|
Post by Tana Nile on May 23, 2007 20:13:46 GMT -5
Summary: She-Hulk finally learns what happened to her cousin, and she confronts Iron Man. They have a heck of a fight, before IM injects her with nanites that take away her powers. But now IM is going to have to deal with one really pissed off Jen Walters - who happens to be that most frightening of creatures - a lawyer!
I really enjoyed this issue. Slott did a great job; I'll be sorry to see him go. The art was a bit too cartoony for me, but serviceable.
The dialogue between She-Hulk and IM is excellent. I won't say any more until people have had a chance to read it. One thing though: if pride goeth before a fall, Stark is going a long way down.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 23, 2007 22:20:39 GMT -5
My reaction upon finishing this issue was that She-Hulk is great, but Jennifer Walters rocks!Slott’s last issue is #21, due in July. I noticed that no She-Hulk issue is listed in Marvel’s August solicitations. However, it appears the series is continuing, given Slott’s mention of a follow-up creative team (which he refuses to name but hypes nonetheless) in the second half of his recent Newsarama interview.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 24, 2007 15:23:21 GMT -5
I've learned to ignore the art, and just focus on the writing with She-Hulk, and I enjoy it alot.
Is there any doubt that Tony's house of cards is starting to waver, and will soon be falling down around him. And the Doom vs. IM analogy Shulkie drops on him is dead-on.
Just who the @#$%! does Tony think he is... regardless of his Futurist foresight, who made him judge, jury, executioner, and God of the MU?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 24, 2007 15:26:24 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with you, Tone-Loc. In this case I think the Illuminati thing is one of the most obvious things Tony has done. Some of his acts are more reprehensible than others, but exiling the Hulk is among the least of his transgressions. That's made even more obvious from the fact Tony and Tony alone is blamed (Well, occasionally Reed) and no-one cared anywhere near as much PRE war as they did POST war.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 15:34:07 GMT -5
I've learned to ignore the art, and just focus on the writing with She-Hulk, and I enjoy it alot. this is something we've touched on before, it's a lot easier to ignore sub-par art hen you have an enjoyable story. I'm happy they are making Jen less of a mousy player.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 24, 2007 15:44:13 GMT -5
Gotta disagree with you, Tone-Loc. In this case I think the Illuminati thing is one of the most obvious things Tony has done. Some of his acts are more reprehensible than others, but exiling the Hulk is among the least of his transgressions. That's made even more obvious from the fact Tony and Tony alone is blamed (Well, occasionally Reed) and no-one cared anywhere near as much PRE war as they did POST war. I'm not talking so much about the banishment of Hulk, which I apologize, as my statement mirrored Jen's from this issue. I was mainly talking in general with the SHRA, and specifically with this issue of She-Hulk, and the way he decided to simply (and permanently for all he knew) dispose of "She-Hulk" as well... simply for disagreeing with her. Tony seems to have little respect for the law and due-process, which I am sure is a statement by Marvel on the current, real-world administration.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 15:48:20 GMT -5
Tony seems to have little respect for the law and due-process, which I am sure is a statement by Marvel on the current, real-world administration. I think you have a valid point here tone
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 24, 2007 15:50:20 GMT -5
Course that makes Shulkie a COMPLETE hypocrite as she had zero problem with IM and totally supported him until it came back to hurt HER family
And to be fair, I can't see that there's not much else Stark could have done and it seems very very obvious that he plans to repower her at a later date when she's less pissed. So to me it came out with him as harsh but practical and her as a total hypocrite. A KICKASS hypocrite but...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 15:51:35 GMT -5
Course that makes Shulkie a COMPLETE hypocrite as she had zero problem with IM and totally supported him until it came back to hurt HER family And to be fair, I can't see that there's not much else Stark could have done and it seems very very obvious that he plans to repower her at a later date when she's less pissed. So to me it came out with him as harsh but practical and her as a total hypocrite. A KICKASS hypocrite but... I'm not soo sure about 'total' support. She really fried his bacon on the stand in her first CW tie-in issue
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 24, 2007 16:07:50 GMT -5
And I am pretty sure it was Tony himself who said that the de-powering effect of the inhibitor-nanites was permanent (due to them being developed for the Hulk)... unless he was just saying that, of course.
Which also leads to something else... so all the greatest minds on the planet couldn't cure Bruce of his little Hulk problem, yet now he has a permanent cure for it??? How much guilt will he and the other Illuminati feel over that... oh yeah, none, since I guess we already know the effect wasn't permanent (or at least could be fixed, by destroying the nanites as in Hulk #106).
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 25, 2007 10:42:30 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious to me that She-Hulk's depowering was intended to be permanent. Stark says, "As far as we can tell, the effects are permanent." That doesn't indicate a lot of wiggle room to me.
I also don't think there's anything hypocritical about Jen's position. She wasn't all that happy about the SHRA initially, but because it was the law, she supported it. However, the situation with the Hulk is entirely different. There were no courts involved, no one gave him a chance to defend himself. There were simply four men who thought they had the right to make decisions for the entire world, purely based on their intellect or positions of power. That's what has her teed off.
Stark only reinforces the problem when he tries to justify his actions. Clearly, he thinks he is above the law. I believe this is what has Jen so infuriated.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 25, 2007 11:33:06 GMT -5
Just who the @#$%! does Tony think he is... regardless of his Futurist foresight, who made him judge, jury, executioner, and God of the MU? I believe that would be Mark Millar. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 25, 2007 11:55:56 GMT -5
@ RSC- I would laugh were it remotely accurate or, y'know, funny.
And of course, there's a LOT of wiggle room there. What si more likely, for Tony to permanently depower her or for him to temporarily depower her and tell her it's permanent to calm her down? Not only is the second MUCH more likely, but if Amadaeus freaking cho can work out a cure, you BET YOUR ASS Reed has one ready.
And of course, curing She-Hulk is MUCH, MUCH easier than curing Hulk.
You can level all the complains you want at the Illuminati but to try and say reed didn't try to cure him hard enough is just silly.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 25, 2007 13:25:27 GMT -5
And of course, there's a LOT of wiggle room there. What si more likely, for Tony to permanently depower her or for him to temporarily depower her and tell her it's permanent to calm her down? Not only is the second MUCH more likely, but if Amadaeus freaking cho can work out a cure, you BET YOUR ASS Reed has one ready. And of course, curing She-Hulk is MUCH, MUCH easier than curing Hulk. You can level all the complains you want at the Illuminati but to try and say reed didn't try to cure him hard enough is just silly. Wait, you think lying to someone about them having a permanent loss of ability has a more calming affect on someone, than explaining that it was only done temporarily? Either you misstyped that, or I simply can't agree with you on that, and I doubt many could. And as for the cure... The "cure" Amadeus Cho implemented for She-Hulk was the destruction of the inhibitor nanites, to restore Jen back to her She-Hulk state. Whereas, the inhibitor nanites themselves could obviously be used as a cure for Bruce Banner, to prevent him from being the Hulk. I am sure once Reed or others get wind of the inhibitor nanites, they will question their decision to send Hulk off to greener pastures (pardon the pun), knowing that a cure was indeed possible if they were a little more patient.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 25, 2007 13:32:54 GMT -5
Wait, you think lying to someone about them having a permanent loss of ability has a more calming affect on someone, than explaining that it was only done temporarily? Either you misstyped that, or I simply can't agree with you on that, and I doubt many could. Then we disagree. But it's simple, by convincing her she can't turn into Shulkie again, she becomes depressed. Obvious. Er... then care to explain why Tony TRIES them on him in the WWH preview and it clearly DOESN'T WORK? Not to mention that obviously they had no such tech at the time. Not to MENTION that obviously Tony could repower her if freaking CHO could.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 25, 2007 13:47:01 GMT -5
Yeah, we'll definitely have to disagree. I think more often then not, outrage would ensure... as Jen rightly displays.
As for the inhibitor nanite cure for Hulk. My apologies, I wasn't aware they had already been tried. Which WWH preview are you talking about? The prologue... WorldBreaker? Or was it something else? I have both WorldBreaker and Hulk #106, and I don't recall them trying them out. Admittedly, I only read them once so far, so it may just be slipping my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 25, 2007 14:42:15 GMT -5
Disagree we shall.
World War Hulk 1 previews show Tony in Hulkbuster using it. We can assume it's a bit of a last ditch thing and we can ALSO assume they didn't have it at the time.
Though one could argue what they did is more humane than forcible depowering, as they would then be obliged to put Bruce on a tiral he'd almost certainly be found guilty and executed as a result of.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 25, 2007 15:31:30 GMT -5
Disagree we shall. World War Hulk 1 previews show Tony in Hulkbuster using it. We can assume it's a bit of a last ditch thing and we can ALSO assume they didn't have it at the time. Though one could argue what they did is more humane than forcible depowering, as they would then be obliged to put Bruce on a tiral he'd almost certainly be found guilty and executed as a result of. Regardless of what's more humane, who gave them the authority to decide the fate of the Hulk? He's still a U.S. citizen, entitled to a trial by his peers, yes? This is what bothers me about the Illuminati, and Stark in particular. They've determined by virtue of their individual gifts or status that they can disregard the laws of the land (certainly the U.S., maybe the world) and do whatever they think is appropriate. While some may see this as an attempt to be pro-active, it is still a violation of civil rights, if not outright flaunting of the entire system of government. If the Hulk stands accused of some crime, then he deserves a trial. Not just a group of his supposed friends deciding what's best for him.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 25, 2007 15:47:58 GMT -5
This is what bothers me about the Illuminati, and Stark in particular. They've determined by virtue of their individual gifts or status that they can disregard the laws of the land (certainly the U.S., maybe the world) and do whatever they think is appropriate. While some may see this as an attempt to be pro-active, it is still a violation of civil rights, if not outright flaunting of the entire system of government. If the Hulk stands accused of some crime, then he deserves a trial. Not just a group of his supposed friends deciding what's best for him. Firstly, Stark is no more guilty in this instance than anyone else. Secondly, they are beyond doubt the people best qualifed to judge. When one of his own best friends is saying this, it makes sense and these people know him best. Hulk is most definitely an extrenuous circumstance. You can't out him on trial- he'll just go berserk for all they know. He could get stressed or angry, or GOD KNOWS what. They could go to the government but they're likely to be much more ruthless and don't know Bruce as well and would just try to bring him in by force. Really, the Illuminati did, I think, the only thing they could- both for Earth and for Bruce himself.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 25, 2007 17:42:04 GMT -5
This is what bothers me about the Illuminati, and Stark in particular. They've determined by virtue of their individual gifts or status that they can disregard the laws of the land (certainly the U.S., maybe the world) and do whatever they think is appropriate. While some may see this as an attempt to be pro-active, it is still a violation of civil rights, if not outright flaunting of the entire system of government. If the Hulk stands accused of some crime, then he deserves a trial. Not just a group of his supposed friends deciding what's best for him. Firstly, Stark is no more guilty in this instance than anyone else. Secondly, they are beyond doubt the people best qualifed to judge. When one of his own best friends is saying this, it makes sense and these people know him best. Hulk is most definitely an extrenuous circumstance. You can't out him on trial- he'll just go berserk for all they know. He could get stressed or angry, or GOD KNOWS what. They could go to the government but they're likely to be much more ruthless and don't know Bruce as well and would just try to bring him in by force. Doom, you're trying to have things both ways. Your arguements for the registration act being correct are the exact arguments that make it so the Illuminati DON't have the right to make this particular choice. One of the main tenets of the act is that Supers can not be above the law or be the law themselves. You supported this throughout, I'm not saying you are wrong in supporting it. I am saying that you then cannot support the Illuminati taking the law into thier own hands. Banner most likely would be found guilty in a court of law, but as an American he is entitled to that appearance. By acting as they did the Illuminati denied him his due process. I know you disagree with several things American but this is fact whether it is something you agree with or not. Look at some of our most detestable mass murderers, they get to go to trail. On the other side of the coin, look what happened when the press found out about the mis-treatment of war prisoners in the Middle East. Even though they were considered terrorists America could not allow its officers to treat them in the way they had been treated. As far as who is guilty, I agree with you that Tony isn't the only one. This does not deny his culpability though, they are all answerable.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 25, 2007 17:55:41 GMT -5
At the end of the day though Nutty, the situations are very different.
Doing the right thing isn't always the legal thing, which has been the crux of YOUR arguments. But here's the thing; when we disagree with the legal thing, we don't have the rights to fight the law just cos we can. I guess the best way to put it is this:
-There's a right way and there's a wrong way to fight a law you don't agree with. But in this case, the behaviour of the Illuminati should have made it better for EVERYONE. Doing the legal thing... would have made it better for some and much much worse for one in particular. They did what they thought they had to. They should be put on trial for it, but I think it would be found that it was extraordinary circumstances and they'd be found innocent.
But couldn't I counter that your arguments are ALSO hypocrisy? How can you claim Tony etc should have tried the Hulk in accordance with the law, when you fully exonerate Cap from running around fighting it? There's a double standard THERE too.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 25, 2007 20:02:43 GMT -5
At the end of the day though Nutty, the situations are very different. Doing the right thing isn't always the legal thing, which has been the crux of YOUR arguments. But here's the thing; when we disagree with the legal thing, we don't have the rights to fight the law just cos we can. I guess the best way to put it is this: -There's a right way and there's a wrong way to fight a law you don't agree with. But in this case, the behaviour of the Illuminati should have made it better for EVERYONE. Doing the legal thing... would have made it better for some and much much worse for one in particular. They did what they thought they had to. They should be put on trial for it, but I think it would be found that it was extraordinary circumstances and they'd be found innocent. But couldn't I counter that your arguments are ALSO hypocrisy? How can you claim Tony etc should have tried the Hulk in accordance with the law, when you fully exonerate Cap from running around fighting it? There's a double standard THERE too. There's no getting around the fact that the Illuminati are making decisions properly reserved for the government, which is elected and therefore has the authority to act on behalf of its citizens. If they truly felt they acted properly concerning the Hulk, why didn't they tell the public, or at least the government, about what they had done? Hmm, perhaps because they completely by-passed the government and usurped powers from them? And what about the general public? Sure, they might be happy to hear the Hulk was gone, but then they might also start to wonder what other decisions this group was going to make for them, a group that is not accountable to them and can not be removed (ie voted out) by them? I could easily see the revelation of the Illuminati as leading directly to the kind of government restrictions on superhumans that Stark and Richards claimed they were trying to prevent by supporting the SHRA. As a regular human, I'd be less concerned by some masked vigilantes going after thugs than I would by a cabal of arrogant superhumans making themselves the de facto heads of state.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 26, 2007 6:29:53 GMT -5
At the end of the day though Nutty, the situations are very different. Doing the right thing isn't always the legal thing, which has been the crux of YOUR arguments. But here's the thing; when we disagree with the legal thing, we don't have the rights to fight the law just cos we can. I guess the best way to put it is this: -There's a right way and there's a wrong way to fight a law you don't agree with. But in this case, the behaviour of the Illuminati should have made it better for EVERYONE. Doing the legal thing... would have made it better for some and much much worse for one in particular. They did what they thought they had to. They should be put on trial for it, but I think it would be found that it was extraordinary circumstances and they'd be found innocent. But couldn't I counter that your arguments are ALSO hypocrisy? How can you claim Tony etc should have tried the Hulk in accordance with the law, when you fully exonerate Cap from running around fighting it? There's a double standard THERE too. I have to learn that point-by-point thing first, you can't get me for hypocrisy,...Once the act became law, Cap should've gone the legal route, like Danny did in NA. I won't say any different as for the illuminati, it just doesn't matter if you think you're doing the right thing. When they acted above the law, they broke the law. You can start with kidnapping and unlawful detention, probably throw in fraud, damage to government property and assaut. Even if they had been acting with government authority they are then acting without due process. Back to intent though. This is one of the reasons why justice is blind. She is blind to intent if it is in opposition to the law. Caps and Tony's both. It came out in CW several times, if you don't like a law, change it, don't break it. I'm glad though to see you say that they should be brought to trial though, that shows that you admit thier culpability. But think about this. Before Stamford the Act may not have passed. After Stamford it passed with a bullet. In the same vein if this non-existant trial for the Illuminati took place before WWH, they probably would be exonerated for the reasons you list. If the trial took place after WWH the fact that they actually made things worse would come into play. As far as the crux of my arguments, you are right the legal vs. the right is a sticky problem for me. But I try to change those things with my voice and my vote. I stay with that. It just seemed here like you were saying legal makes it right for the CW and that intent makes it right for illuminati. It can't go both ways.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 26, 2007 10:36:03 GMT -5
It seems to me that Cap was fighting within the ideals that founded this country, and that this country is held responsible to its people. Cap was not "above the law" in fighting an unjust and discriminatory law, he was exercising his duty as a free person as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. He wasn't trying to have it both ways, by trying to be the great upholder of some laws and not others in order to suit his own needs. He was fighting against injustice for all.
The Illuminati, however, are more than certainly operating above the law, regardless of their intention. The mere fact of their secrecy, and their continued desire to maintain that secrecy (even though they have conviction in their ideals and actions) suggests they understand they are acting above the law. She-Hulk essentially gets put down like a dog, with a permament and "final solution," because she dared "go against" Stark. Those were his words, by the way.
Not to mention the other warnings he gave her about "not saying another word" out loud about what she knew of their secret plan to ship the Hulk off to deep space, further evidenced by his order that she was not to be allowed to talk to anyone after he thought he had initially incapacitated her.
What is the old saying "the truth shall stand when the world is on fire." What do you think the truth will be when the Hulk lands and sets the world on fire? Will that be the evidence of the truth that justifies the Illuminati's actions, or will it be the truth to show them that their actions, and the actions of those who think they can make decisions for the rest of the world (like most grand villains), are what inevitably sets the world abalze?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 26, 2007 14:55:25 GMT -5
It seems to me that Cap was fighting within the ideals that founded this country, and that this country is held responsible to its people. Cap was not "above the law" in fighting an unjust and discriminatory law, he was exercising his duty as a free person as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. He wasn't trying to have it both ways, by trying to be the great upholder of some laws and not others in order to suit his own needs. He was fighting against injustice for all. Except that's simply not true. The argument the anti-reggers have used constantly is SO COMPLETELY SCREWED UP I am astounded it has not been called out more. The argument I have seen most commonly is this: -Just because the majority say so, doesn't mean it's right! This is absolutely true, but guess what- the minor thing they trip up on is this, this does NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ARMED COMBAT AGAINST THE LAW. As the Comic Book Revolution blog so bluntly put it, "it is called a f***ing democracy, people!" In fact, I'll let that site do the talking: "Suffice it to say, the Registration Act is not even remotely comparable to slavery laws. The Registration Act is not unconstitutional because it doesn?t violate any of the Constitutionally protected classes established by the Supreme Court. Slavery laws do. And the entire rationale that just because the majority passes a rule doesn?t mean its right and therefore you can engage in armed conflict is insane. It is called a f***ing Democracy, people! Am I the crazy one here? A Democracy is pretty simple to understand. The will of the majority is what becomes the law of the land. That?s it. That is how it works. I guess the minority should be allowed to run roughshod over the majority. I guess that the minute that a law is passed that any minority voting group dislikes then they are completely within their rights to engage in physical conflict. That is nuts. Last time I checked, we were supposed to be an intelligent and advanced society based on a system of laws and principles. That if a bill is voted into law then the people who were against that law then have to first, accept that the bill is now law and follow the law. Second, the people opposed to that law can then work to change the law or get it repealed through legal means. Non-violent protests, boycotts and rallies. Try to elect politicians and appoint judges who would repeal or amend the law. That is how an advanced society that has a Democracy works. The Secret Avengers are analogous to the Pro-Life supporters who believe they are justified in killing doctors who perform abortions. The law is wrong, therefore they are justified in lashing out in a violent manner. No. What you do is work to elect politicians who are Pro-Life and appoint judges who are Pro-Life in hopes that one day you can try and get Roe v. Wade overturned. That is how it works in a Democracy. You don?t just take to the street and start beating the hell out of people and cause massive amounts of property damage just because you don?t like a perfectly Constitutional law being enacted." That's just it. Right there. The majority isn't always right but you DO NOT have the right to beat them up because you disagree with them, and before someone pulls the American Revolution crap, they can EASILY and PERFECTLY demosntrate their disobedience from the law and contempt for it LEGALLY. They are FULLY allowed to- and even more, unless Cap wants to go form the nation of Capveria you cannot comapre an occupied country's bid for freedom to people saying a law is wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 26, 2007 17:35:43 GMT -5
The thing is this. I don't equate registration with slavery, that would be a flawed comparison.
I do however equate registration with segregation.
In both instances you are discriminating against a class of people because of something, for the most part, they have no control over.
Oppresion is still oppresion,even if you have super powers.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on May 26, 2007 19:16:16 GMT -5
At present, Registration does not equal slavery... but it's still an imposition on the free wills of american superpowered individuals & their civil rights... Could it eventually change into something akin to slavery...? Indeed, it has the potential to evolve into something like it... Lets not forget that, at some point, most countries -America included- regarded slavery not only as natural & their God-given right but legal as well... And all those countries regarded themselves, rather arrogantly, as civilized... Was it right, moral, ethical to accept it because it was the law of the land...? Personally, I'd say no: any number of unjust laws can be created at any given moment... for me, every man's concience should be the ultimate judge on whether to follow, whether to uphold any law... any law which doesn't have justice at its core is a despicable law... So, you say, they fight it legally and constitutionally...? That's all very well, but meanwhile, should you abide by it if it causes suffering or wrongs...? I, for one, would say no... Also, Cap & his group were not intent on producing a bloody revolution, but rather were fighting with as much restraint as they could for their freedom, and America's. It's been said that both Cap's group & the Illuminati were breaking the law, acting against it... the difference is that Cap's group was merely reacting to an intolerable situation, while the Illuminati were orchestrating, creating many situations behind scenes...
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 27, 2007 0:28:56 GMT -5
Then we disagree. But it's simple, by convincing her she can't turn into Shulkie again, she becomes depressed. Obvious.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 27, 2007 2:32:56 GMT -5
... Doc's post from CBRevolution ... Thought's on the article... - Just to be technical... we're a republic, not a democracy. But that's neither here nor there. - Laws that used to exist that allowed slavery most certanly did not violate the rights of any protected class at the time. Slaves weren't even people, they were property. Even when they were freed, they weren't even considered equal.... anyone recall the 3/5ths Compromise? No, meta-humans are probably not a protected class of people in the MU (though you would think by now they would be), so I guess that means that they have to submit to being weapons of a government, if they want to exercise their natural abilities? Should slaves not have had the right to rise up and fight against an oppressing goverment, just because they weren't a protected class? That seems ubsurd to me. - I have a hard time with the Militant Pro-Lifer analogy to the anti-reg folks. Namely, it's their own lives, their own right to self-determination they are fighting for, not just the lives of others like abortion clinic bombers. Obivously unborn babies can't fight for themselves, but I still think that there is a noteworthy distinction to be made, and not a very fair analogy. - Also, I don't believe aside from the offensive to free prisoners of 42, that the anti-reg heroes were just going into the streets and hunting down government entities to beating them down. I do believe the typical exchange was more along the lines of Registered Meta Humans being forced or ordered to hunt down and take into custody, typically by any means or level of force necessary. The anti-reggers either ran, or fought when physically engaged... no?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 27, 2007 2:52:40 GMT -5
Then we disagree. But it's simple, by convincing her she can't turn into Shulkie again, she becomes depressed. Obvious. This whole argument seems oddly reminiscent of the Civil War debate in which you insisted that Cap was admitting he was wrong even though it was obvious to everyone else that he was only backing down because of the collateral damage. Now you are convinced that Tony is only pretending that he thinks the change to Jen is permanent even with no evidence to support your claim. I don't mind theories, but Dude, why do you insist that you are right when there is no evidence other than some hunch you have? All evidence, at this point, indicates that Tony intends the change to be permanent. I wonder, sometimes, if you even read the same books as the rest of us. Maybe you should keep your entire collection locked in a vault somewhere. Those rare alternate editions might be really valuable someday. LOL, that's pretty much what I'd been thinking as well, nicely expressed. It's hard to have real debate when we're not even in agreement on the basic facts. I've been thinking for some time about how I would have dealt with the SHRA if I were a super-powered person in the Marvel Universe. Personally, my position would be a lot like Ben Grimm's: I think the law is wrong, but it is the law. So if I opposed it, I would have a few choices: leave the country, quit superheroing and retire, or fight the law in court. That last one is the most appealing. Here's the catch though: how do I legally fight it without giving up my secret ID? Sure, if it's already known, then it's not an issue. But what if you've got family and friends you've been trying to protect by keeping your ID secret? If you go into court and reveal your status, then you endanger them - the same thing you're worried that the SHRA is going to do (if someone gets ahold of "the list"). It seems to me that it could be very hard to find someone from the superhuman community willing to be put in this position. It's almost as if they are being denied legal recourse.
|
|