NA: ILLUMINATI (spoilers)

[Powersurge]

I just picked this issue up the other day, as I searched for the new Doom/Mjolnir issue of FF (and found it all sold out).

In terms of pure entertainment, I liked the issue and its helps lay the groundwork for Civil War ... which I'm looking forward to.

Some things that either I didn't like or that surprised me or some struck me as odd or peculiar ....

One, Iron Man sucks as a salesman. I agree with the idea of Superhero Registration, and think that alot of good would stand to come of it, and I think that IM went down the wrong road when he more-or-less threatened, ie. sought to intimidate, those he gathered into registering. Afteralll, providing a list of reasons as to why registration, and leading the way into it, would be positive and benefical, as opposed to saying you better register or you can bet they'll hunt you down, blah, blah, blah, is an infinitely better course to go in the face of a courageous, powerful and (generally) heroic market audience. Afterall, which sales pitch is going to play upon the sympathies of the target group, and which one is going to offend their egos and sense of self-dignity and thereby start a fight?

Second, it was remarkable how Tony Stark was able to so accurately predict how the Civil War would evolve, thus demonstrating what a astounding "futurist" he is. Yet, for all of that, he didn't see how a guy from the depths of the ocean, another guy from the moon, and yet another guy, whom, by his own admittence in this very issue, rarely leaves his house, wouldn't care about the legislation of a single human nation on the surface of the Earth? He didn't predict that all of his words and concerns would fall on deaf ears in regards to both Namor and Black Bolt? Or that Strange has his head stuck too far up his metaphysical arse to care much about such "trivial" concerns?

So, naturally, Reed and Iron Man, two human citizens of the very multi-national state concerned with the impending legislation, are the only two that care and more or less see eye-to-eye in the end. Big surprise? Too a leading edge "futurist"? Come on. Please.

Reminds me of a line frm the FF movie .... "world's dumbest smart guy".

[Phil]

I just picked this issue up the other day, as I searched for the new Doom/Mjolnir issue of FF (and found it all sold out).

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=888ed837a78c35811056be0b682e3f90&threadid=65094

[Le Messor]

Liked the issue, the art left me a little flat. At first I wished AF had had a say in the opening, 'til I realised it pre-dated Alpha.


One, Iron Man sucks as a salesman.

And yet, he's been the head of a multinational firm, go figure. Somebody's not being realistic (writers, not you, Powersurge).


Yet, for all of that, he didn't see how a guy from the depths of the ocean, another guy from the moon, wouldn't care about the legislation of a single human nation on the surface of the Earth?

*shrugs* He's American. You've got to remember, there's a tendency to think that their problems are everybody else's problems, that they're the only nation. Remember that even the International versions of Avengers are always led by Captain America, and they (the creators) can barely see the political ramifications.
Present company excepted, of course.

- Le Messor
"America's part of the world? Wow, I have been gone a long time."
- Fry, Futurama

[Powersurge]

Liked the issue, the art left me a little flat. At first I wished AF had had a say in the opening, 'til I realised it pre-dated Alpha.


Im kinda of a mixed reaction in terms of the art ... comparing this to, say, the guy that drew NA #16. I don't dig the "Heavy Metal" style art, and am very much against comicbook males having upper lips. It defies proper superhero convention. Men have NO upper lips .... save as to emphasize some eccentricity. :)

As for AF; I was thinking the same thing this morning ... who else could Tony have invited. Of course, if the first meeting took place just prior to UXM#94, that predates Mac's first appearance .... hmm, actually it only predates his first appearance by 14 issues! It was UXM 108, right?

Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Department H was up and running, and Mac's costum at least near to perfected, by UXM 94? And if not, what about Major Mapleleaf or Chinook?

Heck, why not Thor and Hercules for that matter? At least they would be moved to care, eh? Hell, the Viking Age Icelanders use to invoke Thor to oversee capital punishment ... while Herc is/was half-human.

[Le Messor]

Men have NO upper lips .... save as to emphasize some eccentricity. :)

Suddenly remembering the movie Toys. But not well enough to quote it, so I'll just leave that hanging.


Of course, if the first meeting took place just prior to UXM#94, that predates Mac's first appearance .... hmm, actually it only predates his first appearance by 14 issues! It was UXM 108, right?

109, but why quibble?


As for AF; I was thinking the same thing this morning ... who else could Tony have invited? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Department H was up and running, and Mac's costum at least near to perfected, by UXM 94? And if not, what about Major Mapleleaf or Chinook?

They only invited active superheroes, which Mac most definitely was -not- at the time. And, they knew nothing about AF; note the 'Canadian mutant assassin' comment. Obviously about Wolvie.

- Le Messor
Calvin: Ah... ah... AH... ... AH...kbthchh!
Hobbes: Why'd you hold it in?
Calvin: I'm trying to blow my shoes off.

[syvalois]

Men have NO upper lips .... save as to emphasize some eccentricity. :)


I'm looking at my boyfriend and he do seem to have upper lips, in fact he got more lips than I do. But of course, he is also an eccentric :P

[Shaman Of The Whills]

I was quite upset to learn that Reed is taking the side he is, as I very much anticipated him going the other way, and this seems a bit out of character for him... this was even further affirmed for me when someone dug up a quote from an old FF issue in which he in no uncertain words already declared his thoughts on this exact scenario... I think that they've majorly screwed up the sides already on this, not a good sign for my hopes for the series. Looking forward to seeing how else I can be disappointed.

As to choosing a side, I've certainly picked mine, but I was also hoping and anticipating that they would be lining up plenty of the heroes on the side I was opposed to... something that given the information I've been reading is also not the case, another disappointment. I spent nearly a full day in conference with my close friends around the country outlining our reasons for selecting sides, and so far there seems to be no indication that any of these things were guidelines... I'll have to make a closer investigation into this to make sure how I feel about it, but I'm prepared to have hopes dashed. I've got my lists of qualifications for what I'm looking for with Civil War, so far not many checks in the positive column.

[Legerd]

Personally, I find it ridiculous as to the sides Captain America and Iron Man are on, I honestly think it would be reversed. CA would think of what's best for the average American citizen and therefore support the act, where as IM (being a self-absorbed rich playboy who has religiously guarded his identity in the past) would be the one to stand against government interference with his activities.

Am I wrong here?

[Ben]

But Cap has been fighting for the individual freedom of Americans since WWII. I could see how it might remind him of the Jewish registration in Nazi Germany, I can see how he would stand against.

Ben

[Le Messor]

Yeah, but then he gave away his identity to the whole world.

The whole of 'Illuminati' was about why Tony supported the rego act. I thought it was justified.

... but I wasn't paying much attention to that side of it, and don't know the character well.

- Le Messor
"An axe." sigh "That takes me back..." - Grandmama Addams

[Legerd]

But Cap has been fighting for the individual freedom of Americans since WWII. I could see how it might remind him of the Jewish registration in Nazi Germany, I can see how he would stand against.

Ben

Perhaps, but the the Jews and the Gypsies and the homosexuals and everybody else the Nazis interned didn't possess superpowers, nor did they battle it out amongst their fellow citizens. And does the individual freedom to get into a firefight in the middle of a city with a bad guy supercede the rights and freedoms of the individuals who happen to be nearby and lack any superpowers or abilities to defend themselves?

Not that I support the act or anything, I just question the motivations attributed to CA & IM.

[Shaman Of The Whills]

The way that they are promoting the event, the real emphasis seems to be not on the rationality of the act, but rather just on the concept of the value of civil liberties against the desire for protection, under which I believe the decision of Captain America has been made many times... while Cap remains a protector of the people, he is much more a symbol of the values of the American way, and thus represents those prized principles of Freedom of Speech, Religion, and as now interpreted, Privacy. Within those grounds alone I believe that Cap's decision was made, an indication of the shallowness of the attempt to explain this storyline. However, even if elaborated further, I think Cap most likely would have settled on that same side. For one, using the example that Captain America's (or anyone else's) secret identity is already revealed I think is not a critical element of the storyline. Just because one person has elected to share their identity with the world does not mean that they would encourage government institutions to demand all such individuals to do so. Furthermore, unless this is the most pathetic, simpleminded bill ever passed within the halls of Congress, the Registration Act will (or shouold) entail much more than the simple stating of an individual's identity, but also actual regulation, potentiall including tracking, monitoring of activities, regular checkups and potential encarceration based upon the actions of those individuals. The arguments for and against are much more than just whether a hero wants or has already revealed their secret identity, and while I hate to drag 'the opposition' work into this, the value of secret identities was re-emphasized with the birth of Identity Crisis. These heroes have been willing to risk their lives in the line of duty in the greater fight against evil, protecting these citizens... now they must risk even more, possibly accepting the risk of death for family members and associates. We've already seen countless times what happens when a bit of this information gets leaked out to a villain (anyone remember Gwen Stacy?), so what happens if all this information becomes public? Mutant heroes will then be facing a front of both the anti-mutant religious movement of William Stryker (conveniently brought back to the spotlight as a result of the X2 movie's overemphasis of his importance), villains with old scores to settle, and military monitoring of their every move. We've already seen how this kind of limitation has aggravated mutants within the pages of the 198, namely in the example of Erg and Mammomax in town. Now stretch that across an even greater line of people.

Perhaps, but the the Jews and the Gypsies and the homosexuals and everybody else the Nazis interned didn't possess superpowers, nor did they battle it out amongst their fellow citizens. And does the individual freedom to get into a firefight in the middle of a city with a bad guy supercede the rights and freedoms of the individuals who happen to be nearby and lack any superpowers or abilities to defend themselves?
True, they did not have superpowers, but they were indeed judged on the basis of both birth traits and lifestyle choics, issues that are fundamental to the superhero. With regards to an individual's freedom to get into a firefight with a bad guy, once again it turns the ball to a different side of the court... more often than not we've seen that the 'good guys' do not take the first blow, and that rather they respond to the threats of criminals and villains. Rarely is it that we find a hero who shoots first and asks questions later, but rather the hero shows up during a crime in progress, a key illustration of this is the activities of Spider-Man. Now the actions of the New Warriors that initiate this whole arc might be questionable because they seemingly start that fight, but then again they also weren't the ones to cause the damage... the villain was... so why are the heroes being held responsible. The superhero registration is much like the restriction of a good samaritan... if there were regulations that would put the helper at risk, people would be much less likely to help out an individual in some form of pain. This was the reason for the institution of the samaritan laws in the first place. They are in effect, whether or not it is the intention, discouraging the activities of superheroes. And what then? Half of the heroes lay down arms and the bad guys roam free around the cities unchecked and unchallenged? Would the military take a greater role in combating these foes, because we've certainly seen that the damage they cause in such situations is not only greater, its also more of a scattershot, with complete disregard for the value of civilian life and property. Also, we've kinda noticed that despite all the tanks and jets, so many of those foes just seem immune to military might. Thus we're dealing with a threat that can't be controlled by the government and must call upon the superheroes to do the job but oh wait, if they get out of bed they'll be checked with the bill and put on trial for any lifes that might be lost during the events of the battle. Not exactly a plus. Doing the right thing suddenly comes at a price.

Now, what I saw as the reasons for Iron Man's approval of this act comes from the special itself oddly enough, despite all of my ranting up to this point. See, Tony in my opinion does not see this as a civil liberties issue at all, and contrary to the popular opinion does not believe that the law should be followed because it will reduce the harm of reckless superheroes, but rather for alternative reasons. Tony has been looking to create a grand superhero movement, coordinated by the supreme powers of the Earth of the marvel universe, and what better way to coordinate these talents than to register and regulate them, with him conveniently taking center stage in politics and the media? In fact, I'm not entirely sure that this wasn't the purpose of the New Avengers in the first place, although I'm not prepared to argue for the validity of the series as a whole. Tony isn't trying to discourage superheroes from signing up, but rather he wants to use them in a coordinated and controlled fashion, an admirable goal perhaps, in order to protect for the greater common good. This perhaps may be the reason why he has been alleged to have hesitated in the pages of Spider-Man at the proposal of this bill, but then later comes to head its enforcement. Essentially, Tony wants to lead all Superheroes under the title of the Avengers, a government approved group that serves the common good, a superhero army if you will. Under that, they could face down even the most powerful of threats, make small time villains a thing of the past and make sure that they keep an eye out for each other, much in the line of DC's Justice League (despite the fact that they had no actual connection with an established government). If this is indeed the case, I'll find Tony's side in the Civil War admirable (despite not siding with it) and will agree that he is on the side that is right for him. But its still quite possible that the selection of sides is just trivial and pointless, in which case I'm going to secretly convince myself that the above argument was Tony's reason for sidepicking.

[Powersurge]

I wa also suprised about the sides tha tIron Man has chosen, and the side Cap would thus seem to be on by default. Anyone who has kept up with my Thunder/Morningstar fanfic knows I have Captain American encouraging the character Powersurge (who accidently "Exploded" when his powers first manifested years before, killing many, many people) to turn himself into the Canadian authorities .... as a show of faith in the people and the system they have chosen ......... not to mention with the assurance that powerful folk would know of his fate if Wolverine's line of banter was the way it really was to go.

It just seems that Cap is a hero, a SELFLESS hero with fundamentally SELFLESS values, and thus more concerned with the wellbeing of the community ... without which true individuality has no true existence.

Iron Man on the other hand is the guy I remember engaging in the Armor Wars .... doing whatever he wanted to whoever he wanted in defense of number one ... him.

Anyway, I think that it is a mistke to look at this in terms of a racial issue ... which is the card they constantly played in the X-Men. A mere difference in skin-pigmentation carries no inherent potential for harm and destruction, or help for that matter.

I also think that we assume ALOT in knowing the exact circumstances of every battle and incident that takes place. We enjoy the luxury of having a "readers eye" view of every event .... a luxury not enjoyed by ANYONE else in all of the Marvel Universe; save perhaps some cosmic entity.

Now, each one of us our registered members of our countries. If we are in positions of responsibility that goes double. You must be bonded for certain jobs. You must undergo drug-testing and psychiatric tests for others, and the greater degree of societal responsbility, the greater the degree of accountability. And WHATEVER it is you do, you are required to reveal your identity. Period.

Vigilanteism is against the law, the collective will of the people, precisely because it was used to abuse the (forget about civili liberties) the basic human rights of minorities. It is what the KKK is ALL about ... hiding one's identity so as to strike at a perceived threat without any need to take responsiblity for it, and any fear of being held accountable.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

[Shaman Of The Whills]

It just seems that Cap is a hero, a SELFLESS hero with fundamentally SELFLESS values, and thus more concerned with the wellbeing of the community ... without which true individuality has no true existence.
Perhaps this is just a difference in fundamental values, but I see this as a prime reason why Cap is actually on the side that he is... he does represent the community... all of them... including the minority, those that are currently being repressed by the system... to simply accept the tyranny of the majority would be a great flaw in Cap's character, and I'm glad that this does not currently seem to be the case... besides, the community as a whole has not decided that the true wellbeing of the community is compulsory service to the United States or SHIELD... while it is arguably the result of a governing body, namely the Congress, there is a very famous quote that calls for abolition of government should it deprive an individual of the basic laws of nature, one which all students of American history (admittedly and in part thankfully not all of the users of this board being subject to that requirement) should easily recognize... this compulsory service restricts the basic rights that are endowed to all of humankind upon creation... in the case of the Marvel universe, were this legislation to go into full effect, I would find it my duty as both an ordinary citizen and as a hero if I were in that position, to stand out and shout that injustice has been done, and that it must be struck down... and if the government ignores those cries (which by my count would be plentiful at this point)... I would begin to "declare my causes" for separation from the United States government.


Anyway, I think that it is a mistke to look at this in terms of a racial issue ... which is the card they constantly played in the X-Men. A mere difference in skin-pigmentation carries no inherent potential for harm and destruction, or help for that matter.
The basis of racism is indeed bound in part to skin color, but in effect is something much grander... this country, under the judgment of the Supreme Court, has declared that all suspect classes should be treated with equal protections of the law, and the qualifications of a suspect class are that the class has been treated with prejudice and hatred throughout its history, and that it is a trait immutable by birth. How then is the birth of a mutant any different from that of a memberof a 'skin-colored' race? Mutants may not be different by a skin color, but they share the very basis of race, and the cause of that discrimination within their very nature. To argue that the birth of a human being, based on variations in a gene (also the case with color if I'm not mistaken) might cause potential destruction is indeed a bold claim, that reeks of that era of discrimination.

Now, each one of us our registered members of our countries. If we are in positions of responsibility that goes double. You must be bonded for certain jobs. You must undergo drug-testing and psychiatric tests for others, and the greater degree of societal responsbility, the greater the degree of accountability. And WHATEVER it is you do, you are required to reveal your identity. Period.
Yes, but we are not given our jobs upon birth on the basis of our genes. We elect our jobs, and we choose our roles in society, not the other way around. The United States government does not tell me what I am going to do with my life, and this is indeed the debate at issue here. Accountability according to my birth traits is not a notion I will agree to, and to suggest otherwise also calls to my mind the horrors of the book the Giver, not to mention countless science-fiction tales like THX-1138, in which we are mandated to perform certain jobs, eventually eliminating all traces of choice and originality within our system. There is a distinct difference between electing a job and being born or altered to be endowed with certain powers.

Vigilanteism is against the law, the collective will of the people, precisely because it was used to abuse the (forget about civili liberties) the basic human rights of minorities. It is what the KKK is ALL about ... hiding one's identity so as to strike at a perceived threat without any need to take responsiblity for it, and any fear of being held accountable.
Yes, but samaritans are not outlawed, nor are so-called bounty hunters who perform citizens arrests. Vigilanteism is taking the law into ones own hands and executing things the way one sees fit independent of the law, however, most Marvel heroes are not guilty of actual true vigilanteism but have rather as a generalization been labeled as such. In fact, most of the time they have done nothing outside of the law whatsoever. Spider-Man delivers his enemies to the proper authorities where they are subsequently convicted under those same laws that are indeed the collective will of the people. Matt Murdock does much the same. Many times as noted earlier it is also simply a matter of self-defense, something which is also permissible. And to compare superheroes to the KKK... I'm sorry, but I find no actual relation between the two. That is a very extremist view which I do not, and will not share. Additionally, the Marvel Universe functions out of the normality of this universe, and therefore we have no true experience as to what it would be like to have such superheroes functioning within society, and so to apply all of our laws equally to that world also seems somewhat unfair. Given all that these heroes have done for those communities, I'm certain quite a few of them would have a problem with these restrictions, and thus the will of the people would alter. Plus, give them two true weeks without their superheroes and they'll be whining like little children about how the villains are running wild and that they need their superheroes back. Anyone remember the Superman movies?

With great power, comes great responsibility.
Yes, but responsibility to who? To the United States government? Additionally, not everyone has the choice of such great power, and now this quote is used to compel someone who is subsequently endowed with this power to use it according to the will of the people? Perhaps the greater responsibility would be not to use it at all.

[Powersurge]

Perhaps this is just a difference in fundamental values, but I see this as a prime reason why Cap is actually on the side that he is... he does represent the community... all of them... including the minority, those that are currently being repressed by the system...

And this is one of the fundamental problems with superhumans ... the belief that they comprise a seperate community. The community is the people, not some select segment of the people.


To argue that the birth of a human being, based on variations in a gene (also the case with color if I'm not mistaken) might cause potential destruction is indeed a bold claim, that reeks of that era of discrimination.

Once again there is no comparison. A difference in skin pigmentation, though perhaps a variation in a gene, isn't one that can vapourize a city block via a simple act of will, or take over a persons mind and will. That a mutant or metahuman has that potential is not a "bold claim" it is a well precedented fact.

Yes, but we are not given our jobs upon birth on the basis of our genes. We elect our jobs, and we choose our roles in society, not the other way around. The United States government does not tell me what I am going to do with my life, and this is indeed the debate at issue here. Accountability according to my birth traits is not a notion I will agree to, and to suggest otherwise also calls to my mind the horrors of the book

You are exactly right. You are registered, and your country DOES NOT give you a job on birth. Likewsie, once you complete your education in whatever field you have chosen, your country STILL does not give you anything. This is not even an issue, and only serves to demonstraet how registration is not some horror show waiting to happen, but part and parcel and right there beneath everyone's nose already. And has been all along.

The primary issue is superhumans who have CHOSEN to exercise their powers in a deemed both illiegal and anti-social by society at large. They have chosen to act as our police. THat being the bed they made, such people are merely being forced to lay in it.

Or perhaps every citizen sould feel that they have the right to put on a mask, smash in a door, and kick someone's teeth in whenever they, as individuals, decided someone has done wrong?

And because of the muscleheads of the methuman community, those with powers that could have a more direct benefit to mankind ARE forced to lurk in the shadows with little to no oppurtunity for advancement or recognition within mainstram society ..... all because of the atmosphere of fear and mistrust bred by a select few who apparently want to support and cultivate a culture of entitlement.

Once again, it very easy for us readers to sympathize with our heroes. We KNOW they're that. We see every situation they are invovled in from conception to resolution, and we are privy to their every thought and feeling, whilst they are completely unaware of us and our scrutiny. To seek to apply THAT to the MU would be grossly unfair.

One can only think though that if Namorita had had the proper training she would have found an altenrative to slamming Nitro, who powers hsould have been known prior, into a school bus in front of a school full of children. She can fly for crying out loud? Why are cops encourage to break off high speed pursuits in residential areas? We know what could happen if they didn't. So do they. And if they fail do what is, or should be, right and obvious, they should be held accountable themselves. Not to some little Star Chamber. To society.


Incidently, anyone think that these are the arguemetns that should have been going on in Illuminati?

[cmdrkoenig67]

True, they did not have superpowers, but they were indeed judged on the basis of both birth traits and lifestyle choics,

"Lifestyle choice"? Do you have any idea how immensly incorrect/offensive that term is for/to gays, SOTW? I did not choose to be gay...I just am.

People, whether they be straight, gay, bi, etc...can't just choose to be who they are/how they feel/who they're attracted to. We are who we are...period.

I'm not starting anything, just making a point.

Dana

[Shaman Of The Whills]

And this is one of the fundamental problems with superhumans ... the belief that they comprise a seperate community. The community is the people, not some select segment of the people.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, except for in reverse... they deserve to be respected by the rest of the community, namely the non-superhumans... they are people to, and have just the same rights as everyone else. Why shouldn't a normal person be forced to register and sign up for SHIELD to serve the government then?

A difference in skin pigmentation, though perhaps a variation in a gene, isn't one that can vapourize a city block via a simple act of will, or take over a persons mind and will.
Make a judgment on one element of genes and you must make a judgment upon all of them. And there was a time when other races were considered evil and inhuman. And I'm sure that the ability to summon squirrels is definetely a threat.

You are exactly right. You are registered, and your country DOES NOT give you a job on birth. Likewsie, once you complete your education in whatever field you have chosen, your country STILL does not give you anything. This is not even an issue, and only serves to demonstraet how registration is not some horror show waiting to happen, but part and parcel and right there beneath everyone's nose already. And has been all along. The primary issue is superhumans who have CHOSEN to exercise their powers in a deemed both illiegal and anti-social by society at large. They have chosen to act as our police. THat being the bed they made, such people are merely being forced to lay in it. Or perhaps every citizen sould feel that they have the right to put on a mask, smash in a door, and kick someone's teeth in whenever they, as individuals, decided someone has done wrong?
The primary issue it may be, but it is not the only issue, which if you'll read my posts is my main problem of it. The quote from Tony Stark says that all people possessing superpowers must register or be seen as violating federal law. In a sense, they are actually being encouraged to use their powers, but only in the exact ways specified by the government so how is that any difference? And way to spin my words. I'm not arguing for the right of citizens to smash people's teeth in. I'm arguing for defense of common man, to which there has been little objection. I'd like to note that I already said that I was a bit uncertain about the actions of the New Warriors. And what is actually being argued by the superhero registration act is that they should no longer make the decisions as to the battles they fight, but that they should be servants of the government.

Once again, it very easy for us readers to sympathize with our heroes. We KNOW they're that. We see every situation they are invovled in from conception to resolution, and we are privy to their every thought and feeling, whilst they are completely unaware of us and our scrutiny. To seek to apply THAT to the MU would be grossly unfair.
For the most part, I would agree on the reader bias perspective, however, it is clear within the Marvel universe that many of these heroes are seen as just that, evidenced by the recent trend in showing kids worshiping these heroes (Alex Wilder, Franklin Richards, Molly Hayes) as such.

One can only think though that if Namorita had had the proper training she would have found an altenrative to slamming Nitro, who powers hsould have been known prior, into a school bus in front of a school full of children. She can fly for crying out loud? Why are cops encourage to break off high speed pursuits in residential areas? We know what could happen if they didn't. So do they. And if they fail do what is, or should be, right and obvious, they should be held accountable themselves. Not to some little Star Chamber. To society.
Like I said, I'm not condoning the actions of the New Warriors. But making broad generalizations about heroes, inside and outside of the MU is a bit unfair.

Incidently, anyone think that these are the arguemetns that should have been going on in Illuminati?

"Lifestyle choice"? Do you have any idea how immensly incorrect/offensive that term is for/to gays, SOTW? I did not choose to be gay...I just am.
Did I say that I was referring to homosexuals? No, I didn't. Was I? No. I know how homosexuality works, and I'm not the insensitive moron you made me out to be within the period of one post. While I may not be homosexual myself, I've had enough of an intimate experience with the homosexual lifestyle to be quite certain that I understand exactly how it works. My father is a gay man who is now happily married to a partner, and I am in fact the product of such a happy marriage. So please, don't think I meant to imply any insult to homosexuals.

While this is as much an arguable thing, I was actually referring to religious choices, which I know sets me up for just as much of a bullet to the head (especially here where it seems like I've been caught in such shots ever since my arrival). From at least the modern viewpoint, religion is a lifestyle viewpoint, even if one is born into it (and as was the case with Jews in Nazi Germany, labeled a race and unable to remove such a brand from themselves even if they did not associate with the Jewish beliefs).

Once again, I intended no offense to any people in comparing the mutant problem to real world issues, although I certainly will earn much heat for doing so.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I am not angry at you, SOTW....nor did I intend you to look like an insensitive moron....I despise the term "lifestyle choice" when being used in context with being gay/referring to homosexuals.

Dana

[Le Messor]

I am not angry at you, SOTW....nor did I intend you to look like an insensitive moron....I despise the term "lifestyle choice" when being used in context with being gay/referring to homosexuals.
Dana

That's... odd? I've often heard gay people use that term. In fact, it's become a minor cliché for me. If I hear somebody say 'so-and-so might disagree with my... lifestyle choices...' I assume they're gay, and don't want to say it.

That said, I don't, never did, think you chose who you were attracted to. I've known too many Christians who are frustrated over their same-sex attraction to believe you do.

- Le Messor
Wednesday, as an Indian, ad-libbing during a Thanksgiving play:
"Wait. We can not break bread with you. You have taken the land which is rightfully ours. Years from now my people will be forced to live in mobile homes on reservations. Your people will wear cardigans, and drink highballs. We will sell our bracelets by the road sides, and you will play golf, and eat hot h'ors d'ourves. My people will have pain and degradation. Your people will have stick shifts. The gods of my tribe have spoken. They said do not trust the pilgrims, especially Sarah Miller. And for all of these reasons I have decided to scalp you and burn your village to the ground."

[cmdrkoenig67]

Most of the gay folks I know, hate the term.

Dana

[kozzi24]

Part of the problem I have is with Tony Stark...his character has been consistently written over the years, and as stated earlier in the thread, all his choices ALWAYS serve himself and his own agendas best. How different would his side be if he was not currently open about his identity in the MU? The Armor Wars were one example of this, but let's not forget that the man mindwiped the world to protect his identity.

I was disappointed in the lack of Alpha content in the story thus far. Canada enacted a powers registration act, and that should have been mentioned by now. Take the existence of "First Flight", and I would think Stark would have known of this James Hudson guy up North who was working with Canadian Superhumans, and he should have been involved in the Illuminati up until his first death. Afterwards, there could have been enough confusion concerning his identity that he would have been excluded.

[cmdrkoenig67]

All I have to say about any lack of AF content in Marvel books(Civil War included) is.....I expected nothing(If they do appear, I'll be very surprised, maybe delighted...depending on how they're used). AF fans should be very familiar with their favorite heroes being ignored.

Dana :(

Edited for typos

[Ben]

All I have to say about any lack of AF content in Marvel books(Civil War included) is.....I expected nothing(If they do appear, I'll be very surprised, maybe delighted...dependign on how they're used). AF fans should be very familiar with their favorite heroes being ignored.

Dana :(

Oh, don't you worry about AF being involved in civil war.

Ben

[Legerd]

All I have to say about any lack of AF content in Marvel books(Civil War included) is.....I expected nothing(If they do appear, I'll be very surprised, maybe delighted...dependign on how they're used). AF fans should be very familiar with their favorite heroes being ignored.

Dana :(

Oh, don't you worry about AF being involved in civil war.

Ben

Is there something you know? Hmmmmm? :mrgreen:

[Phil]

All I have to say about any lack of AF content in Marvel books(Civil War included) is.....I expected nothing(If they do appear, I'll be very surprised, maybe delighted...dependign on how they're used). AF fans should be very familiar with their favorite heroes being ignored.

Dana :(

Oh, don't you worry about AF being involved in civil war.

Ben

:lol: :lol:

[cmdrkoenig67]

Me worry? Feh...I'm just not expecting anything OR getting my hopes up. :P

Hopefully, Phil will keep us appraised of any AF appearances in this Civil War mess.

Dana :)

[Shaman Of The Whills]

Ben, unless you're sworn to an oath of secrecy in blood, you should totally spill this secret information that you're apparently hiding from us... even if it was in blood, we've got plenty of smart people in here, I'm sure we can find a loophole... but so you're sure they'll be involved in Civil War? Maybe the other long unseen members... but everyone keeps saying to look in the wake rather the wave...

[Phil]

As soon as I see appearances, they'll be listed.
But I'm a day behind most of you, so I imagine I'll be beaten to it :lol:

And as to any info Ben may or may not have been given, if he hasn't shared it with us I'd imagine he's been asked not to, and he's got to respect that.

[Shaman Of The Whills]

And as to any info Ben may or may not have been given, if he hasn't shared it with us I'd imagine he's been asked not to, and he's got to respect that.
Oh yeah, I was mainly just teasing...

I can't see them starting off the series too early anyways... with the context that we've been given (or that we've assumed) right now, it doesn't seem like they'd even have a role in the first two issues. I can't see too much of the actual conflict happening in the first book anyways... especially if it follows the House of M formula of Step 1: Re-introduce all characters and scenarios of the past year, Step 2: Build Suspense Through Dialogue Step 3: Attempt Big Reveal to start series... And issue 2 I think will also still be focused on the big big names anyways.

150th Post!