SHRA : Good or Bad ? (Omega Flight #2 Spoilers)

[Powersurge]

Of course it's Iron man's fault. Liz is just calling him on it. As she said...Canada has had it's own Registration Act for a while now, but the Canadian super heroes never turned on each other, nor did they kill each other because of it. It is Iron man's (and Reed Richards') fault that Giant-Man/Goliath (Bill Foster) is dead, He and Reed created the Thor clone that killed him. They've taken away the freedoms of any hero that opposes them....And it's definitely Tony's/the Registration Act's fault that villains are heading to Canada.

She's only telling it like it is, that Tony and the Pro-Reg "heroes" will do/have done anything to see their goals met and Tony doesn't care who gets hurt or killed in the process. The whole Civil War Pro-Reg mentality is that of a police state, taking away all the freedoms from her citizens and forcing them to conform...All the while stating it's for their own good.

As far as Stamford being the fault of the New Warriors...That is a load of hooey! The New Warriors did not kill the people of Stamford...Nitro did. The same thing could have happened if Iron Man, Ms. Marvel or even Spider-Man had tried to stop Nitro. Nitro's power is to explode and nobody around is safe. If you blame the New warriors for the deaths of the people of Stamford, then you might as well blame the original Captain Marvel for not stopping Nitro in the first place, all those years ago. Nitro has faced Mar-Vell, Spider-Man, Luke Cage, Daredevil and even Iron Man himself...Are they all to blame for Stamford?

Dana

Hogwash. Fearmongering hogwash, that doesn't even begin to acknowledge points that run contrary to the stated beliefs... such as the granting of amnesty to hordes of anti-reg'ers following the final battle.

As for Nitro; what happened with him happened where it happened as a rsult of the NEGLIGENCE of the New Warriors. Just like if a cop engages a fleeing vechicle in a high speed pursuit through a residential area, and someone gets hit, it is as a result of the cops negligence. This is why they are TRAINED to break-off such pursuits, and why they are held responsible if they don't.

Arguements about how the New Warriors are not responsible for Stamford are one of the main reasons why I'm with the Pro-Reg'ers.

And Liz ain't telling it like it is. She fumbled the ball, her friend got hurt and she's looking for someone to blame. Someone who, conveniently enough, is not herself. She is being a complete hypocrit.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Hogwash. Fearmongering hogwash, that doesn't even begin to acknowledge points that run contrary to the stated beliefs... such as the granting of amnesty to hordes of anti-reg'ers following the final battle.

Yes...But only if they register and allow themselves to carted off to an internment/training camp, built on the graveyard that was Stamford...Some amnesty. :roll:


As for Nitro; what happened with him happened where it happened as a rsult of the NEGLIGENCE of the New Warriors. Just like if a cop engages a fleeing vechicle in a high speed pursuit through a residential area, and someone gets hit, it is as a result of the cops negligence. This is why they are TRAINED to break-off such pursuits, and why they are held responsible if they don't.

Please...Do you honestly think that Nitro wouldn't have detonated himself, if the New warriors had backed off? That's a joke. He was there for a reason and his powers were amped for a reason...Tony Stark's hands were in it and the New Warriors were his scapegoats.


Arguements about how the New Warriors are not responsible for Stamford are one of the main reasons why I'm with the Pro-Reg'ers.

And Liz ain't telling it like it is. She fumbled the ball, her friend got hurt and she's looking for someone to blame. Someone who, conveniently enough, is not herself. She is being a complete hypocrit.

She didn't blame anyone outright about Sasquatch...She didn't point a finger at Iron Man and say it was all his fault Sassy got beat up and is now missing. She didn't fumble a ball...And who's to say that she doesn't blame herself? You're the only one who is saying that.

She's also upset, frustrated and angry about the situation, she's bound to vent at somebody. Iron Man was an easy target, that's all. What's hypocritical about that?

Dana

[Powersurge]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.

Liz needs to chill, and get off her high horse. AS things stand she blames the US for offering a helping hand. However, she would blame them just the same for not offering a helping hand.

She should be so noble as to offer a helping hand. Unfortunately, for Sasq, she's not.

I now know who I like less than Pointer.

[DelBubs]

Split from other thread so as not to derail it.
Origin Thread (http://forum.alphaflight.net/viewtopic.php?t=2080&start=90).

[Le Messor]

When I read the thread title, I didn't realise this had #2 spoilers, which I've been avoiding. :(
(My fault. I shouldn't even be here today, I'm wasting time that'd be better spent. I shouldn't be on until Sunday, and by then I should have read #2.)

That said, instead of a topic about Talisman's hypocrisy or not, to answer the thread title:

When I first heard the SHRA, it was 'fair enough'. Superheroes want to arrest criminals, they should be part of an organised law-enforcement agency. I'm totally on board with that.

However, they lost me when Stark arrested Luke Cage. Cage wasn't doing anything but watching TV. He hadn't had a chance to register yet--one minute after the law came into effect, at midnight, before any government office opened, they arrested him.
That's when they lost me, when they started applying it to anyone who simply had powers, rather than those who tried to use them to fight crime.

Enforced by Cloud 9 in The Initiative.

- Le Messor
"Don't be humble, you're not that great."
- Golda Meir

[Dfense75]

The SHRA is a good "idea". However...how its being implemented and executed is inherently unamerican and illegal. When someone uses "powers" there is no trial or due process. They are forced to join the hero army or have their powers removed. Not getting into all the other illegal and possibly treasonous acts that Tony Stark has commited behind the scenes to make this happen SHRA as it is WRONG. If you have ever read the classic X-Men story from the Claremont/Byrne era "Days of Future Past". This is the future of these actions. A military state where actions are taken for the supposed "safety" of the public at the expense of the people they are oppresing. You think its right that Bullseye as horrible a human being as he is has been injected with nanites that will electracute and possibly permanently damage him against his will with no trail? Im sorry but if you dont see that the Marvel writers are using the Initiative and Civil War to give an example of the possible civil liberties we are going to lose over this bull**** war on terror than your blind. The inherent message in the story are that these things are wrong. The writing is on the wall for the Initiative and the SHRA to fail. The best point made so far has been made by Talisman herself. Canada did it right. Not to get to much into R/L politics but I truly envy the mindsight of Canada and their political pratices. America IMO is the next great empire to fall. If my girlfriend didnt hate the cold so much I would have moved north years ago. The foreign policies of my country truly disgust me. Its sad to say but I dont believe the problems will be fixed. The average American is way to comfortable to rise up and speak let alone vote to make true change happen.

[Powersurge]

In regards to the SRA; I support the spirit of the Act, and even moreso the lands and institutions of the West, which allow for the freedom of speech and the ability to challenge, ammend, and if need be overturn laws.

I don't support folks who exercise power over others in order to force those others to obey a system that they are themselves excessively reluctant, even fearful, to bow down to. Nor do I support folks that turn a blind eye to the faults in the system until those faults show up at their own doorstep. I can hear the implicit slogan even as I write this, "Save an Avenger, Kill a mutant".

If the government and the West way of life is so evil and corrupt, it should be overthrown and replaced with something better; although the last time I checked the nations of the West, the U.S.A. included, represent the best in the world... WORTS and all.

And if it doesn't suck so bad, then it is time to get with the program and work within the system to challenge those components that need changing.
This as opposed to being the first to throw a punch or fire a bullet as the prefered method of conflict resolution.

Like virtually everything that exists outside of an ivorytower, the SRA is both good and bad. The system that spawned it however takes for granted that the prototype will not be perfect and that these things take work. It is a democratic system that embodies the will of the people.

And so long as selflessness, as opposed to selfishness, remains the cornerstone of heroism, the people are what it's all about.

[Dfense75]

In regards to the SRA; I support the spirit of the Act, and even moreso the lands and institutions of the West, which allow for the freedom of speech and the ability to challenge, ammend, and if need be overturn laws.

I don't support folks who exercise power over others in order to force those others to obey a system that they are themselves excessively reluctant, even fearful, to bow down to. Nor do I support folks that turn a blind eye to the faults in the system until those faults show up at their own doorstep. I can hear the implicit slogan even as I write this, "Save an Avenger, Kill a mutant".

If the government and the West way of life is so evil and corrupt, it should be overthrown and replaced with something better; although the last time I checked the nations of the West, the U.S.A. included, represent the best in the world... WORTS and all.

And if it doesn't suck so bad, then it is time to get with the program and work within the system to challenge those components that need changing.
This as opposed to being the first to throw a punch or fire a bullet as the prefered method of conflict resolution.

Like virtually everything that exists outside of an ivorytower, the SRA is both good and bad. The system that spawned it however takes for granted that the prototype will not be perfect and that these things take work. It is a democratic system that embodies the will of the people.

And so long as selflessness, as opposed to selfishness, remains the cornerstone of heroism, the people are what it's all about.

I LOVE a good argument. I have to say Powersurge I have alot of respect for people that defend their beliefs to the last. For a democracy to work it truly takes all kinds. If one side where truly right and the other wrong the world would be a simpler place. However...If the world where a simpler place. Opinions would not be challenged and thought provoking conversation would never take place. We as a people, no matter where we are from should be measured as patriots not by how blindly we follow our governments. But how staunchly we challenge them. If we grow complacent than we die. Authority must always be challenged and questioned if we are to grow and evolve. :D

[Powersurge]

And authority should invite such challenge, as we have it in the West, if it is to remain authorative. And while I think that war is a viable option, it is only after all other avenues have been exhausted. The anti-reg's, as a whole, never showed much will to anything other than fight.

As for the "Days of the Future Past"; it might very well be that IM's deeds lead to that scenario.

On the otherhand, it is just as likely that his deeds might have stav-ed it off. If Tnoy and the other pro-reg'ers had of flipped the bird to the U.S. government and people, it wouldn't prove all that difficult for them to begin, if they'd not already, mass production of Sentinels, mandroid battlesuits, and draw on all conventional sources to wage war against the hitherto divided superhero community.

As it is, Stark, who has been said to be well aware of numerous variant futures, brought a higher level of organization, communciation and coordination to the superhero community, a community largely comprised of people with great conscience and strong values, and placed resources at their disposal that are simply mind-boggling.

Now, I'm not saying that just cause this may have staved off the "Days of Future Past" scenario that it won't itself turn of for the worse in the end. It could. Maybe the supers will decide that since all of us normal folk and our ways suck so bad, well, maybe they'll just overthrow our institutions and institute themselves as our ruling elite, using their vast powers to "shepherd" their "herd" in ways both gross and subtle. And for the "herds" own good, of course.

Could happen. Anything could happen. But people of conscience have to act, and they have to act according to what they believe is right. And the ordeal that ensues as we butt heads with other folk, just as conscientious as we ourselves, but with differing beliefs about what is right, well, thats how we improve ourselves, broaden our horizons, deepend our understnadings, correct our mistakes.

Yeehaw!!

[cmdrkoenig67]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.

Believe what you will, Pow...The whole thing was set up to happen...It would have happened, regardless...No joke.


Liz needs to chill, and get off her high horse. AS things stand she blames the US for offering a helping hand. However, she would blame them just the same for not offering a helping hand.

She should be so noble as to offer a helping hand. Unfortunately, for Sasq, she's not.

I now know who I like less than Pointer.

Disliking Liz for having a bad attitude? Probably means you never liked her, huh?

Dana

[Le Messor]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.
Believe what you will, Pow...The whole thing was set up to happen...It would have happened, regardless...No joke.

So, Dana, you're talking from behind the scenes (what Marvel would have made happen) and Powersurge, you're talking in the scene (what would have happened with those people in that scenario) ?

- Le Messor
"Don't eat muffins when I'm developing you."
- Evan, Black Books

[cmdrkoenig67]

As for the SHRA...I can see the positive aspects of it, but the methods used by Tony and Co. to put it into effect were/are monstrously wrong.

Some good points about the Act...

*Training for heroes who really need it.

*Giving heroes the option of actually arresting a villain.

*Enables S.H.I.E.L.D. to gather and mobilize large groups of heroes if the need comes up.

Some bad things about it...

*It's being used to force those who don't want to be super heroes to join their superhuman army.

*It makes the heroes potential targets, more so than before (should their identities be hacked/stolen from SH.I.E.L.D., etc....)

*I don't know about you, but I really don't want my Marvel universe to be patrolled by supercops...It totally defeats the idea of the traditional super hero. What is the point of them continuing to wear their regular costumes even...They might as well be put into some sort of Government-issue uniforms and have badges.

*Gives the government more control over the heroes...That's almost never a good thing.

*It's a massive invasion of privacy for those heroes...The govt. knows the heroes' names, can probably contact them whenever they want to...Would the govt. arrest heroes that don't/can't respond to emergency calls?...What if they're busy getting married, at a funeral, living their normal lives, etc...?

*The Act affords the heroes no more protection, than before...If the hero is ganged up on, can he/she call for back-up? She/he's SOL, if all the other heroes in the area are busy...Does anyone honestly think the government would send somebody to help them? Please....

[DelBubs]

When I read the thread title, I didn't realise this had #2 spoilers, which I've been avoiding. :(


My bad Mik, I should have picked up on that and put a warning in the title. God I feel bad now

Verity: Now I've got to get him to the fish tank and sing.
Husband: Oh.
Verity: (sings) And did those feet, in ancient time...

[Hyperstorm]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.


Except that Nitro was paid and supplied with MGH by Damage Control to blow up Stamford so that Damage Control could rebuild it. He would of blown up Stamford even if the New Warriors weren't there.

[Dfense75]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.


Except that Nitro was paid and supplied with MGH by Damage Control to blow up Stamford so that Damage Control could rebuild it. He would of blown up Stamford even if the New Warriors weren't there.

Very very true. Also a big reason the anti-reg's went directly to fighting is because the registration went directly to hunting them. Another main reason for the anti-registration stance was that they knew the government was corrupt. They knew having ANY government. Let alone the war mongering American goverment should not have a super hero army at its disposal. After M-day America has the single most concentrated population of super beings of any country on the planet. Thats dangerous. Besides recognizing the dangers of giving them an army. They did not want or trust the American government to tell them who their enemies are. The registration side did many illegal and morally questionable actions to obtain their means. Thats what makes them wrong. Alot of the behind the scenes actions of Tony Stark where touched on in Civil War: Frontline. Should Tony have lost Civil War he was going to generate a war with Atlantis to force his army into existence. Creating a war, civilian casualties be damned he was prepared to due. Do the ends justify the means. No they dont. Also read the Illuminati mini series. Its touching on even more that was being done by Tony and the rest of the Illuminati to gain power and control. Iron Man is on his way to being a dictator. He has proven that he thinks that only he is capable of "protecting" the american people and do whatever he needs to to accomplish that. That includes murder, lying, the attemted murder of Hulk(cant wait for him to get back and tear the Illuminati a new one) Hiring and employing mass murders, cloning(which is illegal even though i dont agree with that), encarcerating americans without trial, and having a possible war in his back pocket as a contingency plan. My point is simple I agree with registration in principal. But its underlying goal by the man who is organizing it is less than honest, genuine, and is for his own purposes.

[SephirothsKiller]

The registration act is basically the colonization of American Supers into a second class group which is beholden to the whims of the normal class and is without democratic representation.

[Powersurge]

Well, like I said, if the government and the system it represents is so flawed and corrupt, then heroes should be bent on overthrowing it as opposed to regualrly *forcing* people (other than themselves, of course) to be beholdent to it.

As for an invasion of privacy; if I've said it once I've said it a million times... the right to privacy IS NOT a right to complete anonymity. No one has a right to anonymity.

And the anti-reg heroes chose fighting because that is what they chose, as a reult of believing that they were 100% right and the opposition was 100% wrong, and that the system is, ummm, "inadequette". Not every hero on the pro-reg side wholeheartedly embraced the SRA. She-Hulk comes immediately to mind. And more than a couple of real world folk, who the system was rigged against, worked it any to achieve their end without a hastey resort to violence. Martin Luthor King Jr. springs immedaitely to mind.

As for comparing the pro-reg heroes to an army. Fine. But these are not soldiers that have had obedience to authority drilled into them as a teenager or young adult. As things stand, they're all conscientous individuals, of the rugged variety, who have regularly thought for themselves. Unifying that community doesn't open it to manipulation, it buffers it against it. You don't conquor a people by bringing them into a closer working relationship.

As for the Hulk, well, I really can't believe some of the things I've heard from folks that supported the anti-reg side. Like they can't wait for him to get back to earth, not only to crush the Illuminati, but to teach of the people a lesson as well. Others are sporting sigs saying "Magneto was right".

That would be another reason I'm pro-reg. It's flaws can be sorted out, and the entire act can be overturned. The anti-regs are just anarchists, suspcious of everything and contemputous of the very society they regularly act to uphold.

Finally, as for the moral wrongness of inserting nano'thingies into villains and forcing them to serve; I presume one thinks that depriving a person of their freedom for years on end is moral? Holding a person in bondage is, to my thinking, probably the worst thing you could do to a person. But then, these are heinous villains. What are we supposed to do, send them to club med?

In the end, we could argue this till the cows come home. Both sides have their reasons for taking the side they have. And the reasons of both sides are, IMO, sound. Well, naturally, I think that my reasons are sound. But what I'm saying is that I understand some of the reasons presented by the anti-reg supporters.

[Dfense75]

I said it before...I'll say it again. I LOVE a good debate. Having 2 or more opposing sides arguing their points in a civil manner can be a beautiful thing. Powersurge you have my respect for sticking to your guns. Like you of course I think I'm right as well lol. But kudos for arguing your point well. You have my respect. :D

[SephirothsKiller]

And the anti-reg heroes chose fighting because that is what they chose, as a reult of believing that they were 100% right and the opposition was 100% wrong, and that the system is, ummm, "inadequette". Not every hero on the pro-reg side wholeheartedly embraced the SRA. She-Hulk comes immediately to mind. And more than a couple of real world folk, who the system was rigged against, worked it any to achieve their end without a hastey resort to violence. Martin Luthor King Jr. springs immedaitely to mind.


Except that this argument, that the anti-reg heroes chose violence is completely untrue. Remember how Patriot got busted the first time? He was stopping a robbery. Then the first big fight broke out when the anti-reggers tried to help rescue people except that it was a trap. The anti-reggers only attacked when they were trying to rescue their teammates.

I believe that "the system is inadequette" is a bit of a euphemism when the subject is a person being denied the right to a fair trial and then sent to a place that is known to cause severe mental dementia. A more proper turn of phrase would be "the system is a crime against humanity."

[Manikin]

All valid points, valid rebuttals, each said with conviction and confidence derived from personal belief. Each one drawn from life experiences, religion, patriotism, and favoritism toward our most loved super heroes. Debating a point like this is similar to the debates for or against abortion, for or against capital punishment, for or against stem cell research; the similarity is that these debates never end. We find ourselves circling the same argument about ethics and personal freedom, the detriment of charismatic leadership or the corruption in the higher echelons of our government.
All this aside we are left to accept the decisions that government makes on our behalf. We cast our vote and trust in the ideal that it makes a difference. If that trust is found to be in vain, one is left with the choice to remain complacent or take action. Go against their government and place themselves at odds with people they may have once called friends or even family. Revolutionaries are often lifted up as heroes in hindsight.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

For this reason I don't want to quote or try to refute what someone else may already have said, considering the minuscule percent that might choose to alter their opinion afterwards. I will just say my piece and hope you enjoy it.
The new Warriors were negligent, criminally negligent. By the letter of the law this is true. Vigilantism is not a valid reason for an aftermath of death, in any situation. It's like the Spiderman going after Juggernaut for no other reason than the fact that he was once 'evil' while he is having a BBQ in the backyard, then blaming the big man for all the damage and explosions that result. I feel that the difference between the New Warriors going after Nitro and Ironman going after him is that Stark would have been prepared. His experience, training, and understanding of his enemy making the difference, regardless of if the whole Nitro thing was planed ahead of time. They new full well that Nitro was in that house, Speedball was even warned prior that this was out of their league. They attacked, they endangered lives, they prompted the ensuing destruction. Doctor Doom, the Sentinels, The Master, and multitudes of others, much more powerful than Nitro, have tried to do more than just blow up a few blocks of suburbia. They were stopped because of experienced and training.

Day of Future Past? Bishop is PRO SHRA, what does that say? I think....

I need to stop typing here as it seems to be dragging on and becoming a bit preachy ;) I just love talking about literature. I'll wrap it up.

The SHRA is a valid proposition. It is beneficial for everyone NOT a super hero. I think problem here is that too many people would like to put themselves in the shoes of the heroes, and 'why not?'. That is why we read comics after all, though placing yourself in the shoes of a normal everyday person in a world that is constantly being threatened could change your views a bit. Well, probably more than a bit, a lot more. How many times since the 1960s have the people of this earth been told that it is all going to end because of some doomsday weapon or a giant man-eating monster? I would want to police anything I could with the help of my government.
Was it executed well? I don't think so. But after the registration act was set in stone what should a hero do? The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes to fight this thing instead of creating an underground and escalating the situation. There are always other options. Choosing to subvert the law and go against the authority of your country, even if you are fighting for what is right, makes you are criminal, and in this case it makes you a Super Criminal.

I am PRO Registration.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.


Except that Nitro was paid and supplied with MGH by Damage Control to blow up Stamford so that Damage Control could rebuild it. He would of blown up Stamford even if the New Warriors weren't there.

Thank you, Hyperstorm!

Dana

[cmdrkoenig67]

Yes, I honestly believe that if Namorita DIDN'T tackle Nitro in front of a schoolyard FULL OF CHILDREN, slamming him into a schoolbus, and then proceed to DARE HIM to blow up, he wouldn't have. To imagine otherwise is, to be frank, a joke. And a bad joke at that.
Believe what you will, Pow...The whole thing was set up to happen...It would have happened, regardless...No joke.

So, Dana, you're talking from behind the scenes (what Marvel would have made happen) and Powersurge, you're talking in the scene (what would have happened with those people in that scenario) ?

- Le Messor
"Don't eat muffins when I'm developing you."
- Evan, Black Books

Nope...Nitro was hired by Damage Control to blow the heck out of Stamford and he did...Like I said...He would have blown up anyway, POW!

[cmdrkoenig67]

The anti-regs are just anarchists, suspcious of everything and contemputous of the very society they regularly act to uphold.

Okay...Now that is Hogwash!

Dana

[SephirothsKiller]

The new Warriors were negligent, criminally negligent. By the letter of the law this is true. Vigilantism is not a valid reason for an aftermath of death, in any situation.

Actually, since law is based largely on precedent and there is a huge body of vigilante-superhero precedent in the United States... At the time of action the New Warriors were most likely covered by law, something that would have been demonstrated if they had succeeded. And was demonstrated by the governments unwillingness to give him a fair trial.



I feel that the difference between the New Warriors going after Nitro and Ironman going after him is that Stark would have been prepared. His experience, training, and understanding of his enemy making the difference, regardless of if the whole Nitro thing was planed ahead of time. They new full well that Nitro was in that house,
Except that Iron Man wasn't going after them, like now, he was too entangled in government stuff. If not for Speedball Nitro could have positioned himself strategically to do even more damage. This of course is a main danger of the SHRA, that without flexibility of unregulation things will begin to get past the Heroes, especially with them being all spread out.




The SHRA is a valid proposition. It is beneficial for everyone NOT a super hero.
I personally have never been too into the subjugation of one group of people for the benefit of another. Especially when the subjugation is racist (mutants) and preys on innocent children (Cloud 9.)



The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes to fight this thing instead of creating an underground and escalating the situation. There are always other options.

I've gotta say, "the mark of a true hero would be to fall in line" is something I've never heard before... Anyway, as I've said before, the situation was escalated not by the anti-reggers, but by the pro-reggers. Their "underground" was really equivilent to safe houses, meanwhile the pro-reggers were hiring supervillains to take out unregistered heroes.



Choosing to subvert the law and go against the authority of your country, even if you are fighting for what is right, makes you are criminal, and in this case it makes you a Super Criminal.


"Super Criminal" is being used in this instance to evoke emotion. Anyway, that's really the point isn't it? If a country is imposing laws that demolish its moral authority to rule then its up to "Criminals" such as Ghandi and other "law breakers" (the entire French Revolution for example) to take a stand.

[Manikin]

Anyway, that's really the point isn't it? If a country is imposing laws that demolish its moral authority to rule then its up to "Criminals" such as Ghandi and other "law breakers" (the entire French Revolution for example) to take a stand.
It is. Which prompts me to point to what I said about Revolutionaries being lifted up as heroes in hindsight. Your points about Speedball and his actions can be argued until the 'cows come home', but what the New Warriors should have done was call in for help instead of trying to do it on their own.
I look at the Speedball issue, and the idea of Registration in general, from a much broader standpoint. The idea of a person owning a rocket launcher for example. Owning it is one thing. Deciding to use it to fight crime and causing a fair amount of destruction in the process is the problem. (Hence why the Punisher is looked at as a criminal and a murderer, even by other heros) The SHRA is not asking people with powers to burn a barcode into their foreheads, but is taking the utmost precaution in keeping their true identities secret. It gives them the choice to either stop using their powers to 'fight crime' and become members of normal society, or to join Shield and become authorized crime fighters. I think flaging them as 'second class citizens' is a little over the top in this situation.
The underground made themselves criminals by disregarding this new law and continuing to 'fight crime'. Regardless of what they were doing when they were attacked by the Pro-reg'ers, the PR's were vindicated by the law they were enforcing.

Do I agree with the SHRA as a whole? No. But 'falling in line' is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. As someone already pointed out, She-Hulk comes to mind. She will register and join shield so that she can continue to be a hero, but she will continue to fight the SHRA until it is dissolved. In the end, they are not asking heros to do anything more than they would ask an illegal alien who enters the US; register for a greencard. If they don't, they are criminals, regardless of how they live their lives as an illegal alien.

[SephirothsKiller]

The SHRA is not asking people with powers to burn a barcode into their foreheads, but is taking the utmost precaution in keeping their true identities secret. It gives them the choice to either stop using their powers to 'fight crime' and become members of normal society, or to join Shield and become authorized crime fighters.

But that isn't true. They're drafting anybody who wants to use their powers or even has them. Cloud 9 wasn't fighting crime, she was just flying, and yet suddenly she's in the military? I have other points to make on nuances of the issue, but I won't. The reason I don't think "fighting from the inside" is all that practicle is because people like She-Hulk may disagree but they are also being kept completely out of the power loop, and their fighting is doing nothing, just as it would do in real life.

It is up to the subjugated portion of the population (this isn't as communist as it sounds) to take a stand up en-masse and demand their rights, by herself She-Hulk is completely inneffective, something shown by her being yanked around in the Baldwin case. If there was room for dialogue on the issue my take on the SHRA would be different, but I don't feel that there is. (They're Hiring Nazi's!!) (P.S. Personally though, I would have preferred a non-violent demonstration/sit-in outside a registration office rather than the course taken)

[Manikin]

It is up to the subjugated portion of the population (this isn't as communist as it sounds) to take a stand up en-masse and demand their rights, by herself She-Hulk is completely inneffective, something shown by her being yanked around in the Baldwin case.

I will say that I think you are missing my point. I did not say that She-Hulk would singlehandedly bring an end to the SHRA. Imagine however every anti-reg hero standing up and fighting this through proper channels. I am also sorry, but either I have never read, or heard about, heroes being drafted into Shield against their will. So I cannot remark about Cloud9.

[Dfense75]

This is not anyones fault. There is alot of reading of multiple titles to get all the facts. I eluded to this earlier. But...the direction this is going in is that it is not going to work. The whole point to all of it is to show why taking away civil liberties will lead us down a path that we dont want to go down and that that path could be our possible downfall.

[SmurfInABlender]

the real question is how long do we think this will last before it is overthrown in a different cross-promotional thingy

[Dfense75]

the real question is how long do we think this will last before it is overthrown in a different cross-promotional thingy

That is the million dollar question.

[Powersurge]

It is up to the subjugated portion of the population (this isn't as communist as it sounds) to take a stand up en-masse and demand their rights, by herself She-Hulk is completely inneffective, something shown by her being yanked around in the Baldwin case.

I will say that I think you are missing my point. I did not say that She-Hulk would singlehandedly bring an end to the SHRA. Imagine however every anti-reg hero standing up and fighting this through proper channels. I am also sorry, but either I have never read, or heard about, heroes being drafted into Shield against their will. So I cannot remark about Cloud9.

Marvel seems to have been back and forth on the entire "universal" draft idea throughout CW. As I originally understood it, only those wishin to exercise their powers in a public capacity, namely crimefighting, would be subject to draft, while those that chose to not exercise their powers, or otherwsie remanied off the "radar", would be left alone.

That's nothing new of course. Atthe beginning of CW it was said that Canada had it's own SRA overturned, but now with OF we've suddenly had an SRA all along... which as apparently worked beautufllu and never turned any of us Canucks against each other. Our heroes don't fight each other, we don't illegally abducted and experiment on them, we don't make clones, or try to force anyone into service. We don't do any of those things that those evil Marvel Americans do. ;-)

But yeah, I am vaguely aware of Cloud9 and her fellow recruits.

Regarding the SRA and those heroes opposed to it; it seems worth mentioning that no one was labelled Anti-Reg at the time the Act was passed. This is a label they all earned by virtue of their deeds and reaction. They could have chosen to cooperate, and pursued the matter throug the same avenues any of us non-superpowered, non-sociopathic people would have to, and leave rebellion as a last resort. Pro-Reg heroes in the very inner circle of it all were freely expressing doubt and dissent, and no one was trying to crush or silence them for it. In contrast, Captain America himself raged like a fanatic the moment doubt was expressed in his own faction, declaring that they haven't a clue about freedom... seeming to imply that true freedom was only gained through subjagation to Cap's vision and worldview, as opposed to exercising one's own judgment and having one's own opinions and ideas.

Anyway, a concerted effort made by a unified superhero community to oppose the SRA in a meaningful and acceptable manner was entirely viable at the outset. And they could have mustered all of the resources of society to oppose the Act, including their own intelligence network. Andmost of all, the option for violence would still have been there if none of it had worked out.

At the very least the anti-reg camp could have had a less polarized view of the affair, and kept the door open for the residents of the Middle Yard to work their magic.

Of course, demonstrations and legal proceedings don't make for good comicbooks. Superhero battles make for good comicbooks. And in the end, while I respect the climes that some people are living under, including the writers of CW, it's just a comicbook to me. Anyway, I would have liked to see some middle grounders from both sides adding depth to the story and working together to moderate the conflcit and work for a true resolution while all of the single minded knuckleheads did what knuckleheads do. I would have liked to see more honour amongst them, more respect for the opposition... all of whom should have known better than to try and villify the other.

[Dfense75]

It is up to the subjugated portion of the population (this isn't as communist as it sounds) to take a stand up en-masse and demand their rights, by herself She-Hulk is completely inneffective, something shown by her being yanked around in the Baldwin case.

I will say that I think you are missing my point. I did not say that She-Hulk would singlehandedly bring an end to the SHRA. Imagine however every anti-reg hero standing up and fighting this through proper channels. I am also sorry, but either I have never read, or heard about, heroes being drafted into Shield against their will. So I cannot remark about Cloud9.

Marvel seems to have been back and forth on the entire "universal" draft idea throughout CW. As I originally understood it, only those wishin to exercise their powers in a public capacity, namely crimefighting, would be subject to draft, while those that chose to not exercise their powers, or otherwsie remanied off the "radar", would be left alone.

That's nothing new of course. Atthe beginning of CW it was said that Canada had it's own SRA overturned, but now with OF we've suddenly had an SRA all along... which as apparently worked beautufllu and never turned any of us Canucks against each other. Our heroes don't fight each other, we don't illegally abducted and experiment on them, we don't make clones, or try to force anyone into service. We don't do any of those things that those evil Marvel Americans do. ;-)

But yeah, I am vaguely aware of Cloud9 and her fellow recruits.

Regarding the SRA and those heroes opposed to it; it seems worth mentioning that no one was labelled Anti-Reg at the time the Act was passed. This is a label they all earned by virtue of their deeds and reaction. They could have chosen to cooperate, and pursued the matter throug the same avenues any of us non-superpowered, non-sociopathic people would have to, and leave rebellion as a last resort. Pro-Reg heroes in the very inner circle of it all were freely expressing doubt and dissent, and no one was trying to crush or silence them for it. In contrast, Captain America himself raged like a fanatic the moment doubt was expressed in his own faction, declaring that they haven't a clue about freedom... seeming to imply that true freedom was only gained through subjagation to Cap's vision and worldview, as opposed to exercising one's own judgment and having one's own opinions and ideas.

Anyway, a concerted effort made by a unified superhero community to oppose the SRA in a meaningful and acceptable manner was entirely viable at the outset. And they could have mustered all of the resources of society to oppose the Act, including their own intelligence network. Andmost of all, the option for violence would still have been there if none of it had worked out.

At the very least the anti-reg camp could have had a less polarized view of the affair, and kept the door open for the residents of the Middle Yard to work their magic.

Of course, demonstrations and legal proceedings don't make for good comicbooks. Superhero battles make for good comicbooks. And in the end, while I respect the climes that some people are living under, including the writers of CW, it's just a comicbook to me. Anyway, I would have liked to see some middle grounders from both sides adding depth to the story and working together to moderate the conflcit and work for a true resolution while all of the single minded knuckleheads did what knuckleheads do. I would have liked to see more honour amongst them, more respect for the opposition... all of whom should have known better than to try and villify the other.

In New Averngers #22 the story was as follows. Literally minutes after the SHRA was approved. Luke Cage was sitting in his apartment. Not fighting crime Not being a vigalante. Shield Agents simply attacked him in his home in Harlem simply based on the idea that he MIGHT refuse. So YES as soon as the act was passesed heroes where labeled as anti-registration before any action was taken on their part. I should have mentioned this example earlier. But I honestly can think of a better example as to how corrupt and wrong the SHRA is. They where herded up and coralled based on the opinions of Tony Stark. Excuse that

[SephirothsKiller]

It is up to the subjugated portion of the population (this isn't as communist as it sounds) to take a stand up en-masse and demand their rights, by herself She-Hulk is completely inneffective, something shown by her being yanked around in the Baldwin case.

I will say that I think you are missing my point. I did not say that She-Hulk would singlehandedly bring an end to the SHRA. Imagine however every anti-reg hero standing up and fighting this through proper channels. I am also sorry, but either I have never read, or heard about, heroes being drafted into Shield against their will. So I cannot remark about Cloud9.

But your point basically hinges upon "the anti-reg people are wrong, therefore the pro-reg people are right" however regardless of the reactions of the anti-reg people, everything the pro-reg people did was wrong. If every anti-reg here "fought through proper channels" they would still be battling against a law that was wrong. (See Dfense's example for some Pro-Reg wrongness.)

Also: She Hulk was drafted against her will. She didn't fight it but she certainly didn't want it.

[Transmetropolitan]

[Regarding the SRA and those heroes opposed to it; it seems worth mentioning that no one was labelled Anti-Reg at the time the Act was passed.

Tell that to Maria Hill. (In my opinion, the REAL villain of the whole thing)


Anyway, a concerted effort made by a unified superhero community to oppose the SRA in a meaningful and acceptable manner was entirely viable at the outset. And they could have mustered all of the resources of society to oppose the Act, including their own intelligence network. Andmost of all, the option for violence would still have been there if none of it had worked out.

No. Captain Amercia was fired upon by SHIELD agents before the law was even enacted, simply because he expressed doubts about going after trusted and respected colleagues.

Is it any wonder he started having flashbacks to the days of stomping SS?

[Manikin]

But your point basically hinges upon "the anti-reg people are wrong, therefore the pro-reg people are right" however regardless of the reactions of the anti-reg people, everything the pro-reg people did was wrong. If every anti-reg here "fought through proper channels" they would still be battling against a law that was wrong.

If you note in my posts, like most of the PR heroes, I also express doubt toward the SHRA. It isn't that I think you are still missing my point, but more than I have a rather scatterbrained way of thinking and writting. Segways and Non-Sequitors abounding. ;)

The idea of the PRs or the ARs being wrong or right is kind of a strange idea. The SHRA is wrong in many ways and right in many ways. The stuff that happened to Cap and Luke Cage were a little hard to swallow for me, it kinda ruined much of my faith in the SHRA as a whole. My main point, after all this muckity-muck, is that once the law had been passed there was little that anyone could do to stop it. Best they flee to Canada where it is SANE. I think Cable had the right idea by allowing anyone who wanted to, the option to seek refuge in his country. I just have a hard time swallowing the idea that creating an underground is the answer so soon after the act has been passed.

Some of you may think that I have a sort of blind faith in the SHRA. That isn't the truth, I disagree with the way it was handled, and executed. The way that the heroes were imprisoned, they way Reed became a mad scientist, the way everyone reacted to Goliaths death at the hands of the Thorbot. Bleh....

[Powersurge]

Tell that to Maria Hill. (In my opinion, the REAL villain of the whole thing)

I don't buy that. To be sure, Maria Hill handled many things very poorly, but I am inclined to agree her her appraisal of the situation... that she was put in the position of Director of SHIELD precisely so she would handle things poorly and fail. She is the perfect scapegoat.


No. Captain Amercia was fired upon by SHIELD agents before the law was even enacted, simply because he expressed doubts about going after trusted and respected colleagues.

Is it any wonder he started having flashbacks to the days of stomping SS?

But the fact remains that the pro-regs didn't have a list that seperated one group from another, and drawing on two isolated examples, Cap and Cage, really just points back to the general lack of trust in the system. A system that, prior to CW, these same heroes forced others to be beholdent too and regularly upheld.

I'm not excusing the actions taken against camp, which seemed to be designed for the specific purpose of forcing Cap into the Anti-Reg camp. And likewise Cage. All I'm saying is that the actions taken against them were taken against them, specifically, for reasons specific to them, and were not applied across the board to any and every potential Anti-Reg'er.

Like I said in a previous post, the voice of conscience and dissent was free and at work in the very heart of the Pro-Reg camp. And it was nowhere to be found amongst the Anti-Reg'ers.

And in the spirit of what Manikin said, I'll repeat that when it comes right down to it, I am less a supporter of the SRA, though I believe in the gist of it, and more a supporter of Western democracy and the avenues it presents for conflict resolution. And it is of course easy to say that conventional avenues of challenging the law wouldn't have worked, when the fact of the matter is that no concerted effort was ever made to work the system. How long did it take King Jr.? Was he a freeman during his entire campaign? Was the system not rigged against his cause?

King fought the good fight, in a highly respectable manner, affirmative of the society he wished to join, and didn't concern himself with all of the reasons he and his had to take up arms. The man had faith and courage.

[Barnacle13]

My issue with this whole Civil War/Pro Reg/Anti Reg mularky is this.... Why prosecute so vehemently superheroes who are trying to make the world a better place. Wouldn't those same efforts be much better placed ferreting out child molestors and kidnappers, rapists, murderers, extortionists, etc. America has registration acts on the books for sex offenders, but I guarantee the police/government know where only a fraction of these psychopaths are. Why not do some real good and bring them to justice before they kidnap and murder another child? Just seems like a lot of effort to restrict a group of individuals that help rather than hurt society as a whole. Place the focus where it's useful. Register known supervillains? OK that may have merit. Registering heroes though just seems counterproductive.

[Dfense75]

Tell that to Maria Hill. (In my opinion, the REAL villain of the whole thing)

I don't buy that. To be sure, Maria Hill handled many things very poorly, but I am inclined to agree her her appraisal of the situation... that she was put in the position of Director of SHIELD precisely so she would handle things poorly and fail. She is the perfect scapegoat.


No. Captain Amercia was fired upon by SHIELD agents before the law was even enacted, simply because he expressed doubts about going after trusted and respected colleagues.

Is it any wonder he started having flashbacks to the days of stomping SS?

But the fact remains that the pro-regs didn't have a list that seperated one group from another, and drawing on two isolated examples, Cap and Cage, really just points back to the general lack of trust in the system. A system that, prior to CW, these same heroes forced others to be beholdent too and regularly upheld.

I'm not excusing the actions taken against camp, which seemed to be designed for the specific purpose of forcing Cap into the Anti-Reg camp. And likewise Cage. All I'm saying is that the actions taken against them were taken against them, specifically, for reasons specific to them, and were not applied across the board to any and every potential Anti-Reg'er.

Like I said in a previous post, the voice of conscience and dissent was free and at work in the very heart of the Pro-Reg camp. And it was nowhere to be found amongst the Anti-Reg'ers.

And in the spirit of what Manikin said, I'll repeat that when it comes right down to it, I am less a supporter of the SRA, though I believe in the gist of it, and more a supporter of Western democracy and the avenues it presents for conflict resolution. And it is of course easy to say that conventional avenues of challenging the law wouldn't have worked, when the fact of the matter is that no concerted effort was ever made to work the system. How long did it take King Jr.? Was he a freeman during his entire campaign? Was the system not rigged against his cause?

King fought the good fight, in a highly respectable manner, affirmative of the society he wished to join, and didn't concern himself with all of the reasons he and his had to take up arms. The man had faith and courage.

By western democracy. Do you mean taking over 3rd world countries and putting in our own leaders for our own purposes under the pretense that we are protecting our own citizens and the rest of the world? Im sorry I hate to open this can of worms. But...We dont live in a democracy anymore. Our foreign policies are a joke and the rest of the world looks at our foreign policies as self serving and greedy. Americas need to sustain its middle class is bleeding the world dry of oil and causing us to go to war with oil rich countries to sustain our decadent way of life. Anyway...Maria hill did have a list. In Civil War #1 right before they open fire on Cap. She tells cap they have an idea of who is going to sign and who isnt. She asks cap the odds of beating the Anti-regs. Sounds like they had war planned from the begging.

[Transmetropolitan]

Exactly.

She pretty much orders him to head up the Gestapo, and hunt down those who won;t sign.


Ah, Civil War.... when the voices of reason are Wolverine and Ben Grimm, you're in DEEP trouble.

It didn't help that Marvel never gave us a copy of the actual legislation.

It's kinda hard to debate the merits of a law that we don;t even have the specifics of.

I agree with the intent of registration, make no mistake.

But the tactics which were used in trying to force it down the throatrs of the unwilling struck me as excessive.

Prodigy, for example. How much of a threat was he, really? Did Tony REALLY need to cut loose on him?

It's over-the-top tactics like that that send a message that could easily scare off fence-sitters.
It's as if Marvel is hellbent on having the SHRA fail.

[SephirothsKiller]

It didn't help that Marvel never gave us a copy of the actual legislation.



But then they couldn't dick around the story as much now could they? :wink: I might change my position if I had a copy of a law which seemed reasonable. But I don't, so I won't.

[Powersurge]

By western democracy. Do you mean taking over 3rd world countries and putting in our own leaders for our own purposes under the pretense that we are protecting our own citizens and the rest of the world? Im sorry I hate to open this can of worms. But...We dont live in a democracy anymore. Our foreign policies are a joke and the rest of the world looks at our foreign policies as self serving and greedy. Americas need to sustain its middle class is bleeding the world dry of oil and causing us to go to war with oil rich countries to sustain our decadent way of life. Anyway...Maria hill did have a list. In Civil War #1 right before they open fire on Cap. She tells cap they have an idea of who is going to sign and who isnt. She asks cap the odds of beating the Anti-regs. Sounds like they had war planned from the begging.

Having an idea of who will sign and who won't sign is alot different than having a list. And having a list, and even a battle plan to take down potential offenders, is alot different than labelling the people on that list as criminal prior to the fact.

And why ask Cap about stuff they, presumably, already knew? "Who won't sign?" "The lonewolfs and those that work close to the streets." " So, no one you can't handle." "What?!"

I'm not reading some grand design into those questions.

As for Western Democracy; I am refering to just that, the free democracies of the West, American *included*. The places that don't order their lives based on codes authored over a thousand years ago, and where laws can be challeneged, ammended and/or overturned. The places where you don't wind up dead in a ditch for voicing one's disapproval with the establishment or a particular law. The places that have freed people from slavery, granted women their rights, allowed people the freedom to practice their religion and culture, and the places that regularly invite people from the far flung corners of the world to come and share in the prosperity. The places unlike any other on the face of the Earth.

And the last I checked, not many people in America or elsewhere in the West are all that willing to give up their cars, cut down on their use, fly less, buy local, or at all abandon the sense of entitlement that creates the demand for the things the "evil government" is trying to provide for.

Our way of life and standard of living in the West has a cost. And the reality is, as much as we might deplore that cost, we can't have it both ways.

If a Yank doesn't like Bush and his foreign policies, it is a simple matter to vote him and his party out at the next election; or is he out by defaulty after this term? Anyway, the democratic west, unlike other areas of the world, where the only way a person leaves office is if they are dragged out kicking and screaming after much bloodshed and at the point of a gun.

[Dfense75]

A simple matter of voting him out huh? LOL yeah we all know how well that voting process works when hes involved LOL. The America your describing Im sorry to say is long gone. Invite people far over the world to share in prosperity? Maybe 50 years ago. If you havent been following what Bush is trying to do with immigration than maybe you should. We are hardly welcoming people into this country ATM. Freed people from slavery? Yes slavery doesnt exist anymore. But if I recall it wasnt without going to war over it. They where not jumping for joy about giving up their slaves and where willing to have a Civil War over it. As for as the way of living we are viewed across the world as greedy and wasteful. There is a reason we use more resources than our population needs and are the most over weight nation in the world. Are you aware of the percentages of the worlds oil that we use? Its ridiculous. Your outlook on the Maria Hill conversation Cap is a little blind. We never saw the "list" But come on you dont think SHIELD had one. They went after a heroes such as Luke Cage minutes after the law was in place when they had not even broke the law or where given a chance to sign up. Its not your fault you have read all the Civil War stuff. There was alot. But if you dont see there was an agenda than your just not seeing. It was a directive and a violent one at that. A shining example of Americas all to common practice of Pre-Emption with the excuse thats its to protect its people. If Luke Cage was just sitting in his apartment not breaking the law. What was SHIELD protecting us from? The possibilty of him breaking the law? Yeah they just picked his name out of hat. Im sure they didnt have it planned. Its coincidence that as soon as it turned midnight the day the SHRA went into effect they where at his home guns blazing. Yeah im sure his name was not on a list. It was like in World War 2 what america did. Rounding up the Japanese on suspicion that they might be sympathizers and putting them into camps. Guess what we are doing that now in real life again. Alot of American citizens of middle eastern decent are/where being held without trial on the basis of suspicion that they are Al-quaida. Wake up. Joe Quesada himself has said they are using this story to show whats going on is WRONG. The act is corrupt, the Marvel universe government is corrupt, and if your reading all of the Initiative books you can see thats its not going to work and that its all going to fall apart. Thats the point of the whole story. To show how American Civil liberties are disappearing in out country. It has been stated as so publicly. So smell the coffee and not what Iron Man and SHIELD have been shoveling. Your defending a point that is doomed to fail because it was intended to fail from the beginning.

[cmdrkoenig67]

If a Yank doesn't like Bush and his foreign policies, it is a simple matter to vote him and his party out at the next election; or is he out by defaulty after this term?

Well...This is his last term (he can never be prez again, thank God!)...However, Bush was made president the first time dishonestly(which sums up pretty much his entire 8 years as president), he didn't win the election...But we were still stuck with him. I really don't know why he won the second time...I didn't vote for him in either election (I actually have some brains in my head).

I pray that a Democrat is elected next year...Barring any more Republican shennanigans.

Dana :P

[cmdrkoenig67]

A simple matter of voting him out huh? LOL yeah we all know how well that voting process works when hes involved LOL. The America your describing Im sorry to say is long gone. Invite people far over the world to share in prosperity? Maybe 50 years ago. If you havent been following what Bush is trying to do with immigration than maybe you should. We are hardly welcoming people into this country ATM. Freed people from slavery? Yes slavery doesnt exist anymore. But if I recall it wasnt without going to war over it. They where not jumping for joy about giving up their slaves and where willing to have a Civil War over it. As for as the way of living we are viewed across the world as greedy and wasteful. There is a reason we use more resources than our population needs and are the most over weight nation in the world. Are you aware of the percentages of the worlds oil that we use? Its ridiculous. Your outlook on the Maria Hill conversation Cap is a little blind. We never saw the "list" But come on you dont think SHIELD had one. They went after a heroes such as Luke Cage minutes after the law was in place when they had not even broke the law or where given a chance to sign up. Its not your fault you have read all the Civil War stuff. There was alot. But if you dont see there was an agenda than your just not seeing. It was a directive and a violent one at that. A shining example of Americas all to common practice of Pre-Emption with the excuse thats its to protect its people. If Luke Cage was just sitting in his apartment not breaking the law. What was SHIELD protecting us from? The possibilty of him breaking the law? Yeah they just picked his name out of hat. Im sure they didnt have it planned. Its coincidence that as soon as it turned midnight the day the SHRA went into effect they where at his home guns blazing. Yeah im sure his name was not on a list. It was like in World War 2 what america did. Rounding up the Japanese on suspicion that they might be sympathizers and putting them into camps. Guess what we are doing that now in real life again. Alot of American citizens of middle eastern decent are/where being held without trial on the basis of suspicion that they are Al-quaida. Wake up. Joe Quesada himself has said they are using this story to show whats going on is WRONG. The act is corrupt, the Marvel universe government is corrupt, and if your reading all of the Initiative books you can see thats its not going to work and that its all going to fall apart. Thats the point of the whole story. To show how American Civil liberties are disappearing in out country. It has been stated as so publicly. So smell the coffee and not what Iron Man and SHIELD have been shoveling. Your defending a point that is doomed to fail because it was intended to fail from the beginning.

Well said, Dfense! I agree...In a way, a similar thing was done with the Mutant Registration Act years ago...Showing that it was not all good (as the government would have their citizens believe)...That it was racial-profiling and it could even possibly lead to the easy extermination (or nearly so) of the mutant race.

The SHRA is just as dangerous as the Mutant Reg Act...A nice list of potential targets (for villains/Hydra/A.I.M./or maybe even a corrupt S.H.I.E.L.D. itself), their real names and where to find them/how to contact them.

Dana

[Powersurge]

Okay. Maybe America really does suck. We Commonwealth'ers freed slaves without the need for a war. And if we end up with a terd as PM, it generally falls on us, the people, despite the fact that we have a screwed up voting system here in Canada, with votes split between multiple parties that often leaves a party in power that doesn't have the majority of the population backing it... just a majority vote, eg. 33% for one, 30% for another, and the remaining 47% split between all of parties.

As for the resources your average American uses; I suppose the government is forcing them? I'd presume that your average American, like your average Westerner, enjoys his/her lifestyle, and would probably be screaming government oppression if said government ever sought to infringe upon their freedom and right to excess. Have you cut back on your consumption?

As for Cage and the SRA; why was it just him? Why not every hero they had a tag on?

Probably because Cage is powerful and fairly well known, ie. a potential figurehead.

And the fact is that existing laws were drafted with a nonsuperpowered population in mind. Moreover, most of the anti-regs were people that wanted to go on fighting crime. They just wanted to do it however they saw fit with no strings attached and with complete anonymity.

If you can't see how a large group of incredibly and unnaturally powerful people, operating however they see fit and existing entirely outside for the loop of accountability is a dangerous thing, than perhaps it is you who simply can't see.

[Transmetropolitan]

As for Cage and the SRA; why was it just him? Why not every hero they had a tag on?

Perhaps he was a potential figurehead- but he's also a potential martyr, since his identity was hardly secret. He was probably just really easy to find.

[cmdrkoenig67]

And the fact is that existing laws were drafted with a nonsuperpowered population in mind. Moreover, most of the anti-regs were people that wanted to go on fighting crime. They just wanted to do it however they saw fit with no strings attached and with complete anonymity.

If you can't see how a large group of incredibly and unnaturally powerful people, operating however they see fit and existing entirely outside for the loop of accountability is a dangerous thing, than perhaps it is you who simply can't see.

Oh for cripes' sake, Pow...Remember, we're talking about comics here.

Dana

[Powersurge]

Oh for cripes' sake, Pow...Remember, we're talking about comics here.

Dana

I tend to agree, but as the saying goes, "whats good for the goose is good for the gander". Discounting the possiblity of a double standard, I'd presume you didn't read the post I was responding too?

[Powersurge]

As for Cage and the SRA; why was it just him? Why not every hero they had a tag on?

Perhaps he was a potential figurehead- but he's also a potential martyr, since his identity was hardly secret. He was probably just really easy to find.

No doubt. He was also directly named by Cap in his conversation with Hill as one of those most likely to resist the law. He is likely the most powerful and high profile of the general group identified by Cap as well, ie. lonewolves and those that work close to the street.

[DelBubs]

As for Cage and the SRA; why was it just him? Why not every hero they had a tag on?

Perhaps he was a potential figurehead- but he's also a potential martyr, since his identity was hardly secret. He was probably just really easy to find.

No doubt. He was also directly named by Cap in his conversation with Hill as one of those most likely to resist the law. He is likely the most powerful and high profile of the general group identified by Cap as well, ie. lonewolves and those that work close to the street.
So cutting through all the jargon, he was targetted for what he had the potential to become and for what he might do ? Working to that standard shouldn't every one with a gun and every mother with a kitchen knife be locked away?

[cmdrkoenig67]

Oh for cripes' sake, Pow...Remember, we're talking about comics here.

Dana

I tend to agree, but as the saying goes, "whats good for the goose is good for the gander". Discounting the possiblity of a double standard, I'd presume you didn't read the post I was responding too?

Well....Your post immediately follows mine with no quote, so I thought you were responding to my post. Who were you responding to, if not me?

Dana

[Powersurge]

So cutting through all the jargon, he was targetted for what he had the potential to become and for what he might do ? Working to that standard shouldn't every one with a gun and every mother with a kitchen knife be locked away?

You mistake me. I'm not saying that it was right. What I'm saying is that what happend to Luke Cage was specific to him, and that the pro-reg forces didn't boot in the door of every potential anti-reg'er as soon as the law came into effect.

[Powersurge]

Well....Your post immediately follows mine with no quote, so I thought you were responding to my post. Who were you responding to, if not me?

Dana

As far as the jibe went, I was responding to Dfense75.

[Dfense75]

So you saying its ok for someone to be arrested and fired upon because they might, maybe, possibly do something? Hurm...

[Le Messor]

When I read the thread title, I didn't realise this had #2 spoilers, which I've been avoiding. :(

My bad Mik, I should have picked up on that and put a warning in the title. God I feel bad now

No big. They weren't huge spoilers. Can the admins change the title?


Verity: Now I've got to get him to the fish tank and sing.
Husband: Oh.
Verity: (sings) And did those feet, in ancient time...

Now do Bohemian Rhapsody!


Well, like I said, if the government and the system it represents is so flawed and corrupt, then heroes should be bent on overthrowing it

That's a bit extreme, isn't it?


Not every hero on the pro-reg side wholeheartedly embraced the SRA. She-Hulk comes immediately to mind.

Don't know about her, but it really bothered me how divided everybody became and how quickly. I would imagine a few people saying 'I support reg, but I won't hunt down my friends and I certainly won't betray them'. Instead, I saw a bunch of 'they're anti-reg, I'm pro reg, I'll treat them like villains.'
(You say pretty much the same thing in a later post. Yay, we agree!)


As for comparing the pro-reg heroes to an army. Fine. But these are not soldiers that have had obedience to authority drilled into them as a teenager or young adult.

I take it you haven't been reading The Initiative?


Holding a person in bondage is, to my thinking, probably the worst thing you could do to a person.

Depends on the type of club you hang around in...


In the end, we could argue this till the cows come home.

Better yet, I'll argue with the cows, and you go home. (Sorry, bit of Marxist humour there.)


The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes to fight this thing instead of creating an underground and escalating the situation.

What do you think of Robin Hood? Rosa Parks? Oscar Schindler? Jesus Christ?

Some would say the mark of a true hero is to stand up for what's right, regardless of the wrong around him / her.


It gives them the choice to either stop using their powers to 'fight crime' and become members of normal society, or to join Shield and become authorized crime fighters.

Wrong. That's the theoretical application, the version I support. The actual application is: it gives them the choice to either stop using their powers at all or join SHIELD. Regardless of age. (See Cloud 9 or Power Man).


an illegal alien who enters the US;

Who chooses to enter the US. We're talking about people who were born there, who are legit citizens, then suddenly somehow end up with powers. Rarely by their own design.


Ah, Civil War.... when the voices of reason are Wolverine and Ben Grimm, you're in DEEP trouble.

LOL!


The places where you don't wind up dead in a ditch for voicing one's disapproval with the establishment or a particular law.

Tell that to Goliath!
Oh, wait, you can't. He's dead in a ditch for voicing his disapproval with a particular law. In America.


If a Yank doesn't like Bush and his foreign policies, it is a simple matter to vote him and his party out at the next election;

Wow, you really haven't been paying attention, have you?
You really think it's that simple? I'd vote in the next US election if it was! (Difficult, but possible.)
That's why I don't believe in democracy. (Don't believe in: here, it means not 'don't approve of' but 'don't think it exists'.) Once every few years, they parade a couple of losers in front of us, neither of them remotely qualified to lead a boy scout troupe, and tell us to choose which one should run our country. Then they tell us to be really happy we live in a land of free choice.


If you can't see how a large group of incredibly and unnaturally powerful people, operating however they see fit and existing entirely outside for the loop of accountability is a dangerous thing, than perhaps it is you who simply can't see.

Which is exactly why I supported the SHRA--right up until the moment I saw it enacted for the first time. (Luke Cage).


- Le Messor
"Um, Quagmire, shouldn't 'country' have an 'o'?"
- Peter Griffin

[Powersurge]

[quote=Powersurge]Well, like I said, if the government and the system it represents is so flawed and corrupt, then heroes should be bent on overthrowing it


That's a bit extreme, isn't it?

Obviously I don't think that it is extreme... if indeed the government and system are so corrupt. But in your opinion what would be more moderate, given that situation?


As for comparing the pro-reg heroes to an army. Fine. But these are not soldiers that have had obedience to authority drilled into them as a teenager or young adult.


I take it you haven't been reading The Initiative?

I've read a couple of issues. But hows about all of the issues of all of the titles that preceded CW; filled to the brim with veteran heroes that are not soldiers that had obedience to authority drilled into them from an early age.


The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes to fight this thing instead of creating an underground and escalating the situation.


What do you think of Robin Hood? Rosa Parks? Oscar Schindler? Jesus Christ?

Some would say the mark of a true hero is to stand up for what's right, regardless of the wrong around him / her.{/quote]

And others would say that the mark of a true hero is SELFLESSNESS and a willingness to sacrifice of one's self, and particularly what one would rather not give up, for the wellbeing of others, and not "me, me, me, me".

[quote=Powersurge]The places where you don't wind up dead in a ditch for voicing one's disapproval with the establishment or a particular law.


Tell that to Goliath!
Oh, wait, you can't. He's dead in a ditch for voicing his disapproval with a particular law. In America.

Hehe. Golaith was hardly "voicing his disapproval". He was willling combatant and died in a battle instigated by his leader who initiated said battle with a blatant rejection of IM's attempt at parley.

Of course, we could always tell it to the folk of Stamford. Or any of those who must have been killed or injured, had all of their worldly possessions destroyed in pointless, muscle-flexing hero vs. hero battles that preceded CW. None of them were combatants, willing or otherwise, and all of them represented the very people true heroes are willing to give up their health, their lives, and their very reputations in order to protect.

But no, the system is good enough when it comes to the average citizen or criminal. It's good enough when it comes to mutants. But hey, once it knocks on the door of the poor superheroes, all of them so weak and incapable of defending thesmselves, it becomes evil incarnate. Me, me, me.

Oh, and democracy isn't supposed to be easy. But pray tell, what would be both easier and better?

[Le Messor]

if the government and the system it represents is so flawed and corrupt, then heroes should be bent on overthrowing it... Obviously I don't think that it is extreme... if indeed the government and system are so corrupt. But in your opinion what would be more moderate, given that situation?

Moderate and effective? I don't know. Passive resistance? Signing up for the SHRA, but refusing to enforce it? (Not hunting down your friends, for example.) What Cap did--be forced underground by the law, and fight from down there, with no intention of overthrowing the government?



As for comparing the pro-reg heroes to an army. Fine. But these are not soldiers that have had obedience to authority drilled into them as a teenager or young adult.

I take it you haven't been reading The Initiative?
I've read a couple of issues. But hows about all of the issues of all of the titles that preceded CW; filled to the brim with veteran heroes that are not soldiers that had obedience to authority drilled into them from an early age.

I misread your original intent. You're basic'ly saying the pro-regs haven't been brainwashed, not that they aren't now soldiers.



The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes to fight this thing instead of creating an underground and escalating the situation.

What do you think of Robin Hood? Rosa Parks? Oscar Schindler? Jesus Christ?
Some would say the mark of a true hero is to stand up for what's right, regardless of the wrong around him / her.
And others would say that the mark of a true hero is SELFLESSNESS and a willingness to sacrifice of one's self, and particularly what one would rather not give up, for the wellbeing of others, and not "me, me, me, me".

And I would be one of those 'others'. (Which is part of why I hated v2 so much.) I think all the examples above are people who gave up what they wanted for others (maybe not Rosa?)--but they did it by disobeying the law, not by sheeping into it. Which is my point:
'Hero' does not mean 'person who obeys the law'.
And "The mark of a true hero would be to fall in line and take the proper routes" is just plain wrong.


The places where you don't wind up dead in a ditch for voicing one's disapproval with the establishment or a particular law.


Golaith was hardly "voicing his disapproval". He was willling combatant and died in a battle instigated by his leader who initiated said battle with a blatant rejection of IM's attempt at parley.

Okay, I can agree with your distinction. But the next person who uses the word 'parley' is in for such a fonging!


Of course, we could always tell it to the folk of Stamford. Or any of those who must have been killed or injured, had all of their worldly possessions destroyed in pointless, muscle-flexing hero vs. hero battles that preceded CW.

Good point.


But no, the system is good enough when it comes to the average citizen or criminal. It's good enough when it comes to mutants. But hey, once it knocks on the door of the poor superheroes, all of them so weak and incapable of defending thesmselves, it becomes evil incarnate. Me, me, me.

LOL!
I don't think the system is particularly good...


Oh, and democracy isn't supposed to be easy. But pray tell, what would be both easier and better?

... which doesn't mean I have anything better. Just that this one isn't particularly good.
Oh, and what democracy? I don't see any democracy around here?
The SHRA sure ain't it.

- Le Messor
"Don't LOOK at anything in a physics lab; don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab; don't SMELL anything in a biology lab; don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab; and, most importantly, don't LISTEN to anything in the Philosophy Department."

[Le Messor]

I've gone away and thought about this. What I came up with:

(I just noticed the spoiler's in the title now! Yay!)

Super Human Registration Act model 1:
"If people want to fight crime, they must be trained and licenced."
Super Human Registration Act model 2:
"We will round up everybody with superpowers to put them in the SHIELD superhuman army."

model 1 is what Stark offered the Marvel Universe.
model 2 is what he gave them.

Pow, I think you and me both agree with and fully support model 1.

Where we differ is model 2. You seem to be saying: 'model 1 is good, therefore the SHRA is good, therefore any variation on it is good. Therefore, model 2 is good. Because that's what we've got, and it's law!' (Speak the last in whispered tones of reverence.)

Which I completely, totally, and in all other ways disagree with.

Further, you seem to be saying 'It's great that Western democracy gives us a system where we're allowed to disagree with a single law, even vocally. If a law isn't good, we can just magically vote it out of existence. Those who disagree with the SHRA must, in all conscience, overthrow the government.'
You keep saying that in democracy it's okay to disagree with one law. But when we answer the question in this thread title--'Is the SHRA good?' with 'no', you seem to think that from there, we MUST rebel against the government.
Which I'd call a contradiction. If democracy works, overthrowing the system for one bad law isn't the answer. Even if, in good conscience, you can't obey that law.

and

'If they supported the system before the SHRA, they're hypocrites for not supporting it now.'
The system changed, not them.
The pre-SHRA system wasn't rounding up groups of people and throwing them in jail / training camps for no reason. (Unless the MU government was doing it to Arabic citizens--in which case, I doubt the superheroes supported that.)

Further:
I've been talking to somebody recently, who's about to become a missionary in Uganda. She plans to provide councilling to kids. Their problem?
They've been stolen (aged 8-12) by a rebel army, forcefully recruited to their cause. The soldiers initiate them by making them witness death--preferably of people close to them. They pass them guns and teach them to be killers / soldiers.

The Initiative #s 1 & 2:
Cloud 9, about 16 (?) is flying. Nothing more. Just flying.
She gets surrounded by soldiers (in battlesuits), taken off to a training facility where she connects with a guy--then sees him get his brains blown out. An issue later, she kills. (She's passed a gun and shoots a plane out of the sky, and gets shocked when she realises the pilot didn't parachute out.)

Do you wonder where the writers got their inspiration?

Is this wonderful democracy you love so much?
Maybe they should rebel. Not because there's one law they don't support, but because the whole damn system is out of line! It's Chinatown, Marge, Chinatown!

- Le Messor
"That's not America! That's not even Mexico!"
- Homer

[Dfense75]

True patriots dont blindly follow their cause or government. True patriots question their authority and the reason for its actions. BTW Powersurge. The citizens of Staford DONT want the heroes in their state or city. Iron Man said we will honor their dead by building a base and an army on the site where their children died. If your reading the Initiative you will see citizens protesting the army, the base, and before he was shot Captain America's incarceration. Little known fact about King George Bush...It is every legal Americans right to protest anything. When ever King George shows up to do a speech or appearence. There are always protestors. At every single one. Wanna know why you dont seem them on TV. Cause he illegaly has them moved a few blocks away or out of camera site so they are never showed on camera. After his first election where he didnt win but won anyway. There is the induction ceremony. Because of the travesty that was commited in the Florida vote his limo was pelted with eggs, trash, and vegetables. But...cause he didnt want that to be seen. He made sure cameras where not televising it. Wanna know what his first act as president was. The rest of the worlds nations where trying to pass an act (forgive me if im spelling it wrong). The Kyoto act. This act was to begin a world wide movement to control polution and resource consumption. Guess who the only world leader was that said no? You asked earlier what I personally do to help things. The answer as much as I can. I drive a hybrid, recycle pretty much anything in my house that can be, Use energy effecient lightbulbs, always vote, actively protest when something in my area happens, and have on thanksgiving and christmas my girlfriend, myself, my best friend and his mother have helped at local soup kitchens. Hope that answers your question. I believe in democaracy with every fiber of my being. The things that are going on in my country are disgusting and dispicible. It saddens me when I think of the road it is going down. I said it before and Ill say it again. Joe Quesada and the writers at Marvel created the Civil War story to show the changes in America and why they are bad. Iron Man is their figure head for oppresion for one reason. Who better to represent coporate America than Tony Stark. Througout its history comics have done what they can in their own way to speak about the state of things in this country. It was HUGE in world war 2, very prevelent in the 1960s, and again currently. The whole point of the strory is that what they are doing is wrong. The SHRA is gonna fail and thats the message. I commend you for defending your point. But you need to know more of the facts about the character and his actions your defending. Because he is quite simply...wrong.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I agree with Dfense and Le Messor. Heroes don't always follow the law and laws aren't always right or just, nor are they always carried out in a fair manner (as was the case throughout CW).

Powersurge, I don't believe that Captain America or any of the other anti-reg heroes were thinking of only themselves in Civil War (in regard to your "me,me,me,me" statement), anymore than the Pro-Reg side was...If anything, both sides seemed to be thinking "Us, us, us, us!"

...And


You mistake me. I'm not saying that it was right. What I'm saying is that what happend to Luke Cage was specific to him, and that the pro-reg forces didn't boot in the door of every potential anti-reg'er as soon as the law came into effect.

No, but as was already stated, S.H.I.E.L.D. forces attacked Captain America BEFORE the law went into effect, when they discovered he would oppose it. Two heroes were attacked...One before the law became the law and one after, for no reason other than hearsay.


And the fact is that existing laws were drafted with a nonsuperpowered population in mind. Moreover, most of the anti-regs were people that wanted to go on fighting crime. They just wanted to do it however they saw fit with no strings attached and with complete anonymity.

If you can't see how a large group of incredibly and unnaturally powerful people, operating however they see fit and existing entirely outside for the loop of accountability is a dangerous thing, than perhaps it is you who simply can't see.

I think most heroes try to be careful about harming innocents and even letting innocents fall into harms way, but they aren't perfect, they never will be perfect...Even with training, somebody is likely to get hurt. A law will not prevent injuries and possible deaths when a villain wants to kill.

As far as heroes wanting to operate free of strings and with complete anonnymity, why shouldn't they?...You do know what a super hero is, right? I mean, as opposed to a super cop, super fireman or a super soldier?

Dana

[Powersurge]

Pow, I think you and me both agree with and fully support model 1.

Where we differ is model 2. You seem to be saying: 'model 1 is good, therefore the SHRA is good, therefore any variation on it is good. Therefore, model 2 is good. Because that's what we've got, and it's law!' (Speak the last in whispered tones of reverence.)

No. That' not what I'm saying. It's always best to let a person speak for themselves rather than putting words into their mouth. If you are unclear about what someone is saying, one might be inclined to ask for clarification.

Now, what I'm saying is that model 1 is good. And while model 2 is significantly less than ideal we can effect changes in the law via the avenues democracy leaves open to us. The term Civil Disobedience springs to mind. I hardly mean that one single person can magically vote it out of existence or force it into a more acceptable form.

There is nothing magical about it. It's not easy. Was Martin Luther King Jr's path easy? Hardly. But he did what he needed to do to effect change. He devoted his life to his cause, he died for his cause, and even when imprisoned he continued his work from behind bars... working the system.

I don't know where folks, folks who have grown up in democracies and therefore should know something of the history of democracies, get this "easy" and "magical" stuff from. It takes work. It doesn't happen over night. And it's never about what one group, or one person wants.

As for overthrowing the government; if it really is filled to the brim with corrupt officials, if the system is really so ineffectual, then there really is no other answer... save learning to live with rampent corruption and ineptitude.

Sure, there are other measures one could take to effect change, but what you and yours are saying is that it would have been pointless, not worth trying, and a complete waste of time, so lets have a war... but not overthrow the government(?!?!). Thats messed up logic, that adds to the problem.

It's also messed up morality, when these heroe have been upholding the system and forcing others to be beholdent to it all along.

And NO ONE has a right to operate without strings or with complete anonymity. THAT leaves the door wide open to abuse. The very type of abuse which, despite the fact that the SRA had the backing of the people, the anti-regs are accusing the pro-regs of.



Cloud 9, about 16 (?) is flying. Nothing more. Just flying.

So, I suppose anyone who is able to pilot an aircraft, like a small single engine aircraft, should have the right to just take off and fly wherever they want, whenever they want? You make it sound so innocent, and likely there is ill-intent, but it still sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Which is why protocols and regulations exist regardng flying.


Not because there's one law they don't support, but because the whole damn system is out of line!

Which was the point I was trying to make. If they feel the entire system is out of whack, then by all means take off the gloves. If the entire system is not out of whack, and it is just one law, than a true and responsible person is OBLIGED to WORK THE SYSTEM. King did it. A black man. A pacifist. Without super-powers, and entirely lacking the resources of the superhero community. He's life kinda makes the anti-regs look like a buncha crybaby chumps.

[Dfense75]

ROFL she wasnt flying a plane. She was flying on self generated clouds.

[Le Messor]

If you are unclear about what someone is saying, one might be inclined to ask for clarification.

I was unclear... That's actually what I was trying to do. I should have put a question mark on the end or something. Instead, I just enforced the word 'seem'.


Now, what I'm saying is that model 1 is good. And while model 2 is significantly less than ideal we can effect changes in the law via the avenues democracy leaves open to us.

Fair enough.


The term Civil Disobedience springs to mind.

I'd say that's exactly what's going on. And that's what you seem to be opposing? question mark, clarify your position?


I don't know where folks, folks who have grown up in democracies and therefore should know something of the history of democracies, get this "easy" and "magical" stuff from.

In this case, from:


If a Yank doesn't like Bush and his foreign policies, it is a simple matter to vote him and his party out at the next election;



As for overthrowing the government; if it really is filled to the brim with corrupt officials, if the system is really so ineffectual, then there really is no other answer... save learning to live with rampent corruption and ineptitude.

And I'm saying that the heroes are facing one single law that's bad, and that it affects them directly. To leap from that to 'the government is filled to the brim with corrupt officials' and must be overthrown is a bit of a stretch.
Of course, we've all been learning to live with rampant corruption and ineptitude for quite some time. :?


Sure, there are other measures one could take to effect change, but what you and yours are saying is that it would have been pointless, not worth trying, and a complete waste of time, so lets have a war... but not overthrow the government(?!?!).

I'm saying the SHRA as implemented (model 2) is bad. Nothing more. I'm not saying anything about the anti-regs and their activities.
I support their disobedience to the law--just as I support every person who hid jews in Nazi Germany (also a democracy, btw.)


It's also messed up morality, when these heroe have been upholding the system and forcing others to be beholdent to it all along.

I've already answered that. The system they've been upholding and the one they're now disobeying are not the same system.
They largely came from a similar source (the US government), but they're not the same system.

Have the heroes ever upheld the law? We're talking vigilantes here.
I'd say they've always been more interested in justice than law. In which case, they're being consistent.


And NO ONE has a right to operate without strings or with complete anonymity. THAT leaves the door wide open to abuse.

I agree, and that's why I support model 1.



Cloud 9, about 16 (?) is flying. Nothing more. Just flying.
So, I suppose anyone who is able to pilot an aircraft, like a small single engine aircraft, should have the right to just take off and fly wherever they want, whenever they want?

Flying without a lodged flight plan in regulated airspace is certainly the excuse IM's stormtroopers used for capturing her.
However, when a pilot does so, what's the penalty? A warning? A fine? Loss of license (I doubt that on a first offence, but I really don't know).
Her punishment was to be immediately taken away and locked in bondage to the army. I don't know what they do to pilots, but it ain't that.


You make it sound so innocent, and likely there is ill-intent, but it still sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

It was innocent. She was doing nothing more than taking joy in her ability to fly. Wouldn't you?


Which was the point I was trying to make. If they feel the entire system is out of whack, then by all means take off the gloves.

And my point is, the entire system isn't out of whack. There's one bad law. Iron Man is out of whack. SHIELD is out of whack.
That doesn't mean the entire US government is. Not for that, anyway.


If the entire system is not out of whack, and it is just one law, than a true and responsible person is OBLIGED to WORK THE SYSTEM. King did it.

King was a follower of somebody who worked against the system. Somebody who made all the officials at the time very angry. Until they finally gave him the worst form of capital punishment their Great Nation had, a form so bad no citizen of that empire was made to undergo it.
Robin Hood worked outside the law. Not to overthrow the King, for he was loyal to Richard Lionheart, but against a single corrupt official with too much power.
Rosa Parks refused to obey a racist law, and sat at the front of the bus.
Oscar Schindler disobeyed the 'turn in all jews' law in his democratic country.

The anti-regs aren't doing anything much different to the above. They're not robbing anybody, but they're disobeying an unjust law.

- Le Messor
"I have come not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it."
- Jesus Christ

[Powersurge]

Sorry for not quoting here Le Messor, but it's taxing on one's time.

Regarding civil disobedience; the anti-reg's were NOT engaging in civil disobedience... the operative word in the phrase being *civil*. That means you actively oppose a law through disobedience to it, but you remain civil in your actions, ie. do not resort to violence.

Afterall, are we to resort to violence every time we are faced with a unjust law and the system seems rigged against us? Should pot smokers for instance, put down their pipes long enough to organize an underground and take up arms against the government? More poignantly, what about anti-abortionists? According to their values, the state is sanctioning murder. The murder of children! And some of their ilk have engaged in violence as a result, but what has that done for their cause? Nothing but bad.

As for Schindler, we've touched on this in this debate over on the Classic Marvel rpg site. Schindler didn't engage in visible opposition to the Nazi regime... which was ushered in in a democracy, but wasn't a democracy in and of itself. When I voiced the issue of being part of the "loyal opposition" and/or working against the SRA from the inside, I was accused of being everything from a fascist to gutter trash. Apparently, if you're not flipping the establishment the bird and firing bullets at them, you are one of them.

As for flying; I would certainly want to be free to fly, but I would also recognize the potential hazard that could cause. I certainly would not want to be drafted into the military as a result... unless of course I desired to use my powers in a public capacity, specifically to fight crime, as the majority of the anti-regs (but admittedly not Cloud9) wanted to.

That would be one of my beefs with the implementation of the SRA. Forcing people with no inclination for it into service. However, forcing those who are clearly inclined, and to the point that you can say they've made a career of it, is another matter all together.

While I realize the position Cap was virtually forced into (unlike the majority of anti-regs who simply "fell into line"), I can only imagine the change he of all the heroes could have brought about if he hadda been a part of a "loyal opposition"... organizing the community, raising consciousness, calling in favours, gathering intelligence, networking with reporters, drawing upon all of his vast resources and exercising his enormous influence.

I tend to think that this is why the powers that be dealt with Cap, aboard the SHIELD helicarrier, the way they did.

In the end, I'd would rather "fall into line" myself and work this thing from the inside, with all of the privelege that brings with it, rather than shut myself out and start a fight. And like I said before, if push came to shove, and all civil lines of disobedience were exhausted, the oppurtunity (and justification) for violence would still be there.

The option of violence is always there. No need to rush to embrace it.

[Le Messor]

Sorry for not quoting here Le Messor, but it's taxing on one's time.

Cool. And understood.


Regarding civil disobedience; the anti-reg's were NOT engaging in civil disobedience... the operative word in the phrase being *civil*. That means you actively oppose a law through disobedience to it, but you remain civil in your actions, ie. do not resort to violence.

I don't think either side wanted the war. I think both ended up pushed into it by the actions of both sides.
The stage they're at now is what I'd call the Civil Disobedience stage; not the war itself.


Afterall, are we to resort to violence every time we are faced with a unjust law and the system seems rigged against us?

I'll keep that suggestion in mind for next time. :twisted:


More poignantly, what about anti-abortionists?

A good example.
However, my point has always been 'The SHRA is bad'; not 'The Civil War is good'. When I agree with what the anti-regs are doing, it's now, post CW, not during.


working against the SRA from the inside,

I'm not sure if I've ever known the 'work against the' (insert evil here) 'from the inside' to work. It seems to turn the workers evil instead; they have to make more and more compromises to stay on the inside, until they're the problem.
(Of course, I don't actually know any real life examples.)

If it works, it's one technique. Another is disobeying an unjust law.


I was accused of being everything from a fascist to gutter trash.

Sorry to hear that. Bad debating there.


unless of course I desired to use my powers in a public capacity, specifically to fight crime, as the majority of the anti-regs (but admittedly not Cloud9) wanted to.

To be fair to you, you've made me realise we don't actually *know* her motives for flying. She seemed to only want to fly, but we don't know that's what she was doing.
OTOH, neither does Stark. Whatever her motives, he drafted her into military service (when she's below voting age) simply for flying in the wrong place.


However, forcing those who are clearly inclined, and to the point that you can say they've made a career of it, is another matter all together.

And we've always more or less agreed about that side.


I tend to think that this is why the powers that be dealt with Cap, aboard the SHIELD helicarrier, the way they did.

And what does that tell you about them? ;)


In the end, I'd would rather "fall into line" myself and work this thing from the inside, with all of the privelege that brings with it, rather than shut myself out and start a fight.

That's your style, and your welcome to it. I'd use violence as a last resort, too, but I would like to think I wouldn't obey an unjust law.
When I imagine myself in the MU, as a superhero, trying to figure out what side I'm on, I always imagine myself siding with IM. I wouldn't betray my brothers in arms, but I'd side with him.
Right up until Luke Cage's arrest.
At that point, I'm at Cap's door, signing on with his side.

(Then, in the comics, things got out of hand, and they ended up with a war, which wasn't anybody's intent.)

- LM
"Don't say, "They're just words," because words are all we have."
- Sally Maud Robertson

[Powersurge]

An example of some working from the inside would be Schindler to name one. Admittedly, his falling inline was merely a facade, but it was precisely that facade, the presumption that he was an "insider", and thus afforded all of the priveleges of a priveleged insider, that enabled him to save all the people he saved.

Other examples include King Jr., those who opposed slavery within the Commonwealth, the various champions of women's rights, etc.

Anyway, whenever I imagine myself as a Marvel superhero, I imagine myself as my namesake here, Powersurge. And I don't necessarily side with IM, or even so much the SRA, as I do with the system... and more importantly, with the people.

On the Marvel rpg site I was asked what Powersurge would do if he found himself in a situation similar to Cap's at the outset of CW. Now, Cap is not Powersurge. And Powersurge has the ability to detonate on the scale of the largest of cenventional bombs. So, in reply I said that I would first try to bluff Hill... "we ARE going to be reasonable here Ms.Hill. You know as well as I that it's in your best interest. You want me on side, I'm on side. I implore you to keep me there."

Of course, as Powersurge was a former member of the former U.N Project: Protectors, it may be that Hill would be privy to his psyche analysis, et al. and so would realize that Powersurge wouldn't nuke the Helicarrier, no matter what, or would be otherwise prepared to deal with him.

That being the case, Powersurge would submit himself to arrest. Sucks to be me.

Of course, Powersurge is not Cap and so probably wouldn't find himself in that specific situation. He'd probably end up as your typical pro-reg. Somethings he wouldn't tolerate, such as the use of the slang "Cape-killers". That crap would have to be stowed in short order.

But what Powersurge would focus on is, yes, enforcing the law, meeting former friends and peers in honourable combat if need be, and then using his own contacts and influence, with various heroes and officials, to conduct a secret investigation of the power/s behind the SRA, and openly challenge those elements that were clearly immoral.

If Powersurge were somehow forced into the anti-reg camp, he would not get all fanatical like Cap. He would want to leave room for the middlegrounders to interact, cooperate, and work their magic. none of this, "you're changing sides?!?! Pfft, you don't have a clue as to freedom!!"

Of course, Powersurge was at the center of his very own "Stamford Incident" long before there even was a Stamford Incident; having nuked several blocks of his home city the night his powers first manifested. Thus, he has alot on his conscience, and is probably even more open to the idea of a specifically Mutant Registrtation than your typical mutant. Afterall, if only... if only someone had have known what he was capable of. If only something was in place to help people like him control their powers. If only... <sob>

[Dfense75]

Captain America and Powersurge is no comparison. Not as a person and not as a hero. Cap was not acting "fanatical" he was acting as a patriot. Because he wears the mantle "Captain America" doesnt mean he is a mindless drone that does what his government tells him. He has realized in the pass and realized during Civil War that the actions being taken where by a corrupt government. THAT is why was he led the rebellion. The SHRA is inherently un-American. In the past he has rebelled against his own government because they where corrupt and or wrong and he did it again. Again you havent read all the material so you dont know the all the facts. Nick Fury quit SHIELD and went underground to prepair for all this because he realized what was about to happen. In New Aengers prior to Civil War the team realized there was something "rotten in Denmark" going on in the government. They new if they registered they would be forced into acting as their puppets for their purposes. When all this was first discovered they where investigating into the manner not initiating conflict toward SHIELD or the Amereican government. As they got closer and closer to the truth BAM!! Civil War happened. SHIELD had their excuse to go after the ones that where gonna expose them and discover the TRUTH. Captain America believes in American ideals. He would not and did not lay down and sell out because a corrupt organization told him to. He new the consequences of their actions. He didnt like it but he new what he had to do was the right thing to do. If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

[Powersurge]

If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

If you're telling me that someone that devoted their life to defending people, and risked his life to safeguard the planet on more than one occassion is no hero at all, then you obviously don't have a clue what a hero is.

And it is precisely opinions like that, regarding people like that, that mark Cap and many an anti-reg as a fanatic. Cheers!

[Damien]

If you think this thread is long:
http://herochat.com/forum/index.php/topic,119410.0.html

[cmdrkoenig67]

If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

If you're telling me that someone that devoted their life to defending people, and risked his life to safeguard the planet on more than one occassion is no hero at all, then you obviously don't have a clue what a hero is.

And it is precisely opinions like that, regarding people like that, that mark Cap and many an anti-reg as a fanatic. Cheers!

Wrong...And that's not what he said, Pow. He's saying a hero would not sell out just to follow the law, especially one that is being used to oppress and harm people. Whatever a hero did in the past or continues to do, means nothing if that "hero" sells out and becomes a thug/grunt/good little soldier for the federal government...It taints everything he is and was.

Dana

[Powersurge]

No, not wrong. A hero doesn't become a villain because someone, including another hero, disagrees with his/her choices. Nor does service to a recognizable authority make one a villain or a thug.

Villifying the oppostion on the other hand, because you happen to disagree with their choices, or their employer, or thier willingness to operate within the circle of accountability, thats another matter altogether.

Likewise, chosing violence as the first option, and attempting to rationalize how it is the "only" viable course of action, without even having the courage to try to pursue other options, that also is another matter.

It might be nice if we lived in a world of absolutes. Fortunately, we don't. And it is entirely possible for equally good and heroic people to exist on either side of a conflict. Sorry. It's not all "angels" and "devils". And those who try to colour every disagreement that way are generally revealed for what they are by the time all is said and done.

[DelBubs]

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

[Dfense75]

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

ROFL thats twice DelBubs. Between the pointer dog and that you have me rolling

[Powersurge]

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

And of course, everyone on the Pro-Reg side is a carbon copy of Iron Man, right? You know, Iron Man not being the pro-reg hero in question and all.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Nobody has stated it's all black and white, Pow.

Dana

[cmdrkoenig67]

No, not wrong. A hero doesn't become a villain because someone, including another hero, disagrees with his/her choices. Nor does service to a recognizable authority make one a villain or a thug.

Um...In this particular case...Yes, it does. your character would be joining a group who is attempting to coerce others to sign/join something they believe is wrong...Trying to force others to conform and do something against their will...Sounds wrong to me. This was the majority of the heroes too (against the Reg Act), you know?


Villifying the oppostion on the other hand, because you happen to disagree with their choices, or their employer, or thier willingness to operate within the circle of accountability, thats another matter altogether.

Likewise, chosing violence as the first option, and attempting to rationalize how it is the "only" viable course of action, without even having the courage to try to pursue other options, that also is another matter.

Pow...The Anti-Reg group were on the run...And sought as criminals...How are they supposed to react? Let themselves be arrested and put into the Negative Zone prison with no trial? What are their other options again?


It might be nice if we lived in a world of absolutes. Fortunately, we don't. And it is entirely possible for equally good and heroic people to exist on either side of a conflict. Sorry. It's not all "angels" and "devils". And those who try to colour every disagreement that way are generally revealed for what they are by the time all is said and done.

As I said above...Nobody has said that everything is black and white.

Dana

[Powersurge]

How were they supposed to react? Ummm, like heroes maybe? Not everyone of them were in Cap's position, or Luke Cage's. And there are plenty of options for those with both the personal integrity and moral courage to at least make the attempt.

And like I (also) said before, there is a huge difference between supporting or not supporting one single piece of legilsation, in a vast body of legislation, and not supporting the system and the people. Or do you break out the guns every time you disagree with a law or a policy?

In the end, I side with the folks that don't have their blinders on, who allow for dissent and who don't colour the heroic oppsition as villains just because they can't appreciate any pov other than their own.

If the SRA doesn't last in MU, it clearly won't be because of the existence of an underground outlaw resistence whose biggest beef is that they, like EVERYONE else, have no right to anonymity, and can't do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. It will be because of loyal opposition.

Oh, and law enforcement is rarely about individual consent. And it is very often precisely about forcing people to do what they don't want to do, ie. obey the laws of the land. Should the law thus be done away with? If so, then alot of people should get really comfortable with being forced to do what they don't want to. They should get really, REALLY, used to it.

[Barnacle13]

And like I (also) said before, there is a huge difference between supporting or not supporting one single piece of legilsation, in a vast body of legislation, and not supporting the system and the people. Or do you break out the guns every time you disagree with a law or a policy?


Seems Iron Man and his cronies are the ones breaking out the guns. The problem is there is really no middle ground to stand on. You either register or protest and invite a fight. Where do you draw the line between hero and superhero? Say I create a robotic suit that allows me to save folks from burning buildings, should I have to register because I choose to do good works with my creation? I can currently call Crime Stoppers or the Police anonymously to help solve a crime, so what's the difference? Superheroes just stick their neck out a little further than the normal citizen and put their lives on the line. And sure innocents may be endangered, but they cuyrrently are when the police do the job also. Many people are killed during high speed chases every year. I guess the argument is a police officer can't knock down a building, but they can't hold one up either!

It would be interesting to see what China is doing while the US is forming an army of superheroes. Hopefully Marvel will show more than just what is going on in the US and Canada.

[Powersurge]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest. In doing so you send the message that you do support society, you don't place yourself above the people or the law, but that certain articles and/or the implementation of a specific law is unjust. And you get heard and taken seriously.

As for having to register just to do good works; if you want to serve the public then yes, you have to register. Or should we trust any ol'Joe who wants to peform surgery on us, investigate the murder of a loved one or a break-and-enter, or shuttle people about on a plane they are driving, and a home made plane at that?

If you place yourself within a position of public trust, then you must be accountable... and to a far greater degree, not lesser, than your average citizen. And just to be fair, you really should be educated in proper situational protocol, what to do and what not to do in various situations, to protect both yourself and the public. This is something that would have greatly benefitted the New Warriors, not to mention the people of Stamford, immensely.

And sure, police officer can't either knock down a building or hold one up, but he/she can be held accoutantable for the mistakes he/she makes in or out of the line of duty. They're also not all that likely to engage in shootouts with each other in densely packed urban centres.

And just for the record, there is no line between hero and superhero. A hero is a hero is a hero. The lack or addition of superpowers don't hero make or break a hero, anymore than job title does.

[Transmetropolitan]

And just for the record, there is no line between hero and superhero. A hero is a hero is a hero. The lack or addition of superpowers don't hero make or break a hero, anymore than job title does.

Ah, but according to the SHRA, there IS a difference.

[cmdrkoenig67]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest. In doing so you send the message that you do support society, you don't place yourself above the people or the law, but that certain articles and/or the implementation of a specific law is unjust. And you get heard and taken seriously.

What comic does this "middle ground" action appear in? So far, all I've seen is that all the reg'd heroes get pressed into service/drafted into the government's super-army. Those who don't join end up being treated in pretty much the same fashion as the anti-reg'd heroes. Arachne ended up signing, but was shipped to Canada. Several heroes that could be considered veterans of many battles have been shipped to the Stamford concentration/training camp along with many newbies to be "trained" (apparently "killed off one-by-one" is a more apt description of what's happening there).

Dana

[DelBubs]

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

And of course, everyone on the Pro-Reg side is a carbon copy of Iron Man, right? You know, Iron Man not being the pro-reg hero in question and all.
Who leads the Pro-Reg side and who supported him, "I was only obeying orders" went out as a defense during the Nuremburg Trials if memory serves.

Government for the people by the people is part of the constitution iirc. It is the duty of every person to question the decision of their government, by allowing, you agree. As soon as one persons rights are stamped on for the greater good (?????) then the people who allow it are just as guilty.

"There is a saying... which many of us have heard since we were school children... "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied -- chains us all, irrevocably."" (J L Picard 'The Drumhead')

I've used this comment before to make a point, but I think it also applies here as well.

[Barnacle13]

Also, if you take this blind acceptance path, then the USA never exists in the first place. It remains a colony of Great Britain, Spain, France, and others. If the American colonists had not revolted in the face of "tyranny and unfair legislation" it would be a much different world today. So, pay the Stamp Tax, but ***** about it and eventually Great Britain will hear. Quarter the soldiers of the government that it treating your unfairly, but complain and the problem will fix itself. Pay for the Tea even though it's being taxed without any chance for you to refute it, things will be OK once you write a letter of formal complaint. I know the argument sounds absurd, and the comparison might be a bit over the top, but it's not that great of a stretch. Our country went to war with Great Britain to right those wrongs many years ago, so why is wrong now to oppose the government? If the law if unjust oppose it. Does it have to be violent opposition? Absolutely not! But when a heavy handed government gives you little choice revolution is imminent. Ask King George III, pissed off Americans tend to revolt against oppression.

[Powersurge]

I really think that it should be glaringly obvious by now that I'm not advocating blind acceptence.

And while the writers of CW didn't give much attention to the middle ground, it clearly existed on the side of the pro-regs. To reiterate, the voice of dissent was clearly alive and well in the pro-reg camp... in the VERY HEART of the pro-reg camp. And She-Hulk publically opposed the SRA as a registered hero, without being shipped off to any kind of camp.

And yet the anti-reg supporters are so disillusioned, one might even say so morally lazy, that because such things didn't produce immediate results, and posed many obstacles and challenges to success, that they felt that that path wasn't even worth the effort.

And speaking of the "first link being forged"; it was Cap that attempted to censor and all to willingly alienated those that didn't see things specifically his way.

[SephirothsKiller]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest.

Nope.

Registered superheroes work for SHIELD, a military organization. It is illegal to protest or oppose any military organization which one is a part of. This path would lead to court marshaling and a trip to the N-Zone. One can divulge dissent in the military only when given permission to speak freely otherwise they just follow orders.

[DelBubs]

And speaking of the "first link being forged"; it was Cap that attempted to censor and all to willingly alienated those that didn't see things specifically his way.
Did Cap take this course before or after the introduction of the SHRA? Before, you have a case, After, he was using whatever means at his disposal to counter an act he disagreed with. Part of the protesting you've been advocating?

[Powersurge]

Needless to say perhaps, it was following the implementation of the SRA.

Cap more-or-less screamed at his fellow heroes, heroes sympathetic to his cause, but less than convinced that following his path was the right way to go about things, that they didn't have a clue to freedom; despite the fact that they were exercising their own judgment, according to their own conscience, ie. clearly knew what freedom is. This as opposed to slavishly "following the leader" and falling in line with his "cult of personality".

That kind of attitude doesn't further one's cause, it dimishes it. That along with having no battle plan whatsoever, and relying on personal charisma alone to keep the "troops" in line.

You've gotta watch those charismatic leaders.

Incidently, it was also following the implementation of the SRA that pro-reg "inner-circle" heroes were OPENLY questioning the SRA, publically opposing it via civil avenues, and at least on one occassion blatantly defying SHIELD attempts at apprehending offenders. And all without the reprecussions anti-reg supporters keep saying were unavoidable.

And thats not speculation about what should, would or could happen. That is a well precedented fact of the story. In other words, it happened... frequently and continuously.

In the end, as we all know, Cap's plan led to significant property damage and the loss of civilian life, such that he was tackled and apprehended by numerous "normal folk" (who undoubtedly admired Cap as much as anyone does), and ultimately ordered his own forces to surrender. His plan only proved how much something LIKE the SRA is needed.

And like I said before, if the SRA is ultimately overturned or ammended, it is going to be accomplshed by loyal opposition, and not maverick, violence prone vigilantes who don't seem to know the difference between the right to privacy and desire for anonymity.

And it is going to be achieved by people working together, as opposed to alienating and villifying each other due to subtle differences in ideology.

[Powersurge]

To add a bit regarding Canada and it's own SRA...

It wasn't just in vol.2 that that Canadian government and it's superheroes were abducting, brainwashing, enforcing obligatory service, et al. It has been since the very first appearance of Alpha Flight and any of it's members. Weapon Alpha's first mission involved illegally entering the U.S.A. and forcibly abducting Wolverine (who is a story unto himself) in order to force him to serve. Since day one.

For all of that, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Alpha Flight is or was a villainous superteam.

Also, none of the schism that have sprung into being in the past between Alpha and the Canadian government have ever resulted in a civil war. And it clearly isn't because the Canadian government has been playing nice all along.

So, the difference is clearly to be found in how the *heroes* in question chose to react. Cap chose war.

Department S, anyone?

[Le Messor]

doesn't even begin to acknowledge points that run contrary to the stated beliefs... such as the granting of amnesty to hordes of anti-reg'ers following the final battle.

"hordes," a word which here means roughly a dozen.


She is being a complete hypocrit.

How can she be a complete hypocrite without that 'e'?

In the beginning,
In regards to the SRA; I support the spirit of the Act, and even moreso the lands and institutions of the West, which allow for the freedom of speech and the ability to challenge, ammend, and if need be overturn laws.
I don't support folks who exercise power over others in order to force those others to obey a system that they are themselves excessively reluctant, even fearful, to bow down to. Nor do I support folks that turn a blind eye to the faults in the system until those faults show up at their own doorstep. I can hear the implicit slogan even as I write this, "Save an Avenger, Kill a mutant".
If the government and the West way of life is so evil and corrupt, it should be overthrown and replaced with something better; although the last time I checked the nations of the West, the U.S.A. included, represent the best in the world... WORTS and all.

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other.

Western democracy may (or may not) be the best government system ever; that doesn't mean it's very good. It means the human race doesn't do good government systems.
That said; overthrow it? And replace it with... what, exactly? A dictatorship?
Concordantly, I can't come up with anything better. Ergo, it would be irresponsible to overthrow it. Vis a vis, if it starts doing all the things that the 'evil' governments do that make them 'evil', it's suddenly no better.
That doesn't mean overthrow it; it means do what you can to undermine that particular law.
This doesn't mean I support Cap starting a civil war.
It means I support the new New Warriors subverting the cause, flaunting the law, etc... And the New Avengers, while we're at it.
Which gets them a lot closer to the middle ground than it is possible to be, and remain within the bounds of the SHRA. The SHRA's boundaries are too far away from the middle ground.

Concordantly! Ergo! Vis a vis!:



While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.
And of course, everyone on the Pro-Reg side is a carbon copy of Iron Man, right? You know, Iron Man not being the pro-reg hero in question and all.

I've gone back and forth on this, but I know have definitive results: Cloud 9 has said that she only wanted to fly.
For that crime, she was taken from her home. She formed an attachment to somebody, and quickly watched him die. Somebody shoved a gun in her hands and got her to kill.
She is not, I believe, old enough to vote.
See under 'Uganda' and 'LRA'.

This is not the SHRA I supported when I supported it:

Super Human Registration Act model 1:
"If people want to fight crime, they must be trained and licenced."
Super Human Registration Act model 2:
"We will round up everybody with superpowers to put them in the SHIELD superhuman army."
Super Human Registration Act model 3:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/ridgell/judelaw.jpg

model 1 is the law Stark offered the Marvel Universe.
model 2 is the law Stark gave them.
model 3 is Jude Law, who could probably play Stark in a movie, if Robert Downey Jr. didn't have the role.

Pow, I think you and me both agree with and fully support model 1.

Where we differ is model 2. You seem to be saying: 'model 1 is good, therefore the SHRA is good, therefore any variation on it is good. Therefore, model 2 is good. Because that's what we've got, and it's law!' (Speak the last in whispered tones of reverence.)

Problem is, you can't 'work within' that law without doing all those things Del accused Stark of (above). That's how the law works.
If you obey the law, then yes, you become a clone of Stark.

- Le Messor
"What's so civil about war anyway?"
- Guns 'n' Roses

[Dfense75]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Le Messor!! Every time my friend and I talked about Civil War he would start to sing the Guns and Roses song. I had it out of my head for almost 2 months until your post. DAMN YOU!!

[Le Messor]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Le Messor!! Every time my friend and I talked about Civil War he would start to sing the Guns and Roses song. I had it out of my head for almost 2 months until your post. DAMN YOU!!

You're gonna call me human again, aren't you?

[Powersurge]

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other.

"Every time", huh? Perhaps you need to read a few of my posts before you accuse me of offering only one alternative every time, because your statement is so far off that it's absolut-ly ridiculous. And that makes it very difficult to even bother reading, let alone responding, to the rest of your post.

And seeing as how this thread is so much fun, thats not a good thing IMO.

[Powersurge]

So, I'm still wondering, if those heroes that went along with the American SRA are suddenly made villains as a result of their allegience, does that mean that Alpha Flight was a villainous superteam?

Afterall, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Canadian government is guilty of all of the same wrongs as the American government in CW. And since the first appearance of Canada's Iron Man, ie. Weapon Alpha, AF and it's members have acted as the goverments "enforcers", or at the very least have never set themselves in direct opposition to the Canadian goverment as a whole.

When it came to the passing of Hagon's Bill, AF responded in much the same way as Iron Man and his Pro-Reg'ers... namely, that this bill was going to become law, and either they could be enforcing it, or other less conscientious folks would be, eg. Hardliners, Sentinels, Mandroids, etc.

So, Alpha Flight, heroes or villains?

[DelBubs]

So, I'm still wondering, if those heroes that went along with the American SRA are suddenly made villains as a result of their allegience, does that mean that Alpha Flight was a villainous superteam?

Afterall, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Canadian government is guilty of all of the same wrongs as the American government in CW. And since the first appearance of Canada's Iron Man, ie. Weapon Alpha, AF and it's members have acted as the goverments "enforcers", or at the very least have never set themselves in direct opposition to the Canadian goverment as a whole.

So the whole thing during the Llan storyline with Alpha being declared outlaws and arrested by Gamma after the 'Acts of Vengeance' storyline and then breaking out of prison to finish Llan off never happened? (Rhetorical question). Alpha have always gone with their heart and not out of duty as the previous highlights. Even during UXM #109 it is mentioned by Mac that by entering US airspace in a Canadian militarty jet was it tatamount to an invasion. When young and inexperienced Alpha may have followed the party line, but never blindly.


When it came to the passing of Hagon's Bill, AF responded in much the same way as Iron Man and his Pro-Reg'ers... namely, that this bill was going to become law, and either they could be enforcing it, or other less conscientious folks would be, eg. Hardliners, Sentinels, Mandroids, etc.

So, Alpha Flight, heroes or villains?
Heroes every time. Alpha would have policed the Canadian SHR not followed it to it's nth degree. AF would never have allowed Extra Dimensional prisons or the conscription of unwilling combatants. Heroes!

[SephirothsKiller]

When it came to the passing of Hagon's Bill, AF responded in much the same way as Iron Man and his Pro-Reg'ers... namely, that this bill was going to become law, and either they could be enforcing it, or other less conscientious folks would be, eg. Hardliners, Sentinels, Mandroids, etc.



Except that from what I've seen, Iron Man is a "less conciensious folk". He and Reed see people as capital and numbers now.

[Dfense75]

Yeah to say Reed and Tony are "detached" is an understatement.

[Powersurge]

Heroes every time. Alpha would have policed the Canadian SHR not followed it to it's nth degree. AF would never have allowed Extra Dimensional prisons or the conscription of unwilling combatants. Heroes!

Wolverine. Sasquatch vol.II. Hull House.

[Legerd]

Heroes every time. Alpha would have policed the Canadian SHR not followed it to it's nth degree. AF would never have allowed Extra Dimensional prisons or the conscription of unwilling combatants. Heroes!

Wolverine. Sasquatch vol.II. Hull House.

Technically, Wolverine wasn't an unwilling conscript, he was AWOL. Vol. 2 Sasquatch was nabbed by (the evil) Dept. H after AF was disbanded in Vol. 1. Everyone on the [Vol. 2] team believed that it was Walter with a messed up mind. Hull House was also a product of evil Dept. H, not AF.

[Powersurge]

Technically, Wolverine wasn't an unwilling conscript, he was AWOL. Vol. 2 Sasquatch was nabbed by (the evil) Dept. H after AF was disbanded in Vol. 1. Everyone on the [Vol. 2] team believed that it was Walter with a messed up mind. Hull House was also a product of evil Dept. H, not AF.

Wolverine was nevertheless "being" forced into unwanted service, and Puck learned fast enough about Sasq's true nature.

As for Hull House; it was a product of the people AF were in the service of, even as the SRA is a product of the American government, not IM or the Avengers or whomever.

According to some here, the fact that one serves, ahem, "evil" makes one "evil"; even as they have deemed that any supporter of the SRA, be they an IM-like zealot or a She-Hulk-like moderate, is guilty by association.

[Le Messor]

As for Hull House; it was a product of the people AF were in the service of, even as the SRA is a product of the American government, not IM or the Avengers or whomever.

I never saw any heroes in v2. One of the reasons why I loathed it with a passion.

- Le Messor
"Envy is the cause of political division."
- Democritus

[cmdrkoenig67]

As for Hull House; it was a product of the people AF were in the service of, even as the SRA is a product of the American government, not IM or the Avengers or whomever.

I never saw any heroes in v2. One of the reasons why I loathed it with a passion.

- Le Messor

I agree...The Alpha Flight members in Vol 2 were all victims of a kind (being mind-controlled, brainwashed, manipulated and lied to)...

None of the Pro-Reg Avengers were being brainwashed or mind-controlled(that we know of)...They willingly chose a side (or were doing it to further their own agenda...We may learn more about that soon). They may have been misled, whether it be by Iron Man, S.H.I.E.L.D. or the US govt...But they still had a choice in the matter (or at least, the illusion of a choice).

Dana

[Legerd]

Wolverine was nevertheless "being" forced into unwanted service, and Puck learned fast enough about Sasq's true nature.

No he wasn't. He was in service to the Canadian Military and left without permission. He was AWOL and AF was empowered to retrieve him. If he had been a civilian then I would agree with you, but he wasn't.
Puck did learn Sas' true nature... and was promptly mindwiped by Dept. H so he wouldn't remember. Every time one of the veteran heroes learned something incriminating, they were mindwiped to prevent them from doing something about it.


As for Hull House; it was a product of the people AF were in the service of, even as the SRA is a product of the American government, not IM or the Avengers or whomever.

You are absolutely correct that it was a product of the people AF was working for, not the actual heroes in AF. That's the difference. The heroes did not know about Hull House as a farm for potential supers, nor did they know of Dept. H's connection to it. If they had and thought it was okay, then I would say they were bad guys. And remember, with IM it was his intention all along that something like the SHRA be passed by the US Govt. He planned it out and used the opportunity that the Stamford incident provided to push to get the Act. He and the other Illuminati were working behind the scenes to make the SHRA a reality long before it "occured" to the US Govt that such an act was "needed".


According to some here, the fact that one serves, ahem, "evil" makes one "evil"; even as they have deemed that any supporter of the SRA, be they an IM-like zealot or a She-Hulk-like moderate, is guilty by association.

I won't answer for other people here, but personally, I feel that if someone knowingly serves under a corrupt power when they have the choice to oppose it, then they are just as corrupt. I won't say "evil" since I don't believe in it, but I will say the heroes willingly serving under the SHRA who do so despite the illegalities they know to be occuring are not acting as heroes in my eyes.

[Powersurge]

You are absolutely correct that it was a product of the people AF was working for, not the actual heroes in AF. That's the difference. The heroes did not know about Hull House as a farm for potential supers, nor did they know of Dept. H's connection to it. If they had and thought it was okay, then I would say they were bad guys. And remember, with IM it was his intention all along that something like the SHRA be passed by the US Govt. He planned it out and used the opportunity that the Stamford incident provided to push to get the Act. He and the other Illuminati were working behind the scenes to make the SHRA a reality long before it "occured" to the US Govt that such an act was "needed".

From what I've read IM was initially either opposed to the SRA or lukewarm with the idea. When he saw that it was inevitable he got behind it so that someone (more) sympathetic to heroes would be in charge. I don't recall reading anything that indicated the Illuminati were manipulating government and ochestrating America's acceptence of the SRA.


I won't answer for other people here, but personally, I feel that if someone knowingly serves under a corrupt power when they have the choice to oppose it, then they are just as corrupt. I won't say "evil" since I don't believe in it, but I will say the heroes willingly serving under the SHRA who do so despite the illegalities they know to be occuring are not acting as heroes in my eyes.

The idea that any modern government is pristine and innocent is, IMO, incredibly naive. That there is some corruption going on in it, especially in a superpowered world, is virtually a given. Heck, the standard of living of Western societies is maintained, here and there, by the exploitation of less fortunate nations and people. And what of our lawabiding, tax-paying Yank neighbours living under the Bush Regime?

There is the idea of freedom of conscience, which is the reason why, for instance, we try high-ranking Nazis for war crimes, and not your rank and file Nazi soldier, muchless the people of Germany.

Schindler knowingly served under the a corrupt regime, supported it as a succesful businessman, and had as much choice of opposing it as anyone has in opposing anything... and indeed had more means of opposing, or at least not supporting it, as the next guy. Nevertheless, it is pretty well universally accepted that he was not a corrupt villian himself. In fact, he is deemed a hero. And his heroics would not have been at all possible if he hadn't maintained good standing with the Nazi Regime.

IMO, heroes are defined by their deeds, as individuals, and not by at-a-glance oversimplifications, such as which side of a given political or ideological line they stand on.

I've been told by some anti-reg supporters that AF were government lackeys and always had been; maintaining consistency with their view of pro-reg Yanks... not all of whom are IM (not that he's SO bad himself).

Naturally, I agree with you that AF were heroes, who, while being ever mindful of Canadain society, were never mere lackeys. There was never any doubt of this in my mind. And I think this of them for the same reason that I think there are many pro-regs (and anti-regs) who remain heroes of the highest order, ie. because their deeds merit it.

[Le Messor]

I just wish we could go back to the good old days, of real heroes, like Paibok and Kl'rt.

- Le Messor
"Those were the days when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."
- Douglas Adams

[Dfense75]

I just wish we could go back to the good old days, of real heroes, like Paibok and Kl'rt.

- Le Messor
"Those were the days when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."
- Douglas Adams

I KNEW IT!! FURTHER EVIDENCE!! SKRULL SKRULL SKRULL!!

[Transmetropolitan]

Didn;t we already spray for Skrulls? Or was that some other board I frequent...

[Dfense75]

Didn;t we already spray for Skrulls? Or was that some other board I frequent...

We did indeed spray for them. They have developed new and improved anti-bodies to combat our poisons. Due to their shape changing nature they are quick to adapt. We may very well be overwhelmed soon. The end is nigh.

[Legerd]

From what I've read IM was initially either opposed to the SRA or lukewarm with the idea. When he saw that it was inevitable he got behind it so that someone (more) sympathetic to heroes would be in charge. I don't recall reading anything that indicated the Illuminati were manipulating government and ochestrating America's acceptence of the SRA.

If he was against it then shouldn't he have opposed it like you were suggesting the other heroes do? As for the Illuminati, you're right, I misread something in another forum that made it sound like they deliberately started the Civil War, etc. Still, he used the situation to put his own agenda into play which resulted in criminal actions on the part of SHRA heroes.


The idea that any modern government is pristine and innocent is, IMO, incredibly naive. That there is some corruption going on in it, especially in a superpowered world, is virtually a given. Heck, the standard of living of Western societies is maintained, here and there, by the exploitation of less fortunate nations and people. And what of our lawabiding, tax-paying Yank neighbours living under the Bush Regime?

First off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said any govt. was pristine and innocent. Secondly, I'm refering to the comic books where you can get people who are "innocent and pristine". Try to keep the argument within the scope of what we're talking about.


There is the idea of freedom of conscience, which is the reason why, for instance, we try high-ranking Nazis for war crimes, and not your rank and file Nazi soldier, muchless the people of Germany..

We have tried rank and file soldiers as war criminals, specifically the ones who worked in the death camps. I never mentioned anything about the average citizens though, so again stop putting words in my mouth. To make it perfectly clear, I hold individuals who are aware of criminal behaviours going on, and who are in a position to say or do something about it but don't, as the bad guys. Even worse are those who take advantage of the situation for personal gain.


IMO, heroes are defined by their deeds, as individuals, and not by at-a-glance oversimplifications, such as which side of a given political or ideological line they stand on.

Which I agree with. IM has been responsible for the death of Goliath; the impressing of Cloud 9 (a minor) into military service; cloning of an individual (without his permission) for use as a weapon and the imprisonment of people without trial. That is what I am judging him by.


I've been told by some anti-reg supporters that AF were government lackeys and always had been; maintaining consistency with their view of pro-reg Yanks... not all of whom are IM (not that he's SO bad himself)..

I never thought of AF as lackeys since they have disagreed with the govt. on many occassions, and have even refused funding to keep from becoming such. I don't hold all the pro-reg supers as lackeys either, but I do consider those like She-hulk (a defence lawyer yet) as such, since she, of all people, should be standing against an Act that violates the rights of the individuals involved.


Naturally, I agree with you that AF were heroes, who, while being ever mindful of Canadain society, were never mere lackeys. There was never any doubt of this in my mind. And I think this of them for the same reason that I think there are many pro-regs (and anti-regs) who remain heroes of the highest order, ie. because their deeds merit it.

Quite true.

[Le Messor]

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other. "Every time", huh? Perhaps you need to read a few of my posts before you accuse me of offering only one alternative every time, because your statement is so far off that it's absolut-ly ridiculous. And that makes it very difficult to even bother reading, let alone responding, to the rest of your post.

My basic point with that post was that your posts show a tendency towards extremes. For example, one exaggeration is enough to make you leave the thread.
Another:



I feel that if someone knowingly serves under a corrupt power when they have the choice to oppose it, then they are just as corrupt.
The idea that any modern government is pristine and innocent

It looks like it goes from either absolutely corrupt to 'pristine and innocent'. It can't be quasi-corrupt. The diet Coke of corrupt.

We're not so different, you and I. I know I go to extremes, too. A little bit. Hence why exaggeration above.

- Le Messor
"I don't know why I go to extremes--
It's either too high or too low,
There ain't no in-betweens."
- Billy Joel

P.S. Skrull spray doesn't work.

[Legerd]

It looks like it goes from either absolutely corrupt to 'pristine and innocent'. It can't be quasi-corrupt. The diet Coke of corrupt.

Can it be the Cherry Coke of corrupt, or is that too corrupt?


We're not so different, you and I. I know I go to extremes, too. A little bit. Hence why exaggeration above.

Going to extremes is a sure sign of being a Skrull. OMG, Powersurge is a Skrull too! :shock:

[Powersurge]

Going to extremes is a sure sign of being a Skrull. OMG, Powersurge is a Skrull too! :shock:

Shhhhh. Don't tell... or we'll replace you too. :twisted:

[Powersurge]

My basic point with that post was that your posts show a tendency towards extremes. For example, one exaggeration is enough to make you leave the thread.

What thread have I left as a result of a single (or many, for that matter) exaggeration?!





I feel that if someone knowingly serves under a corrupt power when they have the choice to oppose it, then they are just as corrupt.
The idea that any modern government is pristine and innocent


It looks like it goes from either absolutely corrupt to 'pristine and innocent'. It can't be quasi-corrupt. The diet Coke of corrupt.

It certainly can be quasi-corrupt. The U.S. government of Marvel CW for instance is "quasi-corrupt"... and/or "quasi-straight" straight dependin gon how one decides to look at it.

So, if you can pretty well guaren-damn-tee that you'll find corruption in any government, how can a person a person of your inclination serve any government? Based on personal bias, inclination, what issues are important to you and which are not? Do you launch a thorough investigation and oppose the government in question if it is found to be (based on whatever criteria), say, 50.125% corrupt, but not if it's only, say, 49.95% corrupt?

Corruption is corruption. And if all men are to be held accountable for the doings of their State, or at least some component of it, than all men are equally guilty.

[Legerd]

So, if you can pretty well guaren-damn-tee that you'll find corruption in any government, how can a person a person of your inclination serve any government? Based on personal bias, inclination, what issues are important to you and which are not? Do you launch a thorough investigation and oppose the government in question if it is found to be (based on whatever criteria), say, 50.125% corrupt, but not if it's only, say, 49.95% corrupt?

Corruption is corruption. And if all men are to be held accountable for the doings of their State, or at least some component of it, than all men are equally guilty.

To reiterrate, what I said was "If a person knowingly serves under a corrupt power when they have a choice, then they are just as corrupt." Most people serve their gov't in the belief it is just and honest. In any gov't there are corrupt individuals, that doesn't make the entire gov't corrupt. However, if the gov't was, let's say Dr. Doom's, then to willingly subject your countrymen to unjust imprisonment or acts of cruelty by Doom's orders makes you corrupt.

How can an individual "be held accountable for doings of their State" if they can't affect their gov't in its day-to-day activities? While in some countries the average person can vote for a political party, sign petitions, hold protests, sue or even accuse politicians under the law, that same person can't walk into the Capital and start making changes as he/she sees fit. Most people stand against what they see as gov't corruption by one of the above mentioned ways. To take the example of the Latverian gov't, how can a local peasant be held accountable for the crimes of Dr. Doom when he/she wouldn't be able to do anything to stop them, assuming the person was even aware of them?

[Powersurge]

How can an individual "be held accountable for doings of their State" if they can't affect their gov't in its day-to-day activities? While in some countries the average person can vote for a political party, sign petitions, hold protests, sue or even accuse politicians under the law, that same person can't walk into the Capital and start making changes as he/she sees fit. Most people stand against what they see as gov't corruption by one of the above mentioned ways. To take the example of the Latverian gov't, how can a local peasant be held accountable for the crimes of Dr. Doom when he/she wouldn't be able to do anything to stop them, assuming the person was even aware of them?

Sounds about right to me.

[Le Messor]

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other. "Every time", huh? Perhaps you need to read a few of my posts before you accuse me of offering only one alternative every time, because your statement is so far off that it's absolut-ly ridiculous. And that makes it very difficult to even bother reading, let alone responding, to the rest of your post.
What thread have I left as a result of a single (or many, for that matter) exaggeration?!

This one...
But... wait... you're still here?!? Now I'm confused.
Or just dumb. It's not fair beating me with ur smartz.

Okay, you didn't leave; but you didn't respond to the post, either. (Beyond saying: 'the first line is an exaggeration'.) It looks like you didn't read the rest of it, based on: "... that makes it very difficult to even bother reading, let alone responding, to the rest of your post." and not responding to the rest of the post.

- Le Messor
"He is the Extreme!"
- Twister

[Powersurge]

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other.

Western democracy may (or may not) be the best government system ever; that doesn't mean it's very good. It means the human race doesn't do good government systems.
That said; overthrow it? And replace it with... what, exactly? A dictatorship?
Concordantly, I can't come up with anything better. Ergo, it would be irresponsible to overthrow it. Vis a vis, if it starts doing all the things that the 'evil' governments do that make them 'evil', it's suddenly no better.
That doesn't mean overthrow it; it means do what you can to undermine that particular law.

It logically follows that if you believe a government is shot through with evil, it should be overthrown and replaced by something better. If I seem to be jumping to extremes, it is likely because it seems that your view is that a single (bad) law makes a government corrupt


This doesn't mean I support Cap starting a civil war.
It means I support the new New Warriors subverting the cause, flaunting the law, etc... And the New Avengers, while we're at it.
Which gets them a lot closer to the middle ground than it is possible to be, and remain within the bounds of the SHRA. The SHRA's boundaries are too far away from the middle ground.

Sounds fair enough to me, and a far cry from starting a CW to boot.


Super Human Registration Act model 1:
"If people want to fight crime, they must be trained and licenced."
Super Human Registration Act model 2:
"We will round up everybody with superpowers to put them in the SHIELD superhuman army."
..snip...

model 1 is the law Stark offered the Marvel Universe.
model 2 is the law Stark gave them.
...snip...

Pow, I think you and me both agree with and fully support model 1.

Where we differ is model 2. You seem to be saying: 'model 1 is good, therefore the SHRA is good, therefore any variation on it is good. Therefore, model 2 is good. Because that's what we've got, and it's law!' (Speak the last in whispered tones of reverence.)

Problem is, you can't 'work within' that law without doing all those things Del accused Stark of (above). That's how the law works.
If you obey the law, then yes, you become a clone of Stark.
[/quote]

No. I'm not saying that model 2 is good because model 1 is good.

In fact, what I've been saying all along is that "the law" (as a general body of legislation, of which the SRA is but one small, non-essential, and new/unrefined part) and the system are good, and that, as a result, this one isolated law can be overturned or ammended with enough will. Thus, a civil war shouldn't be considered one's first and only option.

And you can support the system without supporting every particular piece of legisaltion on the books and being a "clone" of those who drafted the SRA.

:D

[Le Messor]

I didn't expect an answer so soon! Dude, get some sleep! :D


it seems that your view is that a single (bad) law makes a government corrupt.

Aha! I think we've found the source of the misunderstanding.
What I've been saying is that the SHRA (Stark In-Law Remix) is bad, and that I don't support it; not that it makes the government whole government corrupt. Despite the occasional Homer-inspired outburst. :)

-Le Messor
"Even a prostitute can’t find work in a town full of nymphomaniacs."

[Powersurge]

I didn't expect an answer so soon! Dude, get some sleep! :D

Well, admittedly, I work nights, but for cripes sake, it's already 8 pm here!! :? :)

[Le Messor]

I didn't expect an answer so soon! Dude, get some sleep! :D

Well, admittedly, I work nights, but for cripes sake, it's already 8 pm here!! :? :)

That's too early in the morning to be up. ;)

(Sorry, I thought it'd be about 3am or something.)

- Le Messor
"What time is it? Tuesday? That's too early."