|
Post by balok on Feb 25, 2007 12:59:31 GMT -5
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. You suggest that Brevoort is inherently more reliable than Slott on exactly what the SHRA means, that is, what responsibilities and obligations it imposes and what privileges it grants. This is an argumentum ad verecundiam that presumes Brevoort is more knowledgeable than Slott, which you undermined in an earlier reply, suggesting that Brevoort cannot and should not be expected to catch every mistake a man might make. It is a contradiction to rely on someone's authority when it suits you and to undermine that same authority when that suits you.Tony does not work for the CSA. I didn't suggest he did. If you re-read what I wrote, I suggested that the CSA and Tony have a common, immoral boss somewhere in the government. And, as I stated, that might get Tony somewhat off the hook for immoral behavior by shifting that responsibility to a more rarefied pay grade. The Numerberg defense, named from the World War II trials, attempts to suggest that one may absolve oneself from responsibility for illegal acts by stated that one was simply following orders. It didn't work then; subordinates were held responsible. I believe (and you may disagree) that responsibility for immorality works the same way: if someone orders you to behave immorally, and you do, you are an immoral person. You do not get to push that off on your commander, at least not in my view. A moral Tony Stark objects to what he's being told to do. An immoral Tony Stark follows orders. In addition, Tony (in the run-up to Civil War) basically established the government structure that made the SHRA possible, and provided the enforcement infrastructure. It's an open debate whether I commit an immoral act by facilitating someone else's immoral act (for example: if I know my neighbor wants to kill his wife and I lend him a gun, am I responsible? Few people would believe I acted morally in that situation, and in my view, most would contend I acted immorally, at least to some degree. To summarize, if one operates within an immoral framework, the absolute best one can be is neutral. One cannot be moral within an immoral structure, and one is usually immoral. I have extolled this idea to tedium chiefly because it goes to the heart of my low opinion of Tony as currently written. This is about the best I can explain it, and I don't expect it to convince you (see the final paragraph of this post). 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. The idea that one may work only where there is an opening, which Brevoort stated baldly, implies that one may not work where there is no opening. In other words, one works at the government's pleasure or not at all. If I operate in my home territory, registered or not, and the government feels that it does not want me there, it can order me to stop. That's conscription and it is supervision of the sort I described. I think the answer is very logical; it is almost inevitable that someone will use their power eventully, even inadvertently. Isn't this about the same as saying that gun control proponents should register because sooner or later they will shoot someone? I don't agree with that, and for the same reason I don't agree with your statement here. 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. It remains your opinion that opposing registration is immoral. I believe that authoritarianism and its implicit rejection of individual liberty is the morally indefensible position. I do not thing you have argued convincingly that opposing the SHRA is morally unjust. You have only argued that it is what people want, which is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. This is likely to be my last post on this subject. Your arguments have not convinced me that you are right, and obviously my arguments have not convinced you of the reverse. I naturally believe my presentation to the be the stronger, and doubtless you feel the same way about your position. Only one thing is really true: we're deadlocked, and further debate at this point is unlikely to change that. You have the Marvel Universe you want, and are welcome to it. I, and those who agree with me, have been disenfranchised. That's Marvel's decision to make, and only time will tell if it works out for them commercially. Until then, enjoy! And, have a karma point by way of thanks for an entertaining debate.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 25, 2007 13:09:17 GMT -5
No, this is two different subjects. I did not undermine his authority, I said he cannot be expected to catch every mistake. That assumes that those things are MISTAKES, and the fact that he does not CATCH them rather than decides they should go by implies that he himself still has a view. He is inherently more reliable to know what it is because he knows what it is and edits it. He doesn't necessarily catch every time someone goes against what it is, but he does catch some. I apologize if I'm phrasing this badly. Tony does not have a boss anywhere except the UN Secretary General. This undermines your entire following argument. It's not conscription. Conscription implies you MUST work. You have just admitted that you do not have to, thank you very much. And incidentally, the government frowns upon you operating where there is no opening, I'd assume they would not order you to which is backed up by Brevoort's statements. But then again, why would you want to work somewhere which is ALREADY covered by heroes if there's somewhere else that needs it? That seems redundant, and if you stay becasue you live there then that's selfishness and maybe you shouldn't be a hero after all. If Gun control proponents have a gun, then yes they should register because sooner or later they may have to fire that gun. Aren't I defending it right now? Well I don't think you have argued convincingly that people have grounds to run around and beat up policemen any time they disagree with a law. You've only tried to imply that having said law is worse than not having it. True, but I HAVE enjoyed both are ultimately unsuccesful arguments thus far Agreed, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank you very much for being such a gentlemanly sport and consider yourself karmaed as well in return. Well I'm very sorry we can't have more of this very stimulating conversation but I want to convey that I too loved what we had of this. Still, while neither of us have convinced the other, I have accepted that you have slightly more ground than I gave you credit for and I hope that the reverse is true to some small degree as well. Well met, friend and while some types say that whoever backs out first is the loser, I have never subscribed to this rather silly view and congratulate you on this stalemate! Methinks we shall spar again in other threads, and I look forwards to it. ....Now where are tananile and spiderwasp?
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 25, 2007 13:47:53 GMT -5
You have one point that I assigned a trait most likely attributable to thew about a blanket love of marvel's current status. Ah! But I do not share this "blanket love" of the MU. Sure, I like a lot of the ideas that are out there right now. I like the MU as a whole right now. I like a number of titles. But I'm not one of those people that goes ga-ga over everything that comes out. I have my reservations and my negative opinions about current MU. I just don't concentrate on those. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 25, 2007 14:36:55 GMT -5
It remains your opinion that opposing registration is immoral. I believe that authoritarianism and its implicit rejection of individual liberty is the morally indefensible position. I do not thing you have argued convincingly that opposing the SHRA is morally unjust. You have only argued that it is what people want, which is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. This is likely to be my last post on this subject. Your arguments have not convinced me that you are right, and obviously my arguments have not convinced you of the reverse. I naturally believe my presentation to the be the stronger, and doubtless you feel the same way about your position. Only one thing is really true: we're deadlocked, and further debate at this point is unlikely to change that. You have the Marvel Universe you want, and are welcome to it. I, and those who agree with me, have been disenfranchised. That's Marvel's decision to make, and only time will tell if it works out for them commercially. Until then, enjoy! And, have a karma point by way of thanks for an entertaining debate. Well said Balok. I agree with you, the SHRA, as I understand it, is reprehensible because it essentially creates a separate class of people under the control of the government. Laws are not necessarily automatically moral; just because a majority of people believe a certain way does not make them right. As Americans I think we have a responsibility to understand our Constitution and how very important and special it really is, but that's a political argument for another board! I'd also agree that at this point we're not really accomplishing much here. We all believe whatever we believe, and I don't think anyone at this stage can be convinced otherwise. Again, I think that Marvel has done a poor job explaining the SHRA and a lot of conflicting info is out there. We can all make points til the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that no one can truly be certain exactly what the Act entails when there are so many contrary statements being made by Marvel people. ....Now where are tananile and spiderwasp? Right here buddy! Thanks for the Brevoort source. I did check it out, although I didn't read all 118 pages of comments. I did however read the last 10 pages or so, and I have to say it still did not clear things up for me sufficiently. Many of his statements are in direct contradiction to the statements of others, or even his own previous statements. Take for example his statement on Firestar: Brevoort: "we saw all of Firestar's story that we needed to: she didn't want to register, but she also didn't want to go against the law, so she retired as a super hero, and vanished into the woodwork." Makes no sense to me based on everything we have seen to this point. This statement indicates to me that she didn't register. Haven't we been told time and time again that all superhumans must register? Even if you don't plan to use your powers? This agency that has been methodically hunting down even the most grade Z heroes to make sure they register is now going to ignore a former Avenger? Even if we suppose she did register, nothing indicates to me that she still would not be susceptible to a draft. Regarding the draft, Slott is not the only person to reference it. We are clearly told that registration involves a draft in at least a few places I can think of: we read in Frontline # 5, when Wonder Man says,"I didn't sign up for a draft", the SHIELD agents replies, "That's exactly what you signed up for." Likewise, in She-Hulk's book, she's also told she's been drafted. I haven't seen a "I quit being a super-hero" option anywhere though. In New Avengers 22, Jessica Jones implicitly states that she has no intention of using her powers, and does not want to work for the government. "what about someone like me?" she asks Stark. His answer is , "Well Jessica, you'll sign in and we'll deal with that when the time comes." Not, "don't worry, you can quit", but "we'll see". I have yet to find anything that indicates to me that a registered hero can refuse a call from the government. I thought Matt Fraction's comments applied to the Champions, who appear to be a special case, as the heroes are given their powers, and said powers can and will be taken away. So if a hero quits the Champions, I am assuming (always dangerous, I know) that his or her powers would also be removed. But it appears to me that if you have powers and are registered, you might be drafted, whether you want to be a superhero or not. Until Marvel makes some clear statements in this area, this is the way I read things. I was intially excited about CW, but ultimately it has been disappointing to me. There's a lack of internal logic and consistency at play through all of CW that has hurt the story for me. Rex's comments regarding Cap's lack of a battle plan and Cloak's use of his powers are another example of what I consider to be poor storytelling. But the worst of all have been what I view as mis-characterization of Cap, Iron Man, and Reed Richards. All in all, we're left with a Marvel Universe that feels very unappealing to me. As Balok put it, I feel "disenfranchised". But I'd never tell anyone else they can't enjoy something, simply because I don't. If it works for some of you, then have fun! I'll be over at DC, trying to figure out this multiverse thing....
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 25, 2007 15:27:37 GMT -5
No, as far as I'm aware- and I haven't seen anything to contradict this- you dont' HAVE to register if you have no intention of using your powers... but really it's very stupid of you if you don't, since you may as well just in case you need to use them some day. They are SUPPOSED to register even if they have no intention of out of wisdom, but the Law does not appear to state that they must. It would appear Firestar feared a draft or whatnot if she did register. SHIELD agents operating independently and illegally, with little else to back it up, before Tony is head of SHIELD. Apart from an editor, Ben Grimm and Firestar of course He does also say no one will send her to fight Doctor Doom. (No, not me!) He wants her to register because she probably WILL use her powers and she should be covered when she does. I assume you mean besides Firestar and Brevoort's comments. Well I disagree, I think Cap had a battle plan, Cloak used his powers properly and IM, Cap and Reed were all in character in the main book, so I guess it's down to the individual! Thank you and I appreciate that unlike many, you don't mind others enjoying it just because you do not. I wish the same to you since I personally am not a DC fan lately. Although please let me know when/if Barry Allen shows up in Countdown as I don't want to miss the return of my favourite DC character! (Recent interviews indicate he will. AI'm still trying to decide if that's good or bad but at least I'll read it.)
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 25, 2007 17:21:43 GMT -5
You have one point that I assigned a trait most likely attributable to thew about a blanket love of marvel's current status. Ah! But I do not share this "blanket love" of the MU. Sure, I like a lot of the ideas that are out there right now. I like the MU as a whole right now. I like a number of titles. But I'm not one of those people that goes ga-ga over everything that comes out. I have my reservations and my negative opinions about current MU. I just don't concentrate on those. ~W~ okay. well given what you were saying in this thread and your other responses in this thread: vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1172289339is it so outrageous that someone could conclude you're really liking just about everything Marvel is putting out? blanket does mean "completely covered" not "blindly following", so just saying you're liking the spectrum isn't an insult. you like the storytelling, you like the mood (and understand marvel often has a "tone." Stan Lee set a very specific tone, a cohesive thread of themes and characterization that was different from DC). this is a marvel universe you enjoy. and again my not wanting to be a part of it is seeing those themes and not embracing them. it's not out of spite or being a curmudgeon; it's because I can't embrace the writing. If I go see "Police Academy" 1 through 55 and I think 2 through 55 all sucked, why did I sit there and watch 54 movies that sucked? Did I think after the first five or ten exposures to stories that i didn't like, things were going to change? The best indicator of future actions are past actions. If I have not liked bendis or millar and their stories 99% of the time, why in God's name am I going to buy a marvel product that has their stamp on so many of the storylines? Pointless. To me anyway. So I feel perfectly comfortable in leaving the current MU and it makes perfect sense and I don't have to give it a chance to disappoint me over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Feb 25, 2007 18:26:13 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly, imperiusrex...
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 25, 2007 18:47:10 GMT -5
Ah! But I do not share this "blanket love" of the MU. Sure, I like a lot of the ideas that are out there right now. I like the MU as a whole right now. I like a number of titles. But I'm not one of those people that goes ga-ga over everything that comes out. I have my reservations and my negative opinions about current MU. I just don't concentrate on those. ~W~ okay. well given what you were saying in this thread and your other responses in this thread: vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1172289339is it so outrageous that someone could conclude you're really liking just about everything Marvel is putting out? blanket does mean "completely covered" not "blindly following", so just saying you're liking the spectrum isn't an insult. you like the storytelling, you like the mood (and understand marvel often has a "tone." Stan Lee set a very specific tone, a cohesive thread of themes and characterization that was different from DC). this is a marvel universe you enjoy. and again my not wanting to be a part of it is seeing those themes and not embracing them. I think this was just a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant that I loved everything that Marvel was putting out. Which I'm not. As a whole, I like various concepts in the current MU. But to each their own, I guess. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 25, 2007 18:50:55 GMT -5
Spiderwasp, might I entreat you to repost that last bit over at the Civil War thread rather than hijack this thread from our friends' conversation? Sorry, without paying enough attention to what I was doing I did indeed cross into another realm. I am deleting what I wrote from there and copying it to here, where it should have been in the first place. I know you like to quote certain people as to what they say is the meaning behind what's happening in the books and then we end up debating over who was right when someone else says something completely different. You choose to believe the one that says what you want to hear and so does the other side. That, my friend, is one of the problems I have with this whole convoluted series. If the writing were good, the characters and situations in the book could tell us what was going on and we wouldn't have to ask the various creators. I don't rely so much on interviews, I rely on what the characters say. 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. I still stand by my contention that Captain America never actually said opposing registration was wrong. He said we are winning the fight but not the argument because the fight no longer had anything to do with the argument, which is why I left off with "We're not fighting for the people anymore, Falcon... Look at us. We're just fighting." This battle had moved beyond registration and had just become a fight. He conceded that the battle was wrong. He didn't say his views were wrong. Basically, he just realized that they weren't getting anywhere concerning THE ISSUE AT HAND. Well met, friend and while some types say that whoever backs out first is the loser, I have never subscribed to this rather silly view and congratulate you on this stalemate! I couldn't agree more. Backing out doesn't mean admiting you were wrong. Well said. See my previous point. Again, I do accept the possibility that based on the interview you quoted, Cap could have decided he was wrong. However, evidence in interviews has been decidedly contradictory and the evidence in the actual book does not convince me that you are right. I also wish to reiterate my point about the bad writing. With a good writer you don't need to go to them to ask them what happened in their books, the writing speaks for itself. That hasn't been the case here and I believe it's because the project has gotten too big and there are too many creators who see things too many different ways.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on Feb 25, 2007 21:33:08 GMT -5
Before I rush out to buy CW#7... can someone answer me this...
Does this issue or a previous one, contain the reason WHAT Cap thought would be achieved by a pitch battle with the Pro-Reg'ers? Did they think if they won that the SHRA would be repealed or something?
Also, did I read correctly earlier, is it true that the government of the United States of America has left the enforcement of an American law to the UN (SHIELD)? O RLY??!
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 25, 2007 21:55:01 GMT -5
Before I rush out to buy CW#7... can someone answer me this... Does this issue or a previous one, contain the reason WHAT Cap thought would be achieved by a pitch battle with the Pro-Reg'ers? Did they think if they won that the SHRA would be repealed or something? I assumed it was about destroying the 42 prison and freeing the people interned there, and destroying Tony's infrastructure supporting the SHRA. Maria Hill's unlawful attempt to incarcerate Captain America for refusing her order to round up heroes defying the registration act - illegal because at the time she gave the order, the act was not yet law - is what drove Cap underground in the first place. Also, did I read correctly earlier, is it true that the government of the United States of America has left the enforcement of an American law to the UN (SHIELD)? O RLY??! Doctor Doom said earlier that Tony, who as director of SHIELD runs the Initiative, reports to someone at the UN, so if he is correct, the answer to your question would be 'yes'. However, it is the President of the United States who appoints Tony Stark director of SHIELD. That would imply the organization is an agency of the United States government.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Feb 25, 2007 22:38:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 25, 2007 22:48:10 GMT -5
Before I rush out to buy CW#7... can someone answer me this... Does this issue or a previous one, contain the reason WHAT Cap thought would be achieved by a pitch battle with the Pro-Reg'ers? Did they think if they won that the SHRA would be repealed or something? I assumed it was about destroying the 42 prison and freeing the people interned there, and destroying Tony's infrastructure supporting the SHRA. Maria Hill's unlawful attempt to incarcerate Captain America for refusing her order to round up heroes defying the registration act - illegal because at the time she gave the order, the act was not yet law - is what drove Cap underground in the first place. This is part of my problem with the entire story: Cap is not an idiot. The only way to overturn the Act would be to appeal to the people and the legislature. Sure, I can see he'd want to protect as many of his fellow heroes as possible by hiding them out and helping them avoid the "cape killers", but this war has two fronts: the superhero battleground and the hearts and minds of the American people. The master strategist completely ignored one front? Also, did I read correctly earlier, is it true that the government of the United States of America has left the enforcement of an American law to the UN (SHIELD)? O RLY??! Doctor Doom said earlier that Tony, who as director of SHIELD runs the Initiative, reports to someone at the UN, so if he is correct, the answer to your question would be 'yes'. However, it is the President of the United States who appoints Tony Stark director of SHIELD. That would imply the organization is an agency of the United States government. Another example of the inconsistencies and sloppy thinking which plagued the project, and leaves us all debating how the SHRA actually works.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 26, 2007 11:44:06 GMT -5
I don't think that's necessarily so. In fact, I'd argue the opposite- I think the best stories have many aspects deliberately left ambiguous for the readers to make up their own minds about. We can disagree on this all day, but it's pointless really.
Out of curiosity, can you find any interviews where they say Cap was NOT wrong and was doing it purely for collateral damage? I've provided you with three exmaples, but if you can give a counter one then I agree we can table this for now. I stand by my contention that he sees he was wrong- otherwise why not just register? Why punish himself? If the book can work either way but ALL the interviews indicate one way, then i think that's a clear cut case. But again I think the best stories are open to interpretation. Not to mention that they need SOMETHING to make us read Cap #25!
Well let's put it like this. At the very least, what Cap achieves is tripling- even quadrupling- the size of his Resistance so they can strike with overwhelming force and publicly defeating the entire enforcement force. This demonstrates that Registration is a sham as these heroes can't even do their jobs; it makes it INCREDIBLY impractical for the registered force to do their job in any manner efficiently and it shows that if these heroes could bust people out of the prison, why couldn't villains? It's actually a pretty smart multi-level plan. I don't think Cap expected it to be an instantaneous thing but it would be an ENORMOUS benefit in turning the tide.
Yes, but there is no real life such organization to compare it to fort realism, not to mention that it's almost always been portrayed with most of the hierarchy of SHIELD being Ameircan and representing American interests.
SHIELD is most definitely a UN organization. However as I siad it has ALWAYS been portrayed as mostly with an American infrastructure and Americans in the higher up positions. One would assume the president of the united states would have considerable influence- and I'd say while technically the president can't make Tony head of SHIELD, once he decides it it's pretty much a formality that Tony will be given it by the UN.
Cap doesn't feel that's a front. Put it like this; up to the Battle of Geffen Meyers, all Cap does is continue operating as a super hero, building his infrastructure and power base. We have no idea what he planned to do next because the battle most definitely becomes personal for him after civil war #4. From the end of it, he becomes more and more focused/obsessed on defeating Tony rather than just being a hero, and so yes he ignores public opinion.
Besides, it's Cap. It isn't often he's fought this type of thing and public opinion has been 90% against him. He may just take it as read that they'll support Captain America.
Well I disagree that it is but you can't blame Millar; the UN/US distinction liner with SHIELD has been blurry for a good decade now.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 26, 2007 14:18:28 GMT -5
Instead of dancing around particular points, does anyone know of a cohesive comprehensive source of what the SHRA is composed of? Also does anyone have a list of what steps were taken to enforce it? And finally for Doom, what are your views on the legality and the morality of the act? I think this sort of clarification will make life easier if we're going to debate something. Because from my recollection this whole thing was presented in a fairly negative fashion from what I read. However I didn't read it all (far too many crossovers to be sure of its content) and I didn't read it with a unbiased eye...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 26, 2007 14:40:11 GMT -5
Well there seem to be conflicting accounts but I suppose we could probably work up a reasonably comprehensive list.
Well what do you count as "enforcing" it? For example, do illegal actions taken by agents operating independently count? What about things like 'the Cube' which does not officially exist and was used by Maria Hill secretly? Do we count "Creating a cyborg of Thor" as taken to enforce the act, or was it made before the act was even an issue? Seems too tricky to me.
I think the Act would be upheld by the courts. I believe the Act as it stands is morally sound, although some of the acts taken to enforce it are ethically questionable, but the act itself remains fine.
Depends. The main Civil War seems unbiased. Others, like New Avengers, definitely had a negative slant. Some, like Iron Man, had a slightly positive slant.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 26, 2007 16:01:33 GMT -5
Not too tricky to me. All acts. Period. Do we know for certain that maria hill acted alone in this particular instance? Who's to say there wasn't a covert directive by Stark through some secret channels that hill isn't aware of and that this won't be revealed in some later part of the story (given the dark conspiracy nature of New Avengers this does not seem far fetched) and ther's evidently a dark secret to be revealed in Frontline. Until all the fallout is assessed, nothing can be presumed to be outside the scope of what was commanded and what was foreseen (after all doesn't it seem odd that Stark just happened to have some of Thor's hair? And isn't Tony Stark a futurist? Who's to say he didn't have a contigency plan all along?). So I don't think any acts can be excluded give the nature of this series and what may still be revealed...
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 26, 2007 16:21:10 GMT -5
If SHIELD is a United Nations organization, a considerable amount of legislation would need to be passed to give it, and its enforcement arm (the Initiative) jurisdiction over the United States. I think it would be *very* difficult to get such a law passed. Why? Because the politicians who run the United States are, at least in theory, accountable to the voters. The people who run the United Nations aren't accountable to anyone. (Well, their governments - all hundreds of them - decide who they are and can recall them, but that's it.) I could see an appeal to fear getting the voters behind the SHRA, especially after the events of Stamford. Fear is one of the most powerful emotions (even love, hate and greed cannot match it) and there are precedents right here in this country for the use of fear by politicians. We have fallen far from the days when all we had to fear was fear itself. But I digress. However, fear would also be the tool of first resort for people who did not wish to cede sovereignty over the United States to the United Nations. They could rather easily get most Americans worked up by making them afraid their governance would slip into the hands of people who are not accountable. This strategy has been tried, in fact - every once in awhile a UN official will make a comment orthogonal to a cherished American idea - for example, a suggestion that gun control is a good idea - and you see the kind of furious outrage not generally found anywhere else except maybe at a hornets nest some little kid is using for a piñata. If, in fact, the United Nations runs the Initiative through SHIELD, that makes the Initiative and the act even worse in my view. At the risk of re-igniting a debate I tried to euthanize , I think that as a hero, being made to work for people who I can't even vote out of office would really stick in my craw, and I doubt I'm alone in this view. On the other hand, if the United Nations controls SHIELD, then the SHRA may not be subject to the United States Constitution, and specifically to the Equal Protection Clause, which I believe it violates. The controlling law may be the United Nations charter. There, now that I've tossed some gasoline on THAT, it's time to run for me fireproof room!
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 26, 2007 18:26:20 GMT -5
I don't think that's necessarily so. In fact, I'd argue the opposite- I think the best stories have many aspects deliberately left ambiguous for the readers to make up their own minds about. We can disagree on this all day, but it's pointless really. Out of curiosity, can you find any interviews where they say Cap was NOT wrong and was doing it purely for collateral damage? I've provided you with three exmaples, but if you can give a counter one then I agree we can table this for now. I stand by my contention that he sees he was wrong- otherwise why not just register? Why punish himself? If the book can work either way but ALL the interviews indicate one way, then i think that's a clear cut case. But again I think the best stories are open to interpretation. . No, I don't have any interviews to counter with. I'm only saying that the way it's written it is not clear that Cap was saying he was wrong. I honestly don't put that much stock in many of the interviews. They tend to be misleading and often turn out to be completely untrue. This is why there is big debate as to whether or not registration means you have to work for SHIELD or not. Some interviews have said it doesn't mean that and others have said it does. Did you read Bendis' interview that was printed in Avengers #500? He clearly lists his favorite characters as Hawkeye and the Scarlet Witch along with the power 3 (Thor, Cap, IM) This was just as was set to get rid of 3 of those 5. I'm not saying that he was lying but he purposely led fans to believe they were among the characters who would be treated well. Then there was the much debated Joe Q "Dead is dead" interview. It's just the way they play the game and that's fine, but personally, I prefer to wait and see what happens in the books. I'd like to have more trust in the current creative team than that, but I just don't. I think it's also easier for you to accept Cap's supposed admission of being wrong because you have been pro-reg all along. Many of us were siding with Cap just like Falcon, Sue, Johnny, Hercules, and so forth. I do agree that good writing leaves a lot for readers to decide for themselves and that the registration debate did that, but if they spent so much time showing both sides of the issue just to suddenly drop one side and say "Hey this one's right" then that leaves many of us feeling as betrayed as Cap's followers. Also, even though I agree that good writing leaves things for reader's to figure out for themelves, I don't think that was the case with Cap's surrender. I think it was just ambiguous writing. If they really wanted us to be unsure, then why print those interviews you were quoting? Why leave things to the imagination and then say "Here's the right answer." If they were having Cap admit he was wrong all along, it was very poor writing indeed. If it was meant to make us wonder, then again I say, don't trust the interviews. They want us to wait to see.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Feb 26, 2007 21:47:18 GMT -5
Well there seem to be conflicting accounts but I suppose we could probably work up a reasonably comprehensive list. The ideal would be if the full SHRA text were available. (Well, maybe not ideal—have you ever tried to read through a Congressional act?) Are there any excerpts, at least? The next best choice would be omniscient narration describing the act. I’ve found a piece to start off with. From Civil War #3:
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 26, 2007 22:05:27 GMT -5
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery. This means that one of the following things must be true: - The SHRA does not include a draft and registered heroes are not compelled to function as members of the Initiative. Brevoort's interview casts doubt on this view, but does not flatly disallow it. He says that a hero might have to face the choice of moving if the only opening were in another state, strongly implying that heroes serve at the pleasure of the Initiative or not at all. That is not precisely a draft, because a draftee is not generally permitted to opt-out, and a hero might be - opinions differ on this point.
- The SHRA includes a draft, and is unconstitutional and could be challenged on that basis.
- The SHRA includes a draft, but the Initiative is part of the United States military. SCOTUS has held that a military draft does not violate the Thirteeth Amendment. For this to be true, SHIELD could not be an agency of the United Nations.
- The SHRA does not operate within the framework of United States law. By some combination of laws and treaties, the United States has ceded its sovereignty in this particular area to the agency under whose laws the SHRA is legal - presumably the United Nations.
Other ideas? At one time I thought forcing someone to reveal his identity might violate his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Courts have held that individuals may not refuse to divulge their identities to police if the police ask. So the pre-Civil War state of the Marvel Universe could be presumed to be that the police did not ask, perhaps because they valued the service provided by the heroes and extended the perk of secret identity to them in exchange.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 27, 2007 16:05:43 GMT -5
Poster #5: Hey, did anyone notice that Dr. Strange's mustache was longer on page 6 than on page 5. That was kind of odd. Poster #1: What's a hater doing here? Poster #2: That kind of comment was uncalled for. Poster #3: Let's ignore the old guy. He must be one of those that thinks that mustaches all have to be the same length. Since there seems to be a break in the action in this thread, I just want to say that the above was one of the most absurdly funny exchanges I've read in a loooong time. Spiderwasp should be writing for TV. Priceless! This has been a great thread- - everyone involved has posted with such conviction and passion. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts. You have all convinced me to try it out so I'll be buying the tpbs associated with the CW. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Feb 27, 2007 21:26:35 GMT -5
At one time I thought forcing someone to reveal his identity might violate his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Courts have held that individuals may not refuse to divulge their identities to police if the police ask. I’m not sure about the particulars of such decisions—do they extend to things like showing ID? I’m asking because there’s a tradition of latitude in allowing persons to assume names, so long as it’s not for a fraudulent purpose. So, my thinking is, if the police ask Spider-Man who he is, and he answers, “Spider-Man”, he may have satisfied the legal requirements, since he really is Spider-Man (as opposed to someone like Flash Thompson putting on the costume and parading around). And if Spidey needs an ID to show the police—well, that’s what Avengers identicards are for! But maybe this thinking is inconsistent with actual law. Another possibility is simply that in the Marvel Universe, the law is sometimes different from real-world law where superhuman affairs are concerned. (If the law is the same, we could settle some of our arguments about the SHRA simply by downloading its text from Congress’ Web site and poring over it!) It could be that legislation and/or court rulings have taken into account the long tradition of “mystery men” in society.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Feb 27, 2007 23:51:19 GMT -5
I’m not sure about the particulars of such decisions—do they extend to things like showing ID? I’m asking because there’s a tradition of latitude in allowing persons to assume names, so long as it’s not for a fraudulent purpose. So, my thinking is, if the police ask Spider-Man who he is, and he answers, “Spider-Man”, he may have satisfied the legal requirements, since he really is Spider-Man (as opposed to someone like Flash Thompson putting on the costume and parading around). And if Spidey needs an ID to show the police—well, that’s what Avengers identicards are for! But maybe this thinking is inconsistent with actual law. Well, I'm not a lawyer, but from a legal perspective I don't think it matters whether it's really Spider-Man in the suit or whether it's Flash Thompson. I suppose the officer could ask Spider-Man to demonstrate a power to prove who he was, but Mysterio has hoaxed law enforcement into believing that Spider-Man was a villain, so a simple demonstration is sufficient. I believe the requirement has to do with your legal identity - the name you use on legal documents. The police may need to know it in case you become a "person of interest" in some law enforcement matter - a suspect or a witness - and they need to contact you. Another possibility is simply that in the Marvel Universe, the law is sometimes different from real-world law where superhuman affairs are concerned. (If the law is the same, we could settle some of our arguments about the SHRA simply by downloading its text from Congress’ Web site and poring over it!) It could be that legislation and/or court rulings have taken into account the long tradition of “mystery men” in society. This is likely to be the case, especially since an accused has the right to face his accuser, meaning that a hero should techically have to unmask in court if he is the sole or principal witness to some act of wrongdoing. And that clearly hasn't happened, and villains have still gone to jail. A blurb for Slott's new "Avengers: The Initiative" makes it clear that those who supported registration are in the armed forces, i.e. drafted, which strongly implies SHIELD is an agency of the US government (specifically, the US military), and Tony is approximately equivalent to the civilian Secretary of the Navy (for example) - the civilian who runs a particular part of the armed forces on behalf of the SecDef. It says nothing about anti-reg heroes, or about individuals who accepted the general amnesty (were they required to register as a condition of amnesty? One presumes so.) Those individuals who continue to resist (Luke Cage, for example) are clearly now regarded as villains and subject to internment if captured. And the individuals who left for other countries are beyond US jurisdiction, at least for the present.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Mar 2, 2007 16:27:11 GMT -5
Whooh, a lot to catch up on. Well now that we have Frontline #11, we can savely discard many of the wilder acts like the Cube in Young Avengers/Runaways. We cannot assign blame for every act taken to enforce the law to Tony, legal or not. It doesn't make sense. Tell me, the registered hero Bantam was brutally murdered by a hero acting in his right mind, an UNREGISTERED vigilante. Do we blame Captain America for that? Well besides the fact that Gun Control SHOULD be an American ideal, along with, y'know, not killing people, you cannot blame civil war for what happened years beforehand. The UN/US line with SHIELD has always been blurred and blaming one story for it years later is preposterous. The United states runs the Initiative via a UN security force. It's the US who run it, not the UN. Well I don't believe it DOES violate said clause. The SHRA is a United States law, therefore whatever it's enforced by is irrelevant; it's US, not UN. Well don't feel betrayed, I was incorrect. You'll be happy to see that Frontline #11 shows Cap believes he was right but that fighting was wrong, so we can continue to give our arguments and I apologize for my mistaken belief. Yes, I think that's all we have. I think we have an exact piece of text in Illuminati, or a good description, but that was an early draft and it's doubtful it is the one that made it to the floor of Congress. Obviously I believe this one. No, often the police did ask but the hero just swung away or whatever and nothing more was made of it. Well the best example we have is from Frontline #5, an advert being made by Wonder Man. It seems to imply that what happens is this: the police approach the hero, the hero shows their registration card with their HERO NAME and liscence number etc, and confirms it with a passcode or whatever that only they could know, then inform the police that they'll be operating here for the immediate future. The police check that it is a valid card via some sort of torch thing, then agree to conatct said hero anonymously via encryped e-mail to schedule court dates. Which is a lot more effective in, say, convicting criminals than just "Here you go officer, now I swing away." It is an absolute undeniable fact that S.H.I.E.L.D. is a UN agency. There is no "proof" that can POSSIBLY change this. It IS a UN agency. It has been so since it existed, it is now -for a very recent example, check out Iron Man #15. As far as I'm aware, US Military forces do not have authorization to- nor do they- stage drops to rescue non-Americans trapped in the Sydney Opera House.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 2, 2007 16:51:37 GMT -5
It is an absolute undeniable fact that S.H.I.E.L.D. is a UN agency. There is no "proof" that can POSSIBLY change this. It IS a UN agency. It has been so since it existed, it is now -for a very recent example, check out Iron Man #15. As far as I'm aware, US Military forces do not have authorization to- nor do they- stage drops to rescue non-Americans trapped in the Sydney Opera House. Alright. I don't know enough about SHIELD to contradict you. Then the only way this works, legally, is if the United States military drafts the heroes, and seconds them to the United Nations in the same way that nations donate troops for use as peacekeepers. The blurb is clear that registration subjects heroes to a draft. What ranks they hold, whether they are commissioned or non-commissioned, and other such questions remain unanswered.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 2, 2007 23:55:42 GMT -5
At one time I thought forcing someone to reveal his identity might violate his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Courts have held that individuals may not refuse to divulge their identities to police if the police ask. I’m not sure about the particulars of such decisions—do they extend to things like showing ID? I’m asking because there’s a tradition of latitude in allowing persons to assume names, so long as it’s not for a fraudulent purpose. So, my thinking is, if the police ask Spider-Man who he is, and he answers, “Spider-Man”, he may have satisfied the legal requirements, since he really is Spider-Man (as opposed to someone like Flash Thompson putting on the costume and parading around). And if Spidey needs an ID to show the police—well, that’s what Avengers identicards are for! But maybe this thinking is inconsistent with actual law. Well the best example we have is from Frontline #5, an advert being made by Wonder Man. It seems to imply that what happens is this: the police approach the hero, the hero shows their registration card with their HERO NAME and liscence number etc, and confirms it with a passcode or whatever that only they could know, then inform the police that they'll be operating here for the immediate future. The police check that it is a valid card via some sort of torch thing, then agree to conatct said hero anonymously via encryped e-mail to schedule court dates. I’m not sure what you think this is an example of. In any case, I was responding to Balok’s discussion about the pre- Civil War Marvel Universe, in which the registration card you mentioned would not exist. Be that as it may, I was positing a legal way of revealing one’s superhero identity to the police without revealing one’s civilian identity. The hero-registration card is not such a way. True, it would not reveal the civilian identity to the specific officer checking the card; but to have the card in the first place, one has to have revealed one’s civilian identity to the government (the “police” in the broad sense) in the first place, and so the card doesn’t quite satisfy the requirements of the loophole I was suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Mar 3, 2007 14:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 3, 2007 15:59:05 GMT -5
Thanks, Von Bek! That was fun!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 3, 2007 16:01:41 GMT -5
I'm hoping to be so, so very wrong on this: does anybody else gets the feeling that maybe the Punisher is going to replace Cap...? The one person who would make US Agent look like a bleedingheart...?
|
|