|
Post by balok on Feb 23, 2007 15:17:28 GMT -5
Oh terrible. Except that WOULDN'T happen. Because as of post civil war, you'd be imprisoned in a NORMAL prison, not a giant prison in another dimension. And you CAN retire. All you need to do is register and you have further choices: (4) Retire- agree not to register and never use your powers (5) Be a hero and work as a hero. It's not like Tony Stark is gonna call you out on everything (6) Register and go back to a quiet life, but you can use your powers if you need to. Well, you may have access to additional information. The last thing I remember reading is that (4), (5) and (6) were not options. They specifically said that all heroes work for SHIELD or they don't work at all. Essentially, a draft. Did they retcon this somewhere? If they did, that eases the pain a little, but if not, (5) and (6) cease to be options. And my understanding of the Act (from the NA issue featuring Luke Cage on the run) is that you *must* register, or you are violating the law. That removes (4) as an option. Also, are you telling me they built this enormous prison in the Negative Zone, and now aren't going to use it? I don't remember reading that. I haven't read quite *all* of the Civil War material, so it's possible these changes occurred in some crossover I didn't read.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 23, 2007 15:25:33 GMT -5
Well, I believe that Iron Man, with his totalitarian outlook, caused the war. But we'll just have to disagree on that point. It sounds like you subscribe to the rule that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The point being that some things are wrong no matter how many people support them. Slavery, torture and imprisonment without recourse to legal counsel are all among those things, and the pro-reg side has done every one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 23, 2007 15:26:32 GMT -5
Nope, nowhere has said they work for SHIELD or not at all, at least not seriously. Well, some SHIELD agents said it but that was PRE Iron Man becoming Director in order to "clean up" SHIELD.
Firestar resigned and no one went after her. In 22, Iron Man ADVISED jessica to register- almost certainly in case she used her powers, and he did say she wouldn't be forced to work for the government.
No, Civil War #7 shows the prison being used for villains and Marvel have confirmed we'll see it again -it is now for the most high security villains, no heroes are imprisoned there.
The Pro-reggers have done NONE of them. THe closest to "slavery" if you can call it that is forcing Wonder Woman to work- and that was done by SHIELD agents illegally, not in accordance with the SHRA, and no heroes knew about it. They have DEFINITELY not tortured, as far as I'm aware and I read every issue of the crossover. And we have heard nothing one way or the other about how they may have recourse to legal council- the only thing saying they didn't was a RETCONNED conversation in ASM 535, and we clearly see Speedball with council in frontline.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Feb 23, 2007 15:53:50 GMT -5
So now you have a extra-dimensional prison for super-powered villains. Great idea. It punishes those for their crimes. Why wasn't that the reaction to the incident that sparked the CW in the first place? Kind of makes the whole CW look like an extreme overreaction now doesn't it?
So what happens the next time a villain escapes (and for the love of Pete, you know they will) and kills a lot of people again? Where does it escalate to at that point?
They have basically given a new classification to super-powered humans, and applied regulations and laws on that class of citizen that no other class has. That is classic unlawful discrimination. Treating one class of people different from another.
Captain America didn't start this. The cowardly politicians who are too afraid to stand up for individual rights anymore, combined with the "we know what's best for you" crowd with the likes of Tony Stark and Reed Richards... created the war.
Why do good people have to pay for the bad deeds of others? Where is that in the Constitution?
So back to my earlier scenario. So what happens when the next big incident occurs that lots of people get hurt or die in. What if it involves someone that never registered and never used their powers until the incident? Then you get the initiatives to determine who has been born with powers, or with the predisposition for them... every citizen will then have to be tested at birt... and again at puberty... and after any scientific experiment gone awry... or when they sign on to perform certain types of work with dangerous materials... go into space... etc... etc... etc... where does it ever end? Do you not see the slippery slope that the ski lift of the MU has dropped you atop of?
Hold people accountable for their actions. That has been the hallmark of any just and civil society. Not hold them accountable for what actions they might accidentally take.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 23, 2007 16:16:19 GMT -5
I happen to live in the south. If whatever the majority of the people wanted was what should always be accepted as what's right, I wouldn't have to worry about cooking any dinner for myself tonight because I'd have a slave to do it for me. Fortunately, the people here were proven wrong and I need to figure out what I want to eat. As someone pointed out, Cap didn't give up so easily in WWII. Granted the American people were never behind Hitler, but the Germans were. If people didn't go against beliefs that were considered okay at one time, women wouldn't be able to vote, recieve equal pay for equal work, or act on stage. Witches would still be burned at the stake. Kids like Ryan White would still be sent away from schools because of aids. People would still be able to use the n word when describing African Americans without it making the news. Gays wouldn't be able to marry in any state. No abortions could be given. Where you personally stand on any of these issues aside, people who believe in freedom have always gone against the public grain. That's why it seems out of character to back down so quickly or decide he must have been wrong just because he saw that a lot of people didn't support him.
The majority have made a lot of mistakes through the years. Yes, many non-supers in the MU support the act. It doesn't affect them personally, just like many people I knew growing up didn't care if black people had to go to the back of the bus or drink from a seperate fountain. They felt protected by having the schools segregated so they were all for it. People like Martin Luther King Jr. stood up for them even when they saw people being killed and property being damaged along the way. I'm glad Martin Luther King Jr. was nothing like Captain America and it saddens me to ever have to say that.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 23, 2007 17:02:34 GMT -5
The majority have made a lot of mistakes through the years. Yes, many non-supers in the MU support the act. It doesn't affect them personally, just like many people I knew growing up didn't care if black people had to go to the back of the bus or drink from a seperate fountain. They felt protected by having the schools segregated so they were all for it. People like Martin Luther King Jr. stood up for them even when they saw people being killed and property being damaged along the way. I'm glad Martin Luther King Jr. was nothing like Captain America and it saddens me to ever have to say that. Thank you Spiderwasp for saying this so well. I have been thinking about the outcome of CW and what it all means to the Marvel Universe, and I think ultimately it is a terrible tragedy. CW mirrors the situation in the U.S. right now a little too well. It seems as though the vast majority of Americans are more than willing to trade in their rights for (illusionary) safety. I never thought I would see the day when people in high levels of government would talk about the 'right' way to use torture. Or why imprisoning people without charging them, or giving them access to legal recourse, was OK. It really tears me up to see what this country has become. Then I go over to the Marvel Universe, and it's ten times worse there. Doom, I've read all the CW's, Frontline, Spidey's etc, and it's stated plainly that superheroes have no choice, if you register you are essentially conscripted into the government's super-army. Maybe some people would wind up in non-combat roles, who knows, but there is definitely no option. Register or be hunted down. There is no "conscientous objector" status - well, you can be one, but you'll go to prison. This is the new status quo of the MU, where the government has control over every superhero, where the ends justify the means, where the desires of the majority outrule the Constitution...good God, I go to comics for relief from the real world, not to see a magnified reflection of it! I just can't look at a lot of these characters any more and think of them as heroes. That makes buying a lot of books now very iffy.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 23, 2007 19:27:07 GMT -5
They have basically given a new classification to super-powered humans, and applied regulations and laws on that class of citizen that no other class has. That is classic unlawful discrimination. Treating one class of people different from another. This is an excellent point that I missed completely. The SRA should be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Consider yourself exalted.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 23, 2007 19:36:51 GMT -5
Nope, nowhere has said they work for SHIELD or not at all, at least not seriously. Well, some SHIELD agents said it but that was PRE Iron Man becoming Director in order to "clean up" SHIELD. I'm quite sure I read it somewhere. But, you might be right - SHIELD operating under Maria Hill certainly violated laws right and left. For just one example, they used telepaths to extract information from Spider-Man's mind, a clear violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. In 22, Iron Man ADVISED jessica to register- almost certainly in case she used her powers, and he did say she wouldn't be forced to work for the government. Then why was he chasing her after midnight struck and she had not registered? No, Civil War #7 shows the prison being used for villains and Marvel have confirmed we'll see it again -it is now for the most high security villains, no heroes are imprisoned there. This is semantic hair-splitting. First, by definition if you violate the SRA you are a villain and hence eligible to internment there. Second, Tony Stark's superhuman groups include enslaved villains who act in villainous ways with official mandate (read Thunderbolts #111 if you don't believe me). The Pro-reggers have done NONE of them. Slavery: placing nanobots inside someone's body to control their actions under threat of torture and death. For an example of imprisonment without recourse to legal counsel, read Speedball's story in Civil War: Frontline, especially the early issues before he reinvented himself as the seriously inane Penance. He did obtain counsel later (a government appointed lawyer, Jennifer Walters, with a serious conflict of interest, since she worked for Tony - and she was fairly unhelpful). The pro-reg forces have, in fact, done ALL OF THEM. You can like these people, and you can like the stories told about them. That much is a matter of opinion. What you can't do is convincingly argue that they are acting morally or with proper respect for civil rights. That much is cold hard fact.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 23, 2007 19:39:58 GMT -5
Thank you Spiderwasp for saying this so well. I have been thinking about the outcome of CW and what it all means to the Marvel Universe, and I think ultimately it is a terrible tragedy. CW mirrors the situation in the U.S. right now a little too well. It seems as though the vast majority of Americans are more than willing to trade in their rights for (illusionary) safety. I never thought I would see the day when people in high levels of government would talk about the 'right' way to use torture. Or why imprisoning people without charging them, or giving them access to legal recourse, was OK. It really tears me up to see what this country has become. Then I go over to the Marvel Universe, and it's ten times worse there. Doom, I've read all the CW's, Frontline, Spidey's etc, and it's stated plainly that superheroes have no choice, if you register you are essentially conscripted into the government's super-army. Maybe some people would wind up in non-combat roles, who knows, but there is definitely no option. Register or be hunted down. There is no "conscientous objector" status - well, you can be one, but you'll go to prison. This is the new status quo of the MU, where the government has control over every superhero, where the ends justify the means, where the desires of the majority outrule the Constitution...good God, I go to comics for relief from the real world, not to see a magnified reflection of it! I just can't look at a lot of these characters any more and think of them as heroes. That makes buying a lot of books now very iffy. Beautifully stated, concise and eloquent. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 23, 2007 20:07:18 GMT -5
Despite what was said in "Amazing Spider-Man," 42 was designed to be a temporary prison for super-heroes.
Nanobots were used only with the villians (aka when the Thunderbolts). Villian are criminals. It's no different than if having a guard on hand if a criminal was let out of jail for a civil service (such as cleaning the trash along a highway).
The idea behind the super-hero registration is that it's similar to a drivers liscence. You got a power? To use it as a super-hero, you need to have a liscence. Why? Because an event like Stamford can happen.
But now - there are super-heoroes in every state, trained and monitored by a SHIELD run by one of the oldest and trusted super-heroes. If they don't want to be super-heroes, they don't have to be. But they have to be registered.
Just like how you can have a car and know how to drive, but without a liscence, it's illegal to drive said car.
Also, further note, that despite that we see TON of super-heroes during CW, there are certainly other heroes who simply chose not to rebel and go into hiding. The only heroes Iron Man and the Pro-Reg forces "talked to" or "went after" were those he knew personally or those that were still operating.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 23, 2007 21:15:59 GMT -5
The thing is, in reality when you get your driver's license, you are not then directed to the nearest police station or army base to take orders on how you will use your car. The gun registration analogy so many people also try to use leads to the same path. Once you register your gun, you aren't then signed up by the army. In the MU, though, you basically are. Part of the problem here though is that Marvel has not been entirely consistent in describing the SHRA. It appears to some of us that you must serve at the pleasure of the government. But even if that is not entirely correct, it still denies basic civil rights to a group of people. If things had been done a little more sensibly, early on in this conflict Cap should have gone on-air and appealed to the American people and the government to find a Constitutionally sound way to work with superheroes to help them prevent any further Stamfords. The best we got was Spidey going on air to denounce the Pro-reg side, but he has always been an outlaw, so his influence would be minimal. But what we got instead was little better than "Contest of the Champions"...except the fights were even less satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 23, 2007 22:42:57 GMT -5
The thing is, in reality when you get your driver's license, you are not then directed to the nearest police station or army base to take orders on how you will use your car. The gun registration analogy so many people also try to use leads to the same path. Once you register your gun, you aren't then signed up by the army. In the MU, though, you basically are. Part of the problem here though is that Marvel has not been entirely consistent in describing the SHRA. It appears to some of us that you must serve at the pleasure of the government. But even if that is not entirely correct, it still denies basic civil rights to a group of people. At no point do I recall anyone saying that super-heroes needed to report and take orders from the government. I could be wrong, but I really don't remember (at any point) there was a forced "you have to report to us" mandate to being registered. Part of the inconsistency (as I've seen them) of the SHRA is the amount of creative forces involved on various books. "New Avengers," "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Fantastic Four" tend to portray the SHRA in a different light than, say, "She-Hulk," "Iron Man," and even "Frontline." I'm basing what I've been saying on what Tom Breevort said in the "Civil War" # 6 interview a few weeks back. I'm assuming Doctor Doom is basing what he's saying on that as well. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 24, 2007 0:37:03 GMT -5
At no point do I recall anyone saying that super-heroes needed to report and take orders from the government. I could be wrong, but I really don't remember (at any point) there was a forced "you have to report to us" mandate to being registered. Early on, it was stated that all registered individuals would have to work for the government. And Iron Man chased down Luke Cage when he wouldn't register. It is possible that the former has been retconned away or was a misstatement from a creator who did not understand (but I wonder how someone makes such a fundamental error, when the right information is a phone call away, and when editors certainly examine the scripts). So you *have* to register, and if you register you *have* to work for SHIELD. Unless, as I say, that has been retconned away somewhere. Edit: According to this interview where Dan Slott discusses Avengers: The Initiative, registration is a draft. Part of the inconsistency (as I've seen them) of the SHRA is the amount of creative forces involved on various books. "New Avengers," "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Fantastic Four" tend to portray the SHRA in a different light than, say, "She-Hulk," "Iron Man," and even "Frontline." I'm basing what I've been saying on what Tom Breevort said in the "Civil War" # 6 interview a few weeks back. I'm assuming Doctor Doom is basing what he's saying on that as well. This may be true, but if the editors believe something, why don't the books reflect that? Why aren't the books consistent? This event makes major changes in the Marvel Universe - whether you think those changes are a good thing or not, I believe it's reasonable to expect them to get the details synchronized. Even allowing for the most generous interpretation you state, this scenario is possible: Accident Victim: Please... can you help me? I'm stuck in here and the car's on fire!! Superhero: Yes, I *can* help you, but I am not *allowed to* because you, collectively, wanted that to be the law of the land. Sorry, I'd like to help, and I would have before you all passed the SRA. Now, my hands are tied. The nanobots aren't really the same thing as the guards, because they can be used to inflict pain and to kill. Guards in modern penal institutions are generally not allowed to torture their charges, and they get arrested if they get caught doing it. Also, as was demonstrated with Osborn's attack on the Atlanteans, the nanobots can be programmed to make their host perform in other ways, and there are probably dozens of heroes and villains smart enough to pull that off. Who's responsible for the carnage then? Finally, go read T-Bolts if you haven't already, and then tell me Tony Stark hasn't created an organization of villains who are basically allowed to be villains. It's a classic example of "the ends justify the means." But that's almost never true in a moral society. In this case, Tony Stark has decided that because of what one criminal did, it is necessary to pre-emptively punish an entire class of people. This is, as has been stated, a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I suppose walking all over civil rights and discarding basic decency is a reflection of the society in which we live, for the Bush administration leads the way in these areas. But I don't want to read about it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 24, 2007 7:20:01 GMT -5
Only in "Illuminati". That was an early draft, and has since been disproven.
Yes, because anyone with a BRAIN can tell Luke Cage is going to use his powers.
Well he made such an error because I think it's fair to say Bendis has an anti-reg slant which he places on all books, therefore interprets things the way he wants to interpret things.
It has.
He's speaking in simple terms, obviously.
Not all books are edited by the same editor, and Tom Brevoort edits an ENORMOUS number of books, both involved and not involved with civil war. Expecting him to catch every mistake is ridiculous.
It is, but only if the super hero is an idiot. If they registeredf quietly, then the following would happen:
Accident Victim: Please... can you help me? I'm stuck in here and the car's on fire! Superhero: Certainly. <Frees victim> Policeman: Hey! What happened here? Superhero: No problem officer, here's my Registration card, I was just helping this citizen Policeman: Everything's in order, no problem!
If you're smart enough to reprogram nanobots like that, then you're obviously smart enough to break someone from jail anyway. Cap's resistance use a psychotic killer- Punisher- with no way of controlling him at all. The nanobots cannot kill. NORMAN OSBORN said they could..TONY STARK said they couldn't.... but I bet Osborn ALWAYS tells the truth, right?
Okay: Tony Stark hasn't created an organization of villains who are basically allowed to be villains.
No, no he did not. The AMERICAN PEOPLE have decided that because a group of idiotic untrained heroes BLEW UP A SCHOOL, all beings with awesome powers beyond what normal humans have must have some accountability.
No it is NOT. That is like saying that making gun-owners register is a clear violation of this clause!
Well Tony's not doing either, so that's okay then.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Feb 24, 2007 11:11:27 GMT -5
I'm enjoying the conversation between Balok and Dr. Doom, because you both make really good points.
I, too, clearly remember it being stated at the beginning that everyone had to register and that made you a government employee and working for SHIELD. That even led to Adrian Watts asking about how that would work with heroes in other countries, and how much of this was US law vs international law or the law of other countries, etc.
But, Doom, you make by far the best argument in favor of Registration I've heard.
Interesting stuff, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Feb 24, 2007 11:15:56 GMT -5
That's exactly right, Tana. The overall theme of CIVIL WAR, I think, (at least in part) has been the balance between freedom and security. You can't gain more of one without losing more of the other. It's a zero-sum game.
After an incident like the one in CT, people run towards the "security" end of the spectrum. Given time, though, they usually, gradually, move back toward the other end. We've seen that over the last few years since 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Feb 24, 2007 11:19:51 GMT -5
This discussion has reminded me of one of the things that bothered me so much, when I read #7.
At the end, we get like one panel that totally changes the status quo of the heroes in the MU. Amnesty? What kind of amnesty? Just what exactly does that entail?
Will they no longer have to serve the government or go to the negative zone prison? Is the prison now going to be used for actual villains?
It's not the fact of Registration I disliked so much-- in a neutral environment or presentation, I can see merits both ways-- it's that nearly every time the two sides were presented, it was always Iron Man's pro-Reg side that came off looking and acting like worse villains than the average MU villain. That's not an "Iron Man" thing, nor is it a "Registration" thing. THAT IS A "WRITER" THING. That made me angry.
And when exactly did that retcon that was mentioned before take place? I never saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 24, 2007 12:19:17 GMT -5
Edit: According to this interview where Dan Slott discusses Avengers: The Initiative, registration is a draft. He's speaking in simple terms, obviously. "Simple terms"? The simple fact is, if you registered, you are now serving the government. There's no gray area here. There's no room for prevarication. I don't understand how you can just pick and choose which statements made by various Marvel personnel are correct. I guess the ones which support what you've been saying over and over again are valid, and Dan Slott's are not? Since Slott created the Initiative, I think he knows exactly what it means. From the Newsarama coverage: Slott: "for every single guy that registered, there is a price to pay. That price to pay is the Initiative. Whether you knew it or not when you registered, by signing that little slip of paper, you’ve been back-door drafted. If you signed up, you’re falling in when you’re called. “Marvel’s army of super-heroes is now a super-hero army.” There's more of this over at CBR: www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9775"Slott discusses more of the central plot of the series, saying that every single Marvel hero who registered is part of the army. Is the natural progression of the Marvel Universe really a superhero army? “Yes,” said Slott. Why? “Civil War.” That's pretty clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 24, 2007 13:03:00 GMT -5
Well the comic shows villains being led into the prison and we hear about hero amnesty; editors did confirm that it is used only for high security villains now, yes. It was built for that purpose, as Cap said in #6.
I agree, it was down to lazy writing but I still feel it wasn't done in the main book that way.
There IS a grey area. MILLAR created the Initiative, Slott is picking it up from the end of civil war #7. I'm not saying that Slott is lying, or even wrong- I'm saying that you are reading far too much into simple statements. Let's see this on the printed page. If we see heroes who don't want to be heroes being FORCED to be, legally, in accordance with the SHRA, then I'll agree with you.
What Slott is doing is hyping his series and making it sound as dramatic as possible but there's nothing yet to back it up.
So does FIrestar resigning to me. So does THIS:
" Team members get hurt, they get mad and quit, or they can be asked to leave,"
That's from ANOTHER writer writing a major Initiative title, Matt Fraction who writes "Champions." They CAN QUIT. They CAN BE ASKED TO LEAVE. So that's yet another thing to support the idea they can quit, as well as confirmation from the marvel editor in charge of civil war plus the indications of civil war itself plus actual concrete evidence from Firestar and The Thing. Versus.... you quoting Dan Slott, who writes one Initative title.
Let's see it on paper.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Feb 24, 2007 13:31:04 GMT -5
Rexy (can I call ya Rexy?) I wouldn't call a 40-year old man "Rexy", but that's maybe just me... Rexy?Even if I was still fifteen, might have issues with that ;D. Besides, he strikes me more as an “Impy”…
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 24, 2007 14:08:54 GMT -5
Only in "Illuminati". That was an early draft, and has since been disproven. Alright, I'll take your word for it, but I never read the Illuminati books, and I remember it being stated elsewhere - I'd guess somewhere in Civil War itself or in Frontline. See also below. Yes, because anyone with a BRAIN can tell Luke Cage is going to use his powers. So, basically, Iron Man gets to hunt people down pre-emptively because of what he might do? I didn't like that when Bush did it in Iraq, and I don't like it here. Suppose I hear by neighbor arguing with his wife and I see him raise a clenched fist in her direction. Moving quickly, I beat him unconscious because he *might* hit her. Your logic justifies my actions, but basic morality and decency do not. He's speaking in simple terms, obviously. No, sir. You do not get to do this - you do not get to pick and choose which creators you believe, excluding all those who do not agree with your perspective. You need to explain why Slott is wrong. He says this: Whether you knew it or not when you registered, by signing that little slip of paper, you’ve been back-door drafted. If you signed up, you’re falling in when you’re called. That, sir, is a draft. It's not "speaking in simple terms" or "dancing around the issue" or any other euphemism. Now, I haven't read the actual book, and I might change my mind if I did - but Slott absolutely said registration was a draft. Why say it if he doesn't believe it? So, let's assume he does believe it, and writes the Initiative that way. That pretty much torpedoes your argument. As thw writer of a core book, I think we should assume that Slott fully understands what rules now govern the 616 universe until we see evidence otherwise: the book doesn't match what he says in the interview, or a subsequent canon book contradicts him. Not all books are edited by the same editor, and Tom Brevoort edits an ENORMOUS number of books, both involved and not involved with civil war. Expecting him to catch every mistake is ridiculous. I don't expect him to catch *every* mistake, but I think we can agree that mistakes come in various levels of importance, and a fundamental misinterpretation of the government rules is right up near the top of that list. THAT is *exactly* what an editor is there to do - find and fix problems of that magnitude. It is, but only if the super hero is an idiot. If they registeredf quietly, then the following would happen... But, if Dan Slott and I are right, and you are wrong, that hero doesn't want to be drafted, so he doesn't register, and elects to retire - as you have claimed he is allowed to do. Or, he doesn't trust the government with his identity - certainly the Plame case shows how the government leaks secrets when it is politically expedient to do so, or simply because those charged with keeping the secret aren't invested in keeping it the way the owner is. See, for example, the debate over patents vs. trade secrets. That leaves him no choice but to leave the victim to suffer. Some world, huh? If you're smart enough to reprogram nanobots like that, then you're obviously smart enough to break someone from jail anyway. Cap's resistance use a psychotic killer- Punisher- with no way of controlling him at all. The nanobots cannot kill. NORMAN OSBORN said they could..TONY STARK said they couldn't.... but I bet Osborn ALWAYS tells the truth, right? Of course Osborn lies. So does Tony Stark, when it suits him. We'll have to table this one until will see the nanobots used to kill someone, I suppose. Okay: Tony Stark hasn't created an organization of villains who are basically allowed to be villains. The Thunderbolts, as depicted in #111, are villains acting like villains. See the thread in that forum for specifics if you care to. They are part of the Initiative (Colorado asked for them), which makes them part of Tony's responsibility. Whoever gave Osborn his mandate is responsible for them. If Stark didn't do that, he at least permits them to continue operating that way. So you are dead wrong about this one, sorry. No, no he did not. The AMERICAN PEOPLE have decided that because a group of idiotic untrained heroes BLEW UP A SCHOOL, all beings with awesome powers beyond what normal humans have must have some accountability. No, they didn't. One *villain* blew up the school. Granted it's been a year, but I clearly remember Nitro causing the Stamford explosion. And, the Constitutional protections exist principally to prohibit what might be called the "tyranny of the majority" - which is basically the "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Some things are wrong no matter how many folks want to do them. No it is NOT. That is like saying that making gun-owners register is a clear violation of this clause! This answer has been debunked above. The short version is that gun owners are not automatically drafted, as those with powers are. Well Tony's not doing either, so that's okay then. Sure he is. He has violated the Equal Protection Clause of those with superhuman abilities. One could argue as well that he has violated their Fourth Amendment rights. In the "real" world this legislation would immediately be tried on Constitutional grounds, and tied up in court for *years* while the legal ramifications are explored. A common criticism of judges (mostly launched by conservatives) is that they "legislate from the bench." In fact, they do not: they apply the Constitutional tests to laws - even popular laws - and they overturn legislation that, however well meaning, fails those tests. And that is how it should be. That's what the Constitution is there for: to protect all of us from the sort of tyranny Iron Man and his pro-registration forces exemplify.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 24, 2007 14:17:31 GMT -5
Ok, I've read it too, and I have mixed feelings about it. Having been a supporter of the anti-reg side, I'm, of course, disappointed by the way it ended. I can see the reasons behind Cap's surrending, but it still doesn't sound right... I mean, hadn't he realized all that before, for example during the battle in Yancy Street ? And I also completely agree with Spiderwasp's comment a few pages ago, if Cap had reasoned that way during WW2, the all MU would be speaking German, Italian and Japanese. Good sides: the battle was cool. Pity Namor came and disappeared in one page, but overall it was a good fight. I especially enjoyed Spidey beating, in a quick succession, Bishop, Doc Samson, Radioactive Man, a guy I didn't recognized and Reed. I also liked Hercules destroying Clor and Reed protecting Sue with his body. Bad sides: Cap says "surrender" and all of a sudden it all ends. I understand the Resistance would follow Cap everywhere, but I would have expected at least the more hot headed like Namor (who had basically declared war to the USA by attacking, pretty much like Black Panther) to keep fighting. Also, the final amnesty, with the heroes who are very quick to suddenly join the Reg side (don't they care about their rights etc all of a sudden ?). Biggest downside: no important death ? Now I really wonder what's the big thing that, for example, pushed Dr. Strange in the New Avengers (unless it's the death of, ehm, the person who apparently died in ASM 538) For the rest, good art and so so dialogues.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 24, 2007 17:31:16 GMT -5
Some very interesting CONFIRMATIONS from editor Tom Brevoort which pretty clearly clarify things and mean a lot more than any Dan Slott quotes:
"It's also worth pointing out that the Thunderbolts operate under the auspices of the Commission on Superhuman Activities, and aren't answerable to nor under the control of Tony himself."
So No, TOny is NOT to blame for what happens in Thunderbolts.
"Tony can't order anybody to do anything per se. But if you want to operate in some capacity as a super hero, then you have to be licensed--which means being properly trained and operating with some degree of supervision and oversight. As part of the Fifty State Initiative, teams of super heroes are being set up in each state within the union, but Tony and the government couldn't force somebody to relocate--though, if that somebody wanted to be a super hero and the only opening was in North Dakota, that might be a choice they'd have to make."
"No, anybody can quit, or retire, and as long as they're registered, there shouldn't be a problem. Also, the folks overseeing the Initiative program aren't morons or villains, so the odds of a situation like the one you propose above with Reed and Sue happening are slim at best." (The one suggested was Reed going to one state and Sue another)
So chock yet more anti-reg arguments up to mere propaganda.
Well leaving aside the simple matter that WW2 could have been won without America, albeit at much greater loss, and that America would NEVER have been invaded by the Japanese, Italians or Germans- at least not succesfully....
It was MUCH less about the collateral damage and MUCH more about the fact that he was wrong and was fighting the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 24, 2007 19:38:44 GMT -5
If one of Marvel's goals for Civil War was to get people talking about their books again, then they have obviously succeeded. I can't recall the last time I saw this much passionate discourse over comics. However, one area in which they have failed is to clearly describe just what the SHRA does and does not mean. The books have varied in their portrayal of the law and the comments from the various creators are also sometimes contrary. I don't think it is any surprise then that we fans can and do have different interpretations of the SHRA. Doom, when quoting Tom Brevoort, could you please post your source? I don't doubt that you found this quote somewhere, but it would be nice to be able to read the source material ourselves. " Team members get hurt, they get mad and quit, or they can be asked to leave," That's from ANOTHER writer writing a major Initiative title, Matt Fraction who writes "Champions." They CAN QUIT. They CAN BE ASKED TO LEAVE. So that's yet another thing to support the idea they can quit, as well as confirmation from the marvel editor in charge of civil war plus the indications of civil war itself plus actual concrete evidence from Firestar and The Thing. Versus.... you quoting Dan Slott, who writes one Initative title. Let's see it on paper. Regarding Firestar, we see her in Frontline 2 and that's it. As far as I know, we don't see her again. Who's to say she isn't on the list of heroes to be brought in for registration? Or that she is essentially registered via her Avengers status? There's too little to go on here, for me. As for the Thing, I think Fantastic Four 541 shows the cost of playing conscientious objector: all of Ben's assets have been frozen, and he is threatened with winding up on a "no fly" list. It's unclear to me whether Ben was registered or not -since he started out on the pro side, I think it's safe to assume he was. Therefore, when he chose to quit, he was penalized for it. That doesn't strike me as the SHRA allowing people complete freedom to retire. Wonder Man has been coerced into serving SHIELD, and I don't recall Arana being given any choice either. We could all sit here and cite various sources to try to prove we know the details of the SHRA, but quite frankly, I'm not convinced everyone at Marvel even has it straight. All I can say is, in my opinon, based on what I have read in the books and from other sources, once you register, you may be called into service. And at the end of the day, that still sounds like a draft to me.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 24, 2007 20:57:46 GMT -5
Some very interesting CONFIRMATIONS from editor Tom Brevoort which pretty clearly clarify things and mean a lot more than any Dan Slott quotes: Why? Because you agree with them? Earlier you were attempting to suggest that Brevoort could be wrong when that served your purpose. You're free to move the goalposts around only at the risk of undermining your credibility. It's also worth pointing out that the Thunderbolts operate under the auspices of the Commission on Superhuman Activities, and aren't answerable to nor under the control of Tony himself. So No, TOny is NOT to blame for what happens in Thunderbolts. Okay, I'll bite and assume you're right about this. Then Tony and the Thunderbolts both (at some point in the hierarchy) work for the same immoral people. It gets Tony off the hook but it doesn't change the basic fact that the Thunderbolts are villains operating as villains with government sanction. If all you're looking for is to get Tony off the hook, I'll concede the point. If you're looking to assert that the pro-reg forces are moral people you have made little headway. Tony can't order anybody to do anything per se. But if you want to operate in some capacity as a super hero, then you have to be licensed--which means being properly trained and operating with some degree of supervision and oversight. As part of the Fifty State Initiative, teams of super heroes are being set up in each state within the union, but Tony and the government couldn't force somebody to relocate--though, if that somebody wanted to be a super hero and the only opening was in North Dakota, that might be a choice they'd have to make. This paragraph contains contradictory elements. They can't make you do anything per se, but they can supervise and oversee you. Every time I've had a supervisor, that person has been someone who - wait for it - tells me what to do. In addition, they can tell you where you can work, which even current employers cannot do (you can always quit and go to work for a competitor - but since superheroism is now a nationalized industry, there are no competitors. Brevoort's not making a whole lot of sense, here. Perhaps he will clarify his position at some point. No, anybody can quit, or retire, and as long as they're registered, there shouldn't be a problem. So, if we believe Brevoort here, individuals are *compelled* to register, whether they intend to serve or not. The next logical question is, "Why? If I don't plan to operate, why do you care who I am?" Also, the folks overseeing the Initiative program aren't morons or villains, so the odds of a situation like the one you propose above with Reed and Sue happening are slim at best." (The one suggested was Reed going to one state and Sue another) They may not be morons, but they are certainly showing a villainous disregard for individual liberty, the cornerstone on which this great country rests. Until they cease doing that, I believe I shall refer to them as villains, just as I would anyone else who showed disdain for the Constitution and the principles it espouses. Again, this is only your opinion. Cap embodies the concept of freedom, on which this country was founded. In opposing registration, he was defending freedom. The issue of who would have won World War II without the United States is tangential. The real issue is: does Cap represent freedom, or authoritarianism. In previous incarnations, he has always come down on the side of freedom. In CW #7, Millar wrote him surrendering to authoritarianism - and THAT is most definitely out of character.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 24, 2007 22:40:36 GMT -5
It was MUCH less about the collateral damage and MUCH more about the fact that he was wrong and was fighting the wrong way. This, like much of what you've said, is up for debate depending on your interpretation. Taken out of context, I can see where your interpretation of what Cap said in CW#7 came from. However, my interpretation is different. The dialogue went like this: Cap: Let me go! Please, I don't want to hurt you. Man: Don't want to hurt us? Are you trying to be funny? Man #2: It's a little late for that, man! (Cap looks around at the damage to the city) Cap: Oh my God. Falcon: What's wrong? Cap: They're right. We're not fighting for the people anymore, Falcon... Look at us. We're just fighting. As I said, I can see where "They're right" could be interpreted as the other side being right but I thought andstill think he meant that the guys who were holding him were right when they said they were being hurt. The next panel having Cap survey the city tells me that his surrender was indeed much more about the collateral damage than an admission that Ironman and company were right all along.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 25, 2007 0:03:59 GMT -5
[quote We radically disagree now. I think Bendis and Millar are polar opposites. One is the most radical example of decompression, the other does mostly 3-issue arcs, one drags things out, the other is famed for afast pace, one is famed for exposition without fights, the other is famed for "mindless" action, one will rip apart any team at will to put his favourite characters on it, the other will use old, time-honoured characters will creating new ones, etc, etc, etc. Hell, Millar's my favourite writer by a mile and I dislike much of Bendis' stuff. I don't. I make long, reasoned arguments myself. You just seem to repeat the same points, or the points of others- but maybe that's just my imagination. But I like to think I argue back rather than just saying "You're haters." It seems we both feel the other side dismiss our long, reasoned arguments with some mere words! So apparantly, you don't pay attention to my thoughts on Disassembled or House of M, or my expectations for World War Hulk. Apparantly Civil War now equates to "Every single Marvel event." Because it is the first major marvel crossover event I've GIVEN my Doom Seal of Approval to. You have one point that I assigned a trait most likely attributable to thew about a blanket love of marvel's current status. I will give you that. I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat on this, but anyone who reads our discussions will find I think, that overall I present an argument based on the facts. I also fidn that Bendis and Millar share more than they don't. In my eye, they both have a modernist hyper-realistic approach without a sense of wonder that requires characters to do and say things that are out of character. And in fact this is my most insurmountable problem with CW#7. Captain America is one of the most, if not the most, tactically savvy super heroes on the planet. Why oh why (and here comes the moment I just don't get) would he transport a hundred fighting superheroes and villains to the Baxter Building in the middle of Manhattan? Reed Richards, your opponent likely has a thousand different weapons and devices that can immoblize any number of your forces. Why go there? You're in the middle of manhattan with a hundred superpowered combatants. There's a good chance civilians will get hurt. In fact, it's almost a given-you're bringing a battle, actually a war to the middle of one of the most densely populated cities in the world. One wrong blow brings down a sixty story building. It's hard enough to stop that when it's eight or nine combatants. try ten times that. You've got the atlanteans on your side. Why not a beach? You use the battlefield to your advantage. The atlanteans could bring any number of weapons to bear at that point, battle cruisers, giganto, twenty five foot tidal waves (not big enough to be uncontrollable, but cetainly strong enough to knock out any number of opponents). I did notice there was something about coordinates in the first few pages and that may explain why the baxter building was chosen, but why would Cap choose a battlefield that would negate his every advantage and put civilians at high risk of harm? why would the best superpowered offensive tactician do this?? heck why not have cloak swallow up half your enemies and then keep them inside his darkforce for a while? doesn't that still work? give me five minutes and I will come up with twenty more plans of attack and battle for cap's forces that make far more sense than the one in CW #7. how come I am thinking of these things and cap didn't? I find that impossible. And thus I find the outcome impossible. It had to unfold because that what's marvel wanted-- to create two classes of heroes, outlaws and establishment for conflict, to discredit Cap and give him a climb back to honor, and overall give marvel an edgier feel. my problem is the story put a round hole in a square peg to get there. there also feels like there were a lot of mcguffins in this story- fake outs designed to convince readers that Tony was bad and were then resolved in the last five pages of the story. the ending didn't jibe with the feel of the story for last several months. I think it was bad storytelling and I am likely to be leaving even more marvel product on the stands now. but they've got their niche, their audience who likes this direction and won't miss me. but with stories like this I won't miss them either.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 25, 2007 0:19:29 GMT -5
Interesting comments on Cap's tactical errors in the final chapter. I'd like to add - I can think of a number of ways one might detect a shapeshifter disguised as one of your own people, and in a world where shapeshifters are known to exist, one must assume that someone in the pro-reg forces would have thought of the possibility. Heck, Reed deals with shapeshifting aliens on a semi-regular basis. So how did they miss Hulkling? Poor writing is my answer. Too much was resolved, too quickly, from Sue's return to the general "hero amnesty" which was not explained. Tony was made into the villain of the piece (from the perspective of people like me, anyway, for reasons I've stated elsewhere, and yet at the end of the day a lot of anti-reg heroes who would consider him a Judas will probably wind up working for him, and probably never even mention their differences with him. It seems that most of the events - and I mean across all the companies, because DC did it with Infinite Crisis and somewhile ago with the spectacularly bad Millenium - end poorly. Meaning that they build up and build up and then they fizzle. It's like the writers don't know story structure any longer. I think it was bad storytelling and I am likely to be leaving even more marvel product on the stands now. but they've got their niche, their audience who likes this direction and won't miss me. but with stories like this I won't miss them either. Nicely put, and descriptive of my own sentiments.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 25, 2007 7:52:49 GMT -5
It was and they have. I agree. Certainly. Over in the "Civil War" forum at CBR, there is a stickied Q and A with Tom Brevoort thread. You can ask ANY question, and he will answer them, every single one, so if any of you have questions I'd encourage you to bring them up there as I do! Well we don't see her again, and she's not in the Negative Zone prison as far as we know. So because she isn't seen again, Tom Brevoort was asked, and responded that no, she was allowed to retire. Since the last we saw of her in-comic was her retiring, that gels perfectly. His assets were frozen because he hadn't paid tax on that money and was intending to go to another country where repayment of such things is known to be a problem. The "No-Fly" list didn't seem to apply considering we DID see him fly away. Arana was most definitely given a choice. Wonder Man was coerced illegally, using blackmail, and BEFORE Iron Man took over S.H.I.E.L.D. I don't believe I did suggest Brevoort was wrong, did I? If so, dredge up the quote for me and I'll explain/apologize. I am. Tony does not work for the CSA. I'm just pointing out that there are good sides and down sides, but we can't blame Tony for everything. No, I think it makes perfect sense. They can advise and whatnot, but not order. There's no saying this "supervision" is the same as yours. And they cannot tell you what to work per se, as clearly stated there may only be an opening somewhere. He also makes clear that if you don't want to take the opening, you don't have to be a super-hero. I think the answer is very logical; it is almost inevitable that someone will use their power eventully, even inadvertently. I believe they do not show such disdain, I believe they are not villains and I do not believe they show said disregard for individual liberty. No, Millar did not show him surrending to authoritarianism, Millar showed Captain America realising he was wrong and surrendering to avoid further bloodshed in support of a morally injust cause. And that is most definitely IN character. You're leaving out THIS exchange: Spider-Man: We were winning Cap: Everything except the argument. That says pretty clearly that Cap felt they were losing the "argument"- IE, that they didn't have as strong a case or moral backing either as he had thought or as the pro-side. But again, he says they were losing the argument. It can be intepreted either way, but when the writer, Editor-in-Chief and Editor-in-Charge all say Cap realised he was wrong in his argument, you have to suspect something... Well I obviously disagree. Absolutely. Well there weren't many choices. If they stayed there, he would certainly have lost. No way out, PLUS fighting on enemy ground in their territory. There were only two places to get out- either Rykers, in the middle of ane enemy compound, or the Baxter Building. Well it's not like they went INTO the building, and Reed probably had many more traps in the Negative Zone Prison. What should he have done? Stayed in 42 and lost the battle there? There was no option of that. Cloak has NEVER teleported from the NEgative Zone to the real-matter world before and needed co-ordinates. The computers did not provide any co-ordinates except Ryker's Island and Baxter Buildinmg. Not to mention the strain of teleporting 100+ heroes not only out of the Negative Zone but also all the way to a beach. I disagree, Cap did what he had to. Disagree. Well now you're taking nitpicking to a ridiculous level. I mean, if I wanted to I could find thousands of plot contrivances in the Kree/Skrull War or Ultron Unllimited etc, but they don't all have to be blamed on poor writing. In any case, Hank Pym was away at Arizona, not with Tony and Reed etc, and Hulkling was only disguised as him for ONE day. If it was a week I might agree. A day, no way, you are just nitpicking. Except that Tony wasn't the villain of the piece.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 25, 2007 12:31:42 GMT -5
well why bring all the combatants there? get Cap's forces together and take a THIRD of the pro reg forces. Then they're outnumbered and easily taken down. by the time Tony and his reinforcements arrive they're already down by a third. or just get away? have cloak take the anti reg forces and teleport away as a strategic retreat to the coordinates (and I've never seen Cloak need 'coordinates' before. he doesn't have a computer brain here's his official marvel bio: www.marvel.com/universe/Cloaknothing about him needing to plot a course in any way. he travels through the darkforce which is a dimension all its own and never seemed to be affected previously by any other outside forces. this coordinates thing seems totally contrived and created to make the story go in the direction it needed to go). Cap makes the worst possible decision that puts hs forces in danger and puts civilains in danger and takes away any strategic advantage. also the neg zone prison would not have the level of equipment or sophistication that the Baxter Building would. why would it? it would have some high tech weapons designed to take a number of foes, but it wouldn't have Reed's various experiments (which with his brain could easily be adapted to take down any number of foes who they hadn't planned for) Doom's time machine, and it wouldn't have a workshop like anything in the baxter building because you wouldn't want to leave that kind of material lying around for your criminals to get their hands on. do we store nuclear weapons in prisons? no... why wouldn't cap have pulled back and done quick lightning strikes using cloak's ability to bring twenty combatants to various spots and take down Iron man's forces in surreptituous strikes? maximing surprise, stealth and minimizing civilian involvement? trust me, you can give me a hundred different scenarios and I'll find a better way. Cap would've too.
|
|