Why is DC sucking so much?

[Reddish Mage]

But if he was the diabolical mad man control freak that you're making him out to be, that probably would have gone differently. If he was the guy you're making him out to be, he wouldn't have allowed Hulk to fight Abomination. He'd just keep shooting, and foaming at the mouth apparently, until Abomination murdered him.

My favor? Here's my point. Ross isn't the one-dimensional villain you're making him out to be. I don't need to repaint anything. He's a human with a job to do; bring down the Hulk. He's a father with a job to do; protect his daughter from the Hulk.

Ross doesn’t have to be literally foaming at the mouth to be a one-dimensional character. He’s a stock bull-headed reactionary general. He thought he was protecting his daughter as a monster because he willfully refused to see Banner or Hulk in human terms.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ross doesn’t have to be literally foaming at the mouth to be a one-dimensional character. He’s a stock bull-headed reactionary general. He thought he was protecting his daughter as a monster because he willfully refused to see Banner or Hulk in human terms.

In canon, Banner has tried to kill himself to avoid being the Hulk, because he can't control it. At the end of the Hulk movie when he's telling Ross to let him fight Abomination, it's mentioned that he can't control the Hulk and Banner says "No, but maybe I can direct it at the Abomination" and Ross says "But what if you can't?"

That's the entire point of the Hulk. Banner doesn't avoid transforming because it's an interesting character quirk. He avoids transforming because he can't control the Hulk and the Hulk is an unstoppable avatar of destruction.

Choosing to overlook Banner's humanity (which Banner himself does when he attempts suicide) does not make Ross a villain. It makes him a guy with an impossible job.

It's like you expect Ross to hold a press conference and say "Yes, it's true that the Hulk destroyed thirty square miles of New York City today. I know some of you think we didn't try our absolute darndest to prevent this awful catastrophe from happening, but I think you're forgetting to think about the Hulk in human terms. There is a person there, underneath the rampaging murdering monstrosity. We can't forget about Banner."

You can say Ross acted as he did because he's a one-dimensional villain. But I think he did what he did for the same reasons Banner tried to kill himself, for the same reasons Tony built a Hulk-buster suit, for the same reasons Loki is terrified to be in the same arena as Hulk, etc.

[Glorthindel]

If, as you say, the Accords are an attempt to prevent supers from doing whatever they want, then the degree to which supers have actually been kept from doing whatever they want has to be the measure by which the success of the Accords is judged. In order to argue that the Accords should be judged by some other measure, you have to argue that they have another purpose besides that one.

To be fair, that isn't the only thing the Accords are meant to do. Like any legal document drafted anywhere, by anyone, a good chunk of it is designed to cover asses.

Under the former situation, you had heavily-armed citizens of one country (and in some cases former members of that countries armed forces) storming in to other countries and getting their civilians killed. Under any normal circumstance, that would very swiftly result in an unpleasant visit from a diplomat discussing the subjects of compensation and declarations of war.

By signing and inacting the law, whether the people it is targetting pay any attension to it what so ever, the countries that these beings were citizens of are in the clear for anything they do. If the Accords aren't there and Captain America enters say, Russia, China or North Korea, and people die, and some journalist gets a nice picture of a superhuman wearing the stars and stripes with a nice dismembered local in the frame, then that is a diplomatic ****-storm of epic proportions. However, with the Accords, the US can point to them and say that Cap is a wanted fugitive and they can wash their hands of his actions. Regardless of how much any of the heroes accept the Accords, there is a real benefit for everyone else for having them.

[Tyndmyr]

Not true, he was in one of the One Shots, where he was such a raging jerk that Tony bought his favorite bar just to level it. And when is Tony ever malicious in his pettiness?

True, true. Granted, one shots probably aren't as well known as the films are, but it certainly does nothing to redeem Ross.

Ross made a mistake. Kind of like Tony did when he created Ultron. Oops. So now is Tony automatically wrong all the time as well?

Tony is actually wrong about creating Ultron. He didn't create Ultron, he DISCOVERED Ultron. But yes, Tony is frequently wrong. His judgement is definitely flawed, and needs questioning.

The fact that he's the one backing the Accords....

Tony's mistake in this film is mostly, like always, arrogance. He's confident that he can play everything to his advantage, and everything'll work out alright. He's *pretty* good at this, but he still routinely overestimates it, and it shows up in basically every film he's in.

I think youre misreading that. The problem is cap deciding that his friends, who committed legitimate crimes against a legitimate authority, don't belong in jail, and uses his abilities to enforce his will above the legitimate law. Yes, the accords accelerated that into direct confrontation sooner than it might have otherwise occurred, but its still a problem that would have come up eventually anyway.

No. Cap decides that murdering him is wrong. He's been routinely willing to try to take Bucky captive.

MoS was essentially 'Superman Begins'. Audiences are more cynical now, they're less inclined to believe in the 'Big Blue Boy Scout'-see Superman Returns.

I would question that a film portraying Supes as abandoning his child did a good job of showing him at his best.

[Keltest]

No. Cap decides that murdering him is wrong. He's been routinely willing to try to take Bucky captive.

I'm not talking about just Bucky, although that also does support the idea that Cap believes his judgment to be superior to the government's. No, I mean Falcon, Ant Man, Hawkeye and the others who got arrested during the airport battle. What they were doing was illegal, and they went in knowing that. Cap broke into the facility where they were being held prisoner for legitimate and acknowledged crimes and released them.

[Avilan the Grey]

In canon, Banner has tried to kill himself to avoid being the Hulk, because he can't control it. At the end of the Hulk movie when he's telling Ross to let him fight Abomination, it's mentioned that he can't control the Hulk and Banner says "No, but maybe I can direct it at the Abomination" and Ross says "But what if you can't?"

Which is what he says in Avengers. He shot himself in the mouth, "And the other one spit out the bullet".

[Lethologica]

To be fair, that isn't the only thing the Accords are meant to do. Like any legal document drafted anywhere, by anyone, a good chunk of it is designed to cover asses.

This is a rationale I can agree with.

[Anteros]

I'm not talking about just Bucky, although that also does support the idea that Cap believes his judgment to be superior to the government's. No, I mean Falcon, Ant Man, Hawkeye and the others who got arrested during the airport battle. What they were doing was illegal, and they went in knowing that. Cap broke into the facility where they were being held prisoner for legitimate and acknowledged crimes and released them.

HIS JUDGEMENT IS SUPERIOR TO THE GOVENMENT'S. IT'S NOT EVEN DEBATABLE, WE'VE HAD 3 MOVIES SHOWING IT TO BE OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

Asking someone to join a government sponsored strike team with morally and legally dubious grounding is about as likely to work on Cap as it is to work on Magneto. For the exact same reason. They've both seen what happens when soldiers just mindlessly follow unethical orders, and they both know it's not an excuse.

Does the U.N. even have the power to force random people to fight for them? I'm pretty sure they don't. At the most member countries can say that they don't want the Avengers operating in their borders. The Accords aren't even legal in any sense outside of "we're the government and we're more powerful than you, so do what we say." Unfortunately, they're not actually more powerful than the Avengers, so they don't even have that going for them.

We're talking about a world where the governments are run by literal Nazi shadow organizations. These are the people who (within the last year or two) tried to nuke New York and then built giant death machines to pre-emptively murder millions of people who might speak out against their totalitarian rule. Signing on to work for them is not only unethical, it's completely moronic, and suicidally insane.

Maybe the Accords would have some place in a different universe where the overseeing bodies aren't completely corrupt, incompetent idiots who would have the entire world destroyed within 6 months. Maybe retiring instead of signing would be an option in a universe where Thanos and his Chitauri armies aren't going to murder everyone on Earth if someone doesn't regularly stop them. Neither of those are true for the MCU.

When the options are between "break the law" or "work for the evil shadow organization" or "let everyone on Earth die" it's pretty clear cut which one is right.

[Sapphire Guard]

It's a bit different in movies that clearly aren't meant to be taken seriously. You assume the henchman with the bomb in his pants survives because the entire movie is basically a cartoon with cartoon laws and physics. It's played as a joke. Snyder would have shown the same scene except with the henchman exploding into a pile of gore. You can't really compare the two.

Likewise, in Batman Begins we're meant to assume that he's just that good that he can intentionally do things like hit a car without killing anyone. Sure, that's not realistic, but nothing Batman does is meant to be realistic. Contrast to BvS where he's clearly and intentionally murdering people. It's a completely different tone. One that honestly has no place in a Batman movie.

So... a double standard, then?

He looks pained the entire movie helping innocent people. He's floating over traumatized flood victims lording his power over them as they reach up to him begging for help. He was probably trying to decide if he should save them or not. "Do I owe the people of Earth anything? Martha said no. But dad said I might be a messiah. Decisions, decisions..."

Of course he looks upset watching innocent people in peril. Why shouldn't he? A smile is a highly inappropriate reaction to desperate people on the brink of drowning. Why would he be happy about their plight? The smiles come later, when everyone is safe.

As for the pause, how about 'who do I save first?'

We're talking about a world where the governments are run by literal Nazi shadow organizations. These are the people who (within the last year or two) tried to nuke New York and then built giant death machines to pre-emptively murder millions of people who might speak out against their totalitarian rule. Signing on to work for them is not only unethical, it's completely moronic, and suicidally insane.

That was SHIELD, which is now gone, and the World Security Council, who are all dead except British lady. That has nothing to do with the people behind the Accords.

[Anteros]

So... a double standard, then?

Yes, a double standard. Since we're not mindless robots or naive children and we can look past scary buzz-words at the context of the situation and realize it's the only reasonable choice that doesn't end up with the planet destroyed. People who have the power to protect the planet, and a history of doing so, should get more lee-way than people who don't. That seems pretty simple.

That was SHIELD, which is now gone, and the World Security Council, who are all dead except British lady. That has nothing to do with the people behind the Accords.

Oh you're right. This organization would never be susceptible to evil or incompetence. I guess it's time to arrest the people who have saved the planet 3 times and put the guy who created the Abomination and set it loose in a city in charge! Very compelling.

[Tyndmyr]

That was SHIELD, which is now gone, and the World Security Council, who are all dead except British lady. That has nothing to do with the people behind the Accords.

Who, exactly, are these good and noble people behind the accords?

Because we have the veep of the US organizing murders, the king of Wakanda trying to murder folks, all the governmental folks that Hydra infiltrated(including US gov folks) trying to, again, murder people....

Who are the policymakers portrayed in the MCU who *aren't* evil?

[Dr.Samurai]

Tony's mistake in this film is mostly, like always, arrogance. He's confident that he can play everything to his advantage, and everything'll work out alright. He's *pretty* good at this, but he still routinely overestimates it, and it shows up in basically every film he's in.

Correct. My impression is that Metahuman1 is not allowing Ross any character flaws or mistakes. The villain in various Marvel movies are directly the product of Tony's mistakes.

Cap believes the best way to save Bucky's soul is to not fight back in Winter Soldier. So even though they defeat the helicarriers, Cap allows Bucky to "kill" him. The end result would be the world loses Captain America, a superhero, and still has the Winter Soldier, a perfect puppet super soldier for HYDRA. That's Cap's judgment.

No one in these films is perfect. And I know Ross is the antagonist of the Hulk movie, but that doesn't make him a villain, and Civil War does not set him up that way.

I'm not talking about just Bucky, although that also does support the idea that Cap believes his judgment to be superior to the government's. No, I mean Falcon, Ant Man, Hawkeye and the others who got arrested during the airport battle. What they were doing was illegal, and they went in knowing that. Cap broke into the facility where they were being held prisoner for legitimate and acknowledged crimes and released them.

Exactly. This creates a problem for everyone. As Tony says to Hawkeye "you have a family, why didn't you think of them before you did this?" and it's the truth. So... is Clint just going to be a fugitive now? Will the government set up a perimeter around his house and hold his family hostage? If so, will the Avengers storm the place to rescue them? Then what? Where do they live? On the compound? What about Scott Lang? The whole point of his solo movie is to prove himself worthy of being in his daughter's life. So... now he's just going to break the law, get imprisoned, and then escape into a life of being an international fugitive? This is Cap's judgment. We can't even negotiate. The choice is simple; buck all legal authorities and who cares what happens next.

Of course he looks upset watching innocent people in peril. Why shouldn't he? A smile is a highly inappropriate reaction to desperate people on the brink of drowning. Why would he be happy about their plight? The smiles come later, when everyone is safe.

There were no smiles. They only come, barely, when Lois is around. He doesn't look sad for people, he looks bothered. If there was concern, and he was flurrying around trying to help, ok. But that is not what the film is portraying. The film is portraying a Superman that is conflicted about being a hero to the point that you wonder why he is actually doing it.

As for the pause, how about 'who do I save first?'

How about he is a god and they are reaching up to the heavens for salvation, and he has to make a choice to give it to them or not.

That's the whole point of DCEU Superman, and that's why that scene is shot like that and not with Superman, you know, actually saving anyone.

[Cikomyr]

HIS JUDGEMENT IS SUPERIOR TO THE GOVENMENT'S. IT'S NOT EVEN DEBATABLE, WE'VE HAD 3 MOVIES SHOWING IT TO BE OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

Lets just pick Steve Rogers as Earth Dictator for Life then. He is so much better.

Also, nobody is forcing to fight for them. The Accords offer 3 options:

- Abide
- Go to prison
- Retire

Its not just "do what we want or you go to prison". The entire reason why these Accords are acceptable to me is that they provide guidelines to vigilantes. But you can just stop being a Vigilante.

[Anteros]

Lets just pick Steve Rogers as Earth Dictator for Life then. He is so much better.

Also, nobody is forcing to fight for them. The Accords offer 3 options:

- Abide
- Go to prison
- Retire

Its not just "do what we want or you go to prison". The entire reason why these Accords are acceptable to me is that they provide guidelines to vigilantes. But you can just stop being a Vigilante.

Except retiring in this universe literally means the doing nothing while the world ends in 6 months when the next big purple guy shows up. Or Hydra creates another helicarrier of doom. Or the government tries to respond to an invading army by nuking its own cities. Or Ross makes another Abomination. Or. Or. Or. Or. The list goes on and on. Retiring is literally not an option unless you just want to accept death.

You're trying to apply real life rules and logic, but you can't. This isn't our world. This is a world that's on the brink of death at all times, and the only thing holding it back is vigilantes. Vigilantes who cannot operate with a corrupt government turning them into their personal strike squad.

[Cikomyr]

Except retiring in this universe literally means the doing nothing while the world ends in 6 months when the next big purple guy shows up. Or Hydra creates another helicarrier of doom. Or the government tries to respond to an invading army by nuking its own cities. Or Ross makes another Abomination. Or. Or. Or. Or. The list goes on and on. Retiring is literally not an option unless you just want to accept death.

You're trying to apply real life rules and logic, but you can't. This isn't our world. This is a world that's on the brink of death at all times, and the only thing holding it back is vigilantes. Vigilantes who cannot operate with a corrupt government turning them into their personal strike squad.

I only live in the real world, so i can only genuinely deal with real life moralities. I am not going to develop a set of moral guidelines based on every bull**** worlds a writer can invent.

[Forum Explorer]

Except retiring in this universe literally means the doing nothing while the world ends in 6 months when the next big purple guy shows up. Or Hydra creates another helicarrier of doom. Or the government tries to respond to an invading army by nuking its own cities. Or Ross makes another Abomination. Or. Or. Or. Or. The list goes on and on. Retiring is literally not an option unless you just want to accept death.

You're trying to apply real life rules and logic, but you can't. This isn't our world. This is a world that's on the brink of death at all times, and the only thing holding it back is vigilantes. Vigilantes who cannot operate with a corrupt government turning them into their personal strike squad.

That's kinda the problem isn't it?

The Accords is a real world solution. If superheroes existed in our world, something like the Accords would make perfect sense because reasonable people in government exist, and people like Ross would likely get fired the first time he made an Abomination. Actually, wasn't he responsible for the Hulk as well? I'm getting off track.

Point is the Marvel Universe Civil War movie, showed us that it doesn't make sense to follow the Accords because you simply can't trust any big organizations.

[GloatingSwine]

That's kinda the problem isn't it?

The Accords is a real world solution. If superheroes existed in our world, something like the Accords would make perfect sense because reasonable people in government exist, and people like Ross would likely get fired the first time he made an Abomination. Actually, wasn't he responsible for the Hulk as well? I'm getting off track.

Point is the Marvel Universe Civil War movie, showed us that it doesn't make sense to follow the Accords because you simply can't trust any big organizations.

No, the accords aren't a real world solution because the real world actually has solutions to the problem they intend to solve. They're called local laws.

You can't actually just go and be a vigilante in other countries and assume that no laws apply to you, the laws of those countries still apply to things you do there.

Now, you might say that these are superpowers and local law enforcement wouldn't have any way to stand up to them, but remember that Crossbones existed. The "real world" solution would be proliferation of the sort of technology he was using, or that the next Justin Hammer, the Tinker, or Ulysses Klaw could supply, so that nations could put forth an armed response capable of stopping most Avengers from committing vigilante crimes in their territory. (The Hulk is basically weather, if you wait long enough he goes away).

Now that would be a reason for the Sokovia Accords, not "make some laws that apply to Avengers", but "officially put the Avengers in a box so that every nation on earth doesn't arm its police and military with massive firepower to arrest them and make the world much more dangerous for everyone involved".

[Tyndmyr]

Correct. My impression is that Metahuman1 is not allowing Ross any character flaws or mistakes. The villain in various Marvel movies are directly the product of Tony's mistakes.

Cap believes the best way to save Bucky's soul is to not fight back in Winter Soldier. So even though they defeat the helicarriers, Cap allows Bucky to "kill" him. The end result would be the world loses Captain America, a superhero, and still has the Winter Soldier, a perfect puppet super soldier for HYDRA. That's Cap's judgment.

No one in these films is perfect. And I know Ross is the antagonist of the Hulk movie, but that doesn't make him a villain, and Civil War does not set him up that way.

He isn't the villain of Civil War, no. Zemo is the obvious primary villain. Crossbones as secondary. But he *is* an antagonist. Not as the primary adversary, but he does represent an obstacle to heroism.

Cap isn't dead, so...his judgement in Winter soldier isn't that bad. He apparently is redeeming Bucky, too. Cap is very good at fighting Hydra, the fact that he is capable of knowing when not to fight is a point in his favor.

Do agree entirely Re:Superman, so no need to elaborate further on that.

Lets just pick Steve Rogers as Earth Dictator for Life then. He is so much better.

Also, nobody is forcing to fight for them. The Accords offer 3 options:

- Abide
- Go to prison
- Retire

Its not just "do what we want or you go to prison". The entire reason why these Accords are acceptable to me is that they provide guidelines to vigilantes. But you can just stop being a Vigilante.

I doubt Cap would want to be Dictator. Kind of part and parcel of who he is. The inspirational leader, not the sort to force people into lockstep.

The fact that you can retire is good, I think, but the whole "good people do nothing, so evil wins" remains a problem. Particularly when the folks behind the Accords decide to shoot Bucky on sight. The world of the MCU needs superheroes. Quite frequently. If they all opted to retire, what happens the next time something goes horribly awry?

[Aotrs Commander]

The fact that you can retire is good, I think, but the whole "good people do nothing, so evil wins" remains a problem. Particularly when the folks behind the Accords decide to shoot Bucky on sight. The world of the MCU needs superheroes. Quite frequently. If they all opted to retire, what happens the next time something goes horribly awry?

I mean, let's face it, the MCU can't even manage to have their explicitly-designed-to-combat-this-stuff-organisation last more than five minutes at any given time without something disconknockerating it, even with actual competant people in charge, let alone buffoons like Ross or Talbot...

[Anteros]

No, the accords aren't a real world solution because the real world actually has solutions to the problem they intend to solve. They're called local laws.

You can't actually just go and be a vigilante in other countries and assume that no laws apply to you, the laws of those countries still apply to things you do there.

Now, you might say that these are superpowers and local law enforcement wouldn't have any way to stand up to them, but remember that Crossbones existed. The "real world" solution would be proliferation of the sort of technology he was using, or that the next Justin Hammer, the Tinker, or Ulysses Klaw could supply, so that nations could put forth an armed response capable of stopping most Avengers from committing vigilante crimes in their territory. (The Hulk is basically weather, if you wait long enough he goes away).

Now that would be a reason for the Sokovia Accords, not "make some laws that apply to Avengers", but "officially put the Avengers in a box so that every nation on earth doesn't arm its police and military with massive firepower to arrest them and make the world much more dangerous for everyone involved".

You say that like they haven't explicitly been shown trying and failing that very thing in basically every movie. Or as if militaries aren't going to try anyway, even if every single Avenger retired immediately.

[Starbuck_II]

I doubt Cap would want to be Dictator. Kind of part and parcel of who he is. The inspirational leader, not the sort to force people into lockstep.

Well, in the comics, someone cloned Cap and turned that Clone hydra. And since they looked the same, he was given full power over USA.
It was pretty decent comic. He was still rather Inspirational.

[Mechalich]

Now, you might say that these are superpowers and local law enforcement wouldn't have any way to stand up to them, but remember that Crossbones existed. The "real world" solution would be proliferation of the sort of technology he was using, or that the next Justin Hammer, the Tinker, or Ulysses Klaw could supply, so that nations could put forth an armed response capable of stopping most Avengers from committing vigilante crimes in their territory. (The Hulk is basically weather, if you wait long enough he goes away).

The problem here is that is you have technology based superheroes or just superheroes with superhuman intelligence who can produce extremely rapid technological advances, then the technological takeoff destroys your setting.

Take just Stark's Iron Man suit technology. That suit - just the simple one he built in the first movie - gives you the power of a couple of helicopters in a human sized package with a nearly infinite range and incredible flexibility. What if Stark had given it away? It's obviously possible to build large numbers of these units. The US government could have fabricated hundreds of them at least, probably thousands. Once you do that, they world changes, and it changes dramatically. Wars are fought in a completely different way, the map gets redrawn, and of course probably we get some nukes fired off at some point. That means you stop having a set of superhero stories, and you have a military science fiction thriller about the development of powered armor.

And that's one invention. The MCU has tossed out a number of super technologies. Massive amounts of handwaving are necessary to justify continued stasis. This is actually one area where DC, and also FOX with the X-men, are better positioned because they don't have explicitly tech-based heroes (Cyborg's tech is alien in origin and therefore has at least some excuse as to be beyond any sort of reverse engineering). Unfortunately, those heroes not powered by technology in various universes tend to beyond the ability of institutions to contain (especially without some kind of supertech like the cell they put Loki in on the Helicarrier in Avengers I). Superman is the most obvious, but various members of the X-men - remember that time Professor X almost killed the entire human species in X2, or all the millions of people Magneto killed in Apocalypse - have been there, and the Marvel Universe is throwing around infinity stones and Celestials now. Dr. Strange could unmake the Earth with the eye of Agamoto if he really wanted too. Vision could absolutely have completed Ultron's attempted genocide the old-fashioned nuclear way rather than bothering with artificial meteors.

Past a certain point on the power scale the authorities can't contest the supers, and it's really hard to keep your supers below that point. The temptation to go big is just too strong. Once you've gone past that point it's not about actual restraint, it's about the plausibility of your handwaves.

[Dr.Samurai]

He isn't the villain of Civil War, no. Zemo is the obvious primary villain. Crossbones as secondary. But he *is* an antagonist. Not as the primary adversary, but he does represent an obstacle to heroism.

Sure. But he is being presented as a reason the Accords should auto-fail, or a reason to think it would be totally unreasonable for the heroes to sign on, or that he's hungry for power and control over the Avengers. I don't think the movie portrays that at all. His first line in the entire movie is about how he has gained perspective after a heart attack, and the second line is admitting that the world owes the Avengers an incredible debt. So I think it's reasonable to give him a shot, and as the movie progresses I really don't see him betraying that notion. In fact, the idea that he is in control of the Avengers is strange because after the Romania incident he is on the phone asking Tony if the Romania mission was Accords sanctioned. If Ross is the tyrant of the Accords, why is he asking Tony if the mission was sanctioned? Shouldn't he know already? Shouldn't he be the one making those calls?

This isn't a hill I feel like dying on, but I would consider the heroes first before pointing the finger at Ross for why the Accords created a conflict the way it did.

Cap isn't dead, so...his judgement in Winter soldier isn't that bad. He apparently is redeeming Bucky, too.

I don't mean his judgment about Bucky. I mean his judgment with regards to priority. He doesn't have to kill Bucky. He can bring him in. But instead he risks his own life. Seems he was right that Bucky can be redeemed, but that matters to Cap alone. Anyone else's priority would be to neutralize Barnes and bring him in.

Consider that if Cap brought Barnes in at the end of Winter Soldier, Zemo would have to break him out in the first place in order to frame him in Civil War.

Cap is very good at fighting Hydra, the fact that he is capable of knowing when not to fight is a point in his favor.

Tell that to the people Bucky killed in Germany, or their friends and family. Or the people in charge of safe-guarding those people. Again, Cap's judgement on this is totally personal and totally selfish. He wants to save his friend. Anyone can sympathize with that. It doesn't make it the right decision in every context, or a decision that everyone would agree with. Ross says it himself; they should have killed Bucky. Because they didn't, he escaped in Germany and killed dozens of people. If you look at it from the perspective of someone that isn't Bucky's friend, Cap is making the wrong choice.

Let's say Cap had given the Accords a shot when Tony brought him the pens. Then Cap would have captured Bucky after the escape, like in the movie, but instead of going into hiding, he would have brought him in. Bucky would reveal the information about the super soldier base in Siberia, and the Avengers would have taken off to stop Zemo.

Instead, Cap and Sam are on their own, so they enlist Clint, Scott, and Wanda to help them, making all of them fugitives. And since he keeps obstructing the authorities (Captain AMERICA is fighting German special forces to keep Bucky alive) Ross has to consider killing him because he is allowing Bucky to evade authorities and Bucky is killing people.

People have to own the choices they make.

[Sinewmire]

Let's say Cap had given the Accords a shot when Tony brought him the pens. Then Cap would have captured Bucky after the escape, like in the movie, but instead of going into hiding, he would have brought him in. Bucky would reveal the information about the super soldier base in Siberia, and the Avengers would have taken off to stop Zemo.

Instead, Cap and Sam are on their own, so they enlist Clint, Scott, and Wanda to help them, making all of them fugitives. And since he keeps obstructing the authorities (Captain AMERICA is fighting German special forces to keep Bucky alive) Ross has to consider killing him because he is allowing Bucky to evade authorities and Bucky is killing people.

People have to own the choices they make.

Sure, on the other hand, 6 months later Thanos or whatever appears in the Ukraine, or North Korea, Russia/China and their allies in the UN refuse to let the Avengers deal with it and millions die whilst the world's heroes are legally required to watch, helplessly.

[Frozen_Feet]

*Blink*

Why is a thread about why DCU sucks, filled to brim with discussion of the MCU?

Oh, well. Maybe that's an indirect answer to the question posed by the thread title.

Anyways, about MCU...

The idea that "Avengers would've been right to flip off the Accords because ALIENS FROM SPACE" doesn't work in the slightest. It completely ignores Cap's motivation and characterization across several movies. It completely ignores Tony's characterization as well. Let's paraphrase:

Cap: why do we have reverse-engineered HYDRA weapons in the cargo hold?

Nick Fury: ALIENS FROM SPACE, DUDE.

Cap: Uh huh.

Nick Fury: ... and that's why our state-of-art airships can win the war before it begins.

Cap: I don't think winning wars before they begin is what good guys do...

Cap: you tinkered with the alien AI and let it make an army of killer robots? Without asking us? DUDE, WTF?

Tony: ALIENS FROM SPACE, DUDE. WE NEED TO PREPARE.

Cap: Humanity's worst enemy are other humans.

Cap didn't oppose the Accords because he thinks Avengers need to be free to act towards some hypothetical alien threat in six months. On the contrary, he opposed it because he thinks people who think a hypothetical alien threat justifies anything and everything are wrong.

Meanwhile, Tony, the guy who in Age of Ultron totally was on ball with worrying about ALIENS FROM SPACE, is wracked with guilt because his last attempt to prepare for that directly caused the things he's being called to task for now.

Here's what would've happened if they'd tried to sell the hypothetical alien threat to makers of the accords:

Tony: You can't micromanage us! ALIENS FROM SPACE, DUDE!

Ross: Uh huh. And what happened last time you tried to prepare for these "aliens from space"? Shall we watch some footage?

*Ross plays footage of Sokovia again*

*Cap gives Tony a "I told you so" look*

*Tony grimaces and shuffles around awkwardly*

*Ross looks at Cap*

Ross: And what about you, Rogers? Would you totally be fine with giving free license to some technocrat, to do whatever he wants in preparation of some hypothetical threat?

Cap: . . .

One of the things that makes Civil War so good, is because there's a lot of irony to it. Cap and Tony basically flip their roles around, as to who is taking ill-advised action based on a hypothetical threat. That's why Tony's so pissed at Cap. Because Tony's trying hard to learn from the mistake he did in the last movie, the mistake Cap called him out on, and now Cap is doing the same mistake himself.

Sure, aliens from space are totally coming, but you can't justify anyone's actions by that. It's a meta argument that none of the characters have good reasons to buy. It's also doomed if they do, doomed if they don't, because I can totally see part of the reason for the Accords being that the countries in UN want some control over the Avengers, because the want Avengers on stand by for the next alien invasion, instead of chasing minor criminals in Africa.

[Cikomyr]

Sure, on the other hand, 6 months later Thanos or whatever appears in the Ukraine, or North Korea, Russia/China and their allies in the UN refuse to let the Avengers deal with it and millions die whilst the world's heroes are legally required to watch, helplessly.

Thats a strawman

[lt_murgen]

[Avilan the Grey]

And ironically this also answers the OP question...

[Anteros]

Thats a strawman

It's really not. That's the world these characters live in. Everyone but you understands that.

You already admitted that you aren't willing to take the context of the world they live in into consideration, and are only willing to consider real world situations, so I honestly don't even know what you're doing in this debate. No one else is talking about the same thing you are.

You're right in the sense that the Accords would be necessary in the real world. No one disagrees with that. That's not the world we're talking about though.

Snip

It's a fair point to an extent. The difference is that Cap isn't arguing for the Avengers being a proactive strike force. He wants the freedom to react to current threats. That's always been his position. The fact that aliens from space exist is entirely irrelevant to his position.

Also we're arguing about Marvel over DC because there are already 2 other threads talking about DC movies. The Justice League one and the Thor one. Frankly, we've beaten the topic to death recently, and no one can be civil about it so I think we're all tired of talking about it.

[Giggling Ghast]

Thats a strawman

That's not what that word actually means