You don't have to embrace things just because they're written that way. That's insane. Saying people can't be against the events that happened in a comic just because they happened is a really poor argument.
Discussions of fictional characters shouldn't hinge upon just how they are written. In a discussion like this, we have to make the assumption that a character is going to behave in a logical manner based on his past activities and character development. Sudden changes with no reason given are examples of poor writing and should never be embraced.
That said, I'm don't consider Tony Stark to be a villain. He made mistakes, but he did admit to them, and I think in the end he made the best choices he could.
And I didn't like any of Front Line.
I can't forgive that senator-blasting, alcohol-binging, stock-market-manipulating, osborn-hiring, friend-jailing, shield-owning, thor-cloning rich boy sonuvabitch Tony Stark.
Just like I can't forgive that jan-smacking, black-panther-hand-shaking, harmless-person-back-stabbing, ULTRON-CREATING, ant-loving, retarded-superhero-team-creating (The Champions), shrinking-or-growing-douchebag-that-can't-make-up-his-mind piece of crap Hank.
And I've been holding the Hank-grudge for years now.
Owenashi is my favorite, he brings me links to pretty pictures!
So how many Iron-Man armored heroes do we have running around right now? We have Tony of course (either in the armor or remote controling it), War Machine and if I'm not mistaken theres a 3rd? I could be wrong, and this is the internet so it's only a matter of seconds till someone tells me so
Also I love Spidey in the black costume, almost more than the usual red n blue. Hopefully he wears it even when the movie leaves theaters.
Also I've never had much love for Avenger titles but Marvel has done an excellent job of luring me in, so I might have to "experiment" with a few of these new titles.
Final note: Justice looks like gambit but with a cape and baby blue all over.
As for the rampant stupidity that is Civil War: Frontline #11, my absolute favorite part is the stupid little speech that that worthless little insult to journalism Sally Floyd gives to Cap.
What I really loved was that at no point in the whole, "America wants this law and you don't so you suck and are wrong and dumb and by the way you don't have myspace so haha," speech did anyone point out that our country wanted Jim Crow and slavery and all manner of fucked up shit and dammit, what's right is right whether it's a popular view or not.
Because ideals aren't about popularity. That's the entire fucking point.
Which both Ben Urich and Captain America should damn well know.
I miss the real Cap. This Cap.
Snake Gandhi on
XBL: That Stone Dude
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
What if I think killing gays and neutering immigrants is right?
Not that I support what frontline is saying.
Or anything about CW.
Or anything at Marvel other then stuff written by David or Brubaker.
Does any one remember the conversation Luke had with DareDevil a couple of years ago? The conversation where Luke ask's Matt "Is any one breaking the law in my building"?
Luke Cage treated his neighbors as equals. He was not afraid of what would happen to his loved ones. Unlike Peter Parker or Daredevil Luke Cage involved his community with his super hero activities. He was a "Street Level" Super Hero in every sense of he phrase. I think that "Oh Noes Aunt May" is a poor excuse for hiding behind a mask and that over time J. Jonah Jameson has been vindicated. IN fact it's almost like JJ isn't the Editor of the Daily Bugle any more but of Marvel Comics. Then again Luke Cage's extended family is never mentioned and his current family keep on being shown to be freaking invulnerable, even inutero. How many times was Jessica Jones Blowed up while pregnant, it's like a hundred times. I am suprised it hasn't become a meme. I think though that Peter's life is so vulnerable because he focus' on he vulnerability of his life. I think it's his own doing. I think in the amazing world of the Marvel Universe if Peter Parker had focused on the other aspects of his life THOSE aspects would become more dominant, as they DID while AUnt May was under the protection of TOny Stark. Peter has the power to make his life less vulnerable, and with power comes responsibility. Luke Cage seems to mantle that responsibility for the direction of his life and I think that it is something that he could teach the rest of the marvel universe. It's part of him being African American, and it is part of him being an African American Hero, he doesn't make excuses for the direction his life takes, he takes responsibility. I think that is to put it simply KEY to the African American experiance and I am suprised that Hudlin isn't all over that in the Marvel offices. Had he manned up this whole war could have gone differently.
I think that if every hero carried themselves with as much self respect Luke Cage this never would have happened. Sally Floyd wouldn't have been able to NASCAR/Myspace/Youtube/BitchMoan at Luke Cage. In fact since PowerMan has been abandoned as a Luke's Super Hero name I think, that while it is far fetched, "Captain America" would be a good replacement. Who wrote that Luke Cage mini-series really did a great job of making the Power Man of the 60's and 70's (or whatever) really relevent to today as LUKE CAGE Hero For Hire, man on the street etc etc.
Please some one tell me they remember that conversation Luke had with Matt.
Wizard posted a brief chat with Dan Slott over the now ongoing Initiative series, one where he gives up a few details on what to expect and some names for the new faces.
Wizard posted a brief chat with Dan Slott over the now ongoing Initiative series, one where he gives up a few details on what to expect and some names for the new faces.
Wizard posted a brief chat with Dan Slott over the now ongoing Initiative series, one where he gives up a few details on what to expect and some names for the new faces.
If Rogers hadn't illegally rebelled against lawful government, none of these people would have died.
Steve and the other secret Avengers are people first, and superheroes second. They have just as much a civic duty as anyone to protect their basic rights, including that to privacy against a government that would turn over their identities to a public that is known for having issues integrating with people who are "different."
Remember that this scenario began as a demonstration by the underground heroes, doing their work unseen, until SHIELD decided to escalate it into a war.
This quote outlines the extreme case, but I think the reasoning still stands;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Haven't people in this thread already proven hat super powers makes the Civil Rights argument invalid?
And as far as Captain America in real world public relations and interactions with the Military if Captian America existed in the real world his story would be that of Pat Tillman. The majority of people in the middle hate over achievers. Crabs in a bucket man, crabs in a bucket.
I always sort of wanted Doom to take over the world anyway. The way he was written n Doom 2099 really painted him as a Hero. He had this little monologue answering the question of what he is always rying to take over the world. His answer was basically, "Because I love you" because of the technological paradise he would bring to the world. But even in the future the world governments and corporations got in the way of him bringing paradise to the world.
The thing I never understood with CW was, if they could just send out a bunch of squads of guys in power armour and round up pretty much all the supervillians around the place, Why didn't they do that years ago?
The thing I never understood with CW was, if they could just send out a bunch of squads of guys in power armour and round up pretty much all the supervillians around the place, Why didn't they do that years ago?
Supervillians are less predictable than heroes? You could burn down an aparment building in the Bronx and Luke Cage, Spidey, and Dare Devil come running. Who the hell knows what sets the Wrecking Crew off.
By the way: when I say you have to embrace it, I don't mean love it: I mean accept that it's the reality of those stories. It's now true (until the comics are written to the contrary) that the Marvel Americans fear their heroes. You don't have to like it, but you have to deal with the fact that it's now true.
This is the only thing I'm going to reply to right now because I know that I can't make yopu see just how completely wrong you are (no offense, you're a good guy, I just strongly disagree).
I acknowledge that it happened, but I don't accept it. Why? Because the writing was absolutely fucking terrible. Really. Really awful. Everybody was completely retarded. Nobody who had a serious impact on the story acted like they did in any of their previous major appearances. What is this? This is very bad writing, unless they were actually Skrulls.
If Rogers hadn't illegally rebelled against lawful government, none of these people would have died.
Steve and the other secret Avengers are people first, and superheroes second. They have just as much a civic duty as anyone to protect their basic rights, including that to privacy against a government that would turn over their identities to a public that is known for having issues integrating with people who are "different."
Man, this point again...it's like new posters don't read the thread before contributing.
Look, I cannot explain this more smiply: a draft is constitutional and legal. Period. It's been affirmed repeatedly.
Moreover, the constitutional right to privacy is far more complicated than you seem to think it is: more than anything else, it isn't inviolate. You can infringe upon a person's civil rights under "strict scrutiny", such that if there is a "compelling state interest" and it is satisfied in the "least restrictive means possible", then there is no rights violation.
I cannot think of a less restrictive means of the government protecting itself and its non-powered citizens against the rapidly growing superpowered threats than to require registration and - if they want to fight crime - licensing.
Remember that this scenario began as a demonstration by the underground heroes, doing their work unseen, until SHIELD decided to escalate it into a war.
God, that's nonsense. A "demonstration" is a peaceful assembly of citizens, publically, where they submit to arrest if their demonstration violates the law. What MLK, Jr. and his supporters did was "demonstrate". They marched, they spoke out, and they called for legal change. When they broke the law - e.g. i the sit-ins - they submitted peacefully and willingly to the imprisonment, and continued to make their legal battles.
Demonstrate is NOT breaking the laws violently (even to capture criminals) and then refusing to submit to the legal process. SHEILD didn't escalate it to a war, they started enforcing the law.
If you're saying SHIELD escalated this to war, then you're saying that the lawful enforcers of a law shouldn't enforce the law. You're suggesting that the enforcers should become legislators, determining which laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
This quote outlines the extreme case, but I think the reasoning still stands;
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
(a) "I hate quotes, show me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson. Quotes are meaningless, only argument matters. Quotes are nothing more than argument-by-authority, i.e. a logical fallacy.
(b) Prior to the American Civil War, it was not illegal or necessarily unconstitutional for a section of the USA to secede and declare itself a sovereign nation. After the American Civil War, it was deemed illegal and unconstitutional for such a thing to occur. This is why militias in the American west and mid-west cannot simply secede.
(c) If Rogers was actually attempting to secede - if this was an insurrection - then he should have admitted as much. He didn't, because he couldn't admit that he was going against the nation. The very things that Rogers believed himself to be supporting - the civil process and rights - were the things he was ignoring.
The point here is that Rogers refused to submit to the civil process that every other American has to submit to.
Ask yourself this: how would Rogers have responded if some group of secessionist rebels banded together because they hated a law - one that doesn't, under existing jurisprudence, violate any rights - and they armed themselves heavily. This armed band of rebels refused to engage in the civil process, and instead fought against law-enforcement officers with lethal force, killing dozens if not hunreds of civilians, plus more than a handful of law-enforcement officers. Would Rogers have said "Oh, they have a right to do that?"
(BTW, the difference between infringing and violating rights is this, in legal philosophy and practice: a violation is a morally or legally impermissible infringement)
By the way: when I say you have to embrace it, I don't mean love it: I mean accept that it's the reality of those stories. It's now true (until the comics are written to the contrary) that the Marvel Americans fear their heroes. You don't have to like it, but you have to deal with the fact that it's now true.
This is the only thing I'm going to reply to right now because I know that I can't make yopu see just how completely wrong you are (no offense, you're a good guy, I just strongly disagree).
I appreciate that you're not making this a personal thing, and I do sympathize with your frustration at convincing me: after all, I can't figure out why I haven't convinced you.
I acknowledge that it happened, but I don't accept it. Why? Because the writing was absolutely fucking terrible. Really. Really awful. Everybody was completely retarded. Nobody who had a serious impact on the story acted like they did in any of their previous major appearances. What is this? This is very bad writing, unless they were actually Skrulls.
Okay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right - that the writing was bad - outright "absolutely fucking terrible". If that's assumed, what can we conclude?
We can conclude that a lot of fans - such as yourself - either are (or are going to be) very upset about it. We can conclude that there will be some confusion about how the characters are supposed to be portrayed in the future. We can conclude that there is ambiguity about where Marvel's heroes are going to be in the future.
What we cannot conclude is that the events didn't happen. In the Marvel Universe, this is canon continuity. In order for it to go away, some other continuity is going to have to overwrite it. Do any of us think that isn't going to happen? I'd wager that in 10 years, Marvel will be in an entirely different place.
What's happened is that Marvel has taken a step into one of the possible "realistic" directions that would ensure from the craziness of their world. They could have gone the techno-utopia route (i.e. Richards or Starks providing amazing tech to everyone), or the Authority route (i.e. the heroes taking over and running the country or the world), but they picked this one. I think we all know that part of this is because the SHRA echoes concerns about terrorism and violence in our world today. People can relate to Marvel Americans' anxieties of death and destruction.
That's not what I said. I didn't say that I ignored it, I say that I acknowledged it, I just didn't accept it. I think it's a bad change, a bad, bad, bad terrible and stupid, illogical change, and I believe that it should be rectified somehow. Of course, completely retconning it into oblivion is even worse, so I'm also pissed off at the fact that the Marvel Universe has basically been broken by Mark Millar in that it's very difficult to tell the kind of stories that myself and other people like to read.
And to just go back to the "Cap is still a criminal" argument, Tony Stark did far, far worse things than Cap during Civil War. He is just as much if not more of a criminal than Cap.
I mean, there's the whole hiring supervillains thing, many of which are literal mass-murderers (Bullseye must have killed over a thousand people alone), and Clor the psychopathic cyborg Aesir murderer. And the fact that he tried to start a war with Atlantis. ATLANTIS of all nations. All for the good of the USA? HOW? How could Tony not realize that, although a war might unite everybody, it would also DEFINITELY cause the deaths of THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of even more innocent people than Stamford? It's Atlantis. Namor alone, with a bunch of whales and shit, threw a huge tsunami at New York City.
Basically what I am trying to say is that the pro-reg side was being outright monstrous in the way it went about things, and Cap simply didn't want to be a part of these obviously and horrendously illegal activities. He didn't know about any specifics, of course, but he almost certainly recognized the slippery slope that Registration brought with it.
And he also felt that it was his duty to uphold the ideals upon which America was founded instead of, you know, following a law he believed blatantly unconstitutional and cooperating with a programme that also basically shits all over the ideals that America was founded on.
He is Captain America, not Captain United States of America. He stands for the American Dream, as I have said earlier. Did he break the law? Yes, yes he did. Did he have a good reason to break the law? Fuck yes he did, because he is Captain America and he believed, with his MASSIVE HEART and GIANT BRAIN that the America he was fighting for was being ruined by America itself.
Criminal? Yes, definitely. Thug (as you put it a while back)? No, not at all.
Could he have fought Registration through legal means? Yes. But it would have taken him several years, as he would have been thrown into the Negative Zone as soon as he tried to do anything. Also, Tony and SHIELD's machinations would have basically made sure that any legal means of resolving the conflict in favour of truth, justice and the American way would have come to naught after another few years of the case being pushed around in court after Cap might have been released due to the work of some pro-bono lawyers.
Wizard posted a brief chat with Dan Slott over the now ongoing Initiative series, one where he gives up a few details on what to expect and some names for the new faces.
I don't understand why the fear of Marvel Americans would be so strongly focused upon the heroes. It would have been more reasonable if the fear had instead been directed at anyone possessing special abilities, superhuman or just peak human, rather than the small subset of that community who chooses to fight crime with their talents and paranormal feats.
I also don't believe that the common American would see much of a difference between a registered and unregistered hero since, assuming the Initiative goes according to plan, registered heroes will function in exactly the same way they did prior to being registered (with successes 99% of the time) with any variation in their routines being seen as a negative change.
Even if someone like Sentry is registered, he's still only controlled as much as he wants to be and, really, the same goes for most of the heroes. The only power anyone has over them is the power they allow others to have, and having documents on them certainly wouldn't make them less of a perceived threat. The fact that they could kill us all on a whim would still remain, and nobody would have any reason to be less afraid.
I mean, just look at the last issue of Civil War. Everyone on Iron Man's side was registered, but it had no real affect on how they handled the situation. Truth is they rushed into a fight without regard for collateral damage, just like the New Warriors did, even though they were fighting an opponent who'd gladly run away without causing any harm if they'd just been given the opportunity or, failing that, would at least have moved the fight to an unpopulated area.
Imagine how much worse it could have been if Iron Man's team had been fighting a group who actually wanted to take human lives and wouldn't stop fighting after experiencing the slightest self-doubt. Namely, the specific kind of opponents the Registered Heroes are ostensibly being gathered to fight.
God, that's nonsense. A "demonstration" is a peaceful assembly of citizens, publically, where they submit to arrest if their demonstration violates the law. What MLK, Jr. and his supporters did was "demonstrate". They marched, they spoke out, and they called for legal change. When they broke the law - e.g. i the sit-ins - they submitted peacefully and willingly to the imprisonment, and continued to make their legal battles.
The point I have been trying to make for the past 10 pages is that there is no alternative to resisting/hiding from Registration. It's already been established that testimony from anyone's alter ego will be thrown out in any and all hearings, so the only way to fight the Act is to give away your identity.
To put it in realistic terms, let's say Steve decides to mount the legal battle instead of resorting to fist fighting with Tony. He's going to need some first-hand accounts of what dangers come from leaks of a hero's identity, but as we've already seen, he can't call on, say, Spider-Man to address the court. It has to be Peter Parker, acknowledging that he is in fact Spider-Man on public record, giving the testimony.
Essentially, once Steve or anyone else speaks out publicly, they've just given up any chance at a semi-normal life. Either they play hero all the time, or they put away their costume and run the risk of being murdered by their enemies in their sleep. At this point it's become more than a draft of superhumans; it's an ultimatum of "join the service or die when the Red Skull kicks your door in."
All that and none of it even guarantees that you win the case. Sounds more than unreasonable to me.
Iroh on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
NogsCrap, crap, mega crap.Crap, crap, mega crap.Registered Userregular
I don't understand why the fear of Marvel Americans would be so strongly focused upon the heroes. It would have been more reasonable if the fear had instead been directed at anyone possessing special abilities, superhuman or just peak human, rather than the small subset of that community who chooses to fight crime with their talents and paranormal feats.
I also don't believe that the common American would see much of a difference between a registered and unregistered hero since, assuming the Initiative goes according to plan, registered heroes will function in exactly the same way they did prior to being registered (with successes 99% of the time) with any variation in their routines being seen as a negative change.
Even if someone like Sentry is registered, he's still only controlled as much as he wants to be and, really, the same goes for most of the heroes. The only power anyone has over them is the power they allow others to have, and having documents on them certainly wouldn't make them less of a perceived threat. The fact that they could kill us all on a whim would still remain, and nobody would have any reason to be less afraid.
I mean, just look at the last issue of Civil War. Everyone on Iron Man's side was registered, but it had no real affect on how they handled the situation. Truth is they rushed into a fight without regard for collateral damage, just like the New Warriors did, even though they were fighting an opponent who'd gladly run away without causing any harm if they'd just been given the opportunity or, failing that, would at least have moved the fight to an unpopulated area.
Imagine how much worse it could have been if Iron Man's team had been fighting a group who actually wanted to take human lives and wouldn't stop fighting after experiencing the slightest self-doubt. Namely, the specific kind of opponents the Registered Heroes are ostensibly being gathered to fight.
I see what you mean. I'm worried about 'crooked cops'. I mean, when they were regular superheroes - one might have had a chance to file suit against them. And now that they are registered, one would *think* it would be easier to do and they would all take responsibility for their mistakes. However, how often do we see cops go behind bars? Yeah, it happens - and I am not knowledgable enough to know the number or ratios - but more often then not, it is written off. I spesfically worried about Thunderbolts going around killing whomever they are assigned against, as opposed to arresting them.
If anyhting, this act gives superheroes even MORE leeway inwhat they are able to do and 'get away' with.
Lies and slander! The Thunderbolt didnt kill their latest target! They just uh... restrained him so that he was no longer a danger to himself or the community. With a knife. To the spine.
I don't understand why the fear of Marvel Americans would be so strongly focused upon the heroes. It would have been more reasonable if the fear had instead been directed at anyone possessing special abilities, superhuman or just peak human, rather than the small subset of that community who chooses to fight crime with their talents and paranormal feats.
I also don't believe that the common American would see much of a difference between a registered and unregistered hero since, assuming the Initiative goes according to plan, registered heroes will function in exactly the same way they did prior to being registered (with successes 99% of the time) with any variation in their routines being seen as a negative change.
Even if someone like Sentry is registered, he's still only controlled as much as he wants to be and, really, the same goes for most of the heroes. The only power anyone has over them is the power they allow others to have, and having documents on them certainly wouldn't make them less of a perceived threat. The fact that they could kill us all on a whim would still remain, and nobody would have any reason to be less afraid.
I mean, just look at the last issue of Civil War. Everyone on Iron Man's side was registered, but it had no real affect on how they handled the situation. Truth is they rushed into a fight without regard for collateral damage, just like the New Warriors did, even though they were fighting an opponent who'd gladly run away without causing any harm if they'd just been given the opportunity or, failing that, would at least have moved the fight to an unpopulated area.
Imagine how much worse it could have been if Iron Man's team had been fighting a group who actually wanted to take human lives and wouldn't stop fighting after experiencing the slightest self-doubt. Namely, the specific kind of opponents the Registered Heroes are ostensibly being gathered to fight.
I see what you mean. I'm worried about 'crooked cops'. I mean, when they were regular superheroes - one might have had a chance to file suit against them. And now that they are registered, one would *think* it would be easier to do and they would all take responsibility for their mistakes. However, how often do we see cops go behind bars? Yeah, it happens - and I am not knowledgable enough to know the number or ratios - but more often then not, it is written off. I spesfically worried about Thunderbolts going around killing whomever they are assigned against, as opposed to arresting them.
If anyhting, this act gives superheroes even MORE leeway inwhat they are able to do and 'get away' with.
It goes without saying that it's in the best interests of the United States government to protect the image of their Superhero Army, more so than the matter of making a city's police force look good.
A more apt analogy may be the real Army. Just take how America has dealt with transgressions amongst its armed forces, subtract the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and you have a template for how a government registered superhero who abuses his power may be dealt with.
Maybe wearing a mask is just wrong no matter what excuse you have and forcing people to register their super powered kids is also wrong no matter what excuse you.
Yep that's it.
Luke Cage didn't hide his identity so his neighborhood supported him. I think that the Anti-Reg should have been more discerning and taken off their masks but refused to register with the government and refused to be drafted. But that would have made Cap a draf dodger and we all know making Captain America a hippy wouldn't have flown a all.
Although I would have liked it. But I am biased towards hippies. Instead hey made him wrong with out actually "doing wrong" because "he did what he thought IN HIS HEART was right".
I am sure tha Dr Doom, in his heart, thinks what he does is right. Maybe they were trying to make Captain America look like George Bush to some people. The excuse that a lot of Bush apologetisists give for him after not finding any Nukes in Iraq is that bush "did what he felt was right in his heart".
If we are going to argue (totally worthless endevor) this can we at least stop treating it like some sort of logic equation using laws and such? Please.
Demonstrate is NOT breaking the laws violently (even to capture criminals) and then refusing to submit to the legal process. SHIELD didn't escalate it to a war, they started enforcing the law.
If you're saying SHIELD escalated this to war, then you're saying that the lawful enforcers of a law shouldn't enforce the law. You're suggesting that the enforcers should become legislators, determining which laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
Ok for the most part I've sat out and enjoyed this debate. But the above is one of the things that bugged me so much about CW.
SHIELD and IM and the USG did escalate this to a war and SHIELD did not follow the legal process.
Unless I'm severely mistaken, SHIELD tried to arrest or take down at least Cap and Cage before the SHRA was officially law. Cap was definitely before the Act. Cage was sitting peacefully in his home at 12:00:01 when the act went into effect. He should not have been arrested until he tried to act in the capacity of a super hero, or probably a super bodyguard.
Also there's the problem of Tony's speech to Peter in the Spider-man issues where Tony explains that the arrested supers do not have rights anymore unless they register. No rights means no lawyers means legal process to show their case to a court of law.
So what was the correct course of action Cap or any other should have taken?
P.S.
I am enjoying this debate, the above is meant for discussion and not an attack on anyone.
Peace.
edit: For the record, I wasn't completely against the SHRA, but it was obviously so poorly implemented and enforced that there is no other choice than to oppose it.
edit2: Thank you god, that Marvel let Matt Murdock out of this mess. They should have left DD out all together. Not mention the stupidity of them taking DareFist to 42 without demasking him.
Ok rant off.
I also don't understand why the Registration is seen as a large improvement over the New Warriors when the team was already pretty much registered.
The New Warriors didn't have secret identities, or at least the roster that was appearing on television didn't, and so none of the team members were vigilantes in the most commonly understood sense. Rather than skulking in the shadows and hiding themselves, they operated in the public eye and entered every town with the permission of its citizenship. They were also operating under the advisement of a better leader than most of these Initiative teams will get, and in addition to that they were arguably subject to oversight from the government or at least local law enforcement given the fact that footage of their escapades was readily available for public consumption and therefore scrutiny. The common citizen could also air grievances against them since, like I said, their identities were public.
They screwed up with Nitro, granted, but nobody knew his powers were being enhanced by drugs and so it's hard to believe anyone could have handled that situation better without a window to the future. Even knowing about his enhancement, the only cautious strategy you could employ against a man who can go atomic in the span of a thought is to just leave him alone to do whatever he wants until he happens to wander into an area far away from civilization. That or we start outright murdering everyone with the potential to kill with a thought before they can think.
I wonder why there wasn't a backlash against the media, or at least the network that was funding the team (and was likely part of some conglomerate that undoubtedly holds a large number of politicians in its pockets).
Look, I cannot explain this more smiply: a draft is constitutional and legal. Period. It's been affirmed repeatedly.
Legal =/ right.
Slavery was legal to you know.
And a draft might be okay depending on the circumstances. Hiring known psycotics to track down people who don't register and throwing them in an extra-dimensional prison that over time destroys your mind, not very okay.
And besides all that stupidity, I'll echo that the writing and editing on CW was dogshit, so even if the premise wasn't ludicrous it still would have been ass.
Look, I cannot explain this more smiply: a draft is constitutional and legal. Period. It's been affirmed repeatedly.
Legal =/ right.
Slavery was legal to you know.
And a draft might be okay depending on the circumstances. Hiring known psycotics to track down people who don't register and throwing them in an extra-dimensional prison that over time destroys your mind, not very okay.
And besides all that stupidity, I'll echo that the writing and editing on CW was dogshit, so even if the premise wasn't ludicrous it still would have been ass.
Quoted for truth
graizur on
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
I just wanted to point out something from the Brevoort interview, beyond the whole gnashing-of-teeth and wailing-voices paron some peoples' part:
At the moment, the only people locked up in the Negative Zone prison are villains
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
That's not what I said. I didn't say that I ignored it, I say that I acknowledged it, I just didn't accept it. I think it's a bad change, a bad, bad, bad terrible and stupid, illogical change, and I believe that it should be rectified somehow. Of course, completely retconning it into oblivion is even worse, so I'm also pissed off at the fact that the Marvel Universe has basically been broken by Mark Millar in that it's very difficult to tell the kind of stories that myself and other people like to read.
Okay, maybe we're talking past each other on the 'accept/embrace/etc' point. I think we're actually agreeing...
And to just go back to the "Cap is still a criminal" argument, Tony Stark did far, far worse things than Cap during Civil War. He is just as much if not more of a criminal than Cap.
Yeah, that's probably true. If the reporters weren't lying in Frontline 11, it's definately true. I never called Iron Man a saint, and it'd be interesting to see the fall-out of him being publically called to task for his manipulations. They both made mistakes, but that doesn't make Rogers any less wrong whatsoever. The SHRA is still law, and it's still constitutional. Rogers was still fighting illegally, etc. Just because Stark should also go to prison, doesn't mean Rogers shouldn't.
I mean, there's the whole hiring supervillains thing, many of which are literal mass-murderers (Bullseye must have killed over a thousand people alone), and Clor the psychopathic cyborg Aesir murderer. And the fact that he tried to start a war with Atlantis. ATLANTIS of all nations. All for the good of the USA? HOW? How could Tony not realize that, although a war might unite everybody, it would also DEFINITELY cause the deaths of THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of even more innocent people than Stamford? It's Atlantis. Namor alone, with a bunch of whales and shit, threw a huge tsunami at New York City.
Again, I've never said Stark was a saint. In fact, far from it I've explicitly decried some of his actions (and I fully agree that the Thunderbolts stuff is just dumb both within the Marvel Universe and from an editorial stance). Clor, btw, killed a giant who was resisting arrest in a justified way. Now, I'm not aware of thousands of deaths. Far from it, it looks like Stark's calculated risk worked perfectly.
Basically what I am trying to say is that the pro-reg side was being outright monstrous in the way it went about things, and Cap simply didn't want to be a part of these obviously and horrendously illegal activities. He didn't know about any specifics, of course, but he almost certainly recognized the slippery slope that Registration brought with it.
See, here's where you lose me (despite my agreements above). The only person - whatsoever - who appears to have done anything illegal or unconstitutional is Stark, and he did it secretely. All our evidence (from the comics, esp. the info in Frontline 11) indicates that Stark kept his plans from everyone, even Richards, at least insofar as the manipulations of Namor, etc. are concerned.
Now, I know some people complain about our legalese here, but if you say "obviously and horrendously illegal activities", you're going to have to support your position. There's no indication that anyone but Stark did anything illegal or unconstitutional (I'm including his direct agents here - Osborne in particular). Again, far from it, it looks like he kept everyone else out of his secret plans.
As far as Rogers knew, he was being asked to take part in a new government plan. Rogers is inexplicably ignorant of the law (for a man who is supposed to be the symbol of the nation). He made a snap judgment - one that is greviously wrong as far as actual law, constitutionality and actual philosophy are concerned - and then launched an armed rebellion. He did it before knowing about the 42 prisons, the Thunderbolts, the details of the law, or any of the other relevant details.
And he also felt that it was his duty to uphold the ideals upon which America was founded instead of, you know, following a law he believed blatantly unconstitutional and cooperating with a programme that also basically shits all over the ideals that America was founded on.
Again, if you're going to throw around terms like "blatantly unconstitutional", you're going to have to support them. Here, you're saying Rogers thought it "blatantly unconstitutional", so I appreciate that it's not necessarily your view that it actually was. Nonetheless, all that does is reinforce the idea of Rogers being a fool: he was clearly unqualified to make such a determination, because he did it utterly incorretly. It's a draft, nothing more, and not even a complete draft: just like America's drafts in the past it just requires all applicable persons to register for the draft.
Actually, it's even better: with the American draft, every male registered (sick, too old, or whatever). Then, of the acceptable candidates (young enough, healthy enough, fit enough) a certain random number were forced into the service. This was deemed roundly constitutional, despite excluding women, because it was an acceptably unrestrictive way of achieving the compelling state interest of a viable armed forces. In the SHRA (I've explained this before), it's even less restrictive: no one is called into service unwillingly. Everyone registers, and if they choose to begin fighting crime, then they're forced to be trained first to protect them and their surroundings. All they have to do avoid training, service, etc. is to not use their powers. That's pretty awful of them to do, but its their call.
He is Captain America, not Captain United States of America. He stands for the American Dream, as I have said earlier. Did he break the law? Yes, yes he did. Did he have a good reason to break the law? Fuck yes he did, because he is Captain America and he believed, with his MASSIVE HEART and GIANT BRAIN that the America he was fighting for was being ruined by America itself.
See, he didn't have good reason: his "massive heart" and "giant brain" were clearly inadequate to make a proper analysis of the situation". Hell, Mr."I'm the Best Strategist Ever" didn't even bother to read the act (which, acccording to sources, is somehow 700 pages long...) before launching a military rebellion.
Look, I'm no doctor. I'd never make a snap medical judgment about whether I should get surgery or whatever without talking with doctors. Rogers, whatever greateness he has/had, isn't a lawyer nor a legal scholar. He didn't have the proper training to make a decision like this.
In fact, this point is particularly apropos: SHRA is about making sure that superpowered individuals are trained sufficiently that they'll be able to make snap-decisions about enforcing the law and helping people. This training wont just be physical: it'll be mental, including some legal education logically.
Rogers lacked the appropriate training. Frankly, this starts to look more and more like it's actually a clever bit of writing (having the plot be so connected here), but I may be reading too much into a coincidence.
Criminal? Yes, definitely. Thug (as you put it a while back)? No, not at all.
Well, let's consider "thug" for a second. Without getting too much into the etymology of it (originally coming from the term Thugee, referring to a worshipper of Kali as glorified in "The Temple of Doom"), it entered the American lexicon as part of the rise of the Italian mafia and corresponding rise of American gangsters and referred to the button-men of the mob. In modern use (i.e. post-1980) it was adapted along with other mob-metaphors into the ghetto-based American "gangsta'" slang.
A thug is a person, using violence to get what they want, without regard to the law. They often believe they're following some moral code - e.g. the code of silence that dominated in both the mafia and modern American mobsters - but they believe they aren't rightfully subject to the law.
That sounds like what Rogers did here. You may not like me using an insulting term for Rogers, but I think it's apropos in the same way that "war criminal" seems like it might be appropriate for Stark (or at least "criminal" in the same way).
Could he have fought Registration through legal means? Yes. But it would have taken him several years, as he would have been thrown into the Negative Zone as soon as he tried to do anything.
So? Recalling the earlier explication of "speedy trial" issues, why does Rogers get to violate the law because he's upset about how slow the legal system is? It never bothered him before. I never saw him breaking guilty kids out of jail because their trial was taking too long.
I hate to mention MLK, Jr. so much, but it's definately necessary: if you believe in the American justice system, you mustn't refuse to submit to it. If Rogers really believed that the American justice system was something worthwhile, he wouldn't have refused to participate in it.
What happened here was that Rogers thought he was above the system. He thought he had the right to fight an "unjust" law in a way that no normal person had the right to do. This is the entire mentality SHRA is about fighting: it's about making heroes accountable for their actions, and they cannot be accountable if they aren't subject to the justice system.
Also, Tony and SHIELD's machinations would have basically made sure that any legal means of resolving the conflict in favour of truth, justice and the American way would have come to naught after another few years of the case being pushed around in court after Cap might have been released due to the work of some pro-bono lawyers.
Pro bono? I find it personally insulting - as a person about to graduate into being a lawyer - that you think "pro bono" somehow means of less quality that the high-paid lawyers Tony and SHIELD would have employed. The bar associations of our country make it quite explicit that a great deal of pro bono service is expected of our nation's lawyers, and we all try and do our part.
I think you may be confusing "public defender" with "pro bono". The former is an institution created in each state following the landmark Gideon decision, while the latter refers to the practice of lawyers providing free legal services to support the nation. The public defenders offices around the country are underfunded and undersupported by the tax-payers and legislators, and as a result many fine lawyers are forced to skip them as an option. This results in an unhealthy mix of good lawyers who are willing to make enourmous personal sacrifice (being paid 40-60k instead of 160k in your first year of employment). They're good people, but they're overworked and understaffed.
The fact is, Rogers is wrong. I've consulted with other law students and professors (as noted before, my detailed attention to CW is based on my using it in a course on the role of justice in fiction) and have yet to find a single person who believes Rogers was constitutionally or legally in the right. Many believe he may be ethically in the right, and these are the same people who find a normal draft ethically unacceptable as well.
Rogers would have lost in court because he was wrong. Not because of any innapropriate machinations by the lawyers. He'd have been represented by any of countless brilliant lawyers eager to defend such a hero, and he'd have lost.
Maybe Stark would lose too - after all, I've conceded he probably should be prosecuted - but that doesn't change Rogers' criminality for an instant.
You know, it's funny, but people keep acting as if I'm a legal realist (this is a term of art), saying that "if it's law, it's good and just". I'm not. What I am saying though is that legal scholars, debating the points for decades now, have agreed that a draft is both moral and constitutional.
Moreover, I'd love to see your cogent, well thought-out argument why a draft isn't morally right, much less why its not constitutional.
Slavery isn't an appropriate analogy here because there's a fundamental moral problem with slavery - it reduces a person to an object - and that moral problem is answered by every moral system today. For atheists such as me, it is answered by Kant (and the deontological categorical imperative to never use a person as an instrument). Utilitarians...they might accept slavery. For natural law theorists (i.e. religious persons), it's answered in a multitude of ways (though many religions embrace slavery...a point I wont belabor here).
The draft, on the other hand, has no clear moral problems.
And a draft might be okay depending on the circumstances. Hiring known psycotics to track down people who don't register and throwing them in an extra-dimensional prison that over time destroys your mind, not very okay.
Not the same thing. I've repeatedly agreed that the Thunderbolts project is just a bad idea. Where, by the way, are there indications that 42 destroys your mind? Far from it, we have indications that it's a pleasant prison, with VR simulators for each prisoner.
And besides all that stupidity, I'll echo that the writing and editing on CW was dogshit, so even if the premise wasn't ludicrous it still would have been ass.
I always wonder why some people can't express themselves without cursing. I curse plenty, but only for punctuation of sorts. If the writing was such "dogshit", I struggle to wonder how you'd have written it.
I just wanted to point out something from the Brevoort interview, beyond the whole gnashing-of-teeth and wailing-voices paron some peoples' part:
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
2 issues with that though.
1. At this point, 42 has been wrecked to hell by 2 escape attempts.
2. They put DareFist in there, along with many others.
Unless you count anyone arrested to be a villain.
Considering SHIELD's initial actions against Cap, I'd be inclined to distrust them
.
I just wanted to point out something from the Brevoort interview, beyond the whole gnashing-of-teeth and wailing-voices paron some peoples' part:
At the moment, the only people locked up in the Negative Zone prison are villains
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
In fact, the same interview (and the spoilers/previews for upcoming Cap issues) make it clear that Rogers is in Rikers.
No, no, I didn't mean that pro bono lawyers are worse, I was simply saying that the only lawyers they would have access to (if they would have access to any lawyers at all) would be those willing to work for free.
I don't know where I was going with that particular thing.
I just wanted to point out something from the Brevoort interview, beyond the whole gnashing-of-teeth and wailing-voices paron some peoples' part:
At the moment, the only people locked up in the Negative Zone prison are villains
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
We'll just have to see if he can mount a legal challenge from his current prison, then. If not, and if nobody else can, then the point is legitimized.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Cap almost certainly would have been sent to to 42 and, since none of the prison's occupants could do anything from their cells (unless they were too lazy to), would likely have been helpless from there. It's moot now, but at the time it was a valid justification for his going underground.
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
2 issues with that though.
1. At this point, 42 has been wrecked to hell by 2 escape attempts.
2. They put DareFist in there, along with many others.
Unless you count anyone arrested to be a villain.
Considering SHIELD's initial actions against Cap, I'd be inclined to distrust them
.
The heroes were in 42 because of the ongoing insurrection.
re 1: Actually, we didn't see much damage at all to the prison, since Cloak teleported everyone out. The damage was to NYC where they killed several dozen people, and a handful of heroes.
re 2: This is the editor speaking, not a SHIELD rep. If he says that, as far as Marvel Editorial is concerned, only villains are stored in 42 then it's true until its contradicted in comics (or by editorial).
Posts
It had a Hell of a lot of potential at its start that went unfulfilled, I think, but I still enjoyed the arc.
You misspelled damage control.
Don't you guys see? By throwing Cap in prison it means that America gave up it's spirit and values for safety and security. The terrorists won.
Iron Man is a filthy terrorist.
I can't forgive that senator-blasting, alcohol-binging, stock-market-manipulating, osborn-hiring, friend-jailing, shield-owning, thor-cloning rich boy sonuvabitch Tony Stark.
Just like I can't forgive that jan-smacking, black-panther-hand-shaking, harmless-person-back-stabbing, ULTRON-CREATING, ant-loving, retarded-superhero-team-creating (The Champions), shrinking-or-growing-douchebag-that-can't-make-up-his-mind piece of crap Hank.
And I've been holding the Hank-grudge for years now.
So how many Iron-Man armored heroes do we have running around right now? We have Tony of course (either in the armor or remote controling it), War Machine and if I'm not mistaken theres a 3rd? I could be wrong, and this is the internet so it's only a matter of seconds till someone tells me so
Also I love Spidey in the black costume, almost more than the usual red n blue. Hopefully he wears it even when the movie leaves theaters.
Also I've never had much love for Avenger titles but Marvel has done an excellent job of luring me in, so I might have to "experiment" with a few of these new titles.
Final note: Justice looks like gambit but with a cape and baby blue all over.
What I really loved was that at no point in the whole, "America wants this law and you don't so you suck and are wrong and dumb and by the way you don't have myspace so haha," speech did anyone point out that our country wanted Jim Crow and slavery and all manner of fucked up shit and dammit, what's right is right whether it's a popular view or not.
Because ideals aren't about popularity. That's the entire fucking point.
Which both Ben Urich and Captain America should damn well know.
I miss the real Cap. This Cap.
Not that I support what frontline is saying.
Or anything about CW.
Or anything at Marvel other then stuff written by David or Brubaker.
Luke Cage treated his neighbors as equals. He was not afraid of what would happen to his loved ones. Unlike Peter Parker or Daredevil Luke Cage involved his community with his super hero activities. He was a "Street Level" Super Hero in every sense of he phrase. I think that "Oh Noes Aunt May" is a poor excuse for hiding behind a mask and that over time J. Jonah Jameson has been vindicated. IN fact it's almost like JJ isn't the Editor of the Daily Bugle any more but of Marvel Comics. Then again Luke Cage's extended family is never mentioned and his current family keep on being shown to be freaking invulnerable, even inutero. How many times was Jessica Jones Blowed up while pregnant, it's like a hundred times. I am suprised it hasn't become a meme. I think though that Peter's life is so vulnerable because he focus' on he vulnerability of his life. I think it's his own doing. I think in the amazing world of the Marvel Universe if Peter Parker had focused on the other aspects of his life THOSE aspects would become more dominant, as they DID while AUnt May was under the protection of TOny Stark. Peter has the power to make his life less vulnerable, and with power comes responsibility. Luke Cage seems to mantle that responsibility for the direction of his life and I think that it is something that he could teach the rest of the marvel universe. It's part of him being African American, and it is part of him being an African American Hero, he doesn't make excuses for the direction his life takes, he takes responsibility. I think that is to put it simply KEY to the African American experiance and I am suprised that Hudlin isn't all over that in the Marvel offices. Had he manned up this whole war could have gone differently.
I think that if every hero carried themselves with as much self respect Luke Cage this never would have happened. Sally Floyd wouldn't have been able to NASCAR/Myspace/Youtube/BitchMoan at Luke Cage. In fact since PowerMan has been abandoned as a Luke's Super Hero name I think, that while it is far fetched, "Captain America" would be a good replacement. Who wrote that Luke Cage mini-series really did a great job of making the Power Man of the 60's and 70's (or whatever) really relevent to today as LUKE CAGE Hero For Hire, man on the street etc etc.
Please some one tell me they remember that conversation Luke had with Matt.
http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/003721528.cfm
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
Oh. Oh, no. Oh, God, no.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Hey now, as long as it sells well, it doesn't matter what the art looks like!
Steve and the other secret Avengers are people first, and superheroes second. They have just as much a civic duty as anyone to protect their basic rights, including that to privacy against a government that would turn over their identities to a public that is known for having issues integrating with people who are "different."
Remember that this scenario began as a demonstration by the underground heroes, doing their work unseen, until SHIELD decided to escalate it into a war.
This quote outlines the extreme case, but I think the reasoning still stands;
And as far as Captain America in real world public relations and interactions with the Military if Captian America existed in the real world his story would be that of Pat Tillman. The majority of people in the middle hate over achievers. Crabs in a bucket man, crabs in a bucket.
I always sort of wanted Doom to take over the world anyway. The way he was written n Doom 2099 really painted him as a Hero. He had this little monologue answering the question of what he is always rying to take over the world. His answer was basically, "Because I love you" because of the technological paradise he would bring to the world. But even in the future the world governments and corporations got in the way of him bringing paradise to the world.
I don't remember who wrote all those stories.
This is the only thing I'm going to reply to right now because I know that I can't make yopu see just how completely wrong you are (no offense, you're a good guy, I just strongly disagree).
I acknowledge that it happened, but I don't accept it. Why? Because the writing was absolutely fucking terrible. Really. Really awful. Everybody was completely retarded. Nobody who had a serious impact on the story acted like they did in any of their previous major appearances. What is this? This is very bad writing, unless they were actually Skrulls.
Look, I cannot explain this more smiply: a draft is constitutional and legal. Period. It's been affirmed repeatedly.
Moreover, the constitutional right to privacy is far more complicated than you seem to think it is: more than anything else, it isn't inviolate. You can infringe upon a person's civil rights under "strict scrutiny", such that if there is a "compelling state interest" and it is satisfied in the "least restrictive means possible", then there is no rights violation.
I cannot think of a less restrictive means of the government protecting itself and its non-powered citizens against the rapidly growing superpowered threats than to require registration and - if they want to fight crime - licensing.
God, that's nonsense. A "demonstration" is a peaceful assembly of citizens, publically, where they submit to arrest if their demonstration violates the law. What MLK, Jr. and his supporters did was "demonstrate". They marched, they spoke out, and they called for legal change. When they broke the law - e.g. i the sit-ins - they submitted peacefully and willingly to the imprisonment, and continued to make their legal battles.
Demonstrate is NOT breaking the laws violently (even to capture criminals) and then refusing to submit to the legal process. SHEILD didn't escalate it to a war, they started enforcing the law.
If you're saying SHIELD escalated this to war, then you're saying that the lawful enforcers of a law shouldn't enforce the law. You're suggesting that the enforcers should become legislators, determining which laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
(a) "I hate quotes, show me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson. Quotes are meaningless, only argument matters. Quotes are nothing more than argument-by-authority, i.e. a logical fallacy.
(b) Prior to the American Civil War, it was not illegal or necessarily unconstitutional for a section of the USA to secede and declare itself a sovereign nation. After the American Civil War, it was deemed illegal and unconstitutional for such a thing to occur. This is why militias in the American west and mid-west cannot simply secede.
(c) If Rogers was actually attempting to secede - if this was an insurrection - then he should have admitted as much. He didn't, because he couldn't admit that he was going against the nation. The very things that Rogers believed himself to be supporting - the civil process and rights - were the things he was ignoring.
The point here is that Rogers refused to submit to the civil process that every other American has to submit to.
Ask yourself this: how would Rogers have responded if some group of secessionist rebels banded together because they hated a law - one that doesn't, under existing jurisprudence, violate any rights - and they armed themselves heavily. This armed band of rebels refused to engage in the civil process, and instead fought against law-enforcement officers with lethal force, killing dozens if not hunreds of civilians, plus more than a handful of law-enforcement officers. Would Rogers have said "Oh, they have a right to do that?"
(BTW, the difference between infringing and violating rights is this, in legal philosophy and practice: a violation is a morally or legally impermissible infringement)
I appreciate that you're not making this a personal thing, and I do sympathize with your frustration at convincing me: after all, I can't figure out why I haven't convinced you.
Okay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right - that the writing was bad - outright "absolutely fucking terrible". If that's assumed, what can we conclude?
We can conclude that a lot of fans - such as yourself - either are (or are going to be) very upset about it. We can conclude that there will be some confusion about how the characters are supposed to be portrayed in the future. We can conclude that there is ambiguity about where Marvel's heroes are going to be in the future.
What we cannot conclude is that the events didn't happen. In the Marvel Universe, this is canon continuity. In order for it to go away, some other continuity is going to have to overwrite it. Do any of us think that isn't going to happen? I'd wager that in 10 years, Marvel will be in an entirely different place.
What's happened is that Marvel has taken a step into one of the possible "realistic" directions that would ensure from the craziness of their world. They could have gone the techno-utopia route (i.e. Richards or Starks providing amazing tech to everyone), or the Authority route (i.e. the heroes taking over and running the country or the world), but they picked this one. I think we all know that part of this is because the SHRA echoes concerns about terrorism and violence in our world today. People can relate to Marvel Americans' anxieties of death and destruction.
And to just go back to the "Cap is still a criminal" argument, Tony Stark did far, far worse things than Cap during Civil War. He is just as much if not more of a criminal than Cap.
I mean, there's the whole hiring supervillains thing, many of which are literal mass-murderers (Bullseye must have killed over a thousand people alone), and Clor the psychopathic cyborg Aesir murderer. And the fact that he tried to start a war with Atlantis. ATLANTIS of all nations. All for the good of the USA? HOW? How could Tony not realize that, although a war might unite everybody, it would also DEFINITELY cause the deaths of THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of even more innocent people than Stamford? It's Atlantis. Namor alone, with a bunch of whales and shit, threw a huge tsunami at New York City.
Basically what I am trying to say is that the pro-reg side was being outright monstrous in the way it went about things, and Cap simply didn't want to be a part of these obviously and horrendously illegal activities. He didn't know about any specifics, of course, but he almost certainly recognized the slippery slope that Registration brought with it.
And he also felt that it was his duty to uphold the ideals upon which America was founded instead of, you know, following a law he believed blatantly unconstitutional and cooperating with a programme that also basically shits all over the ideals that America was founded on.
He is Captain America, not Captain United States of America. He stands for the American Dream, as I have said earlier. Did he break the law? Yes, yes he did. Did he have a good reason to break the law? Fuck yes he did, because he is Captain America and he believed, with his MASSIVE HEART and GIANT BRAIN that the America he was fighting for was being ruined by America itself.
Criminal? Yes, definitely. Thug (as you put it a while back)? No, not at all.
Could he have fought Registration through legal means? Yes. But it would have taken him several years, as he would have been thrown into the Negative Zone as soon as he tried to do anything. Also, Tony and SHIELD's machinations would have basically made sure that any legal means of resolving the conflict in favour of truth, justice and the American way would have come to naught after another few years of the case being pushed around in court after Cap might have been released due to the work of some pro-bono lawyers.
But they're telling me he's mega talented! It must be true!
I also don't believe that the common American would see much of a difference between a registered and unregistered hero since, assuming the Initiative goes according to plan, registered heroes will function in exactly the same way they did prior to being registered (with successes 99% of the time) with any variation in their routines being seen as a negative change.
Even if someone like Sentry is registered, he's still only controlled as much as he wants to be and, really, the same goes for most of the heroes. The only power anyone has over them is the power they allow others to have, and having documents on them certainly wouldn't make them less of a perceived threat. The fact that they could kill us all on a whim would still remain, and nobody would have any reason to be less afraid.
I mean, just look at the last issue of Civil War. Everyone on Iron Man's side was registered, but it had no real affect on how they handled the situation. Truth is they rushed into a fight without regard for collateral damage, just like the New Warriors did, even though they were fighting an opponent who'd gladly run away without causing any harm if they'd just been given the opportunity or, failing that, would at least have moved the fight to an unpopulated area.
Imagine how much worse it could have been if Iron Man's team had been fighting a group who actually wanted to take human lives and wouldn't stop fighting after experiencing the slightest self-doubt. Namely, the specific kind of opponents the Registered Heroes are ostensibly being gathered to fight.
The point I have been trying to make for the past 10 pages is that there is no alternative to resisting/hiding from Registration. It's already been established that testimony from anyone's alter ego will be thrown out in any and all hearings, so the only way to fight the Act is to give away your identity.
To put it in realistic terms, let's say Steve decides to mount the legal battle instead of resorting to fist fighting with Tony. He's going to need some first-hand accounts of what dangers come from leaks of a hero's identity, but as we've already seen, he can't call on, say, Spider-Man to address the court. It has to be Peter Parker, acknowledging that he is in fact Spider-Man on public record, giving the testimony.
Essentially, once Steve or anyone else speaks out publicly, they've just given up any chance at a semi-normal life. Either they play hero all the time, or they put away their costume and run the risk of being murdered by their enemies in their sleep. At this point it's become more than a draft of superhumans; it's an ultimatum of "join the service or die when the Red Skull kicks your door in."
All that and none of it even guarantees that you win the case. Sounds more than unreasonable to me.
I see what you mean. I'm worried about 'crooked cops'. I mean, when they were regular superheroes - one might have had a chance to file suit against them. And now that they are registered, one would *think* it would be easier to do and they would all take responsibility for their mistakes. However, how often do we see cops go behind bars? Yeah, it happens - and I am not knowledgable enough to know the number or ratios - but more often then not, it is written off. I spesfically worried about Thunderbolts going around killing whomever they are assigned against, as opposed to arresting them.
If anyhting, this act gives superheroes even MORE leeway inwhat they are able to do and 'get away' with.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
It goes without saying that it's in the best interests of the United States government to protect the image of their Superhero Army, more so than the matter of making a city's police force look good.
A more apt analogy may be the real Army. Just take how America has dealt with transgressions amongst its armed forces, subtract the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and you have a template for how a government registered superhero who abuses his power may be dealt with.
Yep that's it.
Luke Cage didn't hide his identity so his neighborhood supported him. I think that the Anti-Reg should have been more discerning and taken off their masks but refused to register with the government and refused to be drafted. But that would have made Cap a draf dodger and we all know making Captain America a hippy wouldn't have flown a all.
Although I would have liked it. But I am biased towards hippies. Instead hey made him wrong with out actually "doing wrong" because "he did what he thought IN HIS HEART was right".
I am sure tha Dr Doom, in his heart, thinks what he does is right. Maybe they were trying to make Captain America look like George Bush to some people. The excuse that a lot of Bush apologetisists give for him after not finding any Nukes in Iraq is that bush "did what he felt was right in his heart".
If we are going to argue (totally worthless endevor) this can we at least stop treating it like some sort of logic equation using laws and such? Please.
The New Warriors didn't have secret identities, or at least the roster that was appearing on television didn't, and so none of the team members were vigilantes in the most commonly understood sense. Rather than skulking in the shadows and hiding themselves, they operated in the public eye and entered every town with the permission of its citizenship. They were also operating under the advisement of a better leader than most of these Initiative teams will get, and in addition to that they were arguably subject to oversight from the government or at least local law enforcement given the fact that footage of their escapades was readily available for public consumption and therefore scrutiny. The common citizen could also air grievances against them since, like I said, their identities were public.
They screwed up with Nitro, granted, but nobody knew his powers were being enhanced by drugs and so it's hard to believe anyone could have handled that situation better without a window to the future. Even knowing about his enhancement, the only cautious strategy you could employ against a man who can go atomic in the span of a thought is to just leave him alone to do whatever he wants until he happens to wander into an area far away from civilization. That or we start outright murdering everyone with the potential to kill with a thought before they can think.
I wonder why there wasn't a backlash against the media, or at least the network that was funding the team (and was likely part of some conglomerate that undoubtedly holds a large number of politicians in its pockets).
Slavery was legal to you know.
And a draft might be okay depending on the circumstances. Hiring known psycotics to track down people who don't register and throwing them in an extra-dimensional prison that over time destroys your mind, not very okay.
And besides all that stupidity, I'll echo that the writing and editing on CW was dogshit, so even if the premise wasn't ludicrous it still would have been ass.
Quoted for truth
Maybe Tony would have gleefully tossed Cap in there had he submitted earlier, or maybe not. He's not, AFAIK, sitting in 42 post-surrender. To that end, I think some concerns about how he could have mounted a legal challenge may be in retrospect overblown.
Yeah, that's probably true. If the reporters weren't lying in Frontline 11, it's definately true. I never called Iron Man a saint, and it'd be interesting to see the fall-out of him being publically called to task for his manipulations. They both made mistakes, but that doesn't make Rogers any less wrong whatsoever. The SHRA is still law, and it's still constitutional. Rogers was still fighting illegally, etc. Just because Stark should also go to prison, doesn't mean Rogers shouldn't.
Again, I've never said Stark was a saint. In fact, far from it I've explicitly decried some of his actions (and I fully agree that the Thunderbolts stuff is just dumb both within the Marvel Universe and from an editorial stance). Clor, btw, killed a giant who was resisting arrest in a justified way. Now, I'm not aware of thousands of deaths. Far from it, it looks like Stark's calculated risk worked perfectly.
See, here's where you lose me (despite my agreements above). The only person - whatsoever - who appears to have done anything illegal or unconstitutional is Stark, and he did it secretely. All our evidence (from the comics, esp. the info in Frontline 11) indicates that Stark kept his plans from everyone, even Richards, at least insofar as the manipulations of Namor, etc. are concerned.
Now, I know some people complain about our legalese here, but if you say "obviously and horrendously illegal activities", you're going to have to support your position. There's no indication that anyone but Stark did anything illegal or unconstitutional (I'm including his direct agents here - Osborne in particular). Again, far from it, it looks like he kept everyone else out of his secret plans.
As far as Rogers knew, he was being asked to take part in a new government plan. Rogers is inexplicably ignorant of the law (for a man who is supposed to be the symbol of the nation). He made a snap judgment - one that is greviously wrong as far as actual law, constitutionality and actual philosophy are concerned - and then launched an armed rebellion. He did it before knowing about the 42 prisons, the Thunderbolts, the details of the law, or any of the other relevant details.
Again, if you're going to throw around terms like "blatantly unconstitutional", you're going to have to support them. Here, you're saying Rogers thought it "blatantly unconstitutional", so I appreciate that it's not necessarily your view that it actually was. Nonetheless, all that does is reinforce the idea of Rogers being a fool: he was clearly unqualified to make such a determination, because he did it utterly incorretly. It's a draft, nothing more, and not even a complete draft: just like America's drafts in the past it just requires all applicable persons to register for the draft.
Actually, it's even better: with the American draft, every male registered (sick, too old, or whatever). Then, of the acceptable candidates (young enough, healthy enough, fit enough) a certain random number were forced into the service. This was deemed roundly constitutional, despite excluding women, because it was an acceptably unrestrictive way of achieving the compelling state interest of a viable armed forces. In the SHRA (I've explained this before), it's even less restrictive: no one is called into service unwillingly. Everyone registers, and if they choose to begin fighting crime, then they're forced to be trained first to protect them and their surroundings. All they have to do avoid training, service, etc. is to not use their powers. That's pretty awful of them to do, but its their call.
See, he didn't have good reason: his "massive heart" and "giant brain" were clearly inadequate to make a proper analysis of the situation". Hell, Mr."I'm the Best Strategist Ever" didn't even bother to read the act (which, acccording to sources, is somehow 700 pages long...) before launching a military rebellion.
Look, I'm no doctor. I'd never make a snap medical judgment about whether I should get surgery or whatever without talking with doctors. Rogers, whatever greateness he has/had, isn't a lawyer nor a legal scholar. He didn't have the proper training to make a decision like this.
In fact, this point is particularly apropos: SHRA is about making sure that superpowered individuals are trained sufficiently that they'll be able to make snap-decisions about enforcing the law and helping people. This training wont just be physical: it'll be mental, including some legal education logically.
Rogers lacked the appropriate training. Frankly, this starts to look more and more like it's actually a clever bit of writing (having the plot be so connected here), but I may be reading too much into a coincidence.
Well, let's consider "thug" for a second. Without getting too much into the etymology of it (originally coming from the term Thugee, referring to a worshipper of Kali as glorified in "The Temple of Doom"), it entered the American lexicon as part of the rise of the Italian mafia and corresponding rise of American gangsters and referred to the button-men of the mob. In modern use (i.e. post-1980) it was adapted along with other mob-metaphors into the ghetto-based American "gangsta'" slang.
A thug is a person, using violence to get what they want, without regard to the law. They often believe they're following some moral code - e.g. the code of silence that dominated in both the mafia and modern American mobsters - but they believe they aren't rightfully subject to the law.
That sounds like what Rogers did here. You may not like me using an insulting term for Rogers, but I think it's apropos in the same way that "war criminal" seems like it might be appropriate for Stark (or at least "criminal" in the same way).
So? Recalling the earlier explication of "speedy trial" issues, why does Rogers get to violate the law because he's upset about how slow the legal system is? It never bothered him before. I never saw him breaking guilty kids out of jail because their trial was taking too long.
I hate to mention MLK, Jr. so much, but it's definately necessary: if you believe in the American justice system, you mustn't refuse to submit to it. If Rogers really believed that the American justice system was something worthwhile, he wouldn't have refused to participate in it.
What happened here was that Rogers thought he was above the system. He thought he had the right to fight an "unjust" law in a way that no normal person had the right to do. This is the entire mentality SHRA is about fighting: it's about making heroes accountable for their actions, and they cannot be accountable if they aren't subject to the justice system.
Pro bono? I find it personally insulting - as a person about to graduate into being a lawyer - that you think "pro bono" somehow means of less quality that the high-paid lawyers Tony and SHIELD would have employed. The bar associations of our country make it quite explicit that a great deal of pro bono service is expected of our nation's lawyers, and we all try and do our part.
I think you may be confusing "public defender" with "pro bono". The former is an institution created in each state following the landmark Gideon decision, while the latter refers to the practice of lawyers providing free legal services to support the nation. The public defenders offices around the country are underfunded and undersupported by the tax-payers and legislators, and as a result many fine lawyers are forced to skip them as an option. This results in an unhealthy mix of good lawyers who are willing to make enourmous personal sacrifice (being paid 40-60k instead of 160k in your first year of employment). They're good people, but they're overworked and understaffed.
The fact is, Rogers is wrong. I've consulted with other law students and professors (as noted before, my detailed attention to CW is based on my using it in a course on the role of justice in fiction) and have yet to find a single person who believes Rogers was constitutionally or legally in the right. Many believe he may be ethically in the right, and these are the same people who find a normal draft ethically unacceptable as well.
Rogers would have lost in court because he was wrong. Not because of any innapropriate machinations by the lawyers. He'd have been represented by any of countless brilliant lawyers eager to defend such a hero, and he'd have lost.
Maybe Stark would lose too - after all, I've conceded he probably should be prosecuted - but that doesn't change Rogers' criminality for an instant.
Moreover, I'd love to see your cogent, well thought-out argument why a draft isn't morally right, much less why its not constitutional.
Slavery isn't an appropriate analogy here because there's a fundamental moral problem with slavery - it reduces a person to an object - and that moral problem is answered by every moral system today. For atheists such as me, it is answered by Kant (and the deontological categorical imperative to never use a person as an instrument). Utilitarians...they might accept slavery. For natural law theorists (i.e. religious persons), it's answered in a multitude of ways (though many religions embrace slavery...a point I wont belabor here).
The draft, on the other hand, has no clear moral problems.
Not the same thing. I've repeatedly agreed that the Thunderbolts project is just a bad idea. Where, by the way, are there indications that 42 destroys your mind? Far from it, we have indications that it's a pleasant prison, with VR simulators for each prisoner.
I always wonder why some people can't express themselves without cursing. I curse plenty, but only for punctuation of sorts. If the writing was such "dogshit", I struggle to wonder how you'd have written it.
1. At this point, 42 has been wrecked to hell by 2 escape attempts.
2. They put DareFist in there, along with many others.
Unless you count anyone arrested to be a villain.
Considering SHIELD's initial actions against Cap, I'd be inclined to distrust them
.
In fact, the same interview (and the spoilers/previews for upcoming Cap issues) make it clear that Rogers is in Rikers.
I don't know where I was going with that particular thing.
We'll just have to see if he can mount a legal challenge from his current prison, then. If not, and if nobody else can, then the point is legitimized.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Cap almost certainly would have been sent to to 42 and, since none of the prison's occupants could do anything from their cells (unless they were too lazy to), would likely have been helpless from there. It's moot now, but at the time it was a valid justification for his going underground.
The heroes were in 42 because of the ongoing insurrection.
re 1: Actually, we didn't see much damage at all to the prison, since Cloak teleported everyone out. The damage was to NYC where they killed several dozen people, and a handful of heroes.
re 2: This is the editor speaking, not a SHIELD rep. If he says that, as far as Marvel Editorial is concerned, only villains are stored in 42 then it's true until its contradicted in comics (or by editorial).