jurisdiction.

Vigilantism in the real world is dangerous because in reality, it is very difficult to stop a crime or a criminal without endangering oneself, the criminal, or innocent bystanders. The Marvel Universe, on the other hand, is full of individuals who have an exceptional track record at stopping superpowered villians without causing significant harm to anyone. While I realize I shouldn't grab a weapon and seek out some criminals, I would see no problem in attempting to trip a pursesnatcher given the opportunity. I am simply using the opportunity I have been given and (meager) ability that I possess to assist law enfrocement. I have caused no permanent harm to anyone, and the legal system will decide on the guilt and punishment of the purse-snatcher. Spider-man (pre sell-out ;)) or Captain America does the same thing on a larger scale as they possess the ability to do so safely.


And? Goverments are just large bodies of people, and people make mistakes. Our government made dealings with Saddam Hussein previously. Our government prohibited alcohol for 13 years. And the government IS checked. By us.

This is another area where we would need to verge into real world politics to discuss this throughly. Everyone does make mistakes. That is why we have the checks and balances system as well as a document outlining fundamental rghts in the U.S. Government, to prevent any one branch from having sufficient power to do significant harm. As you have pointed out, mistakes are still made, but we generally manage to mitigate the major ones before too much harm is done. I can think of situations, however, where this was not the case, (e.g., Japanese internment in WWII okayed by Supreme Ct.), and I am sure there are others. In the Marvel world, the capacity of the government to do harm (and good) is magnified by advanced technology and superheroes already aligned with the government. Independent heroes are a check on this power, and the ability of government heroes to blackmail and otherwise co-opt these heroes as a result of the Registration Act removes this check and allows a "Dell Rusk" (the name used by the Red Skull as Sec. of Def....if only superheroes and young wizards could work out anagrams) who infiltrates the government to neutralize heroic opposition much more effectively. This sounds silly, but we are dealing with a world in which the Red Skull has been the Secretary of Defense and where replacing government officials with clones, LMD's, etc. happens with some regularity. Do you really want the identity, weaknesses, and suitable blackmail material for all or most of the world's/country's superheroes to be centralzied in government control given the number of bad actors (e.g., villians, misguided officials) that seem to have little trouble attaining positions of authority?


I just want all heroes to act responsibly. Some already do. Had all heroes registered, life would not have changed much for most heroes, except now they'd be getting a paycheck, have vast government resources at their fingertips, be informed of threats quickly, and have any training they might need.

Cap was already registered, he joined the opposition because he refused to betray individuals that he had previously fought beside. Things would have changed significantly for him. Would Daredevil still be allowed to patrol Hell's Kitchen, or would he have been reassigned to another city? Another country? Could superheroes, once registered, be sent to fight in a foreign war? Once they have given up their secret identity, could they refuse if asked? Registration, to many heroes, effectively would enslaved them to the government, as refusal to cooperate could lead to an "accidental" public disclosure of their identities, putting their loved ones at risk from retribution from old enemies. I believe the consequences of exposing one's identity could be much more severe than the scenario you have outlined.

P.S. I'm a very liberal-minded individual in real life, and while I do believe in this case that the Superhero Registration Act is okay, I also enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. I love a good debate. (:

Ironically, I am probably closer to center-right by America standards, which as I understand, puts me well to the right in many European nations. But that is the beauty of comics. It would be difficult to have a debate like this on real world politics without offending someone. This has been fun.

loial77
2006-08-19, 04:49 PM
I guess you haven't read too much since the Secret War, but SHIELD is anything but friendly to superheroes in the Marvel Universe these days. *This doesn't disprove your point, just a little food for thought. *The Registration Act may well be SHIELD's first step towards neutralizing or controlling the Marvel superheroes as we know them.

I have been reading New Avengers and Cap sporatically prior to Civil War, but not much else. I seem to remember information stolen from Spider-man's mind and a few other affronts by SHIELD, and I can imagine that the relationship between SHIELD and the Avengers or between SHIELD and the X-Men would be a bit strained. Historically, even just a year or so ago, this was not the case. Take Secret War as an example. The head of SHIELD was able to custom pick a group of heroes to aid him with a covert mission, and not one (if I recall correctly) turned him down.

tgva8889
2006-08-19, 06:36 PM
Funny, how no one supports the views of the Thing. I disagree with both groups. I don't want to support the resgistration act, but I don't want to battle against it either. So, basically, I'm leaving the discussion.

Also, the quote from Ghost goes a bit more like a conversation bewteen him and Niobe. She asked him why he always checked his guns, and then he began talking about the stone. When you drop a stone, it falls to the ground. But, it could also fall up into the ceiling. In truth, when you drop a stone, you never actually know what's going to happen, you mearly assume through previous experience that the stone will fall to the ground. This is somewhat like Chaos theory.

Granted, having not read the series from beginning to it's current point (I've only read the end of the F4 arc and part of the spiderman arc, along with like one or two of the main arc), I can't really say how I feel about Civil War. I support both sides, and I support neither side. It's all fair.

Falkus
2006-08-19, 10:53 PM
3. You can act spontaneously. Spontaneously doesn't require previous experience.

So, if I'm crossing the street, I shouldn't wait until traffic is clear because, by not acting on previous experience, I have no reason to believe that getting hit by a car will kill me?


Besides, going hrough the whole learning process, a lot of it doesn't really make sense.

Then why has worked succesfully for the last two million years?

Jibar
2006-08-20, 03:36 AM
Also, the quote from Ghost goes a bit more like a conversation bewteen him and Niobe. She asked him why he always checked his guns, and then he began talking about the stone. When you drop a stone, it falls to the ground. But, it could also fall up into the ceiling. In truth, when you drop a stone, you never actually know what's going to happen, you mearly assume through previous experience that the stone will fall to the ground. This is somewhat like Chaos theory.


Ah thank you.
I've never found the oppurtunity to load up my game and find out what it is exactly.

How do you know the car will kill you? It might have killed other people, bu there's nothing to say it'll kill you. It might miss you. You might miss it. You might actually land on your feet perfectly unharmed having just been knocked 10 feet up.
Stranger things have happened.

And who says it's been working successfully? The people who are in charge of it. And they're telling people it's been working. Yet for all we know, it might be failing miserably. The man is just telling us it's working and we're believing it.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-20, 07:48 AM
I have been reading New Avengers and Cap sporatically prior to Civil War, but not much else. I seem to remember information stolen from Spider-man's mind and a few other affronts by SHIELD, and I can imagine that the relationship between SHIELD and the Avengers or between SHIELD and the X-Men would be a bit strained. Historically, even just a year or so ago, this was not the case. Take Secret War as an example. The head of SHIELD was able to custom pick a group of heroes to aid him with a covert mission, and not one (if I recall correctly) turned him down.



Right, but it's because of the climax of the Secret War (Nick Fury being ousted, POTUS expressing distaste for superhumans in general) that I brought up my point.

Falkus
2006-08-20, 09:54 AM
How do you know the car will kill you? It might have killed other people, bu there's nothing to say it'll kill you. It might miss you. You might miss it. You might actually land on your feet perfectly unharmed having just been knocked 10 feet up.
Stranger things have happened.

Yet, through my extensive life experience, I can safely say that the majority of people who walk out in front of speeding cars will end up dead or severely injured, therefore, the safest thing to do is wait until the car isn't there until crossign the road. Your philosophy, on the other hand, would result everybody who practices it winding dead or in the hospital. Which is the better philosophy, I wonder>

Say, this leads me to another question: How exactly are you replying to my posts on this thread? You'd have the read and remember them in order to write a reply, and obviously, you can't remember anything since you don't operate off of past experience.


And who says it's been working successfully? The people who are in charge of it. And they're telling people it's been working. Yet for all we know, it might be failing miserably. The man is just telling us it's working and we're believing it.

You speak and read English, obviously. If the learning system didn't work, how come you know at least one language? How come you can use a computer?

Jibar
2006-08-20, 10:55 AM
I know Nick Fury has messed up some times, but he's been ousted?

Dalius
2006-08-20, 04:40 PM
I can't fully answer that without straying into real world politics. *Given that the pool of superhuman vigilantes is somewhat limited, and that most of the existing ones are fairly experienced, the likelihood of another Stamford, at least one preventable through training, remains fairly low.
New Supers are showing up all the time. Look at the Runaways, or Sentry(yes, I know he's supposedly been around forever thanks to a convenient retcon, but he's new to everyone else). We have no precedent for these people. They might have no problem with collateral damage, and sacrificing human lives to stop a baddie. We just don't know.


There is no doubt that the heroes involved were acting irresponsibly. *I have a hard time keeping real time and comic time apart, so I can't argue this effectively, but Speedball has been around since the eighties, and I throught Namorita hd been around for some time as well. *What this means in a world where Peter Parker spent two decades as a teenager is debatable. *Also, using knowledge available to us and most likely not available to the U.S. government policy makers in the Marvel Universe, the decision to take down Nitro might not have been the mistake it turned out to be without outside interference. *Absent knowledge of the MGH used by Nitro, would a trained group of heroes fared any better (e.g., would they have been aware that Nitro was a sufficient threat to avoid engaging the group). *For example, the group of capekillers emloyed by SHIELD and Wolverine were surprised by Nitro's enhanced abilities as well. *That debacle was not a result of lack of training. *
Well, we don't know that for sure. How would the Avengers have handled that group of bad guys? Would they have attacked them in the middle of a neighborhood? Trash-talked them until they resorted to drastic measures? Filmed it all?


In most cases, that is exactly what happens now, but without government interference. *I believe Speedball was mentored by various X-men, Cable, and for a brief time (during a failed attempt to join the Avengers), taught by Captain America himself. *I love the Galactus example, by the way.
Well I'm not too familiar with Speedball, but there are plenty of superheroes that aren't "trained", or if they are, maybe not trained by someone all too credible. The training may not be specifically for cases like Speedball, but there are plenty who could benefit from refresher training, continuing training, or some training at all. Speedball made mistakes though, and needs to be held credible. If the Act wasn't happening, would anything happen to Speedball? Would the families of the killed feel any sort of Justice?


Vigilantism in the real world is dangerous because in reality, it is very difficult to stop a crime or a criminal without endangering oneself, the criminal, or innocent bystanders. *The Marvel Universe, on the other hand, is full of individuals who have an exceptional track record at stopping superpowered villians without causing significant harm to anyone. *While I realize I shouldn't grab a weapon and seek out some criminals, I would see no problem in attempting to trip a pursesnatcher given the opportunity. *I am simply using the opportunity I have been given and (meager) ability that I possess to assist law enfrocement. *I have caused no permanent harm to anyone, and the legal system will decide on the guilt and punishment of the purse-snatcher. *Spider-man (pre sell-out *;)) or Captain America does the same thing on a larger scale as they possess the ability to do so safely.
They possess the ability to do so safely due to either training or experience... something that a lot of other superheroes could benefit from.


This is another area where we would need to verge into real world politics to discuss this throughly. *Everyone does make mistakes. *That is why we have the checks and balances system as well as a document outlining fundamental rghts in the U.S. Government, to prevent any one branch from having sufficient power to do significant harm. *As you have pointed out, mistakes are still made, but we generally manage to mitigate the major ones before too much harm is done. *I can think of situations, however, where this was not the case, (e.g., Japanese internment in WWII okayed by Supreme Ct.), and I am sure there are others. *In the Marvel world, the capacity of the government to do harm (and good) is magnified by advanced technology and superheroes already aligned with the government. *Independent heroes are a check on this power, and the ability of government heroes to blackmail and otherwise co-opt these heroes as a result of the Registration Act removes this check and allows a "Dell Rusk" (the name used by the Red Skull as Sec. of Def....if only superheroes and young wizards could work out anagrams) who infiltrates the government to neutralize heroic opposition much more effectively. *This sounds silly, but we are dealing with a world in which the Red Skull has been the Secretary of Defense and where replacing government officials with clones, LMD's, etc. happens with some regularity. *Do you really want the identity, weaknesses, and suitable blackmail material for all or most of the world's/country's superheroes to be centralzied in government control given the number of bad actors (e.g., villians, misguided officials) that seem to have little trouble attaining positions of authority?
That's a very valid point. And the problem is, when you have a large body of people in power, someone in that body can be corrupted. I won't quote the cliche, as it's been used enough in this thread, but you get the idea. And post-Act, I'm sure Norman Osborne or someone could find someone to bribe for information. However, now those heroes and their families have government protection. I don't have much consolation beyond that, but like I've said before, no plan is perfect.

What it all boils down to, is the lesser of two evils. The government exists to, well, govern the people, but also to protect the people of the United States. And in this case, people of the United States were attacked, and the government has to do something about it. 300 million people want to be protected from Super Villains, but they also want to be protected from Super Heroes, just in case. That kind of power needs to be checked by someone, and it can't always be themselves.

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-21, 01:28 AM
I know Nick Fury has messed up some times, but he's been ousted?

Here's the Cliffs Notes version of Secret War. (spoilers)







Nick Fury and SHIELD discover that various tech-themed villains (such as Scorpion, the female Doc Ock, et cetera) were being bankrolled in secret by the head of state of Latveria, making their crimes acts of terrorism. As a warning to the world not to screw with the U.S., Fury personally asks a bunch of superheroes to accompany him in an unofficial, shadow-ops capacity to come with him and basically liquidate Latveria's head of state.

However, one year after the attack and (failed) assassination of Latveria's prime minister, a potentially cataclysmic event occurs in NYC. One of the effects of this event causes Fury's involvement in the failed assassination to come to light, and he is ousted as Shield's Director. He is now in hiding, with arrest warrants out for him for various violations of international law.

The current SHIELD Director, Maria Hill, was given her position largely because of her indifference/independence of the superpowered set, and in one set of transcripts the sitting President informs her that he'd like her to increase that gap if possible.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-08-25, 09:44 AM
Other question, would the US gov in Marvel universe hesitate if they have all of the US supers under their controll to use them to deal with opposition like say, minor other countries like...the UK, France, Germany,....

Because in the Marvel universe these are threated as minor countries, kinda on par with most of Africa, Asia or South America.

There are several story lines where supers are either co-opted into attacking these 'minor' countries or mind controlled.

Once you get to a point where you are body and soul property of a government it is not such a long step to go to considering them just assets, tools.
Genosha anyone?

The intentions may be alright but the potential misuse, and may we add a misuse that has been clearly precedented many, many times before, is dramatic.

Don't forget this is effectively puts the super and all of his relatives and friends at the mercy of whoever is currently controlling the governement.
And without better checks the US governement in Marvel is pretty much as safe as sieve to keep info.

Falkus
2006-08-25, 10:12 AM
Are you seriously telling me that the United States, in the Marvel Universe, routinely attacks nuclear armed nations? Chalk up another rreason for why I don't like comics.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-08-25, 10:36 AM
Not 'offically' but in pretty much any other aspect...yeah.

Sadly enough many, many side stories have spec force type stuff go and simply enforce US law or interests without so much as a 'do you mind us grabbing this guy?'.

There is no war as in attacking but all the possible silly black ops yes.
See some of the weapon x series.

Also the series when there was the cold war and so on have some pointed hints to said effect.

All in all, only if you get caught and embarass the government are you going onto a little black list.
Nick Fury anyone?
The different Weapon X divisions?
Sentinel programs in x variations?
Original X Factor? (intent and not actual use here)
Mutant Registration Act?
More recent, the mutant 'cure'?
Red Skull infiltrating?
Mystique infiltrating?
...

The precedents are exceedingly poor on security in the US in Marvel universe.
Exceedingly so.

Perhaps in our reality it might have some ground to stand on but in the Marvel universe the odds are very loooong that nobody is going to misuse this info.

Anyone remember the What-If series with 'the Punisher kills the Marvel universe'?

Think of the gun registration act that people talk about.
There points in favour of such an act but...
there are also points against it.

Perhaps an obligatory safety training might be needed but registration full on...

See X-men school, Hellions school, etc...

No need to reveal the identities, as long as they ensure they train their powers so they can use them responsibly.

If the US governement in the Marvel universe had less of a abysmal track record in keeping stuff like this either safe, not misusing it, not exploiting it, not trying to wholesale go into genocide then there might be a point in favour of it but otherwise...

Think about Thunderbolt Ross for instance.

RBPRX1204
2006-08-26, 02:24 AM
Look, first off, I'm not going to read 5 pages to see if someone else has already posted this. Here's what I think....

The New Warriors were being filmed for a reality TV show, right? Who has money to follow people in spandex fight crime? Tony does.

Said heroes get a very convient tip that there are criminals just down the road, and go to "investigate". Who would have the intel to give these heroes?

The whole thing ends up being televised, which is so convient, wouldn't you think. Gee, and Tony makes this big speech about how someone, somewhere is going to to turn left, when they should have turned right, and people are going to die. Come on folks, we all know foreshadowing, don't we?

Tony pushes through the bill, and it becomes a law. Wow, couldn't see that coming.

They are sending the prisoners to the Negative Zone. Come on, Richards is in on it too.

It's all a big big set up, but Tony, with Richards as his dim witted assistant. Tony hired criminals before to attack Iron Man, for the good publicity. It's the same thing, only there is blood on Tony's hands now, and he's playing it up like I can't believe.

I'm not a big Cap fan, but I hope Cap tears that darn armor off Tony, and beats him with the helmet. Nuff said.

The_Pyre
2006-08-26, 05:01 AM
Once the supers are all under the US government, I shudder to think of how they can beat Doctor Doom. The previous example regarding Nick Fury's debacle emphasizes this point. How do you beat the sovereign of a country with an "army" without going into "war"? Granted, Doom still has to do something wrong before they actually attack (giving them the pretext to do so), but once they do that, what happens next?

Paraphrasing Thor from the Ultimates, they speak of supervillains now, but what's stopping them from killing for oil or free trade in the future?

Ing
2006-08-26, 07:17 PM
Once the supers are all under the US government, I shudder to think of how they can beat Doctor Doom. The previous example regarding Nick Fury's debacle emphasizes this point. How do you beat the sovereign of a country with an "army" without going into "war"? Granted, Doom still has to do something wrong before they actually attack (giving them the pretext to do so), but once they do that, what happens next?

Paraphrasing Thor from the Ultimates, they speak of supervillains now, but what's stopping them from killing for oil or free trade in the future?


Isn't Doom dead and in hell right now?

If they do decide to beat him up there won't be much complaints...unless France has diplomatic ties with Pandamonium.

tgva8889
2006-08-26, 09:56 PM
Wow, Falkus. You must be really, really lawful.

No, I would believe in past experience. But not always. If I don't believe something is right, even though past experience will tell me it is, I will not follow it. For example, even if past experience told me that not going to war against the nation that plans to attack us with nuclear weapons, I would do so if it felt right.

I use past experience, but I do not rely on it, similarly to how Ghost does not completely trust the Matrix to have all his guns fully loaded every time he jacks in. You assume that you will die when you get hit by the speeding car. But what if you merely flew up in the air and landed back down on the ground, safe as can be. Would you still believe that whenever you get hit by a speeding car, you would die? It is merely because you assume, through past experience, that you know. And many times, you could be right. But there are times when you could be wrong, and that is what I believe Jibar was trying to say.

Ing
2006-08-27, 12:32 AM
Wow, Falkus. You must be really, really lawful.

No, I would believe in past experience. But not always. If I don't believe something is right, even though past experience will tell me it is, I will not follow it. For example, even if past experience told me that not going to war against the nation that plans to attack us with nuclear weapons, I would do so if it felt right.

I use past experience, but I do not rely on it, similarly to how Ghost does not completely trust the Matrix to have all his guns fully loaded every time he jacks in. You assume that you will die when you get hit by the speeding car. But what if you merely flew up in the air and landed back down on the ground, safe as can be. Would you still believe that whenever you get hit by a speeding car, you would die? It is merely because you assume, through past experience, that you know. And many times, you could be right. But there are times when you could be wrong, and that is what I believe Jibar was trying to say.


New rule, when you quote philisophy from the matrix...you loose

tgva8889
2006-08-27, 02:30 PM
Is that just something against the matrix or against the Brothers?

Jibar
2006-08-28, 06:18 AM
I'm not a big Cap fan, but I hope Cap tears that darn armor off Tony, and beats him with the helmet. Nuff said.

I would pay to watch that.
I would also pay to see Spidey kick Batman's ass though...

And I like the Matrix, a lot of the stuff makes sense.

Beleriphon
2006-08-28, 07:12 AM
Is that just something against the matrix or against the Brothers?

No its more that the "philosophy" of the Matrix is a bunch of existential horse hockey that makes next to no sense in a real context. Now if want to quote fun existential nonsense you quote directly from Simulacra and Simulation thats cool.

While the example you use if functional its really just an extrapolation of (IIRC) Plato's Cave Allegory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave). Although that particular allegory has more to do with the Matrix movies as a whole. Or rather can be applied to the movies a whole, since I don't imagine that Plato had The Matrix in mind when he came up with that.

At any rate I'm with Captain America. Go Cap!

loial77
2006-08-28, 09:36 PM
New Supers are showing up all the time. Look at the Runaways, or Sentry(yes, I know he's supposedly been around forever thanks to a convenient retcon, but he's new to everyone else). We have no precedent for these people. They might have no problem with collateral damage, and sacrificing human lives to stop a baddie. We just don't know.

True, but the existing heroes have a history of stopping or attempting to stop the more reckless heroes. *One Captain America storyline that comes to mind involved his efforts to stop the Scourge, a vigilante who killed supervillians. *The X-men have kept a tight rein on Wolverine for quite awhile. *Other examples elude me, but I can't think of any examples, with the possible exception of the Punisher, where Marvel heroes have failed to police their own.


Well, we don't know that for sure. How would the Avengers have handled that group of bad guys? Would they have attacked them in the middle of a neighborhood? Trash-talked them until they resorted to drastic measures? Filmed it all?

The filming bit is an appeal to emotion by the writer of the comic. *Does it really matter if it is filmed? *Does that really effect what happens? *As for trash talk, at least one Avenger, Spider-man, is known for constantly taunting villians with one-liners. *The question is, should they have attacked in the first place given the circumstances. *My point was that given the knowledge we now have, even an experienced group could be deceived by Nitro's enhanced abilities, given SHIELD's failures against him. *


Well I'm not too familiar with Speedball, but there are plenty of superheroes that aren't "trained", or if they are, maybe not trained by someone all too credible. The training may not be specifically for cases like Speedball, but there are plenty who could benefit from refresher training, continuing training, or some training at all. Speedball made mistakes though, and needs to be held credible. If the Act wasn't happening, would anything happen to Speedball? Would the families of the killed feel any sort of Justice?

Actually, I did some reading, and Night Thrasher, Namorita, and Speedball have all been around since the seventies eighties, and given the number of stories they were involved in, it would take some Marvel slight of hand to call them inexperienced. *I cringe a bit when you talk about the New Warriors needing to be punished for justice to be done. *Nitro is the individual who initiated the Stamford tragedy. *The New Warriors may be guilty of poor judgement and of lacking the power to stop Nitro cleanly, but at worst they were reckless. *They are not the proximate cause of the Stamford deaths. *
Also, Nitro might not have chosen to kill those particular people had the New Warriors not intervened, but we have no idea what harm he might have done if not apprehended. *He was given the MGH for a reason that we are not yet privy to. *Could the New Warriors intervention have prevented a worse tragedy? *I am reaching, I admit, but leaving known superpowered villians free to wreck havoc as they see fit should be a last resort for any hero.



They possess the ability to do so safely due to either training or experience... something that a lot of other superheroes could benefit from.

I still argue that most heroes are trained. *I can't think of many newer heroes who weren't mentored at least briefly by another hero. *The Runaways are a good example, but I am not familar enough with them to argue the point. *We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.


That's a very valid point. And the problem is, when you have a large body of people in power, someone in that body can be corrupted. I won't quote the cliche, as it's been used enough in this thread, but you get the idea. And post-Act, I'm sure Norman Osborne or someone could find someone to bribe for information. However, now those heroes and their families have government protection. I don't have much consolation beyond that, but like I've said before, no plan is perfect.

What it all boils down to, is the lesser of two evils. The government exists to, well, govern the people, but also to protect the people of the United States. And in this case, people of the United States were attacked, and the government has to do something about it. 300 million people want to be protected from Super Villains, but they also want to be protected from Super Heroes, just in case. That kind of power needs to be checked by someone, and it can't always be themselves.

I still say that secret identies worked for a long time to keep heroes' loved ones safe. *Giving everyone's ID's to the government (as opposed to Nick Fury's rolodex...) is a recipe for disaster. *Consider this my Civil War prediction; someone close to a pro-reg hero will die due to an old villian getting their secret ID. * *Heroes have done a fine job for the greater part of Marvel's history in weeding out the bad apples in the superpowered community. *Government intervention is unnecessary and at best, an inefficient means of regulating the superhero community, and at worst a corrupting influence thereon.

<editted to correct error, as pointed out below by Jack_Banzai. *The New Warriors as a team debuted in 1989, over sixteen years prior to the publication of Civil War>

Jack_Banzai
2006-08-29, 02:25 AM
Actually, I did some reading, and Night Thrasher, Namorita, and Speedball have all been around since the seventies

It's a minor point, but you should really check your sources before making a claim of this nature. While Namorita first appeared in Sub-Mariner in 1972, Speedball first showed up in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #22 (published in 1988 ) and Night Thrasher first appeared in Thor #411, which was published in 1989.

loial77
2006-08-29, 03:26 AM
While Namorita first appeared in Sub-Mariner in 1972, Speedball first showed up in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #22 (published in 1988 ) and Night Thrasher first appeared in Thor #411, which was published in 1989.

My apologies. *I was referring to the 1989 origin of the New Warriors, and wrote "seventies" instead of "eighties". *It was a careless error. *I am not sure where that came from, but I will correct the original post.


It's a minor point, but you should really check your sources before making a claim of this nature.

If I ever get around to writing an article for publication, I will make a point of carefully fact checking and proofreading. *Here on the message board...not so much. *No disrespect intended, but the day I feel that I have to take the time to carefully proofread my posts on this board is the day I stop posting. *I regret the error and I will always try to avoid posting incorrect information, but I am not invested enough into the subject to spell check what I write, much less proofread the content. * So, with the correction, we can now say that the New Warriors were around for over 16 years of real time prior to Stamford. *While what that means in Marvel time can be debated, I stand by my original point.

malagigi
2006-08-29, 01:24 PM
The above argument about philosophy really raises in my mind the problem with debating vigilantism in regards to a comic. In the real world, vigilantism is wildly held as bad. In a comic book we suspend disbelief and vigilantism has been good, if not necessary, for a number of decades. So the breakdown is less about philosophy and more about what context are you applying and what disbelief has ben suspended.

I wish civil war was framed more from a gun control standpoint. Is it right for the government to have a database of gun owners? Is it right for the government to have a database of supers? The parallels seem more clean than the more nebulous civil rights questions.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-08-29, 01:34 PM
Which is why I brought it up.

There is both good and bad sides to the discussion which incidently is why Spiderman is having such a hard time of it.

The only problem is given the previous behaviour of the US (or other governements to be honest, lets be honest about it) in the Marvel universe would you trust them with something like this?

And also, supers are in a somewhat distinctive problem.

Some of the supers could easily fall in air-gun categories, others would be more of the inter-continental ballistic missile types.
The widespread diversity, the extreme catch-all phrasing of the registration act are causing issues.

Even if you are not an active super, have never used your powers before and are quite happily living in a sleepy little town in the middle of grainbelt you still have to register.
Even if you are not aware of being a 'super' yourself.

It is the far sweeping effect that is causing the issues.
A group like the X-men which has been targeted more then once by either people working for the governement or even by the governement itself...are they going to be more or less at risk with all the info stashed in one place?

Just check what happen in New Mutants, the current tittle.

The old saying comes to mind:

'To save the village we had to burn the village.'

Weiser_Cain
2006-08-29, 04:34 PM
I'm for the government having controll over supers. If you don't like it don't save anyone and you'll have no problem, it's like being a cop.
As far as the government not being on top of things I think the supers should (with oversight) be running the show operation-wise

Logic
2006-08-30, 04:38 AM
Everyone seems to be missing the point that makes the governments stance wrong.

If you are Special or Augmented in any way above human normal maximums, then you MUST register, or face the consequences. Which is why there are only 2 "right" responses to the situation. Flip a big ol' bird to the red white and blue, and leave (as the Thing did) or stand up and fight agianst the injustice for those that are going to jail for simply being present in the United States.

Falkus
2006-08-30, 10:49 PM
If you are Special or Augmented in any way above human normal maximums, then you MUST register, or face the consequences

Everybody has to register for one thing or another in the United States, what makes this different?

Foeofthelance
2006-08-30, 11:15 PM
Because while my driving down the road is probably hazardous to the health of any motorist or pedestrian sharing the road with me, it is not a direct threat to the lives of my loved ones. Well, unless they are also in the car with me, but that is an entirely different thread.

On the knew note, and a few spoilers.

Wolverine got the name of the guy who gave Nitro the MGH. Surprise, surprise, it is the same guy who runs Damage Control, Inc. Which, may or may not be a company that Tony has a hand in. At this point, I hope he really is a guilty --[This portion of the post has been deleted to profanity. Frankly we're shocked. Who knew he had it in him. We'll be running a rerun of M*A*S*H instead. Thank you, and please stand by.]-- Because otherwise some one has been doing a very, very good job of framing him. Though I doubt he's not enjoying his new found power.

ShipWrecked
2006-08-31, 12:25 PM
I'm on captain america's side all the way, Anybody whos on Iron mans side..well I'd like to hear thier reasoning for it >:(

loial77
2006-08-31, 05:52 PM
I'm for the government having controll over supers. If you don't like it don't save anyone and you'll have no problem, it's like being a cop.
As far as the government not being on top of things I think the supers should (with oversight) be running the show operation-wise

I like that idea. But why stop with superheros? Let's try to stop financial fraud. Let's penalize anyone who gives above a certain amount to a charity that is not specifically endorsed by the President. After all, there is a potential for fraud with the large number of charities out there, but the President's short list of charities can be carefully monitored to avoid this problem. If you don't like it, don't give to the less fortunate, and you'll have no problem. After all, the unauthorized giver deserves to be punished for trying to help others without government permission.

Falkus
2006-08-31, 08:20 PM
Anybody whos on Iron mans side..well I'd like to hear thier reasoning for it

Because my opinion on super heros is that it's roughly the same thing as selecting a random group of people off the streets, giving them guns, rifles and rocket launchers, and telling them to protect society in any way they see fit without actually having to be responsible to anyone for their actions. Look, people who enforce the law should be responsible to somebody, so they get punished when they screw up.


After all, the unauthorized giver deserves to be punished for trying to help others without government permission.

I should think that there are sufficient differences between vigilantism and charity to render comparisions for purpose of metaphor as pointless.

loial77
2006-09-01, 10:04 AM
Because my opinion on super heros is that it's roughly the same thing as selecting a random group of people off the streets, giving them guns, rifles and rocket launchers, and telling them to protect society in any way they see fit without actually having to be responsible to anyone for their actions. Look, people who enforce the law should be responsible to somebody, so they get punished when they screw up.

Malagigi has it right; we are arguing at cross purposes. You are picturing people in our world loose with world shaking power and thinking that it must be checked. I am looking at the fictional Marvel world, with its advanced technology and generally good track record on heroic activity and wondering why anyone believes government intervention is necessary. I am considerably more reluctant to endorse the concept of vigilantism in real life. In the real world, the police are better suited to deal with crime through training and the accountability that you mention. Vigilantism makes things more dangerous for all involved. If that is your argument, that normal people in the real world should be discouraged from taking the law into their own hands, I agree.

Then again, if a superpowered being showed up with powers beyond police capabilities and went on a rampage, I might not ask to many questions or seek to regulate someone capable of stopping him. So if you want to bring a superhero argument into the real world, what I would ask you is, if a superhero doesn't wish to submit to government regulation, do we allow the superhero to do what he is willing to do, or do we arrest the superhero for unauthorized interference and allow our hypothetical supervillian to rampage unchecked? Because if we aren't in the Marvel universe, the police aren't going to have Stark technology and SHIELD back-up. If we aren't carrying this over to the real world, then what about the heroes' track record leads you to believe that they are dangerous vigilantes? Why upset a system that already works well by imposing unwelcome regulation?


I should think that there are sufficient differences between vigilantism and charity to render comparisions for purpose of metaphor as pointless.

Depends on your perspective. There has been less misuse of powers by Marvel heroes than there has been abuse of charitable donations in the real world. You are essentially advocating punishing innocent individuals with a track record of essentially harmless "giving" of their time and abilities for a single incident. That is like imposing my regulations in response to the Red Cross fiasco over 9/11. But in case that doesn't convince you, watch the movie "Death to Smoochie." Those charities can be vicious.

Dalius
2006-09-01, 12:43 PM
I'm on captain america's side all the way, Anybody whos on Iron mans side..well I'd like to hear thier reasoning for it >:(

Look, everyone has this "one person screwed up, why should everyone who can do what they do responsibly have to pay" attitude, and I'm not sure I totally agree with it, and here's how I justify that:

One person hijacks a plane, everyone has to show up an hour early for their flight and undergo security screenings. One person gets drunk and flings his car through a church, and now drunk driving is illegal, no matter how well you can drive after a couple beers.

There has to be a breaking point. If your mother, or sister, or daughter was killed in an explosion caused by superheroes filming a reality show, you would want something done about it. You would want superheroes to be responsible for their actions. And that's exactly what the people of Stamford want. Retribution and protection. Reassurance that it won't happen again. The government is providing this by saying "look, if they step out of line, we'll handle it, and here's the super-crew that's strong enough to do it".

By going underground and "resisting" this, Captain America and the Secret Avengers are effectively telling the people of Stamford "tough cookies, this sort of thing happens and we don't want to make any sacrifices to change anything, but say hi for me at your son's funeral". Iron Man may not have the purest of motives, but his intentions are good. It's not how you get there, but the end result that matters.

As for the Thing, well, I don't necessarily agree with his standpoint either. He's leaving everyone he cares about to deal with it on their own, offering no support, no guidance, no protection.

No side to this war is 100% correct. But the best solution, the one that will make the most people happy, offer the most protection, and all-in-all be the most American thing to do by making sacrifices for the greater good, is to support the Registration Act.

http://beerstuds.com/images/misc/imwithironman.jpg

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-01, 01:46 PM
Yup, it makes the most villains happy and gives them the best of all worlds.

Anybody remembered that the registration also talks about putting the details of affiliated people in said database?

No matter who they are?

Now think about it like this.

We have a bunch of DEA agents working undercover, hidden identity and all.
The best way to help them is according to this registration act to put ALL their friends, relatives and family on the SAME file which incidentally is accessible by any government branch...or anyone who is making a claim against said agent.

Nobody here thinking that putting all your eggs in one basket is actually going to case a HUGE omelet whether anyone want to or not?

The track record of villains making use of friends, relatives and family to strike at people both in our world and in the Marvel universe is well known.
Making all of this information essentially available in ONE place is just asking for problems.

Registration, ok, voluntarely and with enough cut-outs to protect peoples identities.
Enforced registration, regardless whether or not you are a vigilante would be like putting everyone on a database as a potential homicidal maniac since obviously you could potentially use a weapon with all the negative effects that entittles if they have a specific thing that would be able to (however tenously) tie them together as a group.
Say...all people who watch saturday morning cartoons or have watched saturday morning cartoons.

Nah, too generic...hum...all people who watch Manga.
There you go.
A very broad cross section the population, none of which are tied together with something that is a real common ground and regardless of what types of manga they would be watching.

For the greater good and the few must suffer for the many...be very, very, very carefull about that.

Just see how well THAT worked out in Europe 70 years ago.

Falkus
2006-09-01, 04:31 PM
Depends on your perspective. There has been less misuse of powers by Marvel heroes than there has been abuse of charitable donations in the real world.

If a charity is abused, somebody ends up stealing money from innocent people. If a vigilante screws up, innocent people DIE. There's a bit of a difference there.


Yup, it makes the most villains happy and gives them the best of all worlds.

I'd say they'd be more worried, now that super heros would have the might of a well funded government agency backing them up, training them, deploying them and coordinating them.



Malagigi has it right; we are arguing at cross purposes. You are picturing people in our world loose with world shaking power and thinking that it must be checked. I am looking at the fictional Marvel world, with its advanced technology and generally good track record on heroic activity and wondering why anyone believes government intervention is necessary.

I know nothing of the marvel universe, so I only have one perspective to argue from.

Dalius
2006-09-01, 04:46 PM
Yup, it makes the most villains happy and gives them the best of all worlds.

Anybody remembered that the registration also talks about putting the details of affiliated people in said database?

No matter who they are?

Now think about it like this.

We have a bunch of DEA agents working undercover, hidden identity and all.
The best way to help them is according to this registration act to put ALL their friends, relatives and family on the SAME file which incidentally is accessible by any government branch...or anyone who is making a claim against said agent.
Um, I'm pretty sure all DEA agents with "hidden identities" still have their names in a database somewhere. The government doesn't just hire people, then delete them from their computers and hope the job runs smoothly on its own. And this most certainly isn't Bourne Identity.

Cops, lawyers, detectives, judges, even innocent civilian bystanders testifying, or jurying a case... they all have to worry about themselves or their loved ones being struck at. So all cops, detectives, federal agents, sheriffs, etc should just be given free reign, be allowed to wear masks, and not have to report to anyone or follow any procedures, just to protect their identity?

In order to hold someone accountable, you have to know who they are, and that information has to be stored somewhere. And they NEED to be held accountable.


Registration, ok, voluntarely and with enough cut-outs to protect peoples identities.
Enforced registration, regardless whether or not you are a vigilante would be like putting everyone on a database as a potential homicidal maniac since obviously you could potentially use a weapon with all the negative effects that entittles if they have a specific thing that would be able to (however tenously) tie them together as a group.
Say...all people who watch saturday morning cartoons or have watched saturday morning cartoons.

Nah, too generic...hum...all people who watch Manga.
There you go.
A very broad cross section the population, none of which are tied together with something that is a real common ground and regardless of what types of manga they would be watching.
Tell me the last time a group of 6 people watching manga killed 600 people. No, it's like saying all people with weapons should register, whether they intend to use them or not. Do you think everyone should be allowed to have a gun, with no checks, no records, and no governing laws, as long as they say "I don't plan on using it"? They're still potential threats. Everyone is. If someone breaks into Captain America's home and threatens a friend or loved one, is he going to restrain from using his abilities to stop them? Hell no. He's going to shield-bash the crap out of them, no matter what he told the government. THAT is why all people with abilities have to register; because they can't promise to never use them.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-02, 11:26 AM
Ok, no problem , so for the greater good all people who are in category 'x' should for the safety of others be put in interment camps.

Preferably also get a tattoo on their left arm, you know, a serial number and blood type tattoo.

When you need them you drag them out somewhere to do a job, after that you drag them back.

The details of said people should be on a database that is available to the public in case of anyone wishing to build a legal case versus them.

You are simply ignoring one little detail, even if you do not have any powers now but you had powers you are on this list.
If you know people who have powers you are on this list as a potential power-wielder.
All your family is on this list since potentially they can have powers.

It is FAR more far reaching then your example.
And that is where my example comes into play.
They are not even looking at just the people who use or have powers but all those are affiliated to them.

And that would be like giving away a DEA undercover agents family details.
They will be targeted simply because bad guys are not going to be nice about it.
And cap might shield bash the crap out of the criminal but that is really going to help the victims when cap is not there is it not?
No way can they be everwhere all the time, as the Flash said: 'I am the fastest man alife and even I cannot be in two places at once.'.

And yes, I would say all people with guns should register the guns and get proper training in how to use said guns.
But we are not talking about merely registering here.
It goes beyond that and there is where the problem is.

Without accountability something like that in OUR world would NEVER work without being misused yet in the Marvel universe where a lot of the governments have shown a decidely bad track record for handling something like this you would want it to be done WITHOUT any accountability anywhere?

Tony is allowed to use whatever means necessary to take people in, whatever means necessary.
This is a person which has a track record of loosing it.
Armour Wars anyone?

Good intentions mean nothing when the result is looking to end up like a certain state 70 odd years ago.

To keep people accountable you don't need to EXPOSE their whole family and friends circle.
You go for them, make sure you know who they are and then keep tabs on them discretely and indirectly untill they prove your trust was misplaced.

Logic
2006-09-02, 07:22 PM
The difference between gun control and registering super heroes is this. You have to attempt to get a gun. Some heroes have no control over whether or not they have powers. Most got them by accident.
And as for the police argument, yes, their families are under threat by every criminal that holds a grudge, but as for the supervillians, the normal police typically cannot stop a supervillan. The superheros can. So, when they have a plan, they first want to prevent the superhero from stopping them. Best way to do that, tie him up in his loyalty to his family, by putting them in danger.
The villians are also egotistical, so the supers being better funded and armed is not going to make them thing twice, but the rift between supers is definatly going to give most of them a rise, and the villians are likely to take advantage of this situation, and attack a divided group.

Falkus
2006-09-02, 10:35 PM
Ok, no problem , so for the greater good all people who are in category 'x' should for the safety of others be put in interment camps.

Preferably also get a tattoo on their left arm, you know, a serial number and blood type tattoo.

When you need them you drag them out somewhere to do a job, after that you drag them back.

I was wondering when the comparisions to the third reich would be brought up.


They will be targeted simply because bad guys are not going to be nice about it.

Real police officers have to deal with this. Why makes superheros so special that they get an exemption that every other law enforcement official doesn't get?


Good intentions mean nothing when the result is looking to end up like a certain state 70 odd years ago.

Right, requiring that people who wish to enforce the law actually work for the government is the same thing as Nazism.

Beleriphon
2006-09-03, 12:47 AM
Right, requiring that people who wish to enforce the law actually work for the government is the same thing as Nazism.

But they don't want to enforce the law. Spiderman doesn't arrest people nor is he an attorney. Spidey's objective is not law enforcement, but stopping supervillains. Spiderman stomps the crap out of Doc Ock because no normal cop can do that.

There is a big difference between working for the government, and being Captain America or Thor. In the long run I think what you would end up with is a situation like in the The Incredibles people sueing the superheros for saving them. Got whip lash from the sudden stop Spiderman pulled when his webs prevented your SUV 20 stories into the Hudson? Sue for damages!

This does bring up some other interesting questions though. What about the Silver Surfer? Is the US Government going to try and register him? If he refuses do they do throw a former Herald of Galactus in prison? Fine him? Can Tony even stop the Surfer if it came down to it?

At any rate I think Ben Franklin sums up my opinion nicely:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Steward
2006-09-03, 12:55 AM
Why does Spider-Man apprehend criminals if he's not trying to enforce the law?

Beleriphon
2006-09-03, 01:24 AM
Why does Spider-Man apprehend criminals if he's not trying to enforce the law?

He just stops them cold, big difference. He doesn't arrest them, he ties them and off he goes. His concern isn't the law, its doing the right thing to help people. Law and Right aren't necessarily the same thing.

Dalius
2006-09-03, 06:18 AM
He just stops them cold, big difference. He doesn't arrest them, he ties them and off he goes. His concern isn't the law, its doing the right thing to help people. Law and Right aren't necessarily the same thing.
He ties them up and leaves them so the law can take care of them. If someone isn't breaking the law, he doesn't stop them. If they are breaking the law, he stops them. In my book, that's the definition of "enforcing the law". If he's not enforcing the law, then he has no right interfering in someone else's actions.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-03, 07:24 AM
I was wondering when the comparisions to the third reich would be brought up.


Real police officers have to deal with this. Why makes superheros so special that they get an exemption that every other law enforcement official doesn't get?


Right, requiring that people who wish to enforce the law actually work for the government is the same thing as Nazism.

Hum, not exactly but...I presume you have actually read Marvel comics?

The way this stuff has always been tried to be enforced in the Marvel universe has been damn close to what the Germans let happen un the early parts of the fourties.
Nazism did not just spring up fully formed and straight to gaschambered concentration camps.

Mutant registration act, seen the different alternative futures that existed in the Marvel universe and which was only stopped in many cases because people like the X-men and so-on put themselves on the line to prevent either side from slipping too far.

See the last line of Dalius post in his answer to the question why people would be opposed to Cap's way of thinking.
Sacrifices in the name of the greater good.
Something that has been used in the Marvel universe far too often to cover up emprisonment, torture, slavery and often even by the US government (in the Marvel universe at least, in the real world the US government track record is a shining example of how to do things right in comparisson and that is keeping mind even the conspiracy buffs as if they were almost all real).

There is a difference between voluntarely working to help the government and having no choice whatsoever in the matter.
It may come as a shock to some but actually there were quite a few German *troops who during the second world war did not want to fight but it was that or being considered a deserter and the Gestapo would go after your families.
Also, if you came from say a country with a German speaking population you were annexed and not conquered.
Hence you fell under German law which meant you had to do mandatory military service.

There have been loads of bad choices as in people fighting for the Nazi's but which felt like they had no choice if they wanted to protect their families.
Not everyone can be a shining example of morality, we are after all mere humans.

Now Supers might try and fight this but even they will not be unaffected by the threats to their friends and families.

As is the extremety of freedom to enforce it and the vagueness of the Registration act means it goes well beyond most things we see now in our own societies.
The Patriot Act in my opinion is similar, it stretches quite far and allows things that should never have been simply run through is it had been.
But even then, there are failsafes in place and people are not quite as defenceless against it as they would be against the Marvel thing.

Nazism is a scary thing because everyone let it happen since it gave them security,it gave them stability and in the end people tend to suffer from tunnel vision by not seeing or not accepting if they see something wrong.
V for Vendetta shows a similar thing drawn to its logical conclusion.
Without the people stepping up (either in voting or otherwise) governments are always going to be prone to be misused by people with an empire-building mentality.

Lastly, whom here agrees a child should be registered as a military asset by force because of his ancestry?
The child of any mutant could be a mutant, whether proven or not so they fall under the registration act.
Don't forget that many of these super powers don't show untill later, some even have to be triggered by traumatic circomstances.

This registration act is far too vague to be used properly, the track record of these acts sofar has been more then abysmal and the powers granted to enforce them are easily going to be over the top.
Especially if you think about how Tony Stark has behaved in the past.
He could have changed but even so, sometimes it is better not to put people in a situation where they are tempted to relapse.

Nazism, unquestioning obediance to the leadership is one of the pivotal parts and this is where we are seeing the people slide to in the Civil War.
No side is wholy correct but then one side has actually proven itself to have been misused before when doing the same thing on a smaller scale.
That is where the biggest issue lies, if in our world the US government would misuse its powers blatantly on its own population with the passing of a bill would the people let it pass the same bill but slightly modified several times again?

Perhaps, but I hope people would be willing to stand up to it and vote against it.
Perhaps even do demonstrations and such to stop something like that from re-occuring.
When you live in Europe the extreme right wing parties do try and push things through that are almost identical as the original reforms the Nazi party pushed through.
Some of these are actually good idea's,others...well, shall we say they are not.
And it is up to the people to vote against thise bad parts, to make sure nobody lets the good parts and bad parts lip through together.
It is our responsibility to do so, not the governement since the government is in the end an extension of our will.
It may co-opted by people from time to time but in the end we controll it if we want to.
Making supers accountable, great.
Making supers and their friends/relatives targets or tools by using pressure and threats, bad.

Falkus
2006-09-03, 09:34 AM
But they don't want to enforce the law. Spiderman doesn't arrest people nor is he an attorney. Spidey's objective is not law enforcement, but stopping supervillains. Spiderman stomps the crap out of Doc Ock because no normal cop can do that.

That is enforcing the law.


"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Actually, the quote is: "Any man who trades an ESSENTIAL freedom for a LITTLE security"

I hardly think enforcing the law free from government
oversight qualifies as an essential freedom.


There is a difference between voluntarely working to help the government and having no choice whatsoever in the matter.

There is a choice, if you don't want to work for the government, you give up being a superhero, simple as that.


Not everyone can be a shining example of morality, we are after all mere humans.

Which is an argument for putting superheros under the control of the government, so there's someone to check their actions.


Now Supers might try and fight this but even they will not be unaffected by the threats to their friends and families.

Why should they be allowed the privledge of anonymity, when every other cop in the world isn't allowed it?

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-03, 01:41 PM
[quote author=Falkus link=board=comicbooks;num=1154540928;start=90#97 date=09/03/06 at 09:34:27]

There is a choice, if you don't want to work for the government, you give up being a superhero, simple as that.

quote]

Correction, you are working for the governement whether you want to or not.
People who are NOT superheroes but have powers or potentially powers are also FORCED to sign up.

It is not that you cannot but a superhero if you have not signed up, it is that you have to sign up regardless of whether or not you want to be one.

And that is where it goes horribly wrong.

E.g. your grandad is a superhero in WW2, you could potentially have these powers so ergo you are part of the target group that needs to sign up.
It is not just signing up if you are one of the superheroes, it is everyone that you could make a case for having (directly, indirectly or as a link for a future generation) some kind of powers (or even funnier, simple vigilantism a la Punisher, the kids tat used to help the Hulk and so on without any powers) and you will be forced (at gun point may I add) to sign up.

Just imagine, the kids that used to help the Hulk from time to time, they are vigilantes (lvl of power is completely beside the point remember) and have to sign up.
And any relatives or friends of them will be kept tabs on or also be put on the list.

The net they are spreading is far too wide and vague (hence open to a lot of interpretation).
You may notice I said personal registration I would not be against but within limits.
Kinda like show them trust untill they prove you break said trust (by breaking laws or doing something that causes massive damage/injuries).
Then you clamp down!

Edit:
And you clamp down on the culprits, not everyone else.

Not before anything happened.

Otherwise the whole innocent untill proven guilty goes out of the window for these people.

Imagine this, Spiderman registers, he is openly declared as having registered.
Do we reveal his identity?
Nope, we keep it a secret and we keep the files seperate for all the different groups/regions/etc...

Just so that people cannot make misuse of these details.
Access to said files would be only granted to a specific group of people which themselves would be under strict supervisions since their actions can spell the dead for dozens and dozens of innocent people.
If more people want/need to know they need to go through an official branch investigation which checks whether or not it save for them to have the info, then checks whether or not the info is really relevant to them.

As I am sure people do in the real world, you cannot just walk down somewhere and call upon the details of CIA, DEA, FBI or similar organisations personnel without giving damned good reasons to do so.
And this will be reviewed and considered in a court of law in many cases to see whether or not you should be allowed access in first instance.

As for cops being anonymous, actually, where I come from the cop himself is not anonymous but trying to get any info on his family or friends from official databases flags all kinds of bells and whistles up.
I don't know about the states for the exact way this is handled but I definately know that you cannot just get cops personal details here.
And if you do people might start asking some pointed questions.
Now I don't know whether that is because people here have been on the receiving end of terrorism a lot more often then the US or if you talk about Italy the maffia but some things will flag you up to be checked out just for the safety of people.

I know a couple SAS guys, I did not know myself untill they were discharged that they were (and even now they won't say a whisper about what they did and I am not going to ask) but I got scrutinized quite thoroughly when I was asking what they did since I am not Brittish (and I was told even being Brittish they would have done a thorough check).
You cannot understate the willingness of some types of people to strike back through family and friends and this sofar is not being addressed properly in the Marvel thing which given their track records about such things being misused is a lot more worrying then most people are seemingly willing to admit.

Foeofthelance
2006-09-03, 11:47 PM
I don't know if Spiderman is actually enforcing the law, so much as simply obeying it. In many cases, unless your life or the life of others would be endangered, not attempting to prevent a crime is considered a crime in itself. (Aiding and abetting, conspiracy, accomplice to the fact, etc.)

Since Spiderman routinely patrols, and does believe his life to be in danger, based on the fact that he will in fact go out to patrol again, it can be argued he is simply adhering to the law, not enforcing it.

Beleriphon
2006-09-04, 05:20 AM
Why should they be allowed the privledge of anonymity, when every other cop in the world isn't allowed it?

Because not every cop in the world has to worry about the Green Goblin coming to visit revenge for foiling his scheme. The police, in general, don't usually have to worry about reprisals from criminals. Could it happen, sure, but in general its not likely. If you can think of a single super villain that wouldn't be willing to hurt a super hero's family for the sole purpose of revenge.

As for law enforcement, again there is a difference between law and right. For example if the X-Men stop Magneto from killing a whole bunch of people are they doing that because the law says that he needs to be stopped, or because they don't want to see innocents die? I'd assume that they don't want to see innocent people die and the details of the law be hanged.

Another funny thing about law enforcement, you need to follow laws while enforcing them. So Spidey can't just break into the Green Goblin's secret base without probable cause and a warrant. By then the villain might have completed his dastardly plan. Great work there Spidey.

Also, one could argue that the superhero persona is the person and thus register that. So Captain America could register as Captain Ameica on the basis that that is who he is. His given name is irrelevent since it doesn't encompass him as a person, and even if he wasn't wearing a star spangled costume he'd still be Captain America. The way to look at is is that you can legally use whatever name you want, for anything, as long as it isn't fraudulent.

Dalius
2006-09-04, 09:27 AM
Correction, you are working for the governement whether you want to or not.
People who are NOT superheroes but have powers or potentially powers are also FORCED to sign up.

It is not that you cannot but a superhero if you have not signed up, it is that you have to sign up regardless of whether or not you want to be one.
I don't know if that's true. Firestar responded to the Superhuman Registration Act by retiring. She didn't register, she just stopped being a superhero. This was in... Front Line #2 I believe, if you want to check up on me.




Because not every cop in the world has to worry about the Green Goblin coming to visit revenge for foiling his scheme. The police, in general, don't usually have to worry about reprisals from criminals. Could it happen, sure, but in general its not likely. If you can think of a single super villain that wouldn't be willing to hurt a super hero's family for the sole purpose of revenge.
Like I posted earlier, maybe they wouldn't have Green Goblin himself show up to kill their families, but they have real dangers. You've heard about mob-related deaths, or organized crime killings of witnesses, police officers, defense attorneys, or jurors. Sure, maybe most of that is from movies, but we are talking about superheroes here. Police are at risk of revenge as well, whether it's from a supervillain or not.



As for law enforcement, again there is a difference between law and right. For example if the X-Men stop Magneto from killing a whole bunch of people are they doing that because the law says that he needs to be stopped, or because they don't want to see innocents die? I'd assume that they don't want to see innocent people die and the details of the law be hanged.
Well of course, but that's because they believe in the law. The law is there in the first place to protect people from dying. People enforce that law to protect people from dying. If it wasn't against the law to kill people, then we'd probably be in a country that wouldn't bother to pass a Superhero Registration Act.



Another funny thing about law enforcement, you need to follow laws while enforcing them. So Spidey can't just break into the Green Goblin's secret base without probable cause and a warrant. By then the villain might have completed his dastardly plan. Great work there Spidey.
Well, under the Patriot act, Supervillainy could be considered terrorism, and thus avoid the need for a warrant. Besides, that actually might be a good thing in some cases. If they're wrong about what the bad guy is doing, if they break in and bust things up only to find the bad guy wasn't actually working on something dastardly, well, they *should* be held accountable even for that.



Also, one could argue that the superhero persona is the person and thus register that. So Captain America could register as Captain Ameica on the basis that that is who he is. His given name is irrelevent since it doesn't encompass him as a person, and even if he wasn't wearing a star spangled costume he'd still be Captain America. The way to look at is is that you can legally use whatever name you want, for anything, as long as it isn't fraudulent.
This is something I'm curious about. Thor, for instance. Or Hercules. While Thor technically has an alter-ego, I'm not sure if he even knows it. So theoretically, I guess he'll be registering as Thor. But in any case, they just need to know how to find someone. If you have an alter-ego, you have to register that, so you can't just disappear after blowing up a school.

Falkus
2006-09-04, 02:09 PM
Another funny thing about law enforcement, you need to follow laws while enforcing them. So Spidey can't just break into the Green Goblin's secret base without probable cause and a warrant. By then the villain might have completed his dastardly plan. Great work there Spidey.

Of course, the downside to Spidey's methods is that Green Goblin will go free after his plot gets thwarted, because his lawyers will get all the evidence against him dismissed, as it was gathered illegally.

Oh, and let's not forget this: If Green Goblin or his minions overcome Spiderman while he's breaking into the Secret Base, then the evil plan will happen anyway, as nobody else knows that Spiderman is there. If Spidey works for the government, however, then he won't be going in alone, and there'll be backup in case he fails.

SteveMB
2006-09-05, 03:29 PM
He ties them up and leaves them so the law can take care of them. If someone isn't breaking the law, he doesn't stop them. If they are breaking the law, he stops them. In my book, that's the definition of "enforcing the law". If he's not enforcing the law, then he has no right interfering in someone else's actions.
Legally speaking, he's making a "citizen's arrest", which anybody can, in theory, do if they catch someone committing a crime. (Obviously, the catch is that most people can't effectively stop a supervillain, or even an armed street thug.)

loial77
2006-09-05, 05:34 PM
If a charity is abused, somebody ends up stealing money from innocent people. If a vigilante screws up, innocent people DIE. There's a bit of a difference there.

Clearly, you haven't seen "Death to Smoochy." Messing around with charities can be fatal.



I'd say they'd be more worried, now that super heros would have the might of a well funded government agency backing them up, training them, deploying them and coordinating them.

...and blackmailing them into doing work for the govenrment. This has already happened to one character, who was told to hunt down another hero or the IRS would be sicced on him. Cap did not actively oppose registration until he was told that he would be forced to hunt down other heroes. Ironically, Cap has done more direct work for SHIELD and other agencies than just about anyone. Finally, at least one registered hero (and I use the term loosely) has been ordered to attack and apprehend the head of another state, an act of war. So, is everyone on the pro-reg side okay with the idea of superheroes being used for war? That is leaving aside the "Fifty State Initiative" that appears to involve further misuse of super heroic resources. Given the track record of the Marvel Universe U.S. government, I wouldn't put it past them to use threats to heroes loved one's to control their actions. I won't quote Acton's law again, but there is a reason the US system of government sharply limits government power in the field of law enforcement. Consolidating heroes under government control, and giving up their identies for most heroes will eventually equal submitting to government control, can only lead to abuse.


I know nothing of the marvel universe, so I only have one perspective to argue from.

So exactly what point of view are you trying to advance in this discussion? If you want me to agree that in the real world, people shouldn't go around using deadly force on suspected criminals, you win. I am unabashedly anti-"killing criminals at random," especially in the real world.


There is a choice, if you don't want to work for the government, you give up being a superhero, simple as that.

At what point does this logic break down? If I witness a purse snatching, should I attempt to trip the individual responsible, or should I leave it to the police? If I see someone drowning, should I throw them a life preserver, or should I leave it to the professionals? What if there are no police or lifeguards available at the time? In each case, there is an immediate need to act, and I am in a position to do so effectively. In a world with superheroes, things are slightly more complicated. In each case I describe, the only reason I would feel compelled to act is that I find myself in a position where I can help someone else with little risk to anyone involved. The utilities are balanced; if the risk was higher that I or someone else would be seriously injured (e.g., stopping an armed robbery), I would not do so. The police are simply better at handling these situations than I am, and they are less likely to cause harm exceeding the benefits of intervention. In the Marvel world, the police are not all that effective against supervillians. Rare indiviudals who are gifted with powers find themselves in a position where they can resolve a situtation involving supervillians with a minimum likelihood of causing harm, even compared to the police. You are giving them the choice between registering, with all of the dangers I describe above, or sitting and watching our hypothetical swimmer drown. Do we really want to encourage these rare individuals to passively allow others to come to harm? Because given the choice of putting their families at risk via the Registration Act, and simply leaving law enforcement to its own devices, I can't blame them.

StickMan
2006-09-05, 10:26 PM
Cap all the way. Come on just the risk to your family would not be worth it. Spidy will come around. Beside this whole thing will be over when reality is worped back. Ok this is my hope because all of the Mutant academy kids are getting killed off. Its time for some new heros so ether way if some old ones get killed off what ever.

Logic
2006-09-05, 10:57 PM
He ties them up and leaves them so the law can take care of them. If someone isn't breaking the law, he doesn't stop them. If they are breaking the law, he stops them. In my book, that's the definition of "enforcing the law". If he's not enforcing the law, then he has no right interfering in someone else's actions.
He stops people from hurting others. When you steal someones purse, you are hurting that individual financially. I dont think spiderman cares about jaywalkers and such. he cares about helping people, not enforcing the law.



There is a choice, if you don't want to work for the government, you give up being a superhero, simple as that.

No, the choice has been stated several times, register or face the consequences. Vigilante or not, hero or not, villian or not. REGISTER OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. That is the choice.

Falkus
2006-09-06, 07:00 PM
is everyone on the pro-reg side okay with the idea of superheroes being used for war?

Why not?


At what point does this logic break down?

A review of standing laws on vigiliantism and the good samaritan laws should tell you where the line is.

Foeofthelance
2006-09-06, 11:26 PM
Though being anite-reg, I don't see why the heroes being used for war is such a bad thing. Considering they have before (Cap has his start in WWII, Hulk is the result of a Weapons project, Wolverine has been through both world wars, most of Asia, and even a few African conflicts.) and the extent of their powers, they could pretty much make war extinct. Realistically, if Marvel didn;t try to maintain at least a little realism in their books, things would have been over long ago if the Hero Community was emploeyed as a weapon.

Think about it, how would Osama hide from Cerebro? What army would willingly want to tangle with the Avengers, let alone an individual division? The X-Men are already a trained Special Operations Strike team.

As for the laws on vigilantism and such, there is a minor difference: They take into account more then simple capture. They are meant to be enforced if say, Local Elks 934 decides to hunt down a rapist, find a guy, and string him up from the nearest tree with out benefit of trial, jury, appeals, etc.

It's the difference between Spiderman and the Punisher. When Parker fights the Green Goblin he beats the stuffing out of him, binds him in webbing, and leaves him dangling from the nearest lamp post for the cops to find. He does not read Osborn his Miranda rights, does fingerprint, etc. That is not his job. What he is doing is simply performing a Citizen's Arrest in a rather grand and spectacular manner. He may apprehend a villain for them, but the cops do proceed with full processing of Osborn once they have control over him.

Frank Castle on the other hand, simply blows the bad guys away. No judge, no jury, just point blank execution. He is the true vigilante, taking the laws into his own hand. The cops are just as eager to get their hands on Frank as they are to get the capos he kills.

So no, I won't support registration. I will support training, and perhaps psychological evaluations, but letting the government decide who's going to prevent the apocalypse, or worse yet, who is going to stop Apocalypse, no thank you.

twiztidbuddy
2006-09-07, 05:13 AM
Im with Cap completely. Alot of ppl have made reference to Crisis and since I didnt read any DC until the new Flash came out cant comment. But the registration act is stupid to say the least. Basically any meta-human can unmask, get trained and then PAID by the government. So now look at some of the meta's that were super-VILLIANS that now all of a sudden have become good guys?? Thats like crooked cops only worse. More like Crooked chiefs of police and mayors. All that needs to be done is keep the super-villians in prison. But if thats done what the hell are we gonna read about??

"This week in Wolverine origins we learn how to make ornate oragami with Logan"??

loial77
2006-09-07, 05:40 PM
Why not?

I realize that some countries have compulsory military service, and that in times of emergency the U.S. can compel civilians into service via the draft. *Regardless, I believe that coercing people into military service should be a last resort of a desperate nation, not a routine treatment of those born different. *We have a solid volunteer military that gives me the luxury of this point of view, for which I am grateful. *But let's look at it another way; what if everyone with an IQ higher than a threshold (e.g., 150) were forced into defense research? *Would you be comfortable with that?


A review of standing laws on vigiliantism and the good samaritan laws should tell you where the line is.

Foeofthelance addresses this better than I could, but if I let things like that stop me, I would never post. *Preventing a crime via nonlethal force, to the best of my knowledge, is not a crime, although I am not an expert on law outside of my own state. *As I recall, you may use nonlethal force to protect you against immediate threats to yourself or your property and that right transfers over to third parties. *You can use lethal force, if necessary, to protect yourself against an immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another. *I am skipping some nuance here (e.g., what is immediate, when does lethal force become necessary, what consistutes severe bodily harm), and I haven't studied this for awhile, but the above is basically accurate, depending on your jurisdiction. *Still, since I am no expert on criminal law, I ask that no one goes Frank Castle on neighborhood criminals based on this.

Also, for what it is worth, most Good Samaritan laws are safe harbors against civil liability, not criminal law restrictions. *The classic example is CPR; under appropriate circumstances in some jurisdictions, you cannot be held liable for the nonnegligent death or injury of an individual during an attempted rescue. *In fact, I like your example of where to draw the line. *If I have a useful ability (e.g., knowledge of CPR, the ability to stick to walls, eyebeams that require me to wear unfashionable eyeware, etc.) and I use it in an emergency, without explicit government authorization, to prevent a tragedy, not only am I not a criminal, I am protected from liability for any nonnegligent damage. *Sounds about right to me.

<Editted to note that this should not be taken as legal advice. *Please don't perfom CPR, shoot someone, or trip any purse snatchers based solely on this post. *Any statements of law are general at best, correct only to the best of my knowledge, and may not apply in the jurisdiction in which you are reading this. *Please do not operate heavy machinery while reading this post.>

Beleriphon
2006-09-07, 09:08 PM
<Editted to note that this should not be taken as legal advice. Please don't perfom CPR, shoot someone, or trip any purse snatchers based solely on this post. Any statements of law are general at best, correct only to the best of my knowledge, and may not apply in the jurisdiction in which you are reading this. Please do not operate heavy machinery while reading this post.>

On this point as well in Canada (not sure if this is still true) but if you make it known that you have certain skills that could save somebody and then don't use them, you could be held liable. For example I worked for a long time a lifeguard, and if I wore my uniform out when I wasn't working and something happened and I didn't help I could be held liable since I knew what to do, but didn't.

shadow_messanger
2006-09-09, 11:58 AM
at this point i think we should throw out the is it right idea more like can the gov enforce this superhero control act for each supporter that is powerd there are five that aren't for each willing hero there are villians willing to compromise to get rid of this law for each five laser weapon suits there is a hero cappable of destroying city's in a flash k people understand heck as i said villians are going to try and team up with non-gov hero's because this law comes out they have hero's with gov support after them and all the hero's working together not singlely or in small teams instead an army and a war that could shake not just america but the world to its knees and destroy all of existance!

Logic
2006-09-10, 12:47 AM
at this point i think we should throw out the is it right idea more like can the gov enforce this superhero control act for each supporter that is powerd there are five that aren't for each willing hero there are villians willing to compromise to get rid of this law for each five laser weapon suits there is a hero cappable of destroying city's in a flash k people understand heck as i said villians are going to try and team up with non-gov hero's because this law comes out they have hero's with gov support after them and all the hero's working together not singlely or in small teams instead an army and a war that could shake not just america but the world to its knees and destroy all of existance!
Holy crap. Care to add some puncuation to make that sentence make sense?

Dalius
2006-09-11, 04:35 PM
I realize that some countries have compulsory military service, and that in times of emergency the U.S. can compel civilians into service via the draft. *Regardless, I believe that coercing people into military service should be a last resort of a desperate nation, not a routine treatment of those born different. *We have a solid volunteer military that gives me the luxury of this point of view, for which I am grateful. *But let's look at it another way; what if everyone with an IQ higher than a threshold (e.g., 150) were forced into defense research? *Would you be comfortable with that?
No one said they were going to be forced into government work. The only example I've seen of coercion has been with Wonder Man, and that's not forcing him really. He's the one who broke the law, and they're offering him a pardon if he helps them out. He can refuse, and just pay the concequences of his actions. Sounds fair to me. But everyone else who is specifically doing work for the government is either doing so voluntarily(Iron Man, Spiderman, etc) or is being paid(DeadPool, etc).


Foeofthelance addresses this better than I could, but if I let things like that stop me, I would never post. *Preventing a crime via nonlethal force, to the best of my knowledge, is not a crime, although I am not an expert on law outside of my own state. *As I recall, you may use nonlethal force to protect you against immediate threats to yourself or your property and that right transfers over to third parties. *You can use lethal force, if necessary, to protect yourself against an immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another. *I am skipping some nuance here (e.g., what is immediate, when does lethal force become necessary, what consistutes severe bodily harm), and I haven't studied this for awhile, but the above is basically accurate, depending on your jurisdiction. *Still, since I am no expert on criminal law, I ask that no one goes Frank Castle on neighborhood criminals based on this.
This is all true, but only for scenarios you are forced into. It is *not* legal to go hunt down criminals and try to make citizen's arrests, or break into a criminal's home, beat them up, and hang them up for the cops. That's breaking and entering. If Doctor Octopus attacks you in the street, and you can fend him off and tie him up for the cops, that's fine. But busting into his lab, trashing his equipment, and hanging him out to dry is not fine, is illegal, and not protected under any of those laws.


Also, for what it is worth, most Good Samaritan laws are safe harbors against civil liability, not criminal law restrictions. *The classic example is CPR; under appropriate circumstances in some jurisdictions, you cannot be held liable for the nonnegligent death or injury of an individual during an attempted rescue. *In fact, I like your example of where to draw the line. *If I have a useful ability (e.g., knowledge of CPR, the ability to stick to walls, eyebeams that require me to wear unfashionable eyeware, etc.) and I use it in an emergency, without explicit government authorization, to prevent a tragedy, not only am I not a criminal, I am protected from liability for any nonnegligent damage. *Sounds about right to me.
That's silly. If Juggernaut is robbing a bank, and I shoot my eyelasers at him, and they miss and kill an 8 year old girl, I should damn well be held accountable for that. "Oops, I killed a little girl, but at least I saved a bunch of people their money and stopped a bad guy who potentially could have killed someone else!" is not, and should not be, a valid excuse.

loial77
2006-09-11, 04:47 PM
No one said they were going to be forced into government work. The only example I've seen of coercion has been with Wonder Man, and that's not forcing him really. He's the one who broke the law, and they're offering him a pardon if he helps them out. He can refuse, and just pay the concequences of his actions. Sounds fair to me. But everyone else who is specifically doing work for the government is either doing so voluntarily(Iron Man, Spiderman, etc) or is being paid(DeadPool, etc).

You are missing a bit of context there, as that was a specific response to a specific questions. To wit:



Finally, at least one registered hero (and I use the term loosely) has been ordered to attack and apprehend the head of another state, an act of war. So, is everyone on the pro-reg side okay with the idea of superheroes being used for war? That is leaving aside the "Fifty State Initiative" that appears to involve further misuse of super heroic resources. Given the track record of the Marvel Universe U.S. government, I wouldn't put it past them to use threats to heroes loved one's to control their actions.



Why not?

I stand by the point, however, that knowledge of the heroes identities is, in most cases, the power to coerce. After all, a hero doesn't have to pitch in on the war effort, but it would be so "unfortunate" if the identities of his/her loved ones were leaked to his/her archenemy while all of the other heroes were so occupied...



This is all true, but only for scenarios you are forced into. It is *not* legal to go hunt down criminals and try to make citizen's arrests, or break into a criminal's home, beat them up, and hang them up for the cops. That's breaking and entering. If Doctor Octopus attacks you in the street, and you can fend him off and tie him up for the cops, that's fine. But busting into his lab, trashing his equipment, and hanging him out to dry is not fine, is illegal, and not protected under any of those laws.

That is an interesting question, actually. It wouldn't come up easily in the real world, but presumably our hypothetical hero (hereinafter: Hypotherion, the Improbable Man) would have the right to break into Doc Oct's lab if he posed an immediate threat to the big H's or another's safety (e.g., he was about to poison a city's water supply, turn the world's population into apes, produce another Hansen album, etc.), and no authorites were available with the capacity to intervene. In the real world, the average Joe will never be the best choice to deal with a threat like that, so we will never hit the "necessary" and "immediate" thresholds to justify the action. With superpowered threats and comic book villany, however, a villian can be an immediate threat of severe bodily harm without ever leaving his/her lair. In this case, a permissible course of action for Hypotherion may very well be "busting into his lab, trashing his equipment, and hanging him out to dry" rather than allowing the poisoning/ape transformation/album distribution to take place.


That's silly. If Juggernaut is robbing a bank, and I shoot my eyelasers at him, and they miss and kill an 8 year old girl, I should damn well be held accountable for that. "Oops, I killed a little girl, but at least I saved a bunch of people their money and stopped a bad guy who potentially could have killed someone else!" is not, and should not be, a valid excuse.

Clearly you have no understanding of physics. If you shoot your eyelasers at the unstoppable Juggernaut, who can take a punch from the Hulk, they are powerful enough you knock him back. But if you are jostled, and these incredible eye lasers hit your friend "Winged Man," they will merely stun him briefly. You see, while eyebeams can bore through a mountain when the plot requires, they are never lethal, even when inadvertantly hitting the wrong target. :D

Getting back to your actual point, I would like to point out that I did say "nonnegligently." A hero would have to meet a reasonable person standard. If Hypotherion opens up with his eye lasers into a crowd of people to stop the Juggernaut, he has not acted reasonably. Presumably, the reasonable course of action would be to follow the Juggernaut to a less populated area to attempt to recover the money unless he becomes a direct threat to someone's life. If Hypotherion acts reasonably and an eight year old girl is killed by his acts, than no, I do not believe that liability should attach. That is accountability; act reasonably and be protected, or act negligently and become a criminal.
You also seem to imply that it is never worth risking an innocent life to stop a felony that threatens only property. By this standard, even police should never engage felons who aren't currently committing battery or murder. Ignoring all of the emotional appeals (e.g., the eight year olds girl vs. cold cash contrast), we can judge superheroed negligence by the same risk-benefit approach that has been used to mundane negligence for over a century. I don't see a problem.

Falkus
2006-09-11, 10:02 PM
I stand by the point, however, that knowledge of the heroes identities is, in most cases, the power to coerce. After all, a hero doesn't have to pitch in on the war effort, but it would be so "unfortunate" if the identities of his/her loved ones were leaked to his/her archenemy while all of the other heroes were so occupied..

Checks and balances. Checks and balances. All good governments have them. Otherwise, if you follow this line of thought, it can only lead you to anarchy, because your argument, expanded logically, means you can't trust the government with anything.


and no authorites were available with the capacity to intervene.

The authorities should have capacity to intervene. Superheros should be government agents, not freelance vigilantes.


If Hypotherion acts reasonably and an eight year old girl is killed by his acts, than no, I do not believe that liability should attach.

Why not? It does in real life.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-12, 08:30 AM
Anyone remembered that BEFORE it became official they were trying to set up teams to enforces registration?

The only reason it has issues is because not everyone is agreeing with it.

As for checks and balances, so a government which has proven itself to ignore any checks if it feels like it should be trusted to use internal checks and balances to not misuse its power?

You are talking about good governments have them, the US governement in the Marvel universe is not exactly something that really is too bothered about using excessive force to deal with something.

Sentinel programs anyone?
Hiring known villains because they have 'redeemed' themselves and giving them card blanche to handle issues?
Assassinating people whenever they are in the way of some mission?
Backing, funding and otherwise covering for black ops which specifically use torture and slavery (only to 'denonce' them when they get caught red-handed.)?

But then of course acts of war against other countries are perfectly legal and lawfull so who is going to be bothered about another Genosha.
Just a minor thing besides acts of war.

Don't forget, Shield is specifically aiming to bring people into line.
What happened to the people who were either neutral or refused?
Most are under direct government supervision and in all but name prisoners or have had to leave the country (voluntary exile or not quite so voluntary).

The Xavier institute massacres where government agents pretty much stood by and watched?

loial77
2006-09-12, 06:00 PM
Checks and balances. Checks and balances. All good governments have them. Otherwise, if you follow this line of thought, it can only lead you to anarchy, because your argument, expanded logically, means you can't trust the government with anything.

I think you are seeing a slippery slope that isn't there. The result of limiting the reach of government power is not necessarily anarchy. For example, the Bill of Rights prevents any branch of the U.S. government from assuming certain powers, regardless of the checks and balances in place among the various branches. I am just stating that complusory registration of superpowered individuals provides an unnecessarily dangerous amount of power to the government to coerce those heroes. And that isn't even getting into the history of the Marvel U.S. government, which is less than reassuring.



The authorities should have capacity to intervene. Superheros should be government agents, not freelance vigilantes.

If they volunteer, sure. And if enough of them join law enforcement to provide that capacity, allowing vigiliantism would become as undesirable as it is in the real world. If you are calling for compulsory service for powered indiviudals, I repeat my earlier question: Would you be comfortable with the idea of forcing everyone with an IQ higher than a threshold (e.g., 150) into government service?


Why not? It does in real life.

If I attempted to save someone using CPR, acted reasonably, and failed, under the Good Samaritan act I would not be liable. I am just taking the standard you suggested and applying it to another form of unauthorized citizen aid.

StickMan
2006-09-12, 09:25 PM
Ok one good reason that super heros should not be used for war. It just happen look at the power of scarlet witch she rewrote the world. Or Prof. X he could take the minds of every one on earth if he wanted to. If the goverment so willed it what would stop these people from taking over if some corupt offical abuses that power and no private super is there to relize somthing is messed up.

Captain America is the true america hero.

Dalius
2006-09-14, 06:09 PM
I think you are seeing a slippery slope that isn't there. *The result of limiting the reach of government power is not necessarily anarchy. *For example, the Bill of Rights prevents any branch of the U.S. government from assuming certain powers, regardless of the checks and balances in place among the various branches. *I am just stating that complusory registration of superpowered individuals provides an unnecessarily dangerous amount of power to the government to coerce those heroes. *And that isn't even getting into the history of the Marvel U.S. government, which is less than reassuring.
Sorry about the context issue earlier, I was responding to several posts on that topic and yours was the one I wanted to respond to in general, so there. :P

And it's not giving them much more power than they already had as far as coercion. They could have still just as easily offered Wonder Man his get-out-of-tax-evasion-or-whatever-it-was-free card without registration. Yes, now they have identities, but even given their mistakes in the past, it's not the type of institution to say "okay spiderman, go blast some iraqis for us or we kill aunt may".

And one more point I'd like to bring up, as this has been a topic of discussion before: If you haven't read the new Ms. Marvel that came out yesterday, do so. There's a little speech by a 16 year old girl in that book that pretty much nails the argument of why superpowered individuals can't just sit down and say "I'm just not going to use my powers anymore." I've never been a big fan of the Ms. Marvel series, but I really enjoyed that book.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-15, 05:26 AM
<<<Yes, now they have identities, but even given their mistakes in the past, it's not the type of institution to say "okay spiderman, go blast some iraqis for us or we kill aunt may">>>

Hum, you sure you are not mixing up US government in our world instead of US governement in the Marvel universe?

Just check all the Weapon X story lines...

McDeath
2006-09-16, 03:01 AM
So, the storyline is about a superhero registration act inspired by a superhero killing a bunch of people accidentally? Well, I might be wrong, but...

How does putting the supers on the governkment payroll eliminate this possibility? There is still room for error and bad judgement on their part. It seems more like the politicians taking the opportunity to put the Act forward while there is negative feeling towards supers, and people have temporarily forgotten the the supers SAVE THE WORLD'S ASS THREE TIMES A WEEK. Hem.

Falkus
2006-09-16, 09:33 AM
How does putting the supers on the governkment payroll eliminate this possibility?

By making them accountable for their actions.


and people have temporarily forgotten the the supers SAVE THE WORLD'S ASS THREE TIMES A WEEK. Hem.

Oh well, when you put it like that, I'm sure that the innocent people who got killed would have been happy to lay down their lives, and that the families of the victims understand why nothing is being done to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-09-16, 09:53 AM
Yup and car producers, alcohol producers and tobacco producers should be forced to register, have their family and friends made available public while being subject to enforced military service.

After all all of those kill tens of thousands people every year and you would want people which have suffered from them to be able to be protected...

/sarcasm off.

The problem is that you equate controll by the governement with making them accountable for their actions.
Tobacco and alcohol anyone?

Controll by governement yet does that make the companies directly accountable?

Nope, the governement gets something out of it.
The same would be happening there, they will cover up if it is in their favour.

Foeofthelance
2006-09-16, 01:14 PM
Actually, it was a villian who "accidentally" blew up several hundred innocent civilians. Yet somehow it all ended up being blamed on the heroes, because it was a B rank team filming a reality TV program.

Because if it had been the Avengers who had been fighting him, it would have made it sooo much better. :P

McDeath
2006-09-16, 06:40 PM
The government often isn't held accountable; for instance, by all rights the invasion of Iraq was an international crime. Any action? Nah. And of course, the worst ****-ups by the government are the ones we never hear about.

Damn, politics. Please take that as an example and not political discussion.

Beleriphon
2006-09-17, 12:30 AM
Here's a wonder, if all the supers are employeed by the government, couldn't they form a union. Then you know, go on strike. That would be good times, seeing a bunch of superheros picketing SHIELD headquarters.

Ing
2006-09-17, 12:36 AM
Here's a wonder, if all the supers are employeed by the government, couldn't they form a union. Then you know, go on strike. That would be good times, seeing a bunch of superheros picketing SHIELD headquarters.

In the US goverment employees arn't allowed to strike

McDeath
2006-09-17, 01:42 AM
Why not?

And yes, a super strike would be good stuff.

Logic
2006-09-17, 02:34 AM
MOST government contracts have a no strike clause. Not all. It could still be pulled off by supers. Since the only thing the government has the LEGAL authority to do is fine them for not working.

loial77
2006-09-19, 01:09 PM
Sorry about the context issue earlier, I was responding to several posts on that topic and yours was the one I wanted to respond to in general, so there. :P

And it's not giving them much more power than they already had as far as coercion. They could have still just as easily offered Wonder Man his get-out-of-tax-evasion-or-whatever-it-was-free card without registration. Yes, now they have identities, but even given their mistakes in the past, it's not the type of institution to say "okay spiderman, go blast some iraqis for us or we kill aunt may".

I am not sure about that. Hill has ordered SHIELD agents to attack Cap when he refused to hunt down other superheroes. Note that he agreed to comply with the act (and in fact, was already in compliance), but did not want to take an active role in hunting down his colleagues. Tony Stark sicced a mercenary on his protégé just to ensure the Registration Act would be passed. Hill and the pro-reg's aren't at all shy about using dubious means to coerce heroes into working for the government. The idea of "Do this job, or Doc Oct might learn about Aunt May" doesn't seem too far fetched to me. And that is simply the actual government. Imagine trying to protect this information in a world of shapechangers and telepaths. Although I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for a telepath to learn someone's identity regardless. I wonder why that has never come up. Some otherwise C-list telepath could make a mint determining a selling heroes' identities.

Getting back to the topic, many methods of coercion are simplified or enabled by knowing the heroes' identities. For example, Jessica Jones's daughter is effectively being used as bait to recapture her. The above "work for me, or Aunt may gets it" line of persuasion is also reliant on knowledge of the heroes' identities. So I still believe this is dangerous


And one more point I'd like to bring up, as this has been a topic of discussion before: If you haven't read the new Ms. Marvel that came out yesterday, do so. There's a little speech by a 16 year old girl in that book that pretty much nails the argument of why superpowered individuals can't just sit down and say "I'm just not going to use my powers anymore." I've never been a big fan of the Ms. Marvel series, but I really enjoyed that book.

I have read it, and I liked the speech. It is the first good moment for the pro-reg side in quite awhile, after a relatively balanced opening to the series. Still, while I agree that it verges on immorality to watch someone be hurt while you could easily prevent it, submit to the Registration Act or let people die is an artificially imposed choice. Her point is just as valid without government control of the supers.




By making them accountable for their actions.

Because superpowered beings couldn't be held accountable for their actions prior to the act. That's why no supervillian had ever stood trial and been imprisoned. And why none of the four heroes involved in the Stamford incident have been punished. You know, except for the whole inceneration thing.


Oh well, when you put it like that, I'm sure that the innocent people who got killed would have been happy to lay down their lives, and that the families of the victims understand why nothing is being done to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Well, considering the heroes' track record, saving everyone in the world multiple times vs. a few hundred deaths seems reasonably fair given the alternative. How about this: the heroes retire to avoid future incidents and let the next planet leveling threat take out six billion instead of six hundred. A tragedy is a tragedy, but should one incidence of poor judgement from four heroes result in the villification of all of them. And remember, the heroes in question paid rather severely for their mistake.

Ing
2006-09-19, 06:02 PM
Isn't Doc Oct and a bunch of villians working for the goverment now?

loial77
2006-09-19, 09:15 PM
Isn't Doc Oct and a bunch of villians working for the goverment now?



Yeah, they have been captured and pressed into service by the Thunderbolts as part of a competition between Zemo and the Grandmaster. Probably the strangest of the Civil War storylines.

Ing
2006-09-19, 09:36 PM
Yeah, they have been captured and pressed into service by the Thunderbolts as part of a competition between Zemo and the Grandmaster. Probably the strangest of the Civil War storylines.

Dosn't anyone see a problem with letting Supervillians into the goverment.

It's like giving goverment positions to the nazi's after WWII.

So clearly this is not about acountability it is about power

McDeath
2006-09-22, 06:46 AM
The registration act, if we consider it realistically, is probably the result of:
a) Politicians wanting to look like they are doing something after a national tragedy
b) Those with grudges against supers coming out at an opportune moment
c) Some who believe registration is a good idea
d) A few who merely want to stand out from the crowd in something, politically

Foeofthelance
2006-09-22, 07:16 PM
So #4 is out. Let us begin.


Spoilers
















Well, the fight picks up right were it left off. Everything is normal as the Pro Reg side beats down on the Anti Reg side. Iron Man continues to demand Caps surrender, and everyoe gets flattened when Tony uses a neural stunner on the "bad guys". Herc intervenes, the escape begins.

And a Thor clone kills Goliath. Point blank, through the chest with a lighteningbolt. End of Goliath. Sure? They bury him several pages later.

So the fight stops as every one is stunned, the Thor clone proceeds to try and off the rest, only to be stopped by Sue Storm.

Later Devolopments:
-Reed is now suspicious of spiderman due to Peter's reaction to Goliath's death.
-Sue and Johnny have left the FF for Caps side.
-Several abandoned Cap's side, but even more left Ironman's.
-Goliath is dead.
-They're still turning out more clones, and they're about to unleash the villians on Cap's side.

So, registration now involves making killer super hero clones, and siccing them on the other heroes. The government has no problem with this. Tony Stark is still charging forward, with Reed Richards alongside of him.

Now, outside of the real world arguments, would the folks who have sided with the Pro Reg side up to now continue to do so? Seeing as how it's caused even more destruction, as well as the death(s) of several heroes already? And will probably cost many more?

ZombieWomble
2006-09-22, 10:46 PM
So, I was quite interested in this event, as it actually seemed they were going to take a shot at making a comic book storyline which had actual complexity and depth, rather than a stark black and white "Get the bad guy!" type storyline.

I was quite firmly on the pro-registration side, as almost every 'bad' use of the act we've seen up until fairly recently had been something which could have (or indeed has) happened in the past - things like superheroes being pressed into serving government agencies, or a risk that the hero/their family will be at risk and so on are not really made that much more likely with the act than without, all things considered (lets face it, in the case of many superheroes, their identities are only shielded by a wall of plot). Weighing that up against the benefits of an actual organised super-hero force, the choice seemed pretty obvious.

And then the recent set of events happened (mostly covered in the post above). The pro-act side seems to have been rapidly transformed from a group of people with a belief in the law and a feeling that it should be followed, even if you disagree, to ludicrous caricatures engaging in "comic book villain" devices of the lowest order. None of their actions in recent books make sense, and I'm almost afraid this event is going to end up with some sort of ludicrous "It was all orchestrated by *insert arbitrarily nasty being here*!" "surprise ending".

That said, I would still fully in support of the act - none of the evils enacted in these books were the result of the act, as they seem to have little to no relation to the actual text of the act; rather they are the product of the baffling behavior of its enforcers, which has totally distorted the potential for real, rational treatment of the issue.

My faith in the writers to create an storyline with genuine depth and complexity without an obvious right and wrong is plunging, and I am almost dreading what developments they have in store.

(Also, hey, first post.)

Dalius
2006-09-25, 09:55 AM
Now, outside of the real world arguments, would the folks who have sided with the Pro Reg side up to now continue to do so?
Yup, I sure do. ZombieWomble makes a very valid point above this one; I still fully support the act, just not necessarily the recent actions of Tony Stark and the Gang.

I'll admit, my faith in Tony has been shaken considerably after these new developments. I don't want to see anyone killed. Then again, I don't think Tony wants to see anyone killed either. Both sides are making big mistakes here; neither Cap nor Stark is thinking clearly about their actions. Cap didn't seem too broken up over the loss. In fact, he has made it clear that he is willing to sacrifice everyone for this fight.

I agree there are some causes worth dying for. This, however, is not one of them. The Act is very reasonable; they're not asking for their first born, they're asking for them to sign a list, receive a paycheck, maybe occasionally do a little work for the government in return for the paycheck, and at the same time you will be trained, coordinated with all other registered heroes, protected by the government in possible future legal actions, be given access to a wealth of resources you may never have had access to before, and still get to whip some bad-guy butt(maybe even more than before). On top of all that, you're also giving the entire country some comfort; knowing that their superheroes are capable of gathering and working together to help make this country safer. You'd have the entire country, both government and populace, backing your actions. You'd truly be a hero of America.

Isn't all that worth a small concession? Collossus gave his life to save his friends. Why won't Captain America even give an inch to save his?

Beleriphon
2006-09-25, 04:32 PM
I agree there are some causes worth dying for. This, however, is not one of them. The Act is very reasonable; they're not asking for their first born,


But they are. If a hero has kids then the kids are registered by default. Its not a "sign up for hero work here" its a "sign up for hero work, plus your kids, and your wife, and your old granny, or we kick your formerly heroic ass". If the heros had a choice between retiring and sign up thats one thing, but forcing people to reveal themselves with no other recourse is just wrong. Thats what Cap is fighting for, he doesn't want the government to have default access just because of who somebody is.

As it stands this is just as bad as the concept of the Mutant Registration Act, which was a mutant=registrant. That is inherently wrong, targetting a specific group of people to be registered for anything by virtue of their birth, or the course of theif life.

Dalius
2006-09-25, 05:01 PM
But they are. If a hero has kids then the kids are registered by default. Its not a "sign up for hero work here" its a "sign up for hero work, plus your kids, and your wife, and your old granny, or we kick your formerly heroic ass". If the heros had a choice between retiring and sign up thats one thing, but forcing people to reveal themselves with no other recourse is just wrong. Thats what Cap is fighting for, he doesn't want the government to have default access just because of who somebody is.

As it stands this is just as bad as the concept of the Mutant Registration Act, which was a mutant=registrant. That is inherently wrong, targetting a specific group of people to be registered for anything by virtue of their birth, or the course of theif life.
How is this any different than social security numbers? The government has always kept track of their citizens in one way or another. It's all about liability and accountability. Just because you put on a mask does not mean the law/government shouldn't be able to trace your actions back to you.

A superhero's kid is already going to be "registered" when they get him/her a social security card. If he/she has superpowered abilities, then they want to know that also, as well as any alter-identities they eventually operate under. Why is that such a huge deal? Why doesn't Captain America fight against social security numbers? Or driver's license registration? Or taxes? If you want to work, drive, or live in the United States, they want to know about you, why not add "fight crime" to the list? I'd say that's not only reasonable, but responsible.

Jack_Banzai
2006-09-25, 05:16 PM
How is this any different than social security numbers? The government has always kept track of their citizens in one way or another. It's all about liability and accountability. Just because you put on a mask does not mean the law/government shouldn't be able to trace your actions back to you.

A superhero's kid is already going to be "registered" when they get him/her a social security card. If he/she has superpowered abilities, then they want to know that also, as well as any alter-identities they eventually operate under. Why is that such a huge deal? Why doesn't Captain America fight against social security numbers? Or driver's license registration? Or taxes? If you want to work, drive, or live in the United States, they want to know about you, why not add "fight crime" to the list? I'd say that's not only reasonable, but responsible.

Your point would be valid if it weren't for supervillains. Having information like that on file is just asking for trouble. As if Doctor Doom, Doc Ock or any other 'smart' villain would have any trouble hacking into the appropriate computer, or inserting a sleeper agent (Mystique, Chameleon, etc.) into a position where they can wreak havoc on the hero's life, a la Kingpin vs. Matt Murdock a couple decades back. The only alternative is living under constant lock and key like Mary Jane and Aunt May.

You wouldn't even need Mystique or Chameleon. The Red Skull has been involved with the U.S. government so many times that he could have all manner of back doors and secret handshakes at his disposal.

comicshorse
2006-09-25, 07:56 PM
But if you're going to assume villains want that, then why don't they just hire a team of agents to watch the area where the hero patrols, follow them home and bingo no more secret identity.
Spiderman may be o.k. with his spider-sense but specialist agents with long-range survelliance gear will nail most heroes.
Most villains either don't care or want to beat their nemesis in a fair battle in public, so they can gloat about their victory.
If the villains want to find the heroes I.D. and are preparted to spend enough time and money they will. At least with the registration the heroes will have the resources of the government to help protect them and their loved ones.
On a seperate note I agree with ZombieWomble the New Thunderbolts seemed designed to bury the Registration act. How exactly is a genius like Tony Stark meant to think turning sociopaths like Bullseye loose is a good idea. A brain damaged weevil could see giving these guys a licence to hunt down their enemies is a disaster waiting to happen.

Falkus
2006-09-25, 09:09 PM
Your point would be valid if it weren't for supervillains. Having information like that on file is just asking for trouble. As if Doctor Doom, Doc Ock or any other 'smart' villain would have any trouble hacking into the appropriate computer, or inserting a sleeper agent (Mystique, Chameleon, etc.) into a position where they can wreak havoc on the hero's life, a la Kingpin vs. Matt Murdock a couple decades back. The only alternative is living under constant lock and key like Mary Jane and Aunt May.

Super villains have never had much trouble finding out these things in the past. Hell, kidnappoing and threatening the loved one of a superhero is a cliche.

Foeofthelance
2006-09-26, 12:17 AM
Difference between Social Security and Registry:

Social Security Number: You pay X amount of taxes. Then you retire. Then the government pays you X amount of money.

Registration: You are born/inherit/acquire/industrial accident super powers. You are now the government's tool. You cooperate when and if they ask, and promptly.

I have to pay taxes. Doesn't mean I have to jump at the government's beck an call, just not make a uisance of myself. The powers? Ask Mr. Marvel (Wonderman? I don't remember.) if registration isn't a forced draft.

Beleriphon
2006-09-26, 01:01 AM
A superhero's kid is already going to be "registered" when they get him/her a social security card. If he/she has superpowered abilities, then they want to know that also, as well as any alter-identities they eventually operate under. Why is that such a huge deal? Why doesn't Captain America fight against social security numbers? Or driver's license registration? Or taxes? If you want to work, drive, or live in the United States, they want to know about you, why not add "fight crime" to the list? I'd say that's not only reasonable, but responsible.

Social security numbers are way to prove citizenship, it provides certain benefits to all citizens. A forced registration of you and your family based on genetics is totally different. The forced registration is as bad as racial profiling.

It isn't just the costumed heros the registration act encompasses, it includes all persons with superhuman abilities regardless of who they are or what they intend to do. I could be a butcher that can project flames, but even if I never fight crime, or run around in my underwear blasting people I'm registered. Thus the issue Cap is fighting over. He has no problem with heros being registered, he has a problem with every person that superhuman abilities being registered.

To use a specific example. Say Peter Parker's kid is part of the registration, because Pete has superpowers. Pete's kid has superpowers too, huzzah for Spider-kid! But wait our Spider-kid never uses his powers until the day that the government calls him up and says, "Hey, Spider-kid you need to go use your superpowers for us or we'll throw you in prison." Thats why Cap doesn't like the registration, at a basic level it goes against so much that the United States is supposed to stand for.

Falkus
2006-09-26, 01:22 PM
Doesn't mean I have to jump at the government's beck an call

Actually, if you're an American, you do. What do you think it meant when you had to register with the Selective Service System? If the government so desired, it can require you to perform military service.


if registration isn't a forced draft.

Conscription is legal in the United States. It always has been.

Dalius
2006-09-26, 01:49 PM
It isn't just the costumed heros the registration act encompasses, it includes all persons with superhuman abilities regardless of who they are or what they intend to do. I could be a butcher that can project flames, but even if I never fight crime, or run around in my underwear blasting people I'm registered. Thus the issue Cap is fighting over. He has no problem with heros being registered, he has a problem with every person that superhuman abilities being registered.
In Ms. Marvel #7, Arańa was given the choice to either continue to use her powers and register, or not use her powers.

In Front Line #2, Firestar chose to retire instead of register.

So no, just because you have abilities does NOT mean you have to register. It just means you have to register if you want to use them. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Ing
2006-09-26, 02:03 PM
Actually, if you're an American, you do. What do you think it meant when you had to register with the Selective Service System? If the government so desired, it can require you to perform military service.


Conscription is legal in the United States. It always has been.


And many people think the draft is unlawful and fight agianst it when it comes into play. In fact everytime there has been a draft it has been marked by classism (rich are able to escape the draft) and voilent resistence (Civil War, WWII, WWI, and of course the Cold War satalite wars all saw draft offices being attacked, picketed or burned down)

loial77
2006-09-26, 06:20 PM
In Ms. Marvel #7, Arańa was given the choice to either continue to use her powers and register, or not use her powers.

In Front Line #2, Firestar chose to retire instead of register.

So no, just because you have abilities does NOT mean you have to register. It just means you have to register if you want to use them. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Yet Cap became a criminal when he refused to track down other heroes, despite the fact that he was registered prior to the act. *So, apparently, at least some elements of the government believe that the Act is more than a simple registration. *Also, I still argue that knowledge of the heroes' identities gives the government significant leeway to control the heroes. *As has been discussed above, the track record for Marvel's U.S. government is abyssmal. *Even without the revelations of Civil War #4, a central database of heroic identities is a disaster waiting to happen.

From a earlier post, although I was too lazy to quote it properly (Editted to note that I am referring to the quote time stamp. The content is not changed.)

I agree there are some causes worth dying for. This, however, is not one of them. The Act is very reasonable; they're not asking for their first born, they're asking for them to sign a list, receive a paycheck, maybe occasionally do a little work for the government in return for the paycheck, and at the same time you will be trained, coordinated with all other registered heroes, protected by the government in possible future legal actions, be given access to a wealth of resources. *

I ask again, would you approve of a law that forces everyone with an IQ greater than 150 to work for the government? *After all, all of those conscripted geniuses would "receive a paycheck, maybe occasionally do a little work for the government in return for the paycheck, and at the same time .... be trained ....[and] given access to a wealth of resources." *Geniuses are born different as well. *Unchecked, they can also cause disaster. *I am sure that a significant amount of economic damage has been done by dishonest people within this category. *(fraud, computer crimes, etc.). *I also remember a story of a particularly clever (if you call exposing yourself to massive amounts of radiation "clever") Boy Scout nearly constructing a nuclear pile from smoke alarms and glow-in-the-dark paint. *Shouldn't the intellectually gifted have to lend their talents to the government or be prevented from using them to avoid this possibility? *After all, if we wait and only go after the people who abuse their abilities, the next genius may succeed in building a nuclear pile that endangers hundreds of people, and we can't risk that. *

Dalius
2006-09-26, 09:14 PM
Yet Cap became a criminal when he refused to track down other heroes, despite the fact that he was registered prior to the act. *So, apparently, at least some elements of the government believe that the Act is more than a simple registration. *Also, I still argue that knowledge of the heroes' identities gives the government significant leeway to control the heroes. *As has been discussed above, the track record for Marvel's U.S. government is abyssmal. *Even without the revelations of Civil War #4, a central database of heroic identities is a disaster waiting to happen.

From a earlier post, although I was too lazy to quote it properly (Editted to note that I am referring to the quote time stamp. *The content is not changed.)
No, Captain America became a criminal because of several other reasons. To start with, they were going to arrest him because he is already an agent of the government, and was refusing a direct order. Then, he assaulted a ton of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, resisted arrest, hijacked a plane(even though he brought it back), then went underground to form a resistance to a government act. THAT is why he is a criminal.

Logic
2006-09-27, 06:56 AM
Technichally, Captain America's service to his country ended in 1945. He is not still under contract to do as SHEILD says, he just does so out of free will.

Falkus
2006-09-27, 10:45 AM
And many people think the draft is unlawful and fight agianst it when it comes into play.

That's besides the point. The point here is that the idea of required service (which isn't even part of the registration act, as Dalius pointed out) is not inconsistent with the United States legal code.

loial77
2006-09-27, 12:41 PM
No, Captain America became a criminal because of several other reasons. To start with, they were going to arrest him because he is already an agent of the government, and was refusing a direct order. Then, he assaulted a ton of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, resisted arrest, hijacked a plane(even though he brought it back), then went underground to form a resistance to a government act. THAT is why he is a criminal.

As Logic Vampire said, Cap, to my knowledge, freelances for SHIELD. *The whole idea of Cap being constrained to government service as part of the Super Soldier program was dealt with back during the John Walker* saga (issues 333-350, if I recall correctly...and yes, I am a geek). *Just to emphasize the history of the Marvel government, the whole incident (Cap. being forced to give back his SHIELD shield, pay back taxes, etc.) was a result of the Red Skull infiltrating the Commission on Superhuman affairs. *

So, Cap assaulted the SHIELD agents in self-defense when we was to be unjustly arrested. *Given Hill's attacks on the Avengers So, despite his compliance with the act, Cap became a criminal (e.g., subject to arrest) at the moment he refused to hunt down his former teammates.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_%28comics%29

<editted because the shiny metal circular thing is a shield not SHIELD>

Dalius
2006-09-27, 01:31 PM
So, Cap assaulted the SHIELD agents in self-defense when we was to be unjustly arrested. *Given Hill's attacks on the Avengers So, despite his compliance with the act, Cap became a criminal (e.g., subject to arrest) at the moment he refused to hunt down his former teammates.
I'm not buying this as a valid argument. You're probably right about Cap not being under contract anymore(and don't worry, we're all geeks), however that does not give him the right to do what he did. If you were pulled over by the police, and threatened to be arrested for something you didn't do, would you physically attack them, hide, and form an underground resistance of people dedicated to breaking laws and getting away with it? And if you did that, would you still think you did nothing wrong?

Perhaps they were wrong to try and arrest him. And I don't have my comics in front of me, but I don't know if he ever was registered. Not specifically for this act, anyway. So that was his first violation. Then assaulting officers, hijacking a plane, and leading a resistance of people dedicated to breaking a law and attacking those who enforce it.

That sounds pretty criminal to me.

Jack_Banzai
2006-09-27, 02:03 PM
You have to understand the era that Cap comes from. When he entered government service, during the latter part of World War II, he was fighting an enemy that forced registration upon its citizenry so that they could ultimately be collected and exterminated. Say what you will about Captain America, he has always embodied, to me, the "rugged individualism" prevalent in the attitudes of the founders of this country, and it doesn't surprise me at all that he would fight against an unjust law. I also don't think he would disagree that he is a criminal for breaking the law. Instead he probably sees himself as being forced into criminal acts in order to preserve liberty for his superpowered brethren.

comicshorse
2006-09-27, 09:39 PM
I'm pretty sure the era Cap came from had enforced draft to fight the war. Not to mention the imprisoning of all ( women and children to ) american citizens of japenese descent.

Foeofthelance
2006-09-27, 10:52 PM
There's the draft, then there's registration. The U.S. government instituted the draft after Pearl was attacked, and had entered a state of war. Which any nation is and should be fully entitled to do so. The Germans were rounding people up because they didn't fit a certain profile, and found it easier to bury them then to feed them.

Second, I believe Hill's Cape Killers shot first. Cap told them to stand down so he and Hill could keep talking, and she ordered them to fire. If a cop pulls you over, and you are innocent, and he still tries to shoot you...well, I won't blame a bloke for running off.

Third, a few clarifications on the status of the draft in the United States as we know it. There is registration for selective service. This is a protective act for the government, basically so they know who they can draw upon. The Constitution does allow for a draft. But only in times when it is needed. Hence the reason the draft has only been used during major wars. For something like the current situation, it would be nigh impossible to raise it again.

Now, for the Marvel world. Registration is a draft of its own sort. And a terribley worded one at that. Yes, it does require anyone who has powers to register. Yes, this does make them vulnerable to the beck and call of the Government. That has been stated in several comics. Even Stark acknowledges that the current format is a horrible idea. The only reason he supports it is so that it can be fixed. In Firestar's case she walked off with out much hulabaloo, so it is unlikely any one has made any effort to track her down. As for Arana, they were probably trying to avoid a big fight, as publicity has been a major problem for the Pro Reg side.

Logic
2006-09-27, 11:52 PM
Before he was a criminal, they tried to arrest him for not doing as they wished. That's wrong. Thats like arresting someone for excersising their right to vote, since Cap was only excersising his free will.

And it seems that the civil war stories are being told form multiple points of view, since all the portions I have read detail that those that are enhanced in any way, or were ever vigilantees must register, or go to jail. There has never been a "retire" clause for anyone, unless that is a SHEILD agent being nice on the spot.

Jack_Banzai
2006-09-28, 02:25 AM
I'm pretty sure the era Cap came from had enforced draft to fight the war. Not to mention the imprisoning of all ( women and children to ) american citizens of japenese descent.

No, really?

I live in Seattle. We still have people here who were actually in the internment camps. But thanks for the history lesson. If you can't see any definable difference between the Japanese internment camps and the German concentration camps then there's hardly any point in discussion with you, is there?

comicshorse
2006-09-28, 10:47 AM
O.K. at no point did I compare the japenese internment camps to german concentration camps. I really don't know where you got that idea from.
That's not to say I don't think the internemnt camps were not an injustice but coming as I do from the country that pretty much invented concentration camps ( England used them on Boer citizens during the Boer wars) I wasn't trying to take a superior moral stance. The point I was trying to make was that there has never really been a period of 'rugged individualism' governments have always had to weild a certain degree of power over their citizens in order to do the job of protecting them and mainitaining order.
The fascinating thing about the Registration debate is drawing the line where the government's powers become unreasonable and an actual threat to their citizens liberty.
I'd suggest you go back and read my post again.I never in anyway compared the internment camps to concentration camps. That would, as you pointed out, be riduculous.

ZombieWomble
2006-09-29, 11:10 AM
You know what's a terrible shame about this discussion? The proceedings of the US Government in the Marvel Universe are not open for our perusal. Actually seeing the text of this Act would be a wonderful thing, since as it stands the entire debate hinges on what the Act does and does not say - and, moreover, having it would let us work out which writers are dealing with it incorrectly.

As far as I've seen, the most significant point of the act is that you are not compelled to work with the US Government in any way, shape, or form - note how we see Wonder Man being blackmailed into working for Shield, rather than simply ordered to under the act. Other people have been told they have the choice to register with SHIELD, use their powers in defense of their country and in exchange get backup, training, and a paycheck, or simply retire and have nothing more to do with either SHIELD or their prior vigilante lives.
That given, it's illogical to compare it to a draft, because you don't have to work for them - you just have to work with the system if you want to go out and beat the crap out of people for a living. We wouldn't approve of a vigilante group who set out to replace the police force by loading themselves up with military-grade ordinance and dealing with problems 'their way' (I hope), I don't see why we should approve of these superheroes being given a similar leeway.
And if you're registered at birth, so what? As has been pointed out, every citizen is registered, and it would have absolutely no effect on Spider-kid's life if he chose to not be a super hero, but rather just use his powers to swing across town or whatever, since the act does not include mandatory government service.

Now, having said all that, we're back once again to the haphazard way this story has been implemented - many people seem to indicate that the act does indeed include mandatory government service, and there is the way it's enforcers behave.

With regard to the Captain America thing, it doesn't make any damn sense. Hill said (in the most recent issue of Captain America, the first 'Civil War' one) that she just wanted to know what side he was on, and prevent him becoming a symbol for the wrong one. Attempting to take him down in a fashion which gave him a fighting chance seems to be exactly the worst thing she could have done, and it has obviously failed miserably. On the other hand, had she informed him that the act was going into effect, and asked him to not get involved, for the sake of not causing further division, there's a good chance he would have agreed - especially given his comments to her about Super-heroes being above all this politics in the first issue of the Civil War series.
Captain America quietly complying with the registration act would have been a vastly more effective symbol than having him hunt down his fellow superheroes, and why Hill attempted to press this issue puzzles me no end.

Then again, that seems to be the theme for this event now - the softly-softly approach doesn't really seem to be the style of the people trying to enforce this act, what with teams of supervillains, extra-dimensional prisons to indefinately incarcerate people who don't comply, homocidal clones of missing Gods, and heaven knows what else.
Heck, they're even imprisoning people whose only power comes from some bit of gear or other (Prodigy, for one), instead of just taking away their toy, making a note of their identity, and turfing them out on the street. Baffling.

Given the portrayal of Stark in recent books, I am now even more firmly behind the idea that Stark has either gone mad, or is under the control of some external force - he's meant to be an intelligent man, but his actions seem solely dedicated to dooming the cause he claims to champion.

Jack_Banzai
2006-09-29, 01:45 PM
Maria Hill shows every sign of an employee rising in the ranks to a level of his/her own incompetence. I'm not surprised at all that she has botched up SHIELD's role in all of this.

Logic
2006-09-29, 05:57 PM
The most recent Spider-Woman is very powerful emotionally. I wont give any spoilers, but I think that it fits with her character.

And in the interest of this debate we have here, we need to find out exactly what The Act states, and its consequences. Nothing I have read thus far gives any super's the option to leave the country or retire.

comicshorse
2006-09-29, 08:41 PM
Hill was appointed director of SHIELD following Fury going on the run at the end of the 'Secret Wars' story.
In the scene where she is briefed by the President she points out that there are several more experienced SHIELD operatives and the President basically says yes but were sure you will remember who your friends are.
It would be ironic if the whole registration act is screwed up by a political appointee who doesn't have the experience to actually do the job.
I hope that is the reason for Hill's incompetent handling of Cap I'll be very disapointed if it turns out to be all a plot of the Red Skull.

Beleriphon
2006-09-29, 10:16 PM
The most recent Spider-Woman is very powerful emotionally. I wont give any spoilers, but I think that it fits with her character.

And in the interest of this debate we have here, we need to find out exactly what The Act states, and its consequences. Nothing I have read thus far gives any super's the option to leave the country or retire.

Exactly my point. Nobody has been given an option to retire. Most of the heros that have "retired" have done so on their own, and in such a way to suggest that trying to persue them would end badly for all involved. Take Dr Strange for isntance. I doubt that SHIELD, and a whole armada of superpowered attackers could stop him. He doesn't become involve since he has more important things to do with his time. Things like save the world.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-01, 07:56 AM
Hill was appointed director of SHIELD following Fury going on the run at the end of the 'Secret Wars' story.
In the scene where she is briefed by the President she points out that there are several more experienced SHIELD operatives and the President basically says yes but were sure you will remember who your friends are.
It would be ironic if the whole registration act is screwed up by a political appointee who doesn't have the experience to actually do the job.
I hope that is the reason for Hill's incompetent handling of Cap I'll be very disapointed if it turns out to be all a plot of the Red Skull.

Agreed. I wonder if Nick Fury isn't going to come out of hiding at the end of all of this.

Foeofthelance
2006-10-01, 01:15 PM
Actually, Doctor Strange is the one person in all of Marveldom who doesn't have to register. THough they have't explained why. stark just told him they were willing to make an exception for him, and never mentioned it again.

Beleriphon
2006-10-01, 01:55 PM
Actually, Doctor Strange is the one person in all of Marveldom who doesn't have to register. THough they have't explained why. stark just told him they were willing to make an exception for him, and never mentioned it again.

Interesting. Perhaps because Strange is a powerful member of the Illumati then Stark, if that were the case it would explain a fair bit. Odder still, maybe Strange is actually the mastermind behind the whole thing, using it as some kind of Machiavellian plot to save the world from something terrible.

Ing
2006-10-01, 08:44 PM
Interesting. Perhaps because Strange is a powerful member of the Illumati then Stark, if that were the case it would explain a fair bit. Odder still, maybe Strange is actually the mastermind behind the whole thing, using it as some kind of Machiavellian plot to save the world from something terrible.


Or because Strange is too busy keeping Satan from eating the world with a soup spoon

Beleriphon
2006-10-01, 09:17 PM
Or because Strange is too busy keeping Satan from eating the world with a soup spoon

Eh, either way World War Hulk should put all of this silly Civil War business to an end quickly enough.

Dalius
2006-10-01, 11:50 PM
Or because Strange is too busy keeping Satan from eating the world with a soup spoon
Actually, I believe he's currently getting his own butt handed to him by Ghost Rider.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-02, 03:22 PM
Actually, I believe he's currently getting his own butt handed to him by Ghost Rider.

Well. He did get nailed with the Penance Stare, but I'm betting that the Sorcerer Supreme is not going to have his mind obliterated by it. Still, who knows. That's the thing about Ghost Rider; depending on the writer, sometimes he is portrayed as one of the most powerful of the Marvel pantheon and sometimes one of the lamest.

ravenkith
2006-10-03, 10:46 AM
POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I've got to admit: this storyline is blowing me away. It continues to get better.

But let us reflect on three things before we continue:
1. Marvel is in the business of selling comics
2. Heroes vs. Heroes gets boring after a while
3. Boredom = a drop in sales.

This too shall pass.

Inherent in the makeup of comic books is the inevitable return to the status quo: a few things might change permenantly, but eventually, it'll be heroes vs. villains again, because the readers like to see the good guys beating up the bad guys.

With this in mind, it becomes inevitable that there must be some eventual way out of the Civil War storyline, even as there was a way out of the Age of Apocalypse.

Always, the two likeliest ways for that to happen was for the Scarlet Witch to relent, and change the world back, thus eradicating the timeline that we saw throughout the Civil War storyline, or (and this is by far the more interesting option, to me) that the Act and subsequent actions of the proregistration people will turn out to have been nothing more than the results of expert manipulation.

In book 4, it is my considered opinion that the second option has clearly been chosen as a way to bring the Civil War Storyline to a close...and let's be honest, anyone who doesn't see it coming has to have their eyes firmly shut.

Between the stories found in the pages of Wolverine, Amazing Spiderman and the titular magazine itself alone, we find some very interesting inconsistencies in the behavior of Tony Stark in particular.

I won't get into specifics, but for those of you who are following along, let's just say that Stark does a pretty damn quick 180 from being extremely anti to being extremely pro.

That in itself wouldn't be that suspicious; comic book characters aren't noted for their stability of personality. Combine it with other indicators here and there though, and it all adds up to a very nasty picture.

The stunned, distant attitude of those who witness Goliath's fall, as well as Captain America's attitude post battle, all strike me as being very off-kilter for the key players involved.

In a universe where mind control is not only a possibility, but also a very unpleasant reality, a place where a being like the controller can use technology to perform his tricks, and super-science runs rampant, what kind of protections do the Avengers, the X-men, and the individual heroes of the world employ against such tactics?

Granted, the X-men had one of the most powerful mutant telepaths in the world watching their backs...but from what I can tell, that is very much past tense in this brave new world the Scarlet Witch has wrought.

Emma Frost and Rachel Summers aren't even in the same room that those who are in Xavier's league meet in...and even he had trouble with someone like the Shadow King, for instance.

You think the US government didn't pull apart the technology the controller was based off? You think they didn't tinker with it, keep the plans lying around somewhere handy where a villain could get his hands on it....say...the Red Skull, perhaps?

Do you honestly believe that Tony Stark would choose the members of the new thunderbolts to work for him in a delicate situation of his own free will?

All of them are hardened killers, also, I'd like to point out. Not an optimum choice for a group whose supposed to be helping to keep the peace.

Capekiller armor? I wonder who came up with that name?

Before I go, let me ask you this: How many people would you have to control to rule the US? How many would it take to get to Iron Man, living the lifestyle that he does?

What if the explosion at the school was nothing more than a pretext, designed to allow the Act to be brought up in congress?

Foeofthelance
2006-10-03, 09:13 PM
Capekiller was the term given them by Maria Hill, who has been noted is not exactly the most savvy political operator. Everyone involved has cringed at that name, at least any one with a sense of publicity. Then again the only reason she's running SHIELD at all is because the Gov. was tired of Fury and his honchos in charge.

Redghost
2006-10-03, 11:50 PM
I am on the side of father time. Cap came out of the deep freeze in what the sixties? FF has been around since then as has spiderman. Hulk is a cold war hero (Obviously just look at his origin story it has 1970 written all over it.) Iron man and nick fury are ex nam vets as is forge who you can use to then date the x-men (storm, wolverine, banshee, etc) Even with heros reborn Marvel Heros are getting a tad stale. I am glad about the way Ironman has been spun. I am glad they have shaken up the character abit. I have always thought it would be great to make him a villian. I guess what I want out of this story line is a tpk for the avengers and marvel and for them to start with a couple of young fresh characters trying to fill the shoes of giants. Maybe I just like the fact that DC heroes have a sort of majisty to them. Even Green arrow can be majestic and a womanizing jerk at the same time. hmmm But more on topic I hope they end it with more heros underground fighting both evil and the injustice of society.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-04, 01:58 PM
I am on the side of father time. Cap came out of the deep freeze in what the sixties? FF has been around since then as has spiderman. Hulk is a cold war hero (Obviously just look at his origin story it has 1970 written all over it.) Iron man and nick fury are ex nam vets as is forge who you can use to then date the x-men (storm, wolverine, banshee, etc) Even with heros reborn Marvel Heros are getting a tad stale. I am glad about the way Ironman has been spun. I am glad they have shaken up the character abit. I have always thought it would be great to make him a villian. I guess what I want out of this story line is a tpk for the avengers and marvel and for them to start with a couple of young fresh characters trying to fill the shoes of giants. Maybe I just like the fact that DC heroes have a sort of majisty to them. Even Green arrow can be majestic and a womanizing jerk at the same time. hmmm But more on topic I hope they end it with more heros underground fighting both evil and the injustice of society.

Therein lies my problem with DC. Marvel relies on willing suspension of disbelief instead of the countless retcons inflicted on the readers by DC.

Tawkis
2006-10-04, 04:55 PM
I think Marvel wants us to root for the underdogs... It seems like noone WANTS the law, they're only really behind it because they are superheroes and are meant to follow the law. Plus people like Iron Man and Mr Fantastic are being painted as pretty callous when they are referring to what needs to be done. *

* Obviously, since Iron Man really hasn't had his "say" yet. *He only looks sympathetic twice thus far.

* However, I side with Iron Man. *Cable and Deadpool #31 has the best reasons for the registration. *It's not the Daredevils and spidermans that are the problem, it's the Iron Man's, the Hulks and the Goliaths. *The ones that could (or did) level a city. *Even Cable has said that Registration isn't the problem, it's the Fifty States initiative. *Superhuman police in every state to watch over everyone.
* *In fairness Captain America doesn't look any less "zealotish" is civil war #4, *he's willing to keep going no matter what happens and to hell with the consequences. *Iron Man was devastated by Goliath's death (as he should have been), Cap cared more about "the cause" it seems.

* But really this series is just a fantastic read, and a great story.




That's besides the point. The point here is that the idea of required service (which isn't even part of the registration act, as Dalius pointed out) is not inconsistent with the United States legal code.

*Actually that's debatable, check Frontline #5 for the reason. Well insofar as registration requires service, the rest is spot on.

Deadmeat.GW
2006-10-04, 05:07 PM
Anyone read the latest spiderman?

All people grabbed for arrest during registration are held in the Negative Zone, term of imprissonment is unlimited, no parole and no court case is build.

You go in and you never leave, ever again.

And guess what spidey does?

He goes against Stark and he gets attacked by Iron Man.

No rights, nothing, you work for them or you go to jail in an alternate dimension for the rest of your life.

And guess why Dr Strange is not there?

Could it be he knows his way around there?

Falkus
2006-10-04, 10:54 PM
So in essence, the idea behind a registration act is a good idea, but Marvel's incompetent writers are badly bungling the implementation.

Ing
2006-10-05, 01:43 AM
Anyone read the latest spiderman?

All people grabbed for arrest during registration are held in the Negative Zone, term of imprissonment is unlimited, no parole and no court case is build.

You go in and you never leave, ever again.

And guess what spidey does?

He goes against Stark and he gets attacked by Iron Man.

No rights, nothing, you work for them or you go to jail in an alternate dimension for the rest of your life.

And guess why Dr Strange is not there?

Could it be he knows his way around there?

So Spidy has switched sides now....Waffler

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-05, 04:09 AM
So in essence, the idea behind a registration act is a good idea, but Marvel's incompetent writers are badly bungling the implementation.

I'm interested to know wherein you arrived at this conclusion.

Falkus
2006-10-05, 10:43 AM
I'm interested to know wherein you arrived at this conclusion.

Because the idea ofo requiring superheros to be government employees is inherently a good one (law enforcement is the purview of the government) but instead of a deep, meaningful storyline, it's just an excuse to write heros vs heros.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-05, 11:30 AM
Because the idea ofo requiring superheros to be government employees is inherently a good one (law enforcement is the purview of the government) but instead of a deep, meaningful storyline, it's just an excuse to write heros vs heros.

But at its core is the very question of whether or not superhero registration is a good idea, analogous to issues such as abortion or gun control. What I was curious about was your rationale for classifying the Superhero Registration Act as "inherently good".

Falkus
2006-10-05, 11:51 AM
What I was curious about was your rationale for classifying the Superhero Registration Act as "inherently good".

Because law enforcement is the purview of the government. I can't just go pick up a gun, and start bringing in criminals, the same rationale applies to superheros.

loial77
2006-10-05, 01:33 PM
Because law enforcement is the purview of the government. I can't just go pick up a gun, and start bringing in criminals, the same rationale applies to superheros.

By the same logic, the public welfare is the purview of the government, so I can't donate to the local food cupboard*. *What is inherently wrong with non-government agents apprehending criminals, as long as lethal force is not used? *We have covered accountability issues at length in this thread, so what makes civilian participation in law enforcement prima facie wrong? *Placing a badge on a hero doesn't make the situtation any safer for bystanders. *As for training, most heroes have some degree of training from a mentor, ect., and the New Avengers were no exception. *

You mention picking up a gun and going after criminals, but given the history and context of the Marvel Universe, the analogy is faulty. *Suspending disbelief as we so often must in comicdom, the Marvel Universe has a history of superheroes apprehending criminals via nonlethal displays of force. *Those that cross that line are generally subject to sanction from other heroes and from law enforcement. *The use of nonlethal force to protect the person or property of others is generally not viewed as a societal evil (e.g., if you trip a purse snatcher, you are not a criminal). *

Even if lethal force is brought into the picture, the heroes actions are legally and morally defensible. *If I pick up a gun and shoot a jaywalker, I am a criminal. *If I shoot a madman who is clearly about to open fire on a crowd of school children, I have broken no law, as it is generally legal, and in my opinion, morally justifiable, to use lethal force to defend others under certain circumstances. *If there is a better person to handle this, such as a law enforcement official, I would do better to leave the situtation to him, as he has superior training and experience for these situtations, and at least equal capability to stop the threat. *In a superpowered world, however, a given superhero may be the only person available with the capacity to stop a superpowered threat. *In such a case, the use of lethal force to prevent death or serious bodily harm to others is justfied.

In previous posts, you seem to argue that every such person should be drafted into indefinite government service. *At the very least, you give the option of choosing between servitude or watching helplessly as preventable tragedies unfold. *Assuming the first case, can you morally justify forced servitude to the government for a group of people based solely on circumstances likely beyond their control? *If I recall, the U.S. fought a real Civil War over something not dissimiliar to this. *Assuming the second case, do you really want to prevent some portion of the few individuals capable of dealing with superpowered threats from continuing to do so? *Assuming that superpowered villians do not comply with the law, and I feel that is a safe assumption, aren't you putting more people at risk by removing a significant check on the villians' actions? *

*Yes, I know that there is a difference between donating money and shooting people. I am referring to your first clause, which states that it is wrong to interfere in law enforcement because it is a government function. I cover the remainder of the argument in later paragraphs. Also, you really should see the movie Death to Smoochy if you haven't already.

Ing
2006-10-05, 03:09 PM
Because law enforcement is the purview of the government. I can't just go pick up a gun, and start bringing in criminals, the same rationale applies to superheros.


You foget that is exactly how things were when this country was founded. Hence the right to bare arms in order to keep a standing malitia and watch.

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-05, 05:10 PM
Because law enforcement is the purview of the government. I can't just go pick up a gun, and start bringing in criminals, the same rationale applies to superheros.

Actually, you can. Citizen's arrests are perfectly legal, it's just that any citizen's arrest, particularly those involving deadly force, are prone to investigation and possible charges leveled against the arresting citizen. Also, I don't know, have you ever heard of bounty hunters?

Also, the Marvel Universe with its years of superhero involvement in apprehending criminals provides oodles and oodles of precedent for use in court. This is why Matt Murdock (well, until he got outed) was so helpful to the superhero community in general. It now seems that She-Hulk, in her Jennifer Walters identity, has adopted a similar role.

Your rationale, while not necessarily faulty, is far from proven and therefore your use of the term "inherent" is entirely subjective.

Skyserpent
2006-10-08, 01:37 AM
Some crass language so I can't post the picture, but please click on this if you don't mind.

This is a good take on Civil War in my opinion
http://www.errantstory.com/comics/es20061005.jpg

Jerthanis
2006-10-09, 09:03 PM
So in essence, the idea behind a registration act is a good idea, but Marvel's incompetent writers are badly bungling the implementation.

I'd say it's more the fact that the Marvel writers have decided to paint the issue in more broad strokes than such events would garner in the real world. And they made the choice that the characters in control of the registration act bungle the implementation.

And bungle they did.




Because the idea ofo requiring superheros to be government employees is inherently a good one (law enforcement is the purview of the government) but instead of a deep, meaningful storyline, it's just an excuse to write heros vs heros.

...Yes. The storyline is, to a certain extent, an excuse for Hero vs Hero. Then again, there's no reason that it can't be both a Hero vs Hero slamfest of "who would win between..." nerds, AND an interesting competition of extreme ideologies.


Some crass language so I can't post the picture, but please click on this if you don't mind.

This is a good take on Civil War in my opinion
http://www.errantstory.com/comics/es20061005.jpg

brilliant. Civil War in 86.4 KB.

loial77
2006-10-10, 09:13 AM
...Yes. The storyline is, to a certain extent, an excuse for Hero vs Hero. Then again, there's no reason that it can't be both a Hero vs Hero slamfest of "who would win between..." nerds, AND an interesting competition of extreme ideologies.

It almost was. Up until the last month or so, both sides were presented fairly even-handedly. You could disagree with Stark et al., but feel that the pro-reg side had good intentions and compelling argument for registration. I think it jumped the shark in Civil War 4 and the Cable/Deadpool that preceded it.

Skyserpent
2006-10-11, 03:57 AM
Hey! I LIKED Cable/Deadpool...

Though I gotta admit... the whole "I'm going to toss every weapon in the world into space" thing would kind of be a precursor to the MRA...

comicshorse
2006-10-11, 09:42 AM
o.k. for those of us who don't collect Cable/Deadpool could somebody please explain what happened in that story.

draconic_swine
2006-10-11, 10:10 AM
Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but as a reader of Ultimate Marvel I find the whole civil war thing pretty funny. In Ultimate Marvel, there is no debate and no fighting over superhuman registration. It just is. The Ultimates are a branch of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Fantastic Four are part of another branch of the government, an on-going plot tension for Spider-Man is that Nick Fury has repeatedly told him that when he's no longer a minor he'll be forcibly recruited into The Ultimates, and the X-Men have had an on-again, off-again relationship with S.H.I.E.L.D. that has gone from outright hostility (due to them not being affiliated with S.H.I.E.L.D. and Fury regarding them as either getting in the way or vigilantes) to a partnership of sorts (with Fury using the Xavier Institute as a training ground for future S.H.I.E.L.D. members). In Ultimate Marvel, at least, if you have abilities beyond that of a regular human, it's damn difficult to avoid the attention of the government.

Logic
2006-10-11, 07:27 PM
* The "Ultimate Marvel" sets Marvel in a world where the cold war is who has more super-powered humans. It makes sense that in that version of the marvel universe, that you do work for the government, whether you like it or not. It's just the way the government has positioned itself. Whereas in the "normal" or "original" Marvel timeline, the government was happy to let vigilante heroes take care of the problems, since if these vigilantees did mess up, they could claim it was not the fault of the government.
* With the event that led to the registration act (Stamford) they could no longer use that as an excuse to sit on their hands and let the heroes do as they always had before. The people demanded action to control a threat they did not understand, and since the government has not given anyone the option besides go to jail or work for "us" (as was spelled out in the first issues, there were no options for retirement) there were heroes that thought that this was fuindamentally wrong. The Thing simply left the country, because he saw that the civil war that erupted would only cause more harm than good. This is probably the best option for the heroes, but the ones against the act that are willing to fight for it are only trying to say that it is fundamentally wrong and against civil liberties to force someone to work for the government.
* In my personal opinion, I think that if all the heroes that refused to register simply left the country, then villians would take advantage of what could best be described as a "power vaccuum" and the only way to appease the sniveling masses would to be to rescind the Registration act (or more likely suspend it) long enough to get the heroes in country long enough to deal with the threat.

Ing
2006-10-12, 12:54 AM
Civil war is the recent trend of applying real world logic to fantasy worlds that never had it from the start. Esscentually it's riding on Watchmen's coat tails. But where Moore created a world entirely around the concept of real world logic and superheros, lots of other comic writers are just slapping one aspect of the real world into the existing insanity and trying to act like they are clever for this unique change in status quo. Often the alien logic is dismissed or ignored and things go back to normal.

Damian_Blackclaw
2006-10-12, 10:38 AM
Hmmmm . . . since I like the bad guys . . . and since Spidey sided with Registration . . .

I think the Supers should register . . . gives the bad guys (I mean, misunderstood guys) the advantage.

Damian the Darghk

loial77
2006-10-12, 02:33 PM
o.k. for those of us who don't collect Cable/Deadpool *could somebody please explain what happened in that story.

I was hoping someone else would do this, as my memory is iffy and I don't have the book handy. I ask that those who have read it correct any errors or add anything I have omitted.

Spoiler:

Cable and Deadpool visit the President, a Bush caricature, and Cable attempts to convince the President to abandon the Fifty State Initiative, claiming it will lead to disaster in the future. The President rebuffs him, stating essentially that his only interest is exploiting the situation for short term political gain. He then orders Deadpool to capture Cable.

I like the political parallels in the early part of Civil War, but I thought this particular take on it was heavy handed and unnecessary. Then Civil War 4 hit, and I felt any pretense of showing the pro-reg side as reasonable was pretty much abandoned.

ravenkith
2006-10-12, 04:40 PM
Uh...that's because pro reg is WRONG!

Let's face it, the odds of this whole thing going away is pretty high: it's all a direct result of Wanda's tinkering...so if it got tinkered in, it can get tinkered right back out again.

Plus, it looks like a certain mysterious figure knows exactly what happened, and is now repentant...which means that anything can happen...(it's there if you're reading closely).

This whole Civil War thing feels more and more like an Age of Apocalypse type event...and in fact, the only recent surprise in the series is that it isn't Apoc himself behind it all...

I'm willing to bet that there's some mind control going on...and lots of people are under this one guy's/organization's thumb.

As to 'bad writing', personally, I take any indications that certain individuals aren't themselves as further proof for the whole mind control idea.

With Professor Xavier gone, and Jean Grey dead (again, but for how long?), that just leaves the white queen, her cuckoos, and Rachel to watch out for mental threats.

None of whom are on the same mental playfield with ol' chuck, pre-scarlet tantrum. I say that there's a reason Chucky-boy didn't used to go on a lot of missions above and beyond his wheelchair (jeez, he had a hover chair at one point, come on)...and that reason is, he was constantly alert for mental assaults on a global scale.

Kind of like Stephen Strange in the world of Magic, ol' Chuck was the Dr. Strange of telepathy.

Now he's gone...well, when the cat's away....

Finally, ya gotta remember Marvel is in the business of comic books. In the current storyline, either everyone becomes a governemnt agent (undergoing the same stuff as everybody else, disciplined lifestyle, think Ultimate Xmen, in the beginning, almost), or everything goes back to the way it was before, the way that has worked for what, 40 years now?

Hrm: proven business model vs. untried system?

Which sounds more fun to read about?:
an independent superhero<---------------(Captain America)
(Iron Man)----------------------->or a government employee?

loial77
2006-10-12, 04:59 PM
Uh...that's because pro reg is WRONG!

At the beginning, they managed to protray the pro-reg side as at least somewhat sympathetic. Whatever side I might have agreed with, I could at least see some of the merits of the other side. After Civil War 4 and some of the other books that month, this ceased to be the case, and I miss the nuance.


Let's face it, the odds of this whole thing going away is pretty high: it's all a direct result of Wanda's tinkering...so if it got tinkered in, it can get tinkered right back out again.

Plus, it looks like a certain mysterious figure knows exactly what happened, and is now repentant...which means that anything can happen...(it's there if you're reading closely).

This whole Civil War thing feels more and more like an Age of Apocalypse type event...and in fact, the only recent surprise in the series is that it isn't Apoc himself behind it all...

I'm willing to bet that there's some mind control going on...and lots of people are under this one guy's/organization's thumb.

As to 'bad writing', personally, I take any indications that certain individuals aren't themselves as further proof for the whole mind control idea.

With Professor Xavier gone, and Jean Grey dead (again, but for how long?), that just leaves the white queen, her cuckoos, and Rachel to watch out for mental threats.

None of whom are on the same mental playfield with ol' chuck, pre-scarlet tantrum. I say that there's a reason Chucky-boy didn't used to go on a lot of missions above and beyond his wheelchair (jeez, he had a hover chair at one point, come on)...and that reason is, he was constantly alert for mental assaults on a global scale.

Kind of like Stephen Strange in the world of Magic, ol' Chuck was the Dr. Strange of telepathy.

Now he's gone...well, when the cat's away....

Finally, ya gotta remember Marvel is in the business of comic books. In the current storyline, either everyone becomes a governemnt agent (undergoing the same stuff as everybody else, disciplined lifestyle, think Ultimate Xmen, in the beginning, almost), or everything goes back to the way it was before, the way that has worked for what, 40 years now?

Hrm: proven business model vs. untried system?

Which sounds more fun to read about?:
an independent superhero<---------------(Captain America)
(Iron Man)----------------------->or a government employee?

If it is all a case of mind control or the result of the Scarlet Witch's manipulations, I will be highly disappointed in Marvel. After all this build-up, that would be an incredible cop-out. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you that they are going that direction.

Foeofthelance
2006-10-12, 10:51 PM
All considered, I have to agree with a post made earlier in the thread: Planet Hulk vs. Earth.

The whole Civil War trend got kicked off in a book titled the Illuminati, in which Stark had Bruce Banner kicked off of Earth and into a black hole. Well, since Black Hole's in the MU are apparently power sources instead of energy sinks, Bruce has been gathering his own personal Army, which he soon plans on dropping on Stark's head as a bit of vengance. Which means of course the heroes will have to unite again, under the most brilliant military mind of Nick Fury...

Poor Hill. I can't see any of this ending with out her getting shot.

ray53208
2006-10-13, 04:40 PM
anti-registration for me.

im playing in a marvel saga game. my character is relatively low powered. hes basically a super powered private investigator. he has a investigators license, a carry and conceal license, a public identity... but he is against forcing registration. we are about to get involved in the civil war in our campaign. i cant wait to see what happens.

ray
8)

Jack_Banzai
2006-10-13, 05:19 PM
That sounds awesome. I'm completely jealous.

LordOfNarf
2006-10-13, 07:29 PM
The Good Samaritan Laws have been brought up several times in this discussio so far, and I'd like to comment about the most cited one, CPR.

Cardiopulmonary Ressusitation has the potential to save someones life, and statistics say we each will have the chance to do CPR and save someon's life at least once once. That said, not just anyone can do CPR on anyone who is in D-fib or choking. There is a specific procedure, and I have to take a 2 hour class every year at the fire statio to keep my ability to usse this legal. If I see someone in need I first ask them if they can tell me whats wrong, if they can't answer, then they probably need help, I direct someone to call 911, and before doing anything else I say

"My Name is Lord of Narf and I know CPR (or first aid, etc)"

This is the key to the good samaritan acts, you must idnetify yourself and have prooof of certifacation on you. Then I sweep the mouth for debris, get out a mouth guard and begin chest compressions and rescue breathing until officials arrive.

Whithout specific training, I am not protected by the good samaritan act, nor is it legal for me to try to help. This is the requirements for a normal person to do CPR shouldn't there be greater training for exponentially greater powers?

And I am anti reg, its just that training seens logicaal to me.

sealemon
2006-10-14, 01:54 PM
I don't have a deep background in law, but here's my answer to ther OP:

It's too bad that this series has gone over the edge: The original arguments for both sides had some very interesting merits.

Basid on the original premise, I'd say that I favor the concept of a superhero regesturing their abilities, powers, training, ect. WITHOUT being required to register if they are not fighting crime. I would also be against the idea of the hero's secret ID's being made public (There would preumably have to be some way for the superhero to verify his "hero ID").


That's more or less the way I'm running my Champions campaign...kind of a watered down registration act. I see it as more of an incentive for the "vigilanties" to swear an oath to be a good "deputy/posse".

A metaphor for it is: You do not HAVE to have a driver's license, but if you drive a car without one, then you face charges if you are caught.


Probably stupid, but it was a good way to adress the legal issues of being a super. Something I didn't want to deal with too much in my campaign (At least at first).

Logos7
2006-10-30, 09:02 PM
anti - reg.

When Maria told Wolerine that the head of WAR Profiter's Inc was a good friend of the government and she was not inclined to investigate after it , jut sealed it i still want to watch the fights now however.

Watching Cable get it handed to him by deadpool almost justified the series, almost, Why can't deadpool just get his own solo title.

It was great watching the fantastic four break up. Brought a tear to my eye and glee to my heart.

I think the worst that storywise they have done is killing black goliath. Kill Pym for the love of Gawd, not the random been in three consecutive ones now black guy. that is what i think the low point was , I am hoping that somehow Dr. Doom ends up with Thor's Hammer it would be Great and all would be forgiven

Concept 9/10
Execution 6/10

I enjoy it and i read it, i'd even recommend it kind of , as for the people who are like Poo Poo it wouldn't go down this way Poo Poo, it's a comic role with it a bit.

logos

Constantinople
2006-11-04, 08:32 AM
Which sounds more fun to read about?:
an independent superhero<---------------(Captain America)
(Iron Man)----------------------->or a government employee?

This month in INVINICABLE IRON MAN - Tony Stark, alcholic, billioniare play-boy, has to fill out forms D-76 and GH-98 , subsection B and H included, because he saved an Orphanage from burning down to the GROUND! Will he find his calculator to figure out his tax-breaks? Will the evil Dr. Tax Man's evil, EVIL scheme to make Iron Man fill out from D-76's subsection F-5 incorrectly succeed? Read the newest, most sensational issue of IRON MAN yet!

or

This month in Captain America - He hits some bads guys. Alot. Um. Yeah.

:biggrin:

I'm reading mostly Cable and Deadpool at the moment, but I'm getting the Limited Series Civil War, too. It revealed some very interesting feeling's of Deadpool's.

StickMan
2006-11-04, 09:59 PM
Spider-Man is a good guy agin thank god. I knew he would join the right side. After all he is the most powerful Mavel Hero.

Millikin_Erreene
2006-11-05, 12:26 AM
The fact that the supporters of the Superhero Registration Act immediately employed convicted murderers and other confirmed menaces to society to enforce their will upon the targetted populace invalidates any argument that they are standing on a moral high ground with the best interests of protecting society as a whole.

This is not about the government simply being made aware of the capabilities of superpowered humans. It's about them controlling these individuals and knowing where they are at all times to force them into working for the government whenever they decide the necessity of expediency supersedes legal and ethical considerations.

GenericFighter
2006-11-05, 02:26 AM
I just noticed that the longest thread on the comicbooks forum is fundamentally arguing Hobbes vs. Hume. And people say comics rot the mind!

Falkus
2006-11-06, 10:29 AM
The fact that the supporters of the Superhero Registration Act immediately employed convicted murderers and other confirmed menaces to society to enforce their will upon the targetted populace invalidates any argument that they are standing on a moral high ground with the best interests of protecting society as a whole.

What it invalidates is the credibility of the cartoonists to actually write a decent and complex story on the morality and legality of non-state controlled law enforcement.

twerk_face
2006-11-08, 09:50 PM
First off, i am way to lazy to read this whole thread, but i have a strong view on this, so hear gos.

I personally think that super heros should NOT be allowed to run around "saving people" without being checked out to make sure they are not dangerous. Also, the public would rest alot easier, and it would make the lives of people like Spidey (who the press constantly bashes) alot easier. HOWEVER, i do NOT think that their identitys should have to be public knowledge.
I think a select group of shield (NOT goverment) officials that people trust should say whether or not heros can work on the street, but the heros should be able to keep their masks if they want to. For people like Daredevil, Luke Cage, and other heros who "work close to the streets," having their identities public would ruin their effectiveness.The shield officials should know their identities, but not the public. the public should JUST know that they have been checked out and are "ok" to do their stuff.

*phew*

Beleriphon
2006-11-13, 03:29 AM
Doesn't matter a whole lot at this point in regards to Civil War being right or wrong. The whole thing will be ending soon enough in favour of World War Hulk. The Hulk is coming back from exile to get revenge on those who sent him on his merry way. Look out Richards! Look out Tony!

WWH: http://www.marvel.com/videos/World_War_Hulk_Teaser
End of CW: http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/Feb07/solicitations.html



I think a select group of shield (NOT goverment) officials that people trust should say whether or not heros can work on the street, but the heros should be able to keep their masks if they want to

One minor flaw there. SHIELD is a government run agency, the same as the FBI, the CIA or any of the other alphabet soup groups out there. So not having the government checking out any prospective heros means that nobody checks out prospective heros.

StickMan
2006-11-13, 11:43 PM
This is America, not Nazi Germany.


I hate to break this too you but the u.s.a. is not perfect and in many cases the U.S. goverment abuses its power's in ways that are very similay to Nazi Germany. Examples: Putting US Japannese citizens in interment camps that many died in. McCarthyism in which hundereds of US Citzens were arested and acused of being comunists, destroying there lifes. CIA made files to black mail civil rights workers in the 60's even Dr. King. Most recently Guantanamo Bay comes to mind. What happened in Germany can happen anywere, there was nothing specail about the German people or Hittler.

To put this in terms of Super Heros think about it. All of them on a list, all of them freaks by the standards of many people. Vote the right man in to office and the next thing you know they are being hunted down and killed for what they are. In the marvel universe we've seen it befor remeber the mutant registration act.



Sorry for the spelling its late and I have no spell check.

loial77
2006-11-14, 10:13 AM
To put this in terms of Super Heros think about it. All of them on a list, all of them freaks by the standards of many people. Vote the right man in to office and the next thing you know they are being hunted down and killed for what they are. In the marvel universe we've seen it befor remeber the mutant registration act.

Sorry for the spelling its late and I have no spell check.

I'd like to register my agreement and point out that the Marvel U.S. Government has a realy bad track record on abuse of power, mainly because it has been infiltrated so many times by various villians or other individuals hostile to heroes. In a world of shapeshiftering, mind control, and a ton of "super spy" villians left over from WWII and the Cold War, you can pretty much assume that no information entrusted to the government will remain safe for long.

Rainspattered
2006-11-14, 04:06 PM
As an anarcho-syndicist, it's pretty obvious where and why I come down in this. Plus, the registration thing, um, doesn't help, looking at it logically. If the government knows who a superhero is, that doesnt' change anything. Baldwin's identity wasn't exactly secret, I don't think (never a big New Warriors fan, so maybe I'm wrong), and he's the one who, indirectly, got this whole mess started. Being legally defined to act safely is different from being feasibly held responsible for this, or even being legally defined in terms of what safety is. That mystery fellow wo claimed that the law was as full of holes as swiss cheese (or something similar) is dead-on right. There's no logical way this law would work other than superheroes policing the superhuman community, which is what fighting supervillains is. Now they're just telling them to get superheros who **** up, essentially, if that's even a part of the law.

Hurlbut
2006-11-14, 04:09 PM
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Hurlbut/HobbesCivilWar.gif
That's the side I am on.

Reinforcements
2006-11-14, 04:31 PM
What it invalidates is the credibility of the cartoonists to actually write a decent and complex story on the morality and legality of non-state controlled law enforcement.
Yeah, it must have been nice to have this kind of discussion back near the beginning of Civil War, back when the pro-registration guys weren't running around shouting, "BY THE WAY, WE'RE THE BAD GUYS!"

Logic
2006-11-26, 10:19 AM
First off, i am way to lazy to read this whole thread, but i have a strong view on this, so hear gos.

Saying this is exactly the same as saying: "I don't care what everyone else has to say, but I want to make sure I am heard."

Fireball.Man.Guy.
2006-11-26, 08:07 PM
As is mentioned earlier, the government can't cope with fighting a large number of seperheroes. With the right group, the entire U.S. armed forces would be destroyed. Wolverine is essentialy invincible, Hulk (when he comes back) could knock out entire cites with one punch, and don't even get me started on magneto.

Smashymcsmash
2006-12-05, 01:59 PM
Yeah, it must have been nice to have this kind of discussion back near the beginning of Civil War, back when the pro-registration guys weren't running around shouting, "BY THE WAY, WE'RE THE BAD GUYS!"


Yup. As one of my friends aptly put it, "If you're on the same team as Bullseye and the Green Goblin, you're on on the wrong team."

Beleriphon
2006-12-05, 10:56 PM
As is mentioned earlier, the government can't cope with fighting a large number of seperheroes. With the right group, the entire U.S. armed forces would be destroyed. Wolverine is essentialy invincible, Hulk (when he comes back) could knock out entire cites with one punch, and don't even get me started on magneto.

Based the previews Hulk is going to MAAAAAAAAAD! I am loath to be Tony Stark in that situation.

Koretsu
2006-12-19, 09:59 AM
I gotta side with Cap. Why? The Punisher joined up. :D

Good 'nuff for me. :P

StudlyDuck
2006-12-22, 01:30 AM
Yeah, it must have been nice to have this kind of discussion back near the beginning of Civil War, back when the pro-registration guys weren't running around shouting, "BY THE WAY, WE'RE THE BAD GUYS!"
Exactly. This story could have been so much better if it weren't portrayed as being so one-sided.

Moechi_Vill
2006-12-23, 02:15 AM
abridged: ... there was nothing special about 1933-1945 in comparison to the real-world USA (not my opinion, I was referring to the USA of the Marvel Universe)

Even in the Marvel Universe people are not gassed to death en masse and baby infants are not experimented upon unto death and skin is not used for lamp screens (not so sure about the experiments since we're talking about comic books). So the comic book universe is not worse then anything mankind has ever exhibited.

Would that we not discuss history, please? It makes me nervous. :)

Also, I wish to note that my earlier comment upon which you quoted was purely a historical allegory to the past, versus the America of the MARVEL Universe - since I clearly did not state that I was talking about a nation on the Earth and we're all discussing a nation on Earth in a comic book here. As it could potentially be misunderstood I'd still be grateful if it was edited to something less sensitive.

Mhmmm, I've got three games I enjoy around here.

Steinkügeln
2006-12-27, 03:38 AM
To reinforce what (some) others have said: It was my impression when the Civil War debuted, that the two sides would be presented as "moral equals" and the readers would ultimately have to side one way or the other, however it seems that it's been pretty obvious since early on in the run that we've been given something else. You can't exactly call it "good" and "bad' but the pro registration side has clearly been painted as "deluded/fooled/wrong" and the other side as "Noble/Humanistic/right"

Considering Millar, I don't think anyone should be surprised how this is turning out. I haven't been an obsessive comic reader for about five or six years, but whatever fire was left in my belly for comics was pretty much snuffed out after reading the first few Civil War books (and crossovers).

I've been re-reading my run of Fantastic Four (everything from FF 100 to the last issue of Volume 1), and I'm amazed at how the writers (Lee/Kirby or particularly John Byrne) were able to deal with "issues" without totally destroying any sense of fun or escapism. Civil War is a sad attempt as trying to make comics artificially relevant, IMO. The ones I read seemed to alter characters in order to make them fit the template of one side or the other. Once the label is applied, anything that doesn't fit the label is disregarded. (to paraphrase something from PoMo class, hehe). I think a lot has been ignored in order to make the "sides" work.


SK

Tawkis
2007-01-09, 06:07 PM
Yeah, it must have been nice to have this kind of discussion back near the beginning of Civil War, back when the pro-registration guys weren't running around shouting, "BY THE WAY, WE'RE THE BAD GUYS!"
100% agree, I will point out that the high points of CW thus far other than issue 3 have been: (IMO of course)
Casualties of War: Captain America and Iron Man and CW: Frontline # 8 or 9 where Floyd is confronted by the congressman.
Both of those were "loaded" with views that SHOULD have been what CW was really about (to be fair it is how the started) instead of the good guys versus bad guys it became.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-01-09, 08:03 PM
I can't really dig that view, since it was always pretty cut and dry to me who the goodies and baddies were in this instance. Also pretty obvious which way the author stood from Issue 1--you don't stack the deck on the side of your heroes in any story worth telling, and the Pro-Registers had every advantage from Day 1.

And who says Civil War isn't fun? I'm having fun. I can't wait until Issue Six. PUNISHER GOAN CAP A BITCH?

Atreyu the Masked LLama
2007-01-09, 08:25 PM
Any thoughts on "Penace" in Frontline??

I'm reallly sad to see such a humorous character take such a dark and twisted turn.

Nightmarenny
2007-01-09, 10:55 PM
New rule, when you quote philisophy from the matrix...you loose
To be fair to the Matrix(something people rarely are) That quote was sorta mangled. The point was that Ghost didn't want to assume something wouldn't go wrong because in similer sitcuation it didn't.

Its like not paying atiention to your driving because last time you didn't crash.
Or assuming that if you faught someone and beat them 9 times that the 10th time they would be beaten without you needing to try.

Parlik
2007-01-30, 08:38 PM
Hmm actually the Civil war itself isn't what I find mostly interesting, but some of the various questions raised in the indvidual comics as a result.

For instance in Black Panther you have a closer look at spindoctoring, and there is also a woman raising the question, if I save someone from drowing do I have to register, basically what do you have to be capable of or have done, before you are forced to register.

Also in Cable/Deadpool we have Cable's bleak vision of how this might turn out centuries down the line with a superhuman military arms race as the result.

ravenkith
2007-01-31, 11:29 AM
A good idea, executed poorly.

The whole civil war storyline, despite my love for it early on, has started to leave me cold.

Maybe it's the delays in the books. Maybe it's the heavy-handedness with which certain characters are being treated. I don't know.

But I find myself looking at DCs big event, 52, and thinking: there's the execution and aprroach Marvel needed for this story.

Civil War really needed to happen at a faster pace, hit the readership, get everybody worked up about the issue, and then show what happened quickly, especially with the way attention spans are nowadays.

But then, of course, they wouldn't have had an opportunity to do all the damn tie-ins.

The more and more I see of the situation, the more I begin to notice characters acting very unlike themselves, and I'm left sitting here, wondering...is it bad writing, or is it intentional?

With Civil War, there's just no way to tell. Yet in 52, the writing is fairly tight, with very few continuity errors, and when characters are out of sorts, it usually seems to be completely intentional.

Of course, I don't think there story is necessarily as interesting as the premise behind civil war, but it feels like MArvel's winging every issue, while DC is working from a script.

Anyone agree?

Logos7
2007-01-31, 12:29 PM
I think the Whole , Reed thinks that if he doesn't do this, allow bad guys to act as government agents, arrest his friends etc that EVERYONE WILL DIE, helps bring the balance back. Right now i thinik the timing is more an issue than anything and thats what buzzing me now.

Now i just want Hulk to get back from whereever ( loved the time up their however) and Pound the crap out of the Hulk Buster Unit, Smash She HUlk Up until she gets her head back on straight, smack Reed and Iron Man, until they realize that their being dumb and everything gets back to normal.

Logos

ravenkith
2007-01-31, 12:35 PM
Wow, you KNOW you're being a moron when the Hulk tells you you're stupid.

Hooded1
2007-02-07, 02:03 PM
Both. My favorite heros are split onto both sides, so a like both.

Dawnstrider_Moogle
2007-02-09, 08:15 PM
I just want to say, I love Civil War 6 where Iron Man's like "Ha! We have a mole!" And Cap's like "Please, we already knew about Tigra" and Tigra's like "What." And Cap's like "Now Hulkling as Pym - that's a bloody mole!" and then everyone on the pro-reg side is all "Oh noes~~~"

Oh, and I am very fond of the Iron Spider costume, obviously. Mostly because it is the shiny and it has the cool spider arms. 8-)

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 03:56 AM
I think CW is the most unintentionally funny thing I have read in a long time, with every character so badly out of character it's absurd and the plot railroading the characters so much you'd think they were Amtrak :D

I don't think the actual idea behind it is a bad one, but the execution is absolutely diabolical. Does anyone think a law that requires every single person to register who has the tiniest hint of a power regardless of whether they use it or not is in any way fair or balanced? It's absolutely draconian and just as obviously wrong. Why would any hero support that?

Then there's the mass cloning (Always the mark of evil geniuses in comics), the imprisonment without trial, the freeing and recruitment of some of the most evil and psychotic villains in the MU... What hero would EVER stick with the pro-reg side when they started recruiting villains?

If this is Mark Millar's idea of 'fair and balanced' I feel very sorry for him. By his own admission he's a 'dripping wet liberal' but he always struck me as a good writer and a great plotter. I was obviously wrong to believe either. Sure, every writer has an off day now and then, but good grief!

I think my favourite moment has to be the amazing vanishing Diamondback, though, who appears out of nowhere in exactly one panel as a deus ex machina then vanishes utterly in the next never to appear again... I am in awe of her Ninja skills... :D

The only good thing out of this is the emergence of Iron Man as a great villain. He's managed to destroy the FF, split the Avengers, divide and destroy the heroes in a way no other villain has ever managed. He's the most effective villain in MU history. And I'm only about half joking...

Setra
2007-02-10, 06:37 AM
Okay I've read most of the thread, admittedly I've skipped some posts here or there, but I'll just say what I'm here to say.

I am against the registration.

While I would usually be against vigilantism, the Marvel Universe is different than the one we live in.

If, say, some random Supervillian decided to come on down to my City and reck havoc, and the police couldn't stop him, I'd hope for someone to come and beat him up. It's not like they're actually killing people, they're saving innocent lives.

For the government to look at you and say "I'm sorry, but we don't want you to save this little girl from death without registering", I'd be incredibly upset.

Even in the case of non-supervillians, if I was walking down the street, and some thug with a gun came up to me and demanded my money, I'd certainly not be upset if, say, Spidy came along and saved me.

While I could make several arguements for Pro-Reg, this is a fantasy universe, and I like my Fantasy heroes to be unimpeded by the government.

ravenkith
2007-02-22, 11:06 AM
Read the latest (7) yet?

It makes we wish I had a llama smiley. No really.

Gah!

Soooo very ugly and rushed towards the end, from a story perspective.

The events just don't make a whole lot of sense, from any point of view, especially when Cap is supposed to be a tactical mastermind, and considering Tony's mandate.

Meh, given a paycheck and an hour or two, I could write a better ending in an hour.

Can you see it people? Can you see the end they have in mind?

The worst part is, iit had a ton of potential when it started.

NecroPaladin
2007-02-22, 07:43 PM
Woah, I totally thought I posted in this thread but I didn't...

Well, I'm strapped for time, but I can edit later. I'd say I'm pro-registration.

In the comic universe I'd probably be anti, but for the sake of what it would actually mean for the world I'm sticking with pro. Honestly, supers under the control of S.H.E.I.L.D or some other organization would not only allow the villains to be swiftly eliminated, but any other problem could be tackled with that much more efficiency. Sure, Captain America is turning this into "Fighting the Man" but consider whether you'd want a whole lot of vigilantes going every which way, or a coordinated paramilitary force. And who said that they were going to turn America into a police state (besides the anti-registration types)? It's one law. One. That effectively replicates the Vietnam-era draft, except it only applies to people who fight regularly and are almost impossible to kill. See the big deal there? Me neither.

EDIT: Of course, I speak reffering to this as though Marvel wasn't making the registration-supporters out to be REALLY BLATANT VILLAINS. I'm just arguing their ideal.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-23, 03:05 AM
In response to Civil War #7



Dear Steve Rogers Cpt. USA (Ret.),

Way to sell out, man. Way to take it into the five yard line, and then, right before you cross the line into the endzone, you don't merely drop the ball, you turn around and you punt it back to your own field goal. That's maybe what really kills me about all this: you were winning. A couple guys had to die, some innocents had to suffer, but victory was in sight. And then you surrendured, spat on the sacrifices made by people who BELIEVED in you, and spat on the ideals you and your uniform stands for.

See, you were cool because you were never just a jingoistic thug. And nobody gave you orders. You were Captain America, man, and you stood for something deeper than government. You stood ideals that went even deeper than the country of your birth, although maybe you didn't know it yourself. See, you were gifted--reborn, really--after being exposed to a Supersoldier Serum that made you stronger, swifter and frankly better than the normal man. You could have quite honestly declared yourself "above" mere mortals, but you didn't. You chose to serve when you could have commanded. You chose to defend when you could have ruled. That's what really made you a hero.

Now let's take a look at the other half of that coin. You've got a pair of admittedly brilliant men, men who are literally thinking above and ahead anyone else on this earth. They can in all honestly say that they are qualified to "protect mankind from itself." I am of course, referring to Tony Stark with his endless billions and boundless goodwill, and Reed Richards, with his endless scientific wonders and firm rationalism. Perhaps they are better qualified to run this nation, even this earth, than the leaders we have chosen, but then how does that differentiate them from Victor Von Doom? A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and because you KNEW freedom was worth any price, you were willing to fight even your close friends and comrades.

The war went well, although there were casualties. Stark and Richards acted like any would-be dictator, when it looked like their Father Knows Best Future was beginning to falter, their ideals were the first thing to be sacrificed and they created a blasphemous weapon from the body of a dear and fallen comrade. They resorted to imprisoning young men and women who were only guilty of exercising what should be a given freedom--the freedom to help others. And finally, they drafted hit squads of known murderers, psychopaths and career criminals just to halt any opposition to their utopia. Of COURSE they argued they were fighting for peace---but peace should never be confused with freedom, nor should it excuse tyranny.

Your cause was JUST. The men and women who banded to your side, and joined the Secret Avengers, knew it was just and were willing to die for that ideal. They didn't just believe in you, they believed in what you USED to stand for.

So what happened? You faltered. You saw the cost and you decided it wasn't worth it. You destroyed a few blocks of New York and some understandably upset civilians exercised their frustrations on you---and somehow this convinced you to throw away everything you stood for? I don't buy it. I don't buy it for a second. This isn't Steve Rogers. This isn't America--not the real America.

I know it's not your fault. At the end of the day, you have to follow the script with all the other characters. And it's my hope that this too shall pass, and ultimately this "bold new era" of smug government collaboration will sink back to the status quo. (Now that's a strange thing to actually HOPE for, for once!)

I'm not doing anything so dramatic as to "quit" Marvel. I didn't quit when they brought back Bucky, I won't quit now. I know this isn't you, Steve, and I'll be glad when this too passes by.

I'll keep reading, but I don't like the patterns I've seen lately. First Wanda Maximoff all but annihilates the Mutant Race, and gets away with it, then Nick Fury permanently tarnishes the reputation of America, her superheroes, and gives SHIELD to the politicians, and now this.

Marvel, I like my stories gritty and hard-hitting as much as the next reader, but could you maybe please let the good guys win..... at least once?

ravenkith
2007-02-23, 10:57 AM
Couldn't agree with you more old son.

Steve, upon seeing the devastation, would simply have ordered the battle out to sea.

Iron Man would have quickly followed suit, possibly ordering a temporary halt to allow for clearing the area.

Neither one would have backed down that easy. Especially not Captain freakin' America!
They're in freaking New York. It's an island. And a pretty small one at that. It's like, what, 2 minutes to get into the bay?

Hell, they could take the fight to Jersey - the residents might even thank the heroes for knocking the buildings down and giving them a reason to file their insurance to get new ones put up.

Even better, they could take the fight to Ferris (?) Island, which has only a museum on it now, or else to the Statue of Liberty: either would have great symbolic meaning and serve as a good backdrop for the fight would decide a nation's future...

The most telling point in all of this is what Stark's side have done to Thor. Not only did they steal and use some of his genetic material...not only did they violate that flesh with cybernetics and circuitry...they dressed him up as and tried to pass him off as the original.

That, my friends, is all kinds of wrong.

Lest we forget: villain hit squads killing people, working for Stark's side.

Yeah this new government initiative? Not so sure I'd want any part of it.

What should have happened?

Thor's clone should have fried, like, Hercules, or something. He's hurt, injured very badly, and he calls out to his father, smashing the clone's head open as he falls.

The clouds split asunder, and down from the heavens descend not one set of gods, but two, and out across all of New York, an asgardian bellow can be heard:

"ENOW!"
The fighting stops almost instantly as the Norse and Greek pantheons descend to earth, landing around the fallen bodies of Hercules and fake-Thor.

Zeus, enraged, looks at Tony Stark and begins to gather a lightning bolt in his hand with which to smite the Iron Man, but a grander, more powerful-looking, but one-eyed Thor steps forward and restrains him from hurling it.

"No. There is no glory in this battle, and little enough fault. They are but mortals, after all, and pawns all, in my brother's game,"

Zeus looks to where Hercules lies, tears in his eyes.

"They have slain my son, Thor. My favorite mortal child. You know not the pain of his passing,"

"I have some inkling of what it is to lose a family member," Thor says, a sad look upon his face. "But in the end, it behooves us not to punish puppets, when the master is within our grasp,"

"Spread out, and find him," he commands his pantheon, who move swiftly to obey, from the Enchantress to Baldur, all present and accounted for...but Loki.

"Aid the Norse," Zeus commands. "I would have his brother brought before us," The Greek gods split up and head off in search of Loki.

Both groups scour the area, But Thor and Zeus walk over to where Captain America and Iron Man are standing. They are silent for the moment. Thor looks pointedly at Iron Man.

Stark flips up his visor, and shaken by Thor's stare, says "I'm sorry," in a very quiet voice. Thor nods, and begins to speak.

"It seems my brother has taken advantage of my extended absence, necessary to consolidate my hold upon the realm of Asgard, in order to indulge in his favorite pastime: fomenting chaos," He regards the living legend and the richest man on earth and the devastation aroud them. "You have not been yourselves," he says pointedly.

"Heroes, all! There are people trapped in this rubble!" he says pointing at the devastation surrounding them with his hammer. Soon, both sides are working together on rescue efforts, while the four leaders look on.

"Is it not better that those on the side of right should help one another?" Thor says, a small smile on his face. "I didn't even have to ask twice,"

"Loki chose the Avengers as his focus, both former and current members, because of my association with them. He did this in part for amusement, and in part for revenge upon me, now that I have ascended the Throne of Asgard. He can't hurt me anymore, which is why he decided to vent his ire upon you," Thor shakes his head. "For this, I am sorry,"

Zeus chimes in. "The pact amongst the gods is such that no pantheon may come down without another's permission, that we not meddle too much in mortal affairs, as we have in ages past, but with the peril of my son, Thor and I swiftly came to agreement on this matter. Loki must be stopped,"

Zeus walks over to the body of his son, and lays his hand upon it, turning it into an orb of light that floats up into the sky and disappears out of sight.

Thor continues: "We have come to end this. The law has been made, and it was made for an ill purpose, but with the right oversight, it could be turned to good use. If a Triumvirate of heroes were established to administrate the organization, and the information was only in their hands, as representatives of the government, much could be achieved, and security could be maintained. Think on it," He steps away from the two humans as his men and zeus' return, a bound Loki between them.

"Loki, for all that you have done to these people, and to the gods as well, you are hereby banished from Asgard to Midgard. For all the hate that you have for mortals, you shall now become one. You will suffer. You will feel pain. You will be powerless to change your fate." He brandishes Mjolnir, holding it before him upright, and light flows from loki to the hammer.

Loki yells and screams, curls up in the fetal position, and his godly raiment fractures and cracks apart, turning to ash on the wind, even as the light continues to flow out of him. Finally the light stops, and Loki is left as a teenager, naked, unconscious on the ground.

"Punishment enow?"
Zeus Nods, the pantheons depart, and the heroes are left wondering what to do now...

GoC
2007-02-23, 12:47 PM
Some of the points/comparisons in this discussion are so stupid it reminds me of the Pardus Tavern (see Pardus.at).:smallannoyed: You guys are of course quite a bit more civilized but anyway:


As 90% of the posts in a thread discussing something don't actualy contribute anything (normaly repeating something said before), I propose the following discussion structure I found in the Sluggy Freelance forums. I will be using the discussion thread about Rosa's TO in Nari as an example as it's the one I know best.

The discussion starts with a number of mutualy exclusive proposals relating to the subject or a number of reasons why a certain proposal is a bad idea. In example:

Proposal 1. Rosa upgrades the TO and the resulting sb stays hers.
Proposal 2. Rosa builds the SB and then transfers it to an Imperial member of Order of the Rose.
Proposal 3. Rosa upgrades the TO and then transfers it to a neutral member of the Order.
Proposal 4. Rosa upgrades the TO and then transfers it to a union member of the Order.

Anyone who wants to contribute states his point/counterpoint underneath the point/proposal he is agreeing/disagreeing with. e.g.


(first_person)Proposal 1. Rosa upgrades the TO and the resulting sb stays hers.
-A union sb in Nari would cause Nari to become neutral, losing the empire a source of MKII missiles.

The original discussion post is then updated with this new information.
Note: ANY coherent and reasonable point should be included, of course the person who posted the discussion could include a counterpoint to it in his update or someone else could give reasons against it.

Another example:


second_person -A union sb in Nari would cause Nari to become neutral, losing the empire a source of MKII missiles.
-If the empire TO isn't completed Nari would go neutral anyway.
-Only a relatively small number of missiles are built on the Nari planets.
-Rosa could pay the main empire alliances fighting in the war some compensation.
As you can see if an argument goes against the proposal it can be colored red (or green if pro-Proposal) for easy reading. This is purely optional.

This system allows anyone looking at the thread to tell whether a point has been stated before, it lets the arguments be seen in context and without having to wade through 100+ other posts.
The context is off and we'll need to change the yellow to blue, but you get the meaning, right?

-The registration act is a bad idea to the core, it should be scrapped.
-The registration act needs modifying.
-The registration act is good as is.

I'll update this six hours from now and about every twelve hours afterwards.

ravenkith
2007-02-23, 03:57 PM
Actually, GoC old boy, I'll think you'll find most of us agree: the story was a good idea, but executed poorly in a number of ways.

GoC
2007-02-23, 05:48 PM
Actually, GoC old boy, I'll think you'll find most of us agree: the story was a good idea, but executed poorly in a number of ways.

Which side is it that most of you support? What are the arguments of the other side?
I actualy really want to know what was discussed but so many points are repeated and others make no sense when put in context with another one. I only managed to make it to page 4 before giving up. I am hoping that each person can include any of their arguments that are still valid.
Perhaps you could provide a map of some of the main points (provided you where in the discussion)? I'm sure there are others who would have trouble comprehending it in it's current form.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-23, 08:46 PM
Sorry man, we'd have kept it cleaner if we knew you were coming....

Pokemaster
2007-02-23, 08:59 PM
The letter on Captain America's forehead does, in fact, stand for France.

That is all.

Jerthanis
2007-02-23, 10:18 PM
I am hoping that each person can include any of their arguments that are still valid.

Alright, you heard the man, thread reset! Everyone repeat what you said!

But no, I guess the thread has gotten to the point where a summary can be made. Essentially, opinions have changed since the first post, because I know when I made my post early on, Spiderman was still pro-registration.

Essentially, Civil War was a good idea done badly, it tried to test our perceptions of good and evil, and tried to ask whether the ability to wield superpowers in defense of innocents is a human right or not, it tried to put the actions of superheroes in terms of modern public relations and politics. It tried so hard to be a deep, philosophical, meaningful trip through political ideologies. What it ended up being was Superhero vs Superhero, and be damned with how the characters would normally act. When the heroes weren't having dramatic and pointless fistfights to prove their points to one another they were talking heads, telling, retelling and telling again the merits/evils of the act. In the end, there was no choice on which side you could pick, because it was literally a matter of siding with the heroes or the villains.

Foeofthelance
2007-02-23, 11:27 PM
Spoilers (Since I can't figure out the tags)






















Actually, I can understand why Cap called the battle when he did. It wasn't so much the destruction they had caused, so much as the fact that Captain America had just been tackled by paramedics, police officers, and firefighters. That pretty much told him that he was no longer fighting for the people, but was fighting for his own reasons. And while those had been the same in the past, they weren't any longer. Not saying Tony was in the right, just saying I understand why Cap did as he did. It was the same reason he declared they weren't arresting Captain America but were arresting Steve Rogers.

Now, for the more personal opinions. I enjoyed the way the last book was done, even if it wasn't the ending I would have preferred. The "Amazing." "Spectacular" exchange was amusing, just as I couldn't help but grin when Sue Richards flattened whats-his-face. The look on his face when he realized he was doomed was priceless. I enjoyed Hercules's destruction of the faux Thor as well. The one thing that threw me was Lady Deathstrike's presence. Why was she there? As far as I know, based off of the various references to her in Wolverine, she's basically a Japanese exclusive villian. If she isn't trying to kill Wolvie, she's dealing with the Yakuza or somesuch. I was also annoyed with the fact that no one shot Maria Hill, but the fact that she's been relegated to Tony Stark's gopher is fairly satisfying.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-25, 10:59 AM
In response to Civil War #7



Dear Steve Rogers Cpt. USA (Ret.),

Way to sell out, man. Way to take it into the five yard line, and then, right before you cross the line into the endzone, you don't merely drop the ball, you turn around and you punt it back to your own field goal. That's maybe what really kills me about all this: you were winning. A couple guys had to die, some innocents had to suffer, but victory was in sight. And then you surrendured, spat on the sacrifices made by people who BELIEVED in you, and spat on the ideals you and your uniform stands for.

See, you were cool because you were never just a jingoistic thug. And nobody gave you orders. You were Captain America, man, and you stood for something deeper than government. You stood ideals that went even deeper than the country of your birth, although maybe you didn't know it yourself. See, you were gifted--reborn, really--after being exposed to a Supersoldier Serum that made you stronger, swifter and frankly better than the normal man. You could have quite honestly declared yourself "above" mere mortals, but you didn't. You chose to serve when you could have commanded. You chose to defend when you could have ruled. That's what really made you a hero.

Now let's take a look at the other half of that coin. You've got a pair of admittedly brilliant men, men who are literally thinking above and ahead anyone else on this earth. They can in all honestly say that they are qualified to "protect mankind from itself." I am of course, referring to Tony Stark with his endless billions and boundless goodwill, and Reed Richards, with his endless scientific wonders and firm rationalism. Perhaps they are better qualified to run this nation, even this earth, than the leaders we have chosen, but then how does that differentiate them from Victor Von Doom? A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and because you KNEW freedom was worth any price, you were willing to fight even your close friends and comrades.

The war went well, although there were casualties. Stark and Richards acted like any would-be dictator, when it looked like their Father Knows Best Future was beginning to falter, their ideals were the first thing to be sacrificed and they created a blasphemous weapon from the body of a dear and fallen comrade. They resorted to imprisoning young men and women who were only guilty of exercising what should be a given freedom--the freedom to help others. And finally, they drafted hit squads of known murderers, psychopaths and career criminals just to halt any opposition to their utopia. Of COURSE they argued they were fighting for peace---but peace should never be confused with freedom, nor should it excuse tyranny.

Your cause was JUST. The men and women who banded to your side, and joined the Secret Avengers, knew it was just and were willing to die for that ideal. They didn't just believe in you, they believed in what you USED to stand for.

So what happened? You faltered. You saw the cost and you decided it wasn't worth it. You destroyed a few blocks of New York and some understandably upset civilians exercised their frustrations on you---and somehow this convinced you to throw away everything you stood for? I don't buy it. I don't buy it for a second. This isn't Steve Rogers. This isn't America--not the real America.

I know it's not your fault. At the end of the day, you have to follow the script with all the other characters. And it's my hope that this too shall pass, and ultimately this "bold new era" of smug government collaboration will sink back to the status quo. (Now that's a strange thing to actually HOPE for, for once!)

I'm not doing anything so dramatic as to "quit" Marvel. I didn't quit when they brought back Bucky, I won't quit now. I know this isn't you, Steve, and I'll be glad when this too passes by.


Wow! **Applauds**

That was great - and utterly true!