Pixar's Incredibles: Syndrome is the true hero?

[Scowling Dragon]

The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?

A decline in supervillany?

[Reverent-One]

That's what happens when they premise a movie on a major legal problem.

Yes, truly their movie about superpowered individuals that can do things like turn invisible, lift train cars, ect, should have more properly researched how the law affects said superpowered individuals so it portrays them realistically.

[McStabbington]

Upon poking around I've found that this rule does not do what you think it does.

First off by examining the entire rule in context and pulling up the specific section:



Well that's primarily outlining that after someone files a suit against you you must file your defense (the pleading) to set the stage for the trial. And then going on to state that in certain case one can merely make a motion as a defense. Those circumstance however if I am boiling them down right... are for more or less procedural errors on the part of the the plaintiff.

Filing in the wrong court or location (jurisdiction and venue) errors in due process, not properly lining up every person that must be there (that last one) and switching order not asking for any form of compensation that can be granted. Like if you sue the government and were asking not for a million dollars but a Psychic Tandem War Elephant it could never reasonably be expected to provide even if you won.

Money is of course relief which can be granted so none of these motion-able grounds have any real reason to come into play unless you are supposing off screen legal incompetence we are never told of. (Also this is to only permission to file a motion. Nothing says the motion will be successful)

What you are discussing would very likely be the defense used, thus would be the pleading handled by the core of the rule and what would go into the trial. The defense "not liable do to established exceptions for being in the line of duty" is certainly a possible and even probable defense... but that becomes what the trial is as both parties are due a reasonable chance to have this matter settled. But simply having a defense does not abrogate a trial.

You've got it basically right. In order to pass muster under 12(b)(6), any initial filing saying that you're filing a lawsuit with the court (called a complaint) must have three things. It must state why the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It must give a short brief recitation of facts sufficient, assuming all facts are true, to prove that a law has been violated in such a way that relief is an option. And it must state the form of relief sought. Most of the rules concern various procedural errors such as filing with the improper court or asking that it be thrown out of federal court and filed in state court instead.

But the key part of 12(b)(6) concerns the sufficiency of a statement of facts. If my statement of facts proves that you walked a dog across the sidewalk in front of my house, your initial response to my complaint should, quite reasonably, include a section saying "Even if we accept all of this as true, that's not against the law. As such, motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)." If I were to complain that you violated a law that specifically has a provision "No civil liability shall be incurred by violation of this statute", you could include the same provision because, after all, there's no more sense hearing a lawsuit for which no relief can be granted than one for violating a non-existent law.

Well, if we accept that position, then we have to accept that Mr. Incredible, as an agent of the United States government acting within the scope of his duties, has qualified immunity from suits. In short, so long as he was acting to save the public from a supervillain, he can't be liable for damages. That's something that clearly falls under 12(b)(6). The lawsuit would be thrown out in the pleading stages.

[Anarion]

As I did learn after that particular post though it evidently is a fairly permissive act. Now you're the legal pony (I almost PMed you about my other post btw) but it still sounds to me that while Mr Incredible should have a grounds for his defense, the claim would taken as sufficiently serious to get to a trial.

Where presumably things went very very wrong for the government attorneys.

Oh yeah it's definitely possible. I haven't looked at the federal tort claims act in almost two years (it was right in the middle of my first semester), so I really don't know the answer without researching it.

Edit: McStabbington is likely right, however.

Yes, truly their movie about superpowered individuals that can do things like turn invisible, lift train cars, ect, should have more properly researched how the law affects said superpowered individuals so it portrays them realistically.

Yes, exactly. I'm glad you understand where we're coming from here. *High Fives McStabbington for the 12(b)(6) explanation.*

[Forum Explorer]

The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?

A decline in supervillany?

I like to think that the superheroes killed off nearly all of the supervillians (after all they didn't seem shy about killing those mooks). As a result the superheroes seemed less necessary so the public were more willing to turn against them later.

[kpenguin]

If I recall, according to the comics, the supervillains were mostly weeded out by the NSA. Among the notable exceptions was Bomb Voyage, who managed to remain out of the clutches of the government until reappearing to seeming blow up the Eiffel Tower.

[Tvtyrant]

If I recall, according to the comics, the supervillains were mostly weeded out by the NSA. Among the notable exceptions was Bomb Voyage, who managed to remain out of the clutches of the government until reappearing to seeming blow up the Eiffel Tower.

It makes sense really. Being a super criminal (I hate the word villain) works as long as no one knows who you are. Which means it works right up until you actually commit a crime, and then they simply send people to your house. Worst case scenario they post snipers and wait for a clear head shot.

[pendell]

You've got it basically right. In order to pass muster under 12(b)(6), any initial filing saying that you're filing a lawsuit with the court (called a complaint) must have three things. It must state why the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It must give a short brief recitation of facts sufficient, assuming all facts are true, to prove that a law has been violated in such a way that relief is an option. And it must state the form of relief sought. Most of the rules concern various procedural errors such as filing with the improper court or asking that it be thrown out of federal court and filed in state court instead.

But the key part of 12(b)(6) concerns the sufficiency of a statement of facts. If my statement of facts proves that you walked a dog across the sidewalk in front of my house, your initial response to my complaint should, quite reasonably, include a section saying "Even if we accept all of this as true, that's not against the law. As such, motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)." If I were to complain that you violated a law that specifically has a provision "No civil liability shall be incurred by violation of this statute", you could include the same provision because, after all, there's no more sense hearing a lawsuit for which no relief can be granted than one for violating a non-existent law.

Well, if we accept that position, then we have to accept that Mr. Incredible, as an agent of the United States government acting within the scope of his duties, has qualified immunity from suits. In short, so long as he was acting to save the public from a supervillain, he can't be liable for damages. That's something that clearly falls under 12(b)(6). The lawsuit would be thrown out in the pleading stages.

Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...?

At any rate, I think the legal thing was just a mechanism. The fact is, I believe in the Incredible's country there are a lot of people like the Insurance boss, who have no use for heroes. I don't mean superheroes. The boss didn't want him to be an ordinary hero, helping a woman get her claim through a bureaucracy. The Boss IS Syndrome, but without Syndrome's intelligence. He's a mean, petty man who cannot stand to have anyone rise above his level. Such a man tears down superheroes because they are super, and tears down subordinates because they are competent or have hearts.

Why do I think such people were common in the world of the Incredibles? Because the insurance guy wasn't the first person Mr. Incredible had an issue with. He went from job to job to job, constantly being fired because he tried to act heroically. He was a good man in an evil world, so naturally it spit him out over and over and over again.


Get enough people like that in a society, and that society will destroy its superheroes. Because they are everything those petty people aren't. They are great of heart while the insurance guy is spiteful, they are generous where the insurance guy is greedy, they are strong where the insurance guy is weak. And they do it in such a way that it is not possible, as it is in a cube farm, to disguise mediocrity.

Like Redcloak in start of darkness, these petty PHBs will not accept such a world. They will do whatever they have to so they can lie to themselves about what they really are.



That, to my mind, is why the golden age superheroes were forced into hiding. Because Syndrome was just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot of people in that society who didn't want superheroes, and they used the power they had to shun them, to drive them into hiding, to make them hated and feared even without lawsuits. The lawsuits were just the mechanism. IF they had not existed, another would have been found. The crab bucket finds a way. An evil society has no use for good people.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

I've read it, the Fountainhead, and the whole of the Sword of Truth series as well. I'm a masochist.

Having done the same....I'm so very sorry you had to do this.

That said, the randian stuff, etc might be reaching a little bit far for meaning for what the film is. Seriously, there's such a thing as over-analyzing something.

[The Glyphstone]

Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...?

http://www.cracked.com/article_19150...otal-b.s..html

When you spill your coffee and need skin grafts afterwards, I think you've got a solid case.

[McStabbington]

Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...?

/facepalm

Somehow, I should have expected that to come up.

Really though, you need to read your own link much more carefully, because however much people like to use that case as an example of the legal system run amok, the more actual details of the case you know, the less and less the jury's decision looks crazy and looks more measured than you or I would be.

For instance, the complaint did not allege "I am suing McDonalds because their coffee is too hot." It alleged that she was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee so hot. The injury in this case was incurred by the passenger in a car that was fully parked. The complaintant removed the lid of the coffee to add cream and sugar and, in doing so, spilled the coffee on her. The resulting coffee spill did not so much burn her as char her genitals within seconds of contact, and did so much damage she had to have skin grafts on her nether regions, followed by two years of medical treatments. Before trial, the woman offered to settle the case $20,000; McDonalds refused to raise their offer of $900. During discovery, it was discovered that McDonalds kept their coffee at 180-190 degrees Farenheit, which can cause 3rd-degree burns within 2-7 seconds of contact with the skin; further the company had already received some 700 reports of injuries.

Mind you, I'm not reporting anything not listed in the wikipedia page you cited, as it comports with everything I know about the case. Suffice to say the real reason that's an example of "the jury system run amok" is not because the jury did anything unreasonable. The more familiar you are with the facts, the more it looks like a pretty open and shut case of a company selling a product to a consumer that was both unreasonably dangerous and could easily be served in a way that reduces the threat, and then being a massive tool in the aftermath. Really, it has more to do with the fact that there was a zeitgeist at the time for believing that state legal action was faulty and corrupt, and the people who reported it were only too happy to elide, obscure or just flat out lie about the details to make the case fit the zeitgeist.

[pendell]

There are others . Example 2 . Example 3 . Yes, you can probably dig down and show how each of those lawsuits(the coffee one is at bottom, for example) isn't really frivolous. But when the phrase Litigation Lottery generates 2,240,000 hits, I suggest the Zeitgeist just *might* have the ghost of a point.

ETA: quotes from the paper I posted:

[T]he fault system is little more than an immoral lottery for both plaintiffs
and defendants.
—Marc A. Franklin

The operation of the tort system is akin to a lottery.
—Jeffrey O’Connell

Our current personal injury law system is not a system of justice; it is a lottery.
—Stephen D. Sugarman

[T]he [tort] system is about as fair as a lottery. In fact it is not too much to
say that it is a lottery, a lottery by law.
—P.S. Atiyah

The nature of a litigation lottery is that the availability of potentially huge
damages justify [sic] bringing a meritless claim, so long as there is some small
chance that the combination of an outlier judge and an outlier jury will produce a jackpot that compensates for the risk that the judge/jury combination will get it right.
—Ted Frank

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jayngfet]

Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...?

At any rate, I think the legal thing was just a mechanism. The fact is, I believe in the Incredible's country there are a lot of people like the Insurance boss, who have no use for heroes. I don't mean superheroes. The boss didn't want him to be an ordinary hero, helping a woman get her claim through a bureaucracy. The Boss IS Syndrome, but without Syndrome's intelligence. He's a mean, petty man who cannot stand to have anyone rise above his level. Such a man tears down superheroes because they are super, and tears down subordinates because they are competent or have hearts.

Why do I think such people were common in the world of the Incredibles? Because the insurance guy wasn't the first person Mr. Incredible had an issue with. He went from job to job to job, constantly being fired because he tried to act heroically. He was a good man in an evil world, so naturally it spit him out over and over and over again.


Get enough people like that in a society, and that society will destroy its superheroes. Because they are everything those petty people aren't. They are great of heart while the insurance guy is spiteful, they are generous where the insurance guy is greedy, they are strong where the insurance guy is weak. And they do it in such a way that it is not possible, as it is in a cube farm, to disguise mediocrity.

Like Redcloak in start of darkness, these petty PHBs will not accept such a world. They will do whatever they have to so they can lie to themselves about what they really are.



That, to my mind, is why the golden age superheroes were forced into hiding. Because Syndrome was just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot of people in that society who didn't want superheroes, and they used the power they had to shun them, to drive them into hiding, to make them hated and feared even without lawsuits. The lawsuits were just the mechanism. IF they had not existed, another would have been found. The crab bucket finds a way. An evil society has no use for good people.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Quoted for truth, not just for the incredibles but in general. I find this is a pretty accurate description of plenty of real and fictional events.

[Soras Teva Gee]

You've got it basically right. In order to pass muster under 12(b)(6), any initial filing saying that you're filing a lawsuit with the court (called a complaint) must have three things. It must state why the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It must give a short brief recitation of facts sufficient, assuming all facts are true, to prove that a law has been violated in such a way that relief is an option. And it must state the form of relief sought. Most of the rules concern various procedural errors such as filing with the improper court or asking that it be thrown out of federal court and filed in state court instead.

But the key part of 12(b)(6) concerns the sufficiency of a statement of facts. If my statement of facts proves that you walked a dog across the sidewalk in front of my house, your initial response to my complaint should, quite reasonably, include a section saying "Even if we accept all of this as true, that's not against the law. As such, motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)." If I were to complain that you violated a law that specifically has a provision "No civil liability shall be incurred by violation of this statute", you could include the same provision because, after all, there's no more sense hearing a lawsuit for which no relief can be granted than one for violating a non-existent law.

Well, if we accept that position, then we have to accept that Mr. Incredible, as an agent of the United States government acting within the scope of his duties, has qualified immunity from suits. In short, so long as he was acting to save the public from a supervillain, he can't be liable for damages. That's something that clearly falls under 12(b)(6). The lawsuit would be thrown out in the pleading stages.

Okay I think I see it now... however I'm still seeing that as a really low hurdle here. As excepting a true blanket immunity then then all jumper-guy's lawyer has to allege is Mr Incredible used excessive force in the fulfillment of his duties making this a case akin to police brutality. Which there are case alleging in sufficient number for me to continue to conclude that this is not so frivolous a claim as no allow it in a court room.

There are others . Example 2 . Example 3 . Yes, you can probably dig down and show how each of those lawsuits(the coffee one is at bottom, for example) isn't really frivolous. But when the phrase Litigation Lottery generates 2,240,000 hits, I suggest the Zeitgeist just *might* have the ghost of a point.

You first link in addition to not providing any useful source material is filled with cases that were either dismissed or have no reported results.

Of the two that succeeded one is the completely serious coffee case already discussed which as the number one cast serious doubts on the writer behind that list ability to both research and interpret matters correctly. That leaves the case of the woman suing the weather station and your list reports winning.

More importantly though only one example actually has the government as a party, in this case they are the ones filing suit. And the related case mentioned in that blurb, is quite serious.

As for the other links, one is a suit for lost property that unusual for the price being asked not the concept of suing a business for loosing your property. The last is a performing street artist seeking to defend his intellectual property and only seemingly "frivolous" because its the Naked Cowboy suing Mars candy. They later settled for an undisclosed amount so evidently he "won" in this regard.

What you are missing by even bringing up these examples though, is that the issue at hand is that the government legally speaking has immunity to tort claims, that it has voluntarily waved but only in certain contexts. So it is being argued can in many cases simply tell you to go stuff it. Thus it is much harder to even get into court.

[pendell]

What you are missing by even bringing up these examples though, is that the issue at hand is that the government

Objection. Where has it been established that Mr. Incredible is a government agent, as opposed to a private citizen ? The fact that the government takes an interest in his activities does not, to my mind, imply that he is in government employ. There is a superhero protection agency, much like the witness protection agency, but a person under government protection does not act with government authority and does not enjoy the consequent immunity.

A private citizen who takes it upon himself to act as law enforcement and/or fire & rescue is open to all kinds of legal liability -- which is consistent with what we saw happen in the film.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, he was directing police actions with seeming authority after the encounter with Bomb Voyage. Also, police seem to be more than grateful for his assistance in catching the baddies in the car.
His status almost certainly doesn't have a real world analogue, but I like the term 'licensed vigilante' despite being a contradiction in terms.

[hamishspence]

The supercar did seem like something that he wouldn't have been able to afford on his "day job" wages.

Though it could have come from a rich, private superhero supporter.

[pendell]

Well, he was directing police actions with seeming authority after the encounter with Bomb Voyage. Also, police seem to be more than grateful for his assistance in catching the baddies in the car.
His status almost certainly doesn't have a real world analogue, but I like the term 'licensed vigilante' despite being a contradiction in terms.

Not really. That's what in the real world is a Bail Bondsman , or a 'bounty hunter', if you prefer the term. Bounty Hunters frequently go outside the law in the course of their actions. They have no immunity or authorization to do so, but police frequently refuse to prosecute these actions. But not always . I note the linked person's career ended precisely in the same fashion Mr. Incredible's did -- in a lawsuit because he exceeded his legal authority.

I also note that there is no in-film existence of a "license". Police officers frequently defer to Superman as well, not because Superman has any legal authority to command them, but because they aren't completely bereft of common sense and want to survive an encounter with a supervillain.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ravens_cry]

Not really. That's what in the real world is a Bail Bondsman , or a 'bounty hunter', if you prefer the term. Bounty Hunters frequently go outside the law in the course of their actions. They have no immunity or authorization to do so, but police frequently refuse to prosecute these actions. But not always . I note the linked person's career ended precisely in the same fashion Mr. Incredible's did -- in a lawsuit because he exceeded his legal authority.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Do bail bondsmen direct police in setting up perimeters to catch baddies? They seemed surprised Bomb Voyage escaped, but not that Mr. Incredible was telling them what to do.
Also, the crimes they go after is quite a bit more restricted than what Mr. Incredible does.
Still, it's a better analogue than I thought existed, thank you.

[pendell]

You're welcome.

Do bail bondsmen direct police in setting up perimeters to catch baddies?

No, but in the real world police rarely encounter villains whom superpowered private citizens can deal with but they cannot. As mentioned above, police defer to Superman as well. Not because Superman is in their chain of command or has legal authority to command them, but because they aren't fools and want to survive an encounter with a supervillain.

It's a cultural change -- time was when ordinary citizens were expected to intervene and act when they saw a problem. Legal liability has, over the decades, gradually restricted things like 'citizen's arrest' to professionals with immunity to liability. In the movie, this sea change impacts superheroes as well as ordinary people.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ravens_cry]

That's what I mean by no exact analogue.

[Kitten Champion]

Having done the same....I'm so very sorry you had to do this.

That said, the randian stuff, etc might be reaching a little bit far for meaning for what the film is. Seriously, there's such a thing as over-analyzing something.

Weep not for me, weep for the generations of people who think Sword of Truth is the height of modern fantasy.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Objection. Where has it been established that Mr. Incredible is a government agent, as opposed to a private citizen ? The fact that the government takes an interest in his activities does not, to my mind, imply that he is in government employ. There is a superhero protection agency, much like the witness protection agency, but a person under government protection does not act with government authority and does not enjoy the consequent immunity.

A private citizen who takes it upon himself to act as law enforcement and/or fire & rescue is open to all kinds of legal liability -- which is consistent with what we saw happen in the film.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That car has a couple of NSA logos pop up from my Recollection.

That's National Supers Agency by the by, operating before changes in politics rewrote its mandate. Also it was clearly stated that the government paid the damage claims for all the supers. While obviously we don't know the details and in this case "agent" could be more like "subcontractor" or some such at the end of the day if the government is paying and not Robert Parr... Mr Incredible is in effect a de facto government agent because the government is assuming responsibility for him.

Alternately there could be no case to begin with, because "Mr Incredible" is not a person but a persona created by the person Robert Parr. So "Mr Incredible" might as well be "unknown assailant" and literally nothing could happen but the clerks having a snicker or two like if someone came filed a suit IRL to sue Superman and not DC Comics.

We know that isn't the case because Mr Incredible was at the trial so there is a structure recognizing supers as some sort of legal entity. However given that he did not in fact end up paying the successful claim, means this isn't simply a legal protection of identity but a more robust structure.

Which is really the only way superheroics start to make sense, as a regulated element of the government extended special protections in light of their superhuman abilities. The starting status quo of the Incredibles universe is rather superior to DC and Marvel in this respect, though Marvel did "try" to bring it about this was sadly murdered in the cradle by writers making a hideous and terrible false analogy to real world politics.

[pendell]

That car has a couple of NSA logos pop up from my Recollection.

I could be blind as a bat but I don't see it. Someone pull up a better picture?

If someone can pull up an official image from the movie or merchandising et al that shows NSA logos on Mr. Incredible's car I will concede that he is a government agent. In the absence of such confirming evidence, I will continue my argument.

ETA: While we're waiting for confirmation ... (I've done some more looking and couldn't find it) ...

That's National Supers Agency by the by, operating before changes in politics rewrote its mandate. Also it was clearly stated that the government paid the damage claims for all the supers. While obviously we don't know the details and in this case "agent" could be more like "subcontractor" or some such at the end of the day if the government is paying and not Robert Parr... Mr Incredible is in effect a de facto government agent because the government is assuming responsibility for him.

I thought the government assuming responsibility for the super's debts was contingent on them renouncing their superheroic lifestyles and entering something very akin to the witness protection program. In which case the N Supers A was at first a liason office between superheroes and the government, later converted into a protection scheme. It doesn't mean the superheroes were operating as government agents back in the golden age. It may mean nothing more than that the government saw a compelling public interest in NOT making every superhero in the country angry at society with legal debts, making them outlaws, but chose this settlement as the easiest method to Make All This Not Be Happening.

I suppose we could write to the authors and ask them what their intent was -- whether the Incredibles were employees of or merely monitored by the N Super A -- but I suspect their answer would be along the order of "GET A LIFE AND GO OUTSIDE!" :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I could be blind as a bat but I don't see it. Someone pull up a better picture?

If someone can pull up an official image from the movie or merchandising et al that shows NSA logos on Mr. Incredible's car I will concede that he is a government agent. In the absence of such confirming evidence, I will continue my argument.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Its was like on the message thing and real quick IIRC, you'll need to watch the film to find it. Obviously externally it looks like a normal car. Checked it doesn't I had a logo crossed.

Also more dubiously but one of the DVD special features out there are NSA files on just about all the supers, including ones that died prior to the ban and all generally making it evident the agency was not simply to be a relocation agency.

Oh and just remembered Rick Dicker was at the wedding which was before the trial.

And remember Robert Parr didn't pay damages the government did. There's no way that works unless the supers are in some manner operating under the auspices of the government. Whether simply licenced and overseen or payrolled there considerable variation allowable (including not all having the same deal) but Mr Incredible in particular obvious received a heavy level of support.

And there is simply no way to sue an independent superhero with a secret identity because it makes you an unknown person.

...EDIT...

I thought the government assuming responsibility for the super's debts was contingent on them renouncing their superheroic lifestyles and entering something very akin to the witness protection program.

That makes zero sense. The costs of the legal battles were the explicit impetus for doing away with supers in the first place.

Why the heck should the government care about the money lost by private individuals to other private individuals? However massive the litigation might have been it would still be just one type of civil litigation carried out everyday.

Also again you can't sue Superman, you'd need to sue Clark Kent. Or maybe an incorporated arm of the League or something. If Bats was clever and had none of the Leaguers actually employed by the corporate arm that charges parts for the Watchtower.... and this is Batman.

For a different example you couldn't sue Spiderman. How would you even know its the same person in the courtroom at trial as committed the act in question!

[grolim]

The supercar did seem like something that he wouldn't have been able to afford on his "day job" wages.

Though it could have come from a rich, private superhero supporter.

Well we know he and other supers had Edna Mode to provide costumes, and her setup reeked of money. Also, who is to say he wasn't buddies with a gadgeteer super?

[pendell]

[QUOTE=Soras Teva Gee;13704936]Its was like on the message thing and real quick IIRC, you'll need to watch the film to find it. Obviously externally it looks like a normal car. Checked it doesn't I had a logo crossed.

Also more dubiously but one of the DVD special features out there are NSA files on just about all the supers, including ones that died prior to the ban and all generally making it evident the agency was not simply to be a relocation agency.

Real governments have full dossiers on everyone who has a security clearance, everyone with a criminal record, everyone affiliated with a terrorist group. I suspect many potential members of such groups also have files. Doesn't make them employees of the government. Even among security clearances, those who have them that aren't all actually in government. Contractors have them too.

Oh and just remembered Rick Dicker was at the wedding which was before the trial.

My father -- no kidding, literal -- is an employee at the IRS until retirement a few years ago and was at my wedding. But I am not now and never have been employed directly by the government.

Government officials make friends who are not in government. Sometimes the friends they make are people they have longtime associations with.

And remember Robert Parr didn't pay damages the government did.

At the final settlement, that is true. But before that, it was "Mr. Incredible" who was sued, not the government. I think it was expected that the superheroes would pay the damages until the government stepped in and brokered a deal.

And there is simply no way to sue an independent superhero with a secret identity because it makes you an unknown person.

Why not? It's no different from a pseudonym. If I sue "Mr. Incredible" , then "Mr. Incredible" must show up in court or face contempt. Doesn't mean he has to reveal his secret identity. He can show up in costume. But it does mean that if Mr. Incredible wants the police to continue helping him, as opposed to apprehending him on sight, then that means he must answer any legal proceedings against him. The alternative is to ditch his costume and never use the "Mr. Incredible" identity again. Assuming the government, which DOES probably know his real identity, doesn't bring him to book anyway. Which they probably would. I think they cut independent superheroes a lot of slack as long as they're a benefit to the society rather tahn a menace to it, but they will NOT tolerate anyone behaving as if they were above the law, super-hero or not.

In point of fact, I am not sure that the "Mr. Incredible" appeared in court was ever publicly identified as "Robert Parr". He appeared in costume and I suspect neither volunteered his real identity nor was forced to compel it under oath.

That makes zero sense. The costs of the legal battles were the explicit impetus for doing away with supers in the first place.

Why the heck should the government care about the money lost by private individuals to other private individuals?

Remember that these 'private individuals' have the power to set fires with their minds, freeze people with a gesture, are invulnerable to bullets.

Step away from the legality of the situation for a moment. Imagine, if you will, that you are a high-level government official. I'm talking cabinet (ministerial) head or higher.


You are faced with the prospect that a number of individuals with overwhelming powers are about to be saddled with debts they cannot legally pay off.

What is the likely outcome of this situation?

Will some of them turn to crime to pay their debts?

Will they renounce their debts altogether, and become fugitives from justice?

Will they take mercenary work in the hopes of squaring the bill , and not ask too many questions of their employers?


Do you really want this to happen? None of these outcomes are a win. Not for the supers. Not for the government. Not for the innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire.

I know what answer the government types *I* knew would do in this situation. "We will do what needs to be done and we'll let the lawyers explain why it was all proper and legal afterwards". Pay the superheroes debts so that they have no grievance against society. Then make sure this will NEVER, EVER happen again by hiding the supers away. Essentially, it's the "fugitives" option, but instead of hiding FROM the government they're hidden BY the government. Which means the government gets to keep a close eye on the supers lest any of them suddenly decide to become supervillains or get hit by a mind control ray or what have you. This also means the supers think of the government as an ally and a protector, rather than being alienated from it.

And as to my "what bad things can happen" scenario, note that Mr. Incredible flirts with several of them.

The law does not exist for its own sake itself -- laws exist to enable ordinary people to live ordinary lives without fear. I can well imagine a government doing such a thing, because even a lawful government has an overriding priority to preserve and protect the lives of the citizens under its care. That means protecting ordinary people from supers, and protecting supers from an ordinary society that no longer has a place for them.

For a different example you couldn't sue Spiderman. How would you even know its the same person in the courtroom at trial as committed the act in question!

Sure you could. File the papers. Of course Mr. Incredible could refuse to answer the summons. But he won't. Because He's Mr. Incredible. He does the right thing even when it costs him. He does the right thing even when he could easily get away with NOT doing it. That's why he's a hero. And that's why the first part of the movie is such a tragedy -- because Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl are really nice people, in costume or out of it, and society punishes them for it.
Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Real governments have full dossiers on everyone who has a security clearance, everyone with a criminal record, everyone affiliated with a terrorist group. I suspect many potential members of such groups also have files. Doesn't make them employees of the government. Even among security clearances, those who have them that aren't all actually in government. Contractors have them too.

For the NSA to have be maintaining record as if supers are active and not historical they have to you know... exist. And be in the business of managing supers in some fashion.

My father -- no kidding, literal -- is an employee at the IRS until retirement a few years ago and was at my wedding. But I am not now and never have been employed directly by the government.


Government officials make friends who are not in government. Sometimes the friends they make are people they have longtime associations with.

See those straws your grasping, they're straws.

Mr Incredible got to drive around a super gadget car, and wore a bulletproof designer suit, order a cops around, had the government pay for something he did. Yet fast forward and he can only afford a cheap unsexy car and modest home on a office workers salary, so he clearly had no independent wealth to support his heroism

And the one NSA agent we know by name was at his wedding but oh noes he just happened to later join that agency later created only to relocate supers and just happened to be friends with Bob for completely unrelated reasons we are never told nor given grounds to infer.

Read between the lines already. The supers were deputized by the government long time before the movie started. No there isn't any explicit confirmation, but it is simply inferred and provides the simplest explanation for everything.

At the final settlement, that is true. But before that, it was "Mr. Incredible" who was sued, not the government. I think it was expected that the superheroes would pay the damages until the government stepped in and brokered a deal.

Supported by what exactly in the film?

Why not? It's no different from a pseudonym.

Umm yeah you would sue say an author under there real name not a pen name so I agree. While on the under end a pseudonym won't have bank accounts, social security numbers, or other forms of actual identification.

Of course these days pseudonyms are generally something discoverable so its a matter of research. Secret identities are well not.

If I sue "Mr. Incredible" , then "Mr. Incredible" must show up in court or face contempt.

So some yahoo paid a couple hundred bucks under the table to be "Mr. Incredible" shows up says "I'm Mr. Incredible and look I clearly didn't do this and here's my alibi for the event in question" while their lawyer moves to dismiss the case. Since you can't prove who Mr Incredible is and he wears a disguise well, why is he wrong?

Do you begin to see the massive problems with trying a fictious persona of no verifiable identity.

Doesn't mean he has to reveal his secret identity. He can show up in costume.

Yes it does.

You don't just show up to a court. Identities are concealed in some cases but these are specific exceptions that have to be established. Entities operating outside the law would by definition enjoy no such protections.

Now certainly a special provision for such a case can exist, but it would have to exist first.

But it does mean that if Mr. Incredible wants the police to continue helping him, as opposed to apprehending him on sight, then that means he must answer any legal proceedings against him. The alternative is to ditch his costume and never use the "Mr. Incredible" identity again. Assuming the government, which DOES probably know his real identity, doesn't bring him to book anyway. Which they probably would. I think they cut independent superheroes a lot of slack as long as they're a benefit to the society rather tahn a menace to it, but they will NOT tolerate anyone behaving as if they were above the law, super-hero or not.

You seem to be increasingly backing your speculations with other speculations, that doesn't work.

If there isn't a consensual relationship then how does the government know the secret identities. Because they're just that good? I dare say there wouldn't be much need for heroes with such capable governance. Because of course the ability to discover a criminal's identity would be rather hard on crime.

In point of fact, I am not sure that the "Mr. Incredible" appeared in court was ever publicly identified as "Robert Parr". He appeared in costume and I suspect neither volunteered his real identity nor was forced to compel it under oath.

Which of course is the simplest to resolve by Mr. Incredible working with a proper authorization under the law.

Remember that these 'private individuals' have the power to set fires with their minds, freeze people with a gesture, are invulnerable to bullets.

Step away from the legality of the situation for a moment. Imagine, if you will, that you are a high-level government official. I'm talking cabinet (ministerial) head or higher.

I did loooong time ago, its why supervision by the government who both regulates the conduct of super-powered individuals but also including deputizes them to act as heroes with authority under the eyes of the law is the only sensible solution which is why I was so glad to see it in the movie.

As not coincidentally not long after the movie Marvel proceded to show how badly it can be done, so the only actual solution being done properly warmed my heart. Of course the public screwed the whole thing up, but that looked to be resolved by the movie anyways.

[pendell]

For the NSA to have be maintaining record as if supers are active and not historical they have to you know... exist. And be in the business of managing supers in some fashion.

In the business of monitoring them, at least. Which you would expect in a world in which superheroes exist.

Mr Incredible got to drive around a super gadget car, and wore a bulletproof designer suit, order a cops around, had the government pay for something he did.

Batman could do the same and he was never a government employee.

Yet fast forward and he can only afford a cheap unsexy car and modest home on a office workers salary, so he clearly had no independent wealth to support his heroism

Or he lost it all due to legal fees. He may have been independently wealthy a la bruce wayne, and that is where he got his car. Many superheroes in the original comment had neato gadgets and they were not explained except via Rule of Cool.

And the one NSA agent we know by name was at his wedding but oh noes he just happened to later join that agency later created only to relocate supers and just happened to be friends with Bob for completely unrelated reasons we are never told nor given grounds to infer.

If the person was a long time case officer they could indeed have a friendly relationship. That does not imply employment.

Read between the lines already. The supers were deputized by the government long time before the movie started. No there isn't any explicit confirmation, but it is simply inferred and provides the simplest explanation for everything.

With respect, it is not.

In the first place, deputization is not the same thing as employment . It is still the law of the land that government officials can temporarily conscript private citizens to assist in functions beyond the normal function of government. This does not make them government agents. It makes them citizens.

I can put it no more plainly then this: The world in which the Golden Age comics were made is a different country. "Citizenship" in that world meant something different than it does here. Ordinary people were expected to behave as police officers or firefighters in times of crisis, and that is what golden age superheroes did -- mild mannered ordinary people until there was an emergency, in which case they put on their costumes. Then, when the emergency was over, they resumed their secret identities.

The world in which we now live doesn't work like that, because we are much more specialized. Heck, in the modern world even trained professionals sometimes refuse to go into sitautions they are not trained for. I suspect in the incident I linked the issue was insurance and liability concerns.

This was common in the original comic book stories. Batman was a private citizen. Superman was a private citizen. I believe Professor Xavier and the X-men was a private citizen. To assume heroes based on the original template should suddenly become government employees is a bridge too far absent confirming evidence, so far as I am concerned.

I further contend that "reading between the lines" is speculation.

Supported by what exactly in the film?

Was Mr. Incredible sued, or the government? Is it not reasonable that if he was the one sued, then he is also liable for damages unless another party steps in and assumes liability for him?

So some yahoo paid a couple hundred bucks under the table to be "Mr. Incredible" shows up says "I'm Mr. Incredible and look I clearly didn't do this and here's my alibi for the event in question" while their lawyer moves to dismiss the case. Since you can't prove who Mr Incredible is and he wears a disguise well, why is he wrong?

Except it didn't happen that way in the movie, so far as I can tell. It was a ten minute throwaway gag to establish that the golden age of superheroes was past. If the writers hadn't thought of a legal gag, they'd have found some other way to do it.

Do you begin to see the massive problems with trying a fictious persona of no verifiable identity.

In the real world? Yes. The rules seem to be different in the world of the Incredibles.

This is a problem when we analogize too much with real life -- the Incredibles world is much like ours, but it has fundamental differences. Exactly how superheroes can be sued in court, compelled to come to court, but still protect their secret identities from the public is unexplained, but since it happened in the film the mechanism must exist. It was not explained, perhaps, because it was not relevant to the story.

If there isn't a consensual relationship then how does the government know the secret identities. Because they're just that good? I dare say there wouldn't be much need for heroes with such capable governance. Because of course the ability to discover a criminal's identity would be rather hard on crime.

I will throw back your own word at you: Speculation. We don't know how the government compiled those dossiers.

As to whether there is a "need" for superheroes -- didn't society decide superheroes were unnecessary? Isn't that why the superheroes disappeared? Because people didn't really feel they needed the heroes?

Which of course is the simplest to resolve by Mr. Incredible working with a proper authorization under the law.

Occam's razor applies only to those simple solutions which fit all the known facts. Such a concept, as I explain, is untrue to the original comic book heroes of which the Incredibles are remniscient, and I am unwilling to accept such a dramatic change to the myth absent confirming proof, not speculation.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kd7sov]

Batman could do the same and he was never a government employee.

Batman is also Bruce Wayne, who is independently wealthy, and (it is my impression) fairly frequently established as such. I am unaware of any indication that Robert Parr is or used to be rich, or that he is used to living above his current means.