|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 19, 2006 14:50:44 GMT -5
Or protagonist depending on your PoV. Of course he's supposed to be arguably a protagonist -- but in keeping with the heavily slanted nature of CW he is, functionally, the antagonist. Strictly within the context of NA #25, I have trouble seeing Iron Man as either protagonist or antagonist. I consider Tony’s disgruntled employee the antagonist and Maria Hill the protagonist—but if you want to play the POV card and trade their places, that’s OK by me. Etymologically, the -ag- in protagonist and antagonist is descended from the same root that gives us the ac- in action, and in this story Iron Man is the source of very little action indeed. Not only is he physically immobile throughout most of the story, but he hardly speaks (functionally, most of his speech during the conflict is really just a prompt for his employee’s dialogue, where much of the story’s conflict manifests itself). The story could have made a paralyzed, nonspeaking person into a protagonist with some choice thought balloons or narrative captions—were it not for Joe Quesada’s edicts against such legitimate storytelling devices…. As things stand, in this issue Iron Man is little more than victim and bystander. The Pulse ended a little while back. Do you mean Civil War: Front Line (which, like The Pulse, features reporters including Ben Urich)?
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 20, 2006 0:57:21 GMT -5
Strictly within the context of NA #25, I have trouble seeing Iron Man as either protagonist or antagonist. I consider Tony’s disgruntled employee the antagonist and Maria Hill the protagonist—but if you want to play the POV card and trade their places, that’s OK by me. Etymologically, the -ag- in protagonist and antagonist is descended from the same root that gives us the ac- in action, and in this story Iron Man is the source of very little action indeed. Not only is he physically immobile throughout most of the story, but he hardly speaks (functionally, most of his speech during the conflict is really just a prompt for his employee’s dialogue, where much of the story’s conflict manifests itself). The story could have made a paralyzed, nonspeaking person into a protagonist with some choice thought balloons or narrative captions—were it not for Joe Quesada’s edicts against such legitimate storytelling devices…. As things stand, in this issue Iron Man is little more than victim and bystander. Ah, you misunderstand me. I meant that Iron Man was functionally the antagonist for the Civil War plot as a whole, not the antagonist for NA #23's plot. Yes, you're right. I haven't read it and won't bother, but I've heard multiple people say that it makes Millar's politics look tame. RSC
|
|
|
Post by balok on Nov 20, 2006 12:48:29 GMT -5
Actually, one of the few places I agree with Bendis is in his disdain for the pro-registration philosophy. It is antithetical to basic freedoms. No one has yet demonstrated to me that the registration philosophy offers benefits not outweighed by its numerous flaws.
|
|
ozbot
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 103
|
Post by ozbot on Nov 20, 2006 21:35:57 GMT -5
Hm? You mean I didn't post my list of reasons why the Pro-Reg wouldn't be such a bad idea? I might dust it off and post it.... uh (quick check) in the Civil War section.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 21, 2006 0:26:02 GMT -5
I think the issues are clouded by the extremely poor execution, mainly by Millar. I believe that at the most basic level, the "pro" side has the better case -- even including arguments of "freedom." For example -- you as a US citizen do not have the "freedom" to walk around in a mask. You do not have the "freedom" to operate as a vigilante. You do not have the "freedom" to, say, carry 10 pounds of high-explosives arrows around downtown New York. I could go on. Something like SHRA (writen to a high legal standard) would be entirely reasonable and constitutional. However, the presentation of the pros- as engaging in unreasonable and fascistic behavior effectively torpedoes the strength of their basic argument. While something like SHRA would be reasonable and constitutional, the pros are being portrayed as going to ridiculous excess in carrying it out. Negative zone prisons? Murderous supercriminals operating as government agents? Additionally, Millar et al. are not even consistent about what SHRA is -- at times it's simply registration, at times it's a draft, etc. Likewise, the antis- have a fairly weak argument at the most basic level, but their position is made to look stronger and more righteous because the pros are being portrayed as outright Nazis.
RSC
|
|
BigDuke
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 136
|
Post by BigDuke on Nov 21, 2006 10:54:16 GMT -5
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
If it weren't for the ridiculous measures being used by the Pros, and a couple of the stipulations that are part of the act (which could have been negotiated), the Anti-s would have no legitimate qualm. But then, there would be this big sweeping kabillion dollar crossover bonanza to sell, would there?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Dec 2, 2006 21:27:59 GMT -5
Here's what would have to change before I could accept the pro-registration philosophy. - Registration is not mandatory. However, premeditated use of powers (either to break the law or enforce the law) by an unregistered individual would be a crime. Rationale: Individuals with these abilities or skills can be dangerous and there is a public safety interest in being aware of those individuals who use these dangerous abilities.
- The government cannot legally compel service from individuals possessing powers or technical gifts (ie. Iron Man types), registered or otherwise. It may request, but it may not coerce without violating this law. It may not approach individuals who are not registered even if it has discovered their identity through other means. This provision could be suspended only if the country were invaded. Rationale: Slavery is immoral. To be distinguishable from slavery, compulsory public service must be based on significant need.
- Individuals in violation of the act may not be detained without due process, and must be accessible to legal representation, subject to security checks. Individuals may not be detained in an dangerous location, such as the negative zone. Detainment facilities must be subject to investigation by independent agencies, subject to security checks) that wish to assess prisoner care conditions (e.g. The Red Cross, Amnesty). Rationale: Individuals in this country are entitled to due process per the Constitutional protections.
- Torture is illegal in all circumstances. Torture is defined as the infliction of mental or physical harm or discomfort, whether lasting or not, directly (an act) or indirectly (by omission of care, food, deprivation of sleep, and suchlike). Rationale: Torture is morally wrong in all circumstances.
- It is not a crime to use one's abilities in self-defense against mortal peril, nor does doing so require registration (although the law wouldn't prevent the government from investigating and gathering data that might amount to de facto registration), UNLESS the individual demonstrated gross negligence or depraved indifference in the use of those powers to the extent of endangering the lives of others. Rationale: Individuals must be free to defend themselves as long as they use appropriate force and do so without recklessly endangering others. If you use your lazer gaze to defend against an attacker, that's okay. If you spray the crowd because you think your attacker is hiding among them and you want to get him, that's not. The use of inherent powers for this purpose is no different than another man's use of his fists or a handgun.
- Transitory non-citizens are not required to register, but if they commit crimes in this country they will be treated as would a citizen who breaks these laws. At the end of any sentence they would be deported and declared ineligible for re-entry. Individuals protected by diplomatic immunity retain that protection but may be ejected and declared persona non grata. Non-citizens residing here for longer than six months would be subject to the act as if citizens. Undocumented immigrants are guilty of a crime (illegal entry) and are therefore subject to the act to the same degree as other non-citizen criminals. Rationale: Transitory foreign visitors who conduct themselves in an orderly fashion should not be subject to United States bookkeeping. Semi-permanent non-citizens should be subject to the act under the rubric of public safety, as in the first point. Foreign visitors who commit crimes are no different than citizens who commit crimes, and further are not desirable as citizens or visitors in the future.
|
|