|
Post by balok on Oct 10, 2006 19:45:16 GMT -5
... but I don't see any way he ends it well. About the best he can hope for is to be disdained by the rest of the superhero community, except for those that actively dislike him. He'll rank somewhere between "member of the Vichy government" and "Tory" on most people's list unless something changes.
He may have secret friends in government but the public friends will be forced to disavow him to preserve their political careers. And he may have some popularity with Joe and Jane Q. Public.
But he will have few friends among the powers.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 14, 2006 9:59:33 GMT -5
I dunno. I really don't see Iron Man as a villian in Civil War. I think he's doing what he feels is best. But I think it also depends on who has been writing him. I've noticed some of the writers (like JMS, for example) have been making him come off as a little more sinster than others.
Millar has handled him well (I think some people will disagree with me). The first issue was really about Tony coming to the realization that super-heroes need to be registered and that he needs to make the world save for and to have super-heroes. As you recall, in the "Road to Civil War" ASM tie-in, he was pretty much against the proposed super-hero registration. But now that kids have died? He thinks it's for the best.
Also, I thought that Millar having Tony try and reach out to Cap's group one more time before the big throw-down was a nice touch.
So no, I don't see him as a villian. I think he'll maintain his friendships, considering all those on his side right now.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 14, 2006 14:18:18 GMT -5
Well, how about, for some perspective, if we contrast Cap's conduct during AND after the Armor Wars affair with Shellhead's behavior during this CW...?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 14, 2006 14:38:21 GMT -5
And by this I mean, Cap's conduct towards I.M. then & Tony's behavior towards Cap now.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Oct 15, 2006 11:05:00 GMT -5
Well, how about, for some perspective, if we contrast Cap's conduct during AND after the Armor Wars affair with Shellhead's behavior during this CW...? Unfortunately, I've never read Armor Wars. Is that when he went around and took out everyone who wearing his armor or somethin'? What issues? Be it in a trade? ~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 15, 2006 12:30:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I've never read Armor Wars. Is that when he went around and took out everyone who wearing his armor or somethin'? Pretty much. Stark had discovered some of his Iron Man technology had been stolen and distributed, and he sought to shut down all other persons’ use of it, be they friend or foe. The storyline is commonly called “Armor Wars”, but the title actually appearing in the comics was “Stark Wars”. The story originated in Iron Man #225–232 and Captain America #339 (the latter between IM #228 & 229). The story (minus the Cap issue, I think) has been put in TPB before; according to Amazon, a new edition is due January 17, under the name Iron Man: Armor Wars. (This is weird…when I found it on Amazon, the January 17, 2007 date appeared on the page…but when I tested the URL, I could no longer find the date.)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 15, 2006 13:42:00 GMT -5
Well, in a nutshell: IM discovered that the original Spymaster had stolen many of his armor's designs & sold them to many armor wearers (or did he just sold it to Justin Hammer and HE resold the information to others...? I forget now...). But anyway, like the Night Phantom said, he decided to shut down all others who might be making use of his stolen IM technology... All others, friend or foe. This escalated & culminated in him going against the US government itself, as he shut down, 1st SHIELD's mandroids & then the guardsmen who guarded the prision for superhumans called the Vault. There, he was opposed by Cap, who believed Shellhead to be wrong in going against his own government. Through trickery, IM got Cap out of the way & accomplished what he set out to do. This caused the government & SHIELD to declare IM an outlaw & hunt him down. Seeking a way out, Tony faked IM's death & then reappeared in another suit of armor, telling the world he was a new, different IM. The point that I'm trying to make is that, although Tony tried at 1st to fool even his old Avenger comrades about this "new" ID of his, he never really succeeded... Cap, Hawkeye, the Wasp, they all saw through his deception & knew it was still ol' Tony. And YET, and yet, even though Cap felt very strongly that Shellhead had crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed & was deeply hurt by IM's decision of going through him to disable the Guardsmen suits, he didn't hunt Tony down to make sure he paid for his transgressions, nor did he betray his ID to SHiELD. And I say that felt real & this feels fake because that's how a true hero & Avenger would behave.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 15, 2006 14:52:34 GMT -5
Luckily Iron Man hasn't been a viallin at any point DURING CW, so there is little chance he will end it one
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 15, 2006 18:08:58 GMT -5
Luckily Iron Man hasn't been a viallin at any point DURING CW While I would hope that that evaluation would comfort you if and when your government should ever incarcerate you for life without due process and without any access to the judiciary or even to a lawyer, with your only alternative a lifetime of forced servitude—my greater hope is that you never face such abject villainy.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 15, 2006 19:55:02 GMT -5
Bravo, Night Phantom...!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 16, 2006 22:12:24 GMT -5
I mentioned this in another thread: do you think Stark may be fully supporting registration in order to discredit it, as a sort of political reductio ad absurdum? The idea would be that by enforcing the registration ethic vigorously, he can hasten the conclusion that it is politically or legally untenable, thereby bringing the registration law to a quick end (or at least a quick defanging). Likewise, some of his allies might share the same thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 17, 2006 0:07:10 GMT -5
But even so, such scenario wouldn't justify all the persecution & imprisonment we've seen him visiting upon his fellow superheroes... If anything, a case could be made that if Tony DOESN'T actually believe in the SHRA, his actions would be even more morally reprehensive.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 17, 2006 16:45:53 GMT -5
Luckily Iron Man hasn't been a viallin at any point DURING CW While I would hope that that evaluation would comfort you if and when your government should ever incarcerate you for life without due process and without any access to the judiciary or even to a lawyer, with your only alternative a lifetime of forced servitude—my greater hope is that you never face such abject villainy. Well if I had a permanently loaded gun permanently welded to m yhand and ran around rampatly using it on lawbreakers and those I saw as villains and then actively resisting police forces when they tried to get me, I'd deserve to be locked up. Plus according to Tom B, it seems they do get trial eventually. He claims that at the time of Iron Man's statement, they hadn't fully worked out how it worked yet. Also, by 'forced servitude', I'm going to assume you mean 'legitimately working with the government to take down enormous threats in a co-ordinated manner to ensure innocents aren't killed and that people can have maximum government support' I hope the fact that you believe Tony to be a villain would comfort you as you sat incarcerated pending trial for running around as a vigilante using spectacular and dangerous powers at a whim and endangering the lives of everybody around you- having just opened fire on the police in order to attempt to secure your escape.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 17, 2006 17:19:23 GMT -5
Anyone out there agrees with me that, as a result of how the different Marvel books (in general) are presenting Shellhead these days, even the Iron Maniac (over yonder at Marvel Team-Up) comes across as a more sympathetic character...? After all, he is said to have become insane on account of many of his Avengers pals being dead back at his own reality.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 17, 2006 17:21:17 GMT -5
Meanwhile, "our" (ugh!!!) IM seems to have totally forgotten he ever HAD any friends...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 17, 2006 19:04:58 GMT -5
But even so, such scenario wouldn't justify all the persecution & imprisonment we've seen him visiting upon his fellow superheroes... If anything, a case could be made that if Tony DOESN'T actually believe in the SHRA, his actions would be even more morally reprehensive. I wouldn’t agree with Tony’s actions (it seems that, with his resources, hiring lawyers to combat the act would be more effective and ethical), but having his heart (if little else) in the “right” place could be a basis for a slow, slow mending of fences.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 17, 2006 19:34:29 GMT -5
While I would hope that that evaluation would comfort you if and when your government should ever incarcerate you for life without due process and without any access to the judiciary or even to a lawyer, with your only alternative a lifetime of forced servitude—my greater hope is that you never face such abject villainy. Well if I had a permanently loaded gun permanently welded to m yhand and ran around rampatly using it on lawbreakers and those I saw as villains and then actively resisting police forces when they tried to get me, I'd deserve to be locked up. But that’s not really what the legal grounds for incarceration under the Registration Act are. The Act permits the aforementioned incarceration simply if a person has superpowers (or devices deemed to simulate such) and does not submit to registration. If all you used your unregistered abilities for was rescuing people from burning buildings, you could be incarcerated. If you used them strictly for harmless entertainment, you could be incarcerated. Even if you didn’t use them, you could be incarcerated. Hmm…I guess this is a way in which the Marvel Universe differs from the real world. In the real world, the United States already has a criminal justice system! (One of its principles is the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.) You’re going to assume falsely. I meant “slavery” or “deprivation of the liberty to choose one’s employment”. Neither of these is legitimate, according to my ethics and my reading of the 13th Amendment. If Hank Pym wanted to quit heroing and devote himself to scientific research, that would be his business—but under the Act, the government can force him to act as law enforcement whether he wants to or not. Oh, it would comfort me a little…
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 18, 2006 11:05:59 GMT -5
Well if I had a permanently loaded gun permanently welded to m yhand and ran around rampatly using it on lawbreakers and those I saw as villains and then actively resisting police forces when they tried to get me, I'd deserve to be locked up. But that’s not really what the legal grounds for incarceration under the Registration Act are. The Act permits the aforementioned incarceration simply if a person has superpowers (or devices deemed to simulate such) and does not submit to registration. If all you used your unregistered abilities for was rescuing people from burning buildings, you could be incarcerated. If you used them strictly for harmless entertainment, you could be incarcerated. Even if you didn’t use them, you could be incarcerated. I don't believe that's true. The fact that Firebird was able to resign- and, according to Tom Brevoort, she would not be required to register unless she used her powers and could not be incarcerated- contradicts this. Now, if someone doesn't register and USES their powers for harmless entertainment, they can be incarcerated, because sure it's harmless now but if I use a gun for 'harmless entertainment' and violate gun control laws, I can still be incarcerated. Same principle. I'm sure the United States does. Tell that to Guantanamo Bay. The NegZone prison is the same principle. No, it cannot. The ONLY example which even remotely substantiates this is Wonder Man in Frontline, however according to Tom Brevoort (A great source of CW info) that is an anomaly and was not legally allowed under SHIELD laws. The agents who did so were not allowed to do so either by law or Maria Hill. Hank wants to dedicate his life to his science- by all means he can do so! Well, good for you
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 18, 2006 22:59:47 GMT -5
But that’s not really what the legal grounds for incarceration under the Registration Act are. The Act permits the aforementioned incarceration simply if a person has superpowers (or devices deemed to simulate such) and does not submit to registration. If all you used your unregistered abilities for was rescuing people from burning buildings, you could be incarcerated. If you used them strictly for harmless entertainment, you could be incarcerated. Even if you didn’t use them, you could be incarcerated. I don't believe that's true. The fact that Firebird was able to resign- and, according to Tom Brevoort, she would not be required to register unless she used her powers and could not be incarcerated- contradicts this. I don’t know anything about this Firebird-resignation situation; the only thing I recall connecting Firebird and Civil War is her appearance at Secret Avengers HQ in CW #4. In any case, there’s a disconnect between what you report Tom Brevoort as saying and what the books under his charge say: - Civil War #2: The Act, summarized as “requir[ing] all those possessing paranormal abilities to register with the government, divulging their true identities to the authorities and submitting to training and sanctioning in the manner of federal agents”, becomes law.
- Civil War #3: The omniscient recap narration states, “Any person with superhuman powers who refuses to register is now a criminal.” (This is repeated in #4.)
- New Avengers #22: Iron Man tells Luke Cage and Jessica Jones that if they don’t register by the midnight deadline, they “are effectively criminals”—no additional condition, such as using their powers, is indicated. When Jessica insists that she doesn’t want to use her powers or work for the government, Iron Man is evasive. When Luke refuses to agree to register, Iron Man says, “They will come to your home and they will take you out of here.” And indeed SHIELD agents do show up at the stroke of midnight, ostensibly for that purpose.
- Civil War: Front Line #2: Eric Marshall, agent of SHIELD, states, “The Registration Act states that all vigilantes, costumed activists and/or hyper-powered individuals--classified loosely as ‘heroes’ under the definition clauses of the Act--are required to register with local and state authorities.” He then attempts to pressure Robbie Baldwin to register as a costumed vigilante, despite the fact that, in the brief time since the Act has been signed into law, Robbie has not worn a costume, acted as a vigilante, or exercised any of his powers.
- Civil War: Front Line #3: In dialogue, She-Hulk, acting as Robbie’s lawyer, indicates that he is currently designated an “unregistered combatant”; he still has not worn a costume, acted as a vigilante, or exercised any of his powers.
The US Supreme Court has struck down the Bush Administration’s preferred handling of Guantánamo Bay, bringing about a political deal that has just been signed into law. I suppose you had no way of knowing this, but in my opinion Bush and several of his cronies are villains (not just because of Guantánamo issues) who should be thrown out of power and probably tried for war crimes and treason. I say this not to invite discussion on the topic but to simply point out that if you’re trying to convince me that Iron Man is not a villain by likening him to such persons, you’re going about it completely the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 18, 2006 23:54:29 GMT -5
Bravo again, Night Phantom...Bravo, indeeed...!!! 1st, I wanted you for the job of Marvel's EIC, now I'm gonna start your campaign for Commander in Chief (eh, if Robin Williams can do it...). But, I suppose that, once again, being the party-pooper that you are, you would tell me that you'd rather not have the hassles & tribulations attached to such job....
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 19, 2006 5:02:48 GMT -5
Consider your party pooped!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 19, 2006 10:17:08 GMT -5
Nice work there Phantom. My perception of the SHRA is the same as yours; regardless of whether a person uses their powers or not, they must register. Once registered, the government absolutely can decide what to do with them. Look at Arana over in Ms. Marvel's book. There is no discussion about whether or not she wants to train and be an agent - she (and her father) are basically told "You will be here every day after school for training" and in the latest issue, she goes out on the mission to capture Julia Carpenter ( a very ugly mission by the way).
To be honest, although I side with the anti-reg folks, the whole situation is now being presented as decidedly one-sided. The pro-reg heroes are shown as either heartless (Stark), clueless (Richards), or feeling torn or even sickened by what's going on (Spidey, Ms. Marvel, etc). I have yet to see the anti-reg heroes shown as anything other than gutsy underdogs. I think a more balanced view could have been possible if Marvel had not made the SHRA so over-reaching. If the SHRA required heroes to reveal their IDs but didn't require one to serve the government, it might be harder to argue against it. But obviously they are trying to draw some parallels to current events.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 19, 2006 10:45:34 GMT -5
I don't believe that's true. The fact that Firebird was able to resign- and, according to Tom Brevoort, she would not be required to register unless she used her powers and could not be incarcerated- contradicts this. I don?t know anything about this Firebird-resignation situation; the only thing I recall connecting Firebird and Civil War is her appearance at Secret Avengers HQ in CW #4. Ahem, my mistake. I meant Firestar, who resigned in Frontline #2. Indeed it does. I don't dispute that. I dispute whether they actively pursue those who do not use their powers as a vigilante. [/li][li] Civil War #3: The omniscient recap narration states, ?Any person with superhuman powers who refuses to register is now a criminal.? (This is repeated in #4.)[/quote] Again, technically they are. But according to all the evidence and indeed to Tom Brevoort, they aren't actively pursued. [/li][li] New Avengers #22: Iron Man tells Luke Cage and Jessica Jones that if they don?t register by the midnight deadline, they ?are effectively criminals??no additional condition, such as using their powers, is indicated. When Jessica insists that she doesn?t want to use her powers or work for the government, Iron Man is evasive. When Luke refuses to agree to register, Iron Man says, ?They will come to your home and they will take you out of here.? And indeed SHIELD agents do show up at the stroke of midnight, ostensibly for that purpose.[/quote] Actually, I'm highly tempted to chalk this up to Bendis. After all, if we take everything he writes as accurate, most of Avengers history doesn't exist. But seriously, this one befuddles me. (Not least that IM sent SHIELD agents to fight Cage simultaneous with himself taking on the diabolical threat of Prodigy.) The only explanation I can come up with is that the SHIELD forces doing that were completely illegal and were NOT permitted to do so at all. [/li][li] Civil War: Front Line #2: Eric Marshall, agent of SHIELD, states, ?The Registration Act states that all vigilantes, costumed activists and/or hyper-powered individuals--classified loosely as ?heroes? under the definition clauses of the Act--are required to register with local and state authorities.? He then attempts to pressure Robbie Baldwin to register as a costumed vigilante, despite the fact that, in the brief time since the Act has been signed into law, Robbie has not worn a costume, acted as a vigilante, or exercised any of his powers. [/li][li] Civil War: Front Line #3: In dialogue, She-Hulk, acting as Robbie?s lawyer, indicates that he is currently designated an ?unregistered combatant?; he still has not worn a costume, acted as a vigilante, or exercised any of his powers.[/li][/ul] [/quote] Speedball is a major exception. He HAS exercised his powers since the SHRA was signed- albeit unwittingly. Because he was not conscious when it happened, it would have been a simple matter to take him into custody so they could establish that and he could then sign the act and go. He chose not to do so. I'm sure the United States does. Tell that to Guantanamo Bay. The NegZone prison is the same principle.[/quote] The US Supreme Court has struck down the Bush Administration?s preferred handling of Guantánamo Bay, bringing about a political deal that has just been signed into law. I suppose you had no way of knowing this, but in my opinion Bush and several of his cronies are villains (not just because of Guantánamo issues) who should be thrown out of power and probably tried for war crimes and treason. I say this not to invite discussion on the topic but to simply point out that if you?re trying to convince me that Iron Man is not a villain by likening him to such persons, you?re going about it completely the wrong way.[/quote] Actually, I'm not, at all. I oppose George Bush. Though this may surprise you, I'm a liberal democrat. I wasn't trying to do that comparison, I was pointing out that yes, we may find it morally wrong, but would you support a group of terrorists charging up and down the country with little regard for passer-bys, openly and violently resisting the police.... just because you thought they were being held unconstitutionally? Republican does not equal Pro-Reg! Let me remind you that DEMOCRATS are the ones who are in favour of gun registration and the same principle applies.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 21, 2006 8:54:25 GMT -5
I apologize for the length of this post. There happen to be a lot of points to discuss. Before I begin, I wish to remind my gentle readers of the focus on the question of whether Iron Man has been a villain (or acted villainously, if you wish to pick that nit) in the Civil War storyline. In the discussion of that question, many other contestable points have been raised, and it would be easy to lose that focus. In this post, I do address that focal question, but I address some ancillary matters first. I appreciate the patience of those reading the entire post—and I do not blame anyone who wishes to bail out now! You have been warned!But that’s not really what the legal grounds for incarceration under the Registration Act are. The Act permits the aforementioned incarceration simply if a person has superpowers (or devices deemed to simulate such) and does not submit to registration. If all you used your unregistered abilities for was rescuing people from burning buildings, you could be incarcerated. If you used them strictly for harmless entertainment, you could be incarcerated. Even if you didn’t use them, you could be incarcerated. I don't believe that's true. The fact that Firebird was able to resign- and, according to Tom Brevoort, she would not be required to register unless she used her powers and could not be incarcerated- contradicts this. I meant Firestar, who resigned in Frontline #2. Thanks for clarifying. Setting aside the question of Tom Brevoort for a moment, I find Firestar’s resignation weak evidence of what the Act says or how it is enforced. She tendered her resignation to a reporter. So far as I know, we haven’t seen or heard anything of Firestar since, and so we don’t know whether the government accepts the resignation. (Similarly, a soldier could tender his resignation to a journalist, but that’s no reason for the Army not to consider him AWOL.) If there were a scene in which she went up to Iron Man or Ms. Marvel when they weren’t busy and said something like, “Nyah nyah! I’m unregistered and I resigned!” and they didn’t do anything about it, then I might think, “Hmm…maybe they really are showing restraint regarding this aspect of the registration situation, at least for now.” But absent any such relevant scenes, I think the depiction of Firestar’s case doesn’t really support (or, for that matter, undermine) your position. As for Tom Brevoort, I’ve already demonstrated above that some of the actual published comics contradict the claims you reported him as making about what the Act says and/or does. I based my evaluation of Iron Man’s villainous behavior on the evidence, i.e., the comics. While it would be ideal if an editor in charge actually did know the broad strokes of what was being printed in his name, that does not seem to be the case here, and so appeals to his authority hold no water. Similarly, if Brevoort were to announce that in CW #4 Iron Man was shown healing lepers and turning water into wine, I doubt any of us would believe it (at least, once we checked or rechecked that issue). Of course, the claims you referenced are not nearly so extravagant, but the same principle applies, in that the claims are contradicted by the body of evidence. And I have to base my evaluations on the evidence, not on what might be going on in Brevoort’s head at any particular moment. Civil War #2: The Act, summarized as “requir[ing] all those possessing paranormal abilities to register with the government, divulging their true identities to the authorities and submitting to training and sanctioning in the manner of federal agents”, becomes law. Indeed it does. I don't dispute that. I dispute whether they actively pursue those who do not use their powers as a vigilante. Civil War #3: The omniscient recap narration states, “Any person with superhuman powers who refuses to register is now a criminal.” (This is repeated in #4.) Again, technically they are. But according to all the evidence and indeed to Tom Brevoort, they aren't actively pursued. These are even clearer examples of Brevoort’s claims contradicting what the comics say about the Act vis-à-vis registration requirements. But as for how it’s actually being enforced, in general you might be right, with some exceptions like Speedball and Cage. (And sometimes active unregistered heroes are given a chance, as when Ms. Marvel and Wonder Man encountered Araña and She-Hulk registered Hellcat.) And it might specifically be the case that Iron Man doesn’t involve himself with pursuit of illegally unregistered inactives—though, in his role in overseeing the incarceration facility, he does have some responsibility for the treatment any such inactives (regardless of who pursued and apprehended them) might receive there (a possibility under the current law), even if right now they are seldom or never brought in. (Overlooking inactives might not be a moral decision but rather a pragmatic one—and a temporary one: since the government has an insurrection to put down, it makes sense to target the “clear and present danger”. If the insurrection is ended or greatly weakened, or if the government’s resources expand, the government might then broaden the scope to universal enforcement, which may have been the initial plan—the current administration seems to have trouble anticipating the level of difficulty in suppressing insurrections. I grant this posit of intent is speculative.) But I will discuss Iron Man’s role further down below. Speedball is a major exception. He HAS exercised his powers since the SHRA was signed- albeit unwittingly. Because he was not conscious when it happened, it would have been a simple matter to take him into custody so they could establish that and he could then sign the act and go. He chose not to do so. I’d like to clear up some points of fact about Speedball before I move on to the main point. First, I don’t believe there was any expectation that Speedball would or should sign the Act—that’s a job for the President. (Or a job for the President to refuse…) I imagine you meant that Robbie should sign up (register) or sign on to the government’s offer (which entails registering, among other things) in Front Line #2. Second, you and I both discussed exercise of powers since the Act’s signing into law, but legally, that’s not quite the issue. As shown in Civil War #2 and elsewhere, there was a grace period between the signing and the registration deadline (if there weren’t, all superhumans would have instantly been criminals under the Act). I apologize for my careless wording. In any case, an examination of the timeline of Robbie’s story in Front Line #1–2 shows that the apparent unconscious manifestation of super-ness in #1 probably occurred before the Act became law and certainly occurred before the registration deadline. Accordingly, I was discounting it when I referenced Robbie’s non-use of powers. Another unconscious manifestion occurs post-deadline in #7, but that was after he was already deemed in violation in #2, and so it is not relevant to my point about registration requirements. (There’s also a conscious but unwitting manifestation in #4, but again, it’s after the fact.) I oppose George Bush. Though this may surprise you, I'm a liberal democrat. I wasn't trying to do that comparison, I was pointing out that yes, we may find it morally wrong, but would you support a group of terrorists charging up and down the country with little regard for passer-bys, openly and violently resisting the police.... just because you thought they were being held unconstitutionally? Republican does not equal Pro-Reg! Let me remind you that DEMOCRATS are the ones who are in favour of gun registration and the same principle applies. Frankly, I find this whole section irrelevant, with its further appeals to authority (political identifications) and reliance on two extremes falsely excluding any middle (the “would you support…” question—obviously one could support constitutional means of countering violent threats). Let us leave it and its non sequitur approach behind. At last, we arrive at the crux of the matter. Read on: Luckily Iron Man hasn't been a viallin at any point DURING CW While I would hope that that evaluation would comfort you if and when your government should ever incarcerate you for life without due process and without any access to the judiciary or even to a lawyer, with your only alternative a lifetime of forced servitude—my greater hope is that you never face such abject villainy. Plus according to Tom B, it seems they do get trial eventually. He claims that at the time of Iron Man's statement, they hadn't fully worked out how it worked yet. I did not respond to this particular part of your rebuttal earlier, but I will rectify that now. As discussed earlier, Brevoort’s claims about significant developments in Civil War are sometimes unreliable. I’m not sure which statement by Iron Man you are referring to. If it’s from Amazing Spider-Man #535, then we have a happy coincidence, for I am about to quote a few snippets from that issue:Regardless of what the Act says, regardless of how the government directs its implementation, regardless of how other agents enforce it, regardless of what other people may wish to work out, Iron Man vociferously espouses and vigorously seeks to implement and maintain a permanent system that spits upon bedrock freedoms such as due process. You may have differing ideas, but in my book, that qualifies as villainy.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 21, 2006 11:51:45 GMT -5
God! How they have totally, royally screwed up my beloved Iron Man!!! They have turned him into a Donald Rumsfeld clone!!! I stopped buying & reading CW & related books some time ago, so I wasn't aware of that exchange between Peter & Tony... Learning this makes me glad I took that decision.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 21, 2006 22:59:56 GMT -5
My original point wasn't so much about whether Iron Man became a villain by breaking laws - in fact, he's enforcing laws. It was how he would be regarded by those who used to be his friends among the powers.
Were I someone with powers who was Iron Man's friend, I would terminate that friendship over what he has done. I doubt I'm alone. Betrayal is, to me, one of the worst things one person can do to another - to win trust and then exploit that for personal gain to the detriment of those who trust you is vile.
Some have made the point that Iron Man's heart is in the right place, and that this might ameliorate some resentment towards him with some individuals. I concede that this is likely to be true. But he will lose friends over this, some of them forever.
Clearly the writers are attempting to draw parallels between the events of Civil War and the events occurring in modern America. It is worth noting that something is not validated simply because the current administration, which has a lot of ethical problems in my view, does it. This seems to underpin certain of Doctor Doom's arguments and it is a weak foundation to say the least, but debate on the topic could go on at length with neither side persuading the other - I know this from occasional appearances on boards more political than this.
At the end of the day what matters is how Tony's friends regard him, and I content that he will have much to answer for, before he regains their trust. If he can. And that's a shame, because the character works well in groups like the Avengers, when he's written properly.
(I have listened to Millar discuss Ultimate Avengers on the movies of the same name. The man is not concerned with much beyond marketing. I am left with the impression that characterization and history are chiefly seen by Mr. Millar, and perhaps the bosses at Marvel, as obstacles to gaining new readers, and as such are to be set aside whenever required.)
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Dec 10, 2006 13:51:19 GMT -5
I think you guys are taking these comic book politics a little too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the show!
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 10, 2006 16:12:43 GMT -5
Well, that is probably true, thew40, but then, that usually happens with any other hobby which is undertaken with passion & enthusiasm, too: whether it be sports, stamp-collecting or bullfighting...!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Dec 10, 2006 17:06:55 GMT -5
I think you guys are taking these comic book politics a little too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the show! A hero betraying friendships, supporting forced servitude, and throwing away due process— wheeeeeeee!!!
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Dec 10, 2006 17:44:28 GMT -5
I think you guys are taking these comic book politics a little too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the show! A hero betraying friendships, supporting forced servitude, and throwing away due process— wheeeeeeee!!! I've come to my own conclusions regarding what we've seen. - Not necessarily betraying. He still offered Cap a chance to come over to the other side. Same with Daredevil/Iron Fist when they took him to "42."
- As far as forced servitude, I don't quite see it that way. Iron Man is doing this because he feels that if doesn't stand up for super-heroes and make himself out to be the poster boy for registration, then no one would register. And if no one registers, the government could just say "no more super-anythings." This way, at least the super-heroes are staying active.
- From what I understand, "42" is a temporary holding place until trials can be arranged. But the super-heroes did in fact break the law.
And that's all I've got to say about that. ~W~
|
|