|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 7, 2007 17:47:22 GMT -5
One consistent thing we're beginning to see post-civil war is that Tony is bending the law more- such as in Ms Marvel, Fallen Son, etc, and generally relxing. Some may call it hypocritical considering his reliance on law in civil war, but I;m curious what they think of it. I'd say it's editorially mandated to try and relax the villainous interpretation of him, but for me personally it also makes sense in-universe. We saw in CW7 that a big part of the civil war was Stark proving he could be trusted to the government so that now he gets to lead S.H.I.E.L.D and issue pardons, be lenient on the heroes, defend their secret identities etc.
A major point of Iron Man for being the leader is "Better me than whoever THEY'LL put in charge." I think this newfound "bending of the law when it's morally right" kick he's on demonstrates better than ever why exactly that is. We're finally getting much more of the old Tony Stark/the main "CW" and some tie-ins Tony Stark and less of the Bendis/Jenkins lunatic madman.
I'm curious as to what others think of the whole idea of Tony breaking the law now to do the morally right thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 7, 2007 18:33:49 GMT -5
Well, I'd imagine you know where I stand, but to put it succinctly: I believe that a moral outcome can only be built on a moral foundation. Using ethically dodgy tactics may yield something that looks good on the outside, but scratch the surface and inside it will be corrupt. I'm honestly not sure which of your options covers that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 7, 2007 18:50:14 GMT -5
i think it falls under the no means no category
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 7, 2007 18:58:12 GMT -5
i think it falls under the no means no category That was my first guess, but as we saw when Gonzales spent time trying to figure out how to justify torture on behalf of the Bush administration, it is possible for the law to be unethical. I, of course, regard the SHRA as such a law. |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 8, 2007 12:07:52 GMT -5
What kind of post-Civil War “bending” are we talking about? Please cite specifics. I can think of a couple: - In the recent Eternals limited series, Tony agreed to let the Eternals stay unregistered.
- According to Civil War: Battle Damage Report, Doctor Strange is considered immune to SHRA requirements (though he’s wanted for aiding and abetting his New Avengers teammates).
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 8, 2007 20:49:30 GMT -5
In each of the cases you cite, Night Phantom, I wonder if Tony has basically realized that attempting to enforce the law in these cases will cause more problems than it solves.
In the Wild Cards series of novels published a few years back, it was stated that certain countries (mostly the Arab states, IIRC) routinely hunted down and killed their "aces" (individuals with powers) as freaks of nature scorned by God. It went on to state that this left basically three kinds of superpowered characters in those places: dead ones, young ones, and very, very powerful ones. I wonder if this is the future of supervillains in the Marvel Universe?
|
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 8, 2007 21:00:25 GMT -5
I don't mind someone breaking unjust laws, or laws that will eventually be overturned by right thinking individuals--just look at Jim crow laws as laws that should not be followed by good and decent persons.
However, the problem is that Tony is a singular entity and he's making these decisions unilaterally and often furtively.
So given the options of a singular Tony Stark being the moral barometer of the Marvel Universe and having unjust laws, neither seems palatable...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 9, 2007 4:03:34 GMT -5
It's like being between an armor & a hard place...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 9, 2007 5:24:24 GMT -5
Phantom, two other examples off the top of my head:
-In Fallen Son, he lets Wolverine leave the Helicarrier even though he should be placing him under arrest
-In Ms Marvel 14 he lets Arachne take her daughter even though she technically shouldn't as she was a rebel hero. (It made sense in-context)
PS: Everyone! Ua2 just did a Nutcase bomb!
|
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Apr 10, 2007 12:56:15 GMT -5
I think that Iron Man is the one gone wrong that was supposed to be killed off during the Crossing. It'll eventually be revealed that this is still all Kang's doing at some point, so he might as well keep bending the law, it's in his nature y'all.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 10, 2007 15:17:50 GMT -5
Doom correctly pointed out that Tony has a long history of ethical shortcomings (going back to at least the Armor Wars), but he certainly seems to play fast and loose with the laws when he finds them inconvenient, while using the basest of tactics to maneuver others into compliance. It's hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 10, 2007 22:06:17 GMT -5
Doom correctly pointed out that Tony has a long history of ethical shortcomings (going back to at least the Armor Wars), but he certainly seems to play fast and loose with the laws when he finds them inconvenient, while using the basest of tactics to maneuver others into compliance. It's hypocritical. It goes past Armor wars In Avengers he on multiple occasion advocated the murder of helpless beings to spare a greater amount of lives. |
|
