Junkpile

[Conn Seanery]

When real world politics invades a Civil War thread too much, or off-topic nonsense that's gonna be a bitch to sort into their proper threads, I need somewhere to move it. That is the only reason for this thread.

[Markavian]

Yeah, Iron Man's not the only one who harbours ways of counteracting his comrades. Cap wipped IM and Giantman. It seems your worst enemy is your friend, because they've been around you so long, they know your weakneses. And when a friendship turns sour, your friend is best placed to take you down. It's called the vulnerability of friendship. Perhaps that's why some people don't make friends.

3000 people are killed, 2 buildings destroyed by extremists, and what is America's response? A witch-hunt in Afghanistan, a futile effort to rid another nation of an unsavory character, then an extension to the National Guard, (called Home Security), increased security at airports, and the suspension of civil liberties for it's citizens. Oh, and Guanatanamo Bay.

Fast forward 5 years later (616 now). 600 people are killed, new laws on restriction of certain sections of community, and, oh yeay, another Guantanamo Bay, called '42'.

Common denominator? Captain America MK 1 - 6; then, CW1 and NA21. Cap is not on the side of the Government in either approaches. Why? Because he's not there to uphold the secrets of Governments, but to protect the people. (Government secrets, block anybody looking into the methods used by Government)
The Action in Afghanistan was no Witch Hunt. Afghanistan was where the leaders of the extremists was being protected by an allied group of Extremists The Taliban. And thank God for the Collection of Federal Agencies that make up Homeland Security and whatever Efforts the Goverment is doing to keep America safe. No Terrorist attacks in almost 5 years . We were Expecting waves of them after 9/11. So Far all have been over seas.:D

[Shyft]

We were Expecting waves of them after 9/11. So Far all have been over seas.:D

I dont see how that is anything to smile about.

[Jake V]

The Action in Afghanistan was no Witch Hunt. Afghanistan was where the leaders of the extremists was being protected by an allied group of Extremists The Taliban. And thank God for the Collection of Federal Agencies that make up Homeland Security and whatever Efforts the Goverment is doing to keep America safe. No Terrorist attacks in almost 5 years . We were Expecting waves of them after 9/11. So Far all have been over seas.:D
Hooray for foreigners getting killed!

Right?

[Beast]

The Action in Afghanistan was no Witch Hunt. Afghanistan was where the leaders of the extremists was being protected by an allied group of Extremists The Taliban. And thank God for the Collection of Federal Agencies that make up Homeland Security and whatever Efforts the Goverment is doing to keep America safe. No Terrorist attacks in almost 5 years . We were Expecting waves of them after 9/11. So Far all have been over seas.:D
Wow... just wow. *Just walks away stunned*

[SnakeEater]

66 pages later and we are taling about Afghanistan and the taliban...thats it im out of here for a while. i cant take this anymore

[KrymynalChylde]

Wow... just wow. *Just walks away stunned*

Couldn't agree with you more. America dropping bombs on arab children is definetly keeping America safe. Funny how they haven't gotten involved in the whole Israel/Lebanon conflict. Could it be because Zionist's in Israel and the Right Wing capitalist's that run your country are on the same side? When they go all out to root one single person (bin laden) without a care in the world for the civilians that live in that country, and yet with all the MILLIONS dying from extremism in other countries (Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia) doesn't mean shit b/c it "isn't their problem". What a farce, what retarded backwards logic can justify something like that?!

And comparing anything in comics (SHRA specifically) has absolutely nothing to do with the farce that is the "free world democracy" and real world politics.

[Markavian]

I dont see how that is anything to smile about.
There havent been any more attacks YET if that isnt a reason to smile what is?:confused:

[Markavian]

Hooray for foreigners getting killed!

Right?
But Hooray for no Americans getting killed. :)

[KrymynalChylde]

But Hooray for no Americans getting killed. :)

Because of course 1 dead American = 1000 Dead foreigners:mad:

[Markavian]

Because of course 1 dead American = 1000 Dead foreigners:mad: I would rather not see Americans dead than Foreigners. Idealy no one dead in a perfect world which this isnt.

[Sabrinaset]

Get back on topic, guys.

Don't make me derail this thread.

[Arawn]

The UN doesn't do anything but write angry letters. Already they have stopped all plans to put troops in Africa, and civilians are dying by the thousands daily...

The UN was founded to prevent holocausts from happenning, but they never ever step in. They never send soldiers in to fight, they have not saved a single life. At least not willingly, the only way the UN will enter a combat zone, is if the US, England and the rest of Nato are already there...

We shouldn't have to police the world, thats the job of the UN....But all they have ever done is write letters. And as every person here knows both Firefly and Farscape would still be on TV if letter writing did a damn thing. :mad:

[Subotai]

The UN doesn't do anything but write angry letters. Already they have stopped all plans to put troops in Africa, and civilians are dying by the thousands daily...

The UN was founded to prevent holocausts from happenning, but they never ever step in. They never send soldiers in to fight, they have not saved a single life. At least not willingly, the only way the UN will enter a combat zone, is if the US, England and the rest of Nato are already there...

That is a myth. Why it has been argued is a topic for another time...The UN has had successes in El Salvador, Cyprus, Kashmir, Mozambique, Korea, and other countries. But the UN is only as strong as the resolve of its members.

[Zombienorthstar]

That is a myth. Why it has been argued is a topic for another time...The UN has had successes in El Salvador, Cyprus, Kashmir, Mozambique, Korea, and other countries. But the UN is only as strong as the resolve of its members.


Exactly...the UN is only powerful if nations choose to do as it says *cough*USA*cough*

[Magneto Rocks]

Exactly...the UN is only powerful if nations choose to do as it says *cough*USA*cough*

Yes. Luckily pretty much every other nation DOES choose to listen to intelligent counsel, with a new exceptions. So tell me... how are those WoMD in Iraq doing? :P

[Markavian]

Yes. Luckily pretty much every other nation DOES choose to listen to intelligent counsel, with a new exceptions. So tell me... how are those WoMD in Iraq doing? :P
Syria :D ;)

[Magneto Rocks]

The General Assembly has no 'hostility' towards Israel. It's simply that Israel has been supported CONSTANTLY by the United States for years, partly due to a large number of VERY wealthy Jews in the US government. Even when Israel are wrong, as happens repeatedly, the US constantly backs them up, to ridiculous degrees. There is, as we all know, a behind the scenes struggle of the 'Coalition' versus the UN, with France and the US heading the charge in respective directions and I for one am firmly behind the US.

Take, for example, Israel's STAGGERING overreaction earlier this year... and the US STILL backing them up, even as places like Switzerland and the Vatican were condemning Israel. If it comes down to trusting the Republican administration or trusting the UN, I'd back up Kofi any day.

Syria

Course, what is the only civilized nation in HISTORY to have used these weapons on other human beings? Not once, but TWICE, with devastating results on civilians? Seems to me America's policy is "It's totally unsafe if anyone has nuclear weapons. Unless they're us." Anyone like to tell me why Saudi Arabia wasn't invaded? We KNOW they have a nuclear weapons program, they execute people in the streets, they have a far more oppresive regime than Iraq did... and yet America are on good terms with them.

[Markavian]

The General Assembly has no 'hostility' towards Israel. It's simply that Israel has been supported CONSTANTLY by the United States for years, partly due to a large number of VERY wealthy Jews in the US government. Even when Israel are wrong, as happens repeatedly, the US constantly backs them up, to ridiculous degrees. There is, as we all know, a behind the scenes struggle of the 'Coalition' versus the UN, with France and the US heading the charge in respective directions and I for one am firmly behind the US.

Take, for example, Israel's STAGGERING overreaction earlier this year... and the US STILL backing them up, even as places like Switzerland and the Vatican were condemning Israel. If it comes down to trusting the Republican administration or trusting the UN, I'd back up Kofi any day. But we cant agree on all things. Israel was attacked .They struck back.In war there are no Proportionate responses. You strike back to win.Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and they have tried bending over backwards for peace .Its the other side that wont comprimise as recent events have proven.:(

[Markavian]

Course, what is the only civilized nation in HISTORY to have used these weapons on other human beings? Not once, but TWICE, with devastating results on civilians? Seems to me America's policy is "It's totally unsafe if anyone has nuclear weapons. Unless they're us." Anyone like to tell me why Saudi Arabia wasn't invaded? We KNOW they have a nuclear weapons program, they execute people in the streets, they have a far more oppresive regime than Iraq did... and yet America are on good terms with them. The WMDS arent Nuclear. They are chemical and biological.You know Chemical the kinds the Europeans used to kill millions with in WW I? As for Trusting Kooky Anon thats your choice ..Hold onto your wallet my friend. He is the biggest Mistake the for a leader that the UN has ever had.And Saudi Arabias nuclear program is in response to Irans ..And I wouldnt blame them one bit on that matter if I had iran for a neigbhor I would want to think my goverment was taking precautons as well.Now having said that lets try to keep this thread on subject please?Not accusing or pointing fingers at anyone just requesting.

[Subotai]

Rwanda Genocide the 6 year Genocide in the Balkans(which required NATO intervention to end it as the UN was too weak willed even with The EU and US offering back up) And its inability to reign in Iran and North Koreas Nuclear ambitions ..The $10,000.000.000 in Bribes that were spread around in the Oil for food Program.The General Assemblys hostility towards Israel .. I wouldnt trust the UN with last weeks garbage let alone SHEILD and its high tech weapondry and equipment ..Thank God The US in the real World Would NEVER Trust the UN to this extent.:mad:

Yeah, because graft is unknown in the United States. And as for trusting the UN - it was the US which embarassed itself with its false show of WMD in front of the UN, which has led to the word of the President essentially turning to mud. It's the USA which has a trust problem right now, not the UN. Maybe if the US had called the UN into Louisiana last year, more people would have survived. It couldn't have been any worse.

While the Oil for Food program was screwed up from jump street, it did keep the oil sanctions in place and kept Iraq from rearming. You balk at the cost, yet how many billions of dollars, not to mention lives, has the US wasted by invading Iraq? Has there been a greater debacle in recent years?

And how exactly has the UN been hostile towards Israel? The UN has devoted tremendous time and resources towards Israel's problems.

The US should take control of SHIELD - they couldn't mess it up any more than they have any recent ventures. I'm sure with Hill at the command, things will work out fine.

[Markavian]

Funny. Tens of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq are laughing with you.

Real world is bad enough - at least in the comics SHIELD could be written as smarter.
Please back on Topic? Thanks.:)

[Zombienorthstar]

The WMDS arent Nuclear. They are chemical and biological.You know Chemical the kinds the Europeans used to kill millions with in WW I? As for Trusting Kooky Anon thats your choice ..Hold onto your wallet my friend. He is the biggest Mistake the for a leader that the UN has ever had.And Saudi Arabias nuclear program is in response to Irans ..And I wouldnt blame them one bit on that matter if I had iran for a neigbhor I would want to think my goverment was taking precautons as well.Now having said that lets try to keep this thread on subject please?Not accusing or pointing fingers at anyone just requesting.

It still doesnt change the question....how can the US criticise Iran for their nuclear arms and at the same time have the largest scale production of arms in the world.

Using comics as the shining beacon of intelligence again:

EMMA FROST: Ever heard of do as i say and not as i do?

BANSHEE: Ever heard of a case where that actually works?

[Parthuman]

I can see it now. Hulk Smashing Iron Man for sending him into space. Hulk Smashing Captain America for being Un American.

Captain America has never been more American. Stupid laws are passed all the time. It takes guts and true idealism to decide that they are just wrong.

[o1pickleboy]

Captain America has never been more American. Stupid laws are passed all the time. It takes guts and true idealism to decide that they are just wrong.


If he were a true american. He would have let himself get attested and battle the law all the way to the supreme court. Not go underground and break several more laws.

There are right ways and wrong ways to do things. Cap is doing things the wrong way. As is Iron Man

[XPac]

If he were a true american. He would have let himself get attested and battle the law all the way to the supreme court. Not go underground and break several more laws.

There are right ways and wrong ways to do things. Cap is doing things the wrong way. As is Iron Man

But if you look at Speedball's ordeal, clearly people that don't register lose their rights. So conventional means may not be the way to go here, since they clearly have no problem denying unregistered combatents the very rights which make them true americans in the first place.

[o1pickleboy]

But if you look at Speedball's ordeal, clearly people that don't register lose their rights. So conventional means may not be the way to go here, since they clearly have no problem denying unregistered combatents the very rights which make them true americans in the first place.

and what rights are that. If you talking due process, he had a lawyer and was working on a appeal. If you are talking cruel and unusual punishment. I ask what is unusual in the marvel u. Cruel is a matter of opinion.

Captain America should have publicly surrendered and forced the issue into the courts. He had alot of respect. In would have been the trial of the universe.

Now he is running a resistance. Tell me how are they going to end SHRA this way. Are they hoping to wait it out? They are just fueling the fire. Every law they break just adds to the public support of SHRA.

[brundlefly]

Didn't you read House of M? Magneto was real content to have the Royal family in charge, so you got to say ,subconciously, Mags wanted it that way.

All the characters in House of M had altered memories & personality characteristics due to Wanda's voodoo, so that's not really a great example. And even then, he was a pretty benevolent ruler compared to say, Apocalypse in AOA or Kulan Gath in UNCANNY X-MEN circa #190.

Regardless, how he acted as ruler of an alternate reality still doesn't insinuate that he would in any way ever be pro-SHRA, which was my original point.


I can see it now. Hulk Smashing Iron Man for sending him into space. Hulk Smashing Captain America for being Un American.

Wasn't Reed Richards also involved in the "let's shoot the Hulk into space" conspiracy? The Hulk should pencil him in for a beating, too.

[Alan2099]

and what rights are that. If you talking due process, he had a lawyer and was working on a appeal. If you are talking cruel and unusual punishment. I ask what is unusual in the marvel u. Cruel is a matter of opinion.
I'd say deporting a powerless person into another dimension, one that have majorly negative effects on a persons psyche, and has probably the highest civilian/evil alien dictator ration of any place in the marvel Universe, and then being locked into a super villian prison manned soley by emmotionless robots pretty cruel and unusual.

Plus evidently She-Hulk hates openly hates him. It's not good to have a lawyer that hates you.

[jackolover]

and what rights are that. If you talking due process, he had a lawyer and was working on a appeal. If you are talking cruel and unusual punishment. I ask what is unusual in the marvel u. Cruel is a matter of opinion.

Captain America should have publicly surrendered and forced the issue into the courts. He had alot of respect. In would have been the trial of the universe.

Now he is running a resistance. Tell me how are they going to end SHRA this way. Are they hoping to wait it out? They are just fueling the fire. Every law they break just adds to the public support of SHRA.

You know, you bring up a really good point about how Cap intends to end the SHRA. Cap really has to plan to put pressure, legally, on getting an appeal going against it. I don't see any other way the anti- regs can overturn the law. Otherwise, his only effect will be to endlessly be on the run from Iron Man. If Cap thinks wearing IM down, after months or years of resistance, will make IM reconsider, and force IM to pressure the SHRA to be repealed, I think Cap is stuck without any plan.

[XPac]

and what rights are that. If you talking due process, he had a lawyer and was working on a appeal. If you are talking cruel and unusual punishment. I ask what is unusual in the marvel u. Cruel is a matter of opinion.

Captain America should have publicly surrendered and forced the issue into the courts. He had alot of respect. In would have been the trial of the universe.

Now he is running a resistance. Tell me how are they going to end SHRA this way. Are they hoping to wait it out? They are just fueling the fire. Every law they break just adds to the public support of SHRA.

He was denied due process initially. Hell, they even outright said that unregisterd combatants don't have rights. It's fine and dandy to get some of them now, but really if they fail due process on ANY level then he's being wronged and should be a free man regardless of what he did.

But that may be the achilles heel of the whole thing. If Speedball is ever brought to court, they can rule on how ridiculously unconstitituional various elements of the registration is and throw the whole thing out. It's possible all Cap has to do is hold out until then. Though whether Speedball get the opportunity to go before the courts or not is the biggest potential problem there.

As for cruel being a matter of opinon... the negatize zone is phychologically damaging. And you're putting criminals in there. It's not just cruel, it outright STUPID.

[undeserving]

If he were a true american. He would have let himself get attested and battle the law all the way to the supreme court. Not go underground and break several more laws.


You mean the way the founding fathers did?

The 4th branch of government has the right to refuse to obey unjust laws and to refuse to cooperate with a system that has no intention of granting fair treatment. Not just the right, but the obligation, if it wants to keep its freedom.

[IamtheRock3]

really love cap and all

but this battle should last 10 seconds

[Joe Acro]

really love cap and all

but this battle should last 10 seconds
Apocalypse appears on the battlefield with more powerful armor, enhanced by the Celestials. He decides to make a stand for the Anti-side, realizing that is conflicts with his goals. He battles Thor, pushing him back. Then, Goliath thinks he can help push the odds in Apocalypse's favor, though he's wary of helping him. Unfortunately, Thor knocks Apocalypse down just long enough to notice Goliath coming after him (in giant form). He strikes him with a bolt of lightning, killing him instantly. Apocalypse returns to the fray, undeterred, holding off Thor and the other Pro- forces long enough for Cap's forces to continue their escape.

That would last more than 10 seconds.

[bitplayer]

How close are thor and herc in power anyways? Mebbe it will be done in self defense after a titanic clash or something?

Or maybe it will be an accident, as someone else said, such as his hammer slamming into one of the more fragile heroes who got in the crossfire. Which would be pretty juicy imo.

Sort of looking forward to seeing how this one will come out if he does- indeed- kill someone.

[Loestal]

How close are thor and herc in power anyways? Mebbe it will be done in self defense after a titanic clash or something?

Or maybe it will be an accident, as someone else said, such as his hammer slamming into one of the more fragile heroes who got in the crossfire. Which would be pretty juicy imo.

Sort of looking forward to seeing how this one will come out if he does- indeed- kill someone.


They are both classified as class 100 strength. On raw strength, It might be a toss up...but using Mjolnir (sp) probably increases Thor's odds.

[XPac]

How close are thor and herc in power anyways? Mebbe it will be done in self defense after a titanic clash or something?

Or maybe it will be an accident, as someone else said, such as his hammer slamming into one of the more fragile heroes who got in the crossfire. Which would be pretty juicy imo.

Sort of looking forward to seeing how this one will come out if he does- indeed- kill someone.

Even at Hercs BEST, Thor is overall more powerful because he can do a zillion things that Herc can't.

But even in terms of strength, it's debatable. At Hercs best they were probably equal. But Herc was suppossedly depowered a bit when he host his godhood. Still, he doesn't seem any weaker to me despite suppossedly being depowered to I guess it's still a toss up.

[bitplayer]

They are both classified as class 100 strength. On raw strength, It might be a toss up...but using Mjolnir (sp) probably increases Thor's odds.

Hmm ok thanks then.

Guess thor would really have to try and go all out if he wanted to do anything other than knock herc out then.

[Joe Acro]

How close are thor and herc in power anyways? Mebbe it will be done in self defense after a titanic clash or something?

When the two fought in Blood Oath, Herc was clearly the better fighter, despite being drunk. However, since he has Mjolnir (and subsequently control of weather) he probably has much greater power.

[XPac]

When the two fought in Blood Oath, Herc was clearly the better fighter, despite being drunk. However, since he has Mjolnir (and subsequently control of weather) he probably has much greater power.

I think Herc fights better when he's drunk, so probably wasn't a fair fight.

[IamtheRock3]

Apocalypse appears on the battlefield with more powerful armor, enhanced by the Celestials. He decides to make a stand for the Anti-side, realizing that is conflicts with his goals. He battles Thor, pushing him back. Then, Goliath thinks he can help push the odds in Apocalypse's favor, though he's wary of helping him. Unfortunately, Thor knocks Apocalypse down just long enough to notice Goliath coming after him (in giant form). He strikes him with a bolt of lightning, killing him instantly. Apocalypse returns to the fray, undeterred, holding off Thor and the other Pro- forces long enough for Cap's forces to continue their escape.

That would last more than 10 seconds.


See you had to add a guy

And VERY powerfull guy at that

[Joe Acro]

It was either that or add a power-enhancing device. Those are just too cliché.

[Omega Alpha]

Right now, Apocalipse is getting his butt kicked by the Celestials, so he shouldn't be a problem. Besides, if he appeared, everybody would just stop fighting and unite to kick his ass.

[Jmacq1]

Apocalypse appears on the battlefield with more powerful armor, enhanced by the Celestials. He decides to make a stand for the Anti-side, realizing that is conflicts with his goals. He battles Thor, pushing him back. Then, Goliath thinks he can help push the odds in Apocalypse's favor, though he's wary of helping him. Unfortunately, Thor knocks Apocalypse down just long enough to notice Goliath coming after him (in giant form). He strikes him with a bolt of lightning, killing him instantly. Apocalypse returns to the fray, undeterred, holding off Thor and the other Pro- forces long enough for Cap's forces to continue their escape.

That would last more than 10 seconds.

Given that the whole point of the crossover (practically) is to shift the Marvel Universe's "focus" away from the X-Men and back onto the (mostly) non-mutant heroes for a change, I -really- doubt a key X-Men villain is going to pop up and play any kind of large role in the story.

Not to mention that'd be one of the biggest "WTF?" moments in comic-book history. Apocalypse would be eating this whole mess up...it's survival of the fittest baby! He wouldn't feel any need at all to interfere. Just sit back and watch and "challenge" whoever's standing at the end.

[Scavenger]

It was either that or add a power-enhancing device. Those are just too cliché.


Cable's Gravimetric shield was created by SHIELD to be able to stop Cable at his most powerful..ie, duking it out with the Silver Surfer.

He could take out Thor. (Hell, Cable can likely catch the hammer.)


And we know from what's been published or previewed, it's not an accident. Someone (yeah, like i'ts some kind of mystery, feh) is gonna wind up with a big hole in their chest.


Not to mention [Apocalypse showing up] that'd be one of the biggest "WTF?" moments in comic-book history

No, him popping in on the last page of 52 #51....THAT'D be the biggest WTF moment in history!

[bloodyarts]

Cable's Gravimetric shield was created by SHIELD to be able to stop Cable at his most powerful..ie, duking it out with the Silver Surfer.

Cable can take on Silver Surfer? Not sure I agree with that, but then again I'm not really that well-versed on Cable (he's not exactly my favorite character). Anyway, could you cite the issue they battle in? I'd love to check it out.

[Cable] could take out Thor.
Okay, taking on Silver Surfer was hard enough to swallow, but TAKE OUT THOR?! Why do you think this? I really can't fathom him lasting more than a few minutes against EITHER of these characters...

[Jmacq1]

Cable can take on Silver Surfer? Not sure I agree with that, but then again I'm not really that well-versed on Cable (he's not exactly my favorite character). Anyway, could you cite the issue they battle in? I'd love to check it out.


Okay, taking on Silver Surfer was hard enough to swallow, but TAKE OUT THOR?! Why do you think this? I really can't fathom him lasting more than a few minutes against EITHER of these characters...

Cable can't take either of those characters under normal circumstances.

Cable battled the Surfer when he was in "God Cable" mode. (IE possessing telepathic and telekinetic power pretty much on Phoenix-level). Not quite sure -what- he's capable of now. He's got some funky "Gravimetric field" thingie that he uses to simulate TK and can link to the "Infonet" (because he lobotomized himself to rid himself of his godlike Psi-abilities).

[brundlefly]

Cable can't take either of those characters under normal circumstances.

Cable battled the Surfer when he was in "God Cable" mode. (IE possessing telepathic and telekinetic power pretty much on Phoenix-level). Not quite sure -what- he's capable of now. He's got some funky "Gravimetric field" thingie that he uses to simulate TK and can link to the "Infonet" (because he lobotomized himself to rid himself of his godlike Psi-abilities).

You're pretty much on the money with that summary. Following the lobotomy, he's severely powered-down now, recreating his former abilities only through technological aids and still nowhere near as powerful as he was even before "god mode." His current situation is strangely similar to Magneto's arc after MAGNETO WAR (loss of majority of powers while gaining control of his own country, then having to use strategy to keep things under control instead of just using his powers on everybody).

[Joe Acro]

Cable could, though, teleport everyone out of there before anything bad happens. Oh, wait, a little to late for that. Okay, teleport before anything worse happens. However, we know that's not going to happen because Thor's going to kill someone. You know, Cable would probably be the best candidate to die, what with that metal arm and all.

[Loestal]

Cable can take on Silver Surfer? Not sure I agree with that, but then again I'm not really that well-versed on Cable (he's not exactly my favorite character). Anyway, could you cite the issue they battle in? I'd love to check it out.


Okay, taking on Silver Surfer was hard enough to swallow, but TAKE OUT THOR?! Why do you think this? I really can't fathom him lasting more than a few minutes against EITHER of these characters...


He didn't say he beat Surfer, he said he fought him. He actually got his ass beat pretty badly.

And he would have a better chance at beating Thor than Surfer.

[Loestal]

What If Somone Beats A Antireg Guy Into A Pulp, Then Thor Doesn't Want To See Him/her Suffer, And Kills Him/her To Put Them Out Of Their Misery?


Nope, Cable pretty much blatantly said Thor killed somebody, and not out of mercy.

[bitplayer]

Whats cable and thors past history btw?

[Loestal]

Whats cable and thors past history btw?


I really don't thnk they have any.

[brundlefly]

Cable could, though, teleport everyone out of there before anything bad happens. Oh, wait, a little to late for that. Okay, teleport before anything worse happens. However, we know that's not going to happen because Thor's going to kill someone. You know, Cable would probably be the best candidate to die, what with that metal arm and all.

Unlikely though, given that over in CABLE & DEADPOOL, he's the one who states that somebody got killed.

[Loestal]

Unlikely though, given that over in CABLE & DEADPOOL, he's the one who states that somebody got killed.


Not too mention he JUST came into X-men, and is gonna be on the team.

[Pike]

It is also public knowledge that Bush is an evangelical christian, so his political stance on this issue is in line with his religous beliefs.



:rolleyes: No he is not an evangelical Chrsitian. Bush is a Methodist. He is not, nor has he ever been, born-again. Now I think he was flat assed wrong to veto the stem-cell research bill but please stop the scare mongering and get your facts right.

[the Dagman]

You call ME utterly simplistic? I not only debate the issues without alluding to anything of the sort to others and provide proof of my arguements that doesn't require it to be taken out of context and I am the simplistic one?

Markavian was the one referring to genetically modified foods. I am the one refering to cloning which is actually the issue at hand.

[Pike]

You're mostly fighting your own ignorance and the fact that you may not know as much as you think you do.

There is a profound anti-scientific bent on both the left and the right. Numerous left-wing groups have fought against genetically modified foods despite the clear benefits.

Equally, many on the right oppose stem-cell research for ethical (non-scientific) reasons usually based on their religion.

I would note, however, that according to the Economist nearly 40% of evangelical Christians voted for the Democractic party

[Markavian]

What the president would say about a Super Cloning Program IF he knew about it..He might be disgusted or if things were desperate enough I could see him appproving such a plan .He might simply view Cloned Super Humans as a contiuation of Project Rebirth the Super Soldier Program.But at this Point we DONT know if he knows......:confused:

[the Dagman]

:rolleyes: No he is not an evangelical Chrsitian. Bush is a Methodist. He is not, nor has he ever been, born-again. Now I think he was flat assed wrong to veto the stem-cell research bill but please stop the scare mongering and get your facts right.

You have been pwnd! (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031222/stam)

Also, I have not been "scare mongering". Start backing your arguements with facts and proof and you may start to realize you may be the one who does not know as much as you think you do.

[Jmacq1]

You have been pwnd! (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031222/stam)

Funny. If you actually read that article, it says Bush has some things in common with Evangelical Christians, and played that up for political advantage during the elections.

What it does -not- say is that Bush actually -is- an Evangelical Christian.

Not so "pwned" as you might like to think.

Besides that, we're starting to derail the topic, so...

Civil War #4 spoilers: Which Anti-Reg heroes flip-flop?

[kidpernicious]

:rolleyes: No he is not an evangelical Chrsitian. Bush is a Methodist. He is not, nor has he ever been, born-again. Now I think he was flat assed wrong to veto the stem-cell research bill but please stop the scare mongering and get your facts right.
You sound like one of those idiots that considers their own church's doctrine as having primacy. Maybe you're not, maybe you just don't know the definition of "evangelical", but you should know for future reference "evangelical" can pretty much refer to any Christian church. And generally, at least in America, evangelical usually refers to any Protestant church. And more importantly, consider that Bush's church, the United Methodist Church, was the product of two church's merging: the Methodist Protestant Church, and the Evangelical United Brethren.

So yes. Bush is an evangelical Christian.

Not to dwell off-topic or anything...

[Markavian]

Parts of Generics the "Right" Opposes is the proposed harvesting of embryos to gain their stem cells. A Posistion which is becoming moot as more ways are found to gain them without doing so. The "Left" generally opposes Geneticly Modified food and much of the genetic advances we are making.As it was pointed out some oppose even Fish Farming as well. I dont think anyone is comfortible with Cloning in the real world or the MU.SHEILD and the Pro Reg may have made a huge PR blunder even though they win this battle..I can See the Daily Bugle now.... "CLONE WARS!!" lol:D

[the Dagman]

Funny. If you actually read that article, it says Bush has some things in common with Evangelical Christians, and played that up for political advantage during the elections.

What it does -not- say is that Bush actually -is- an Evangelical Christian.

Not so "pwned" as you might like to think.

From the article I linked: "When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the metalanguage of evangelical code words is called "personal witness.""

[Pike]

Thank you Jmacq1.

I read the article as well and it does not say he is a "born again". Bush is a Methodist but like many politicians he will suck up to whatever constituency he can to get votes. For example, Bill Clinton regularly attended Baptist and born-again churches to stump for votes. Is he now a "born again"?

Again, you just don't know as much as you think you do.

[Jmacq1]

From the article I linked: "When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the metalanguage of evangelical code words is called "personal witness.""

"Corresponding perfectly" doesn't equal "I am an Evangelical Christian". If Bush says he's Methodist, than he's a Methodist with a lot of things in common with Evangelicals. Not quite the same animal. The same article says Karl Rove advised him on how to "Get in touch" with Evangelicals.

The man was coached to gain votes.

[Pike]

From the article I linked: "When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the metalanguage of evangelical code words is called "personal witness.""

And if you knew anything about being "born again" you would know that they open prostelysize and are required to note that they are born again.

Now you have taken a quote and basically added your own interpretation to it.

Is Bush a "born again" Christian? Nope.

Is Al Gore: "I am a Christian. I am a Protestant. I am a Baptist," Newsweek, March 2002

Here is Al Gore admitting he is "born again" from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact

.....Gore's mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush's public kind of faith.


Again, you have a simplistic, unnuanced grasp of facts.

[kidpernicious]

"Corresponding perfectly" doesn't equal "I am an Evangelical Christian". If Bush says he's Methodist, than he's a Methodist with a lot of things in common with Evangelicals. Not quite the same animal. The same article says Karl Rove advised him on how to "Get in touch" with Evangelicals.

The man was coached to gain votes.


Yeah... guess what.


You sound like one of those idiots that considers their own church's doctrine as having primacy. Maybe you're not, maybe you just don't know the definition of "evangelical", but you should know for future reference "evangelical" can pretty much refer to any Christian church. And generally, at least in America, evangelical usually refers to any Protestant church. And more importantly, consider that Bush's church, the United Methodist Church, was the product of two church's merging: the Methodist Protestant Church, and the Evangelical United Brethren.

So yes. Bush is an evangelical Christian.

Not to dwell off-topic or anything...

[Pike]

Yeah... guess what.

That's not the same as being "born again". Being "born again" is more than just a name. As is the use of the term "evangelical". Simply because a church has the word evangelical in its title does not make it an evangelical church. Methodism should not be confused (and would not be confused by anyone who made an effort) with "born again" churches.

[Pike]

And do read that New Yorker article. Explains how Gore and Clinton (both Baptists which is a significantly more conservative and fundamental church than the Methodist church) would pray together daily in the White House.

[Jmacq1]

Yeah... guess what.

Hey guess what?

I don't belong to -any- church. So I could care less which doctrine has "primacy". I just have a more cynical view of Bush's politics in regards to religion than some people do. My strong belief is that he's very much a politician first and a "christian" a very distant second, no matter what he says to get the "religious right" to keep voting for him.

But anyway, can -anyone- answer the question of which Anti-Reg folks switch sides?

[the Dagman]

And if you knew anything about being "born again" you would know that they open prostelysize and are required to note that they are born again.

Now you have taken a quote and basically added your own interpretation to it.

Is Bush a "born again" Christian? Nope.

Is Al Gore: "I am a Christian. I am a Protestant. I am a Baptist," Newsweek, March 2002

Here is Al Gore admitting he is "born again" from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact

.....Gore's mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too, had declared himself born again, but he clearly had disdain for Bush's public kind of faith.


Again, you have a simplistic, unnuanced grasp of facts.


From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/187081_focusbush22.html

"Indeed, Bush speaks often about his "born-again" faith and regularly references a divine power in public statements, a practice that religion scholar Martin E. Marty has termed "God talk.""

I think we are finished.

[kidpernicious]

That's not the same as being "born again". Being "born again" is more than just a name. As is the use of the term "evangelical". Simply because a church has the word evangelical in its title does not make it an evangelical church. Methodism should not be confused (and would not be confused by anyone who made an effort) with "born again" churches.
Ever hear of John Wesley? The Methodist church is based on Wesley's belief system. Ever hear of New Birth? Sounds awful similar to "born again", don't it? Quit talking down to others, you aren't nearly the expert on the subject that you think you are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Birth)

[the Dagman]

As far as the political/bible thumper arguement; can someone maybe start a different thread? I thought this one was for Civil War 4 spoilers...

Sorry everyone for getting it so off track. My point is proven, I am through with that.

[Pike]

From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/187081_focusbush22.html

"Indeed, Bush speaks often about his "born-again" faith and regularly references a divine power in public statements, a practice that religion scholar Martin E. Marty has termed "God talk.""

I think we are finished.

I think you are just lost.

To become a "born again" Christian you have to actively embrace Christianity by being re-batized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_Christian

Has Bush done this? No, he has not. As was noted earlier, Bush is a politician first and a Methodist second. So Bush would not be considered "born again" by any Christian and it is flat-assed wrong for you to consider him so.

Further, is this the same Martin Marty who noted that Clinton was "one of the most religious Presidents America has ever had"?

Evidently he is a reputable religious author.

[kidpernicious]

I think you are just lost.

To become a "born again" Christian you have to actively embrace Christianity by being re-batized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_Christian

Has Bush done this? No, he has not. As was noted earlier, Bush is a politician first and a Methodist second. So Bush would not be considered "born again" by any Christian and it is flat-assed wrong for you to consider him so.

Further, is this the same Martin Marty who noted that Clinton was "one of the most religious Presidents America has ever had"?

Evidently he is a reputable religious author.

Drop the topic already, read what I linked in my last comment to you and get over it. "Evangelical" cannot be ascribed solely to any church, neither can "born again", and if you truly believe "born again" absolutely means one specific denomination of Christianity, the fact is you're wrong, and I'd wager you're OF that denomination you're so convinced is synonymous with the phrase.

ALL of American protestantism originating from the Revivalist period pretty much ascribes to the idea of being born again. So if you want to define "evanglical" as being born again, which you shouldn't, then that covers Methodists, Ecumenicals, Baptists, and more.

[Bobster777]

I just had a bad feeling.

Anyone remember a few months back JQ was asked if Ben Reilly was going to return one day and his response was "keep reading"?

And now we have clones....

(and Pike.... move on. That subject is over.)
Who says the subject is over? That's one of the biggest plot points in this issue. So, why stop talking about it?

[Pike]

Drop the topic already, read what I linked in my last comment to you and get over it. "Evangelical" cannot be ascribed solely to any church, neither can "born again", and if you truly believe "born again" absolutely means one specific denomination of Christianity, the fact is you're wrong, and I'd wager you're OF that denomination you're so convinced is synonymous with the phrase.


The issue was with being "born again" and with the current understanding of evangelical Christianity (conversion, adherence to the bible etc.).

Bush is not "born again". He was not re-babtized. That is the current understanding of the phrase as we use it in the current context.

Further, the Methodist Church is not know for it's active conversion or even especially conservative politics (it has a wide variety of branches).

So no, Bush is not an evangelical Christian (as that term is currently used in the political context it was used in this discussion) nor is he a "born again" Christian.

Lastly, not that it is any of your business, but I am a Catholic.

[the Dagman]

Who says the subject is over? That's one of the biggest plot points in this issue. So, why stop talking about it?

A couple of more posts appeared after I posted last time, hence my editing of my prior post. Please everyone, I believe we are beating the dead dog and making all these other people watch. Let's refocus on the comic and off the real life religious definitions for everyone else's benefit.

[kidpernicious]

The issue was with being "born again" and with the current understanding of evangelical Christianity (conversion, adherence to the bible etc.).

Bush is not "born again". He was not re-babtized. That is the current understanding of the phrase as we use it in the current context.

Further, the Methodist Church is not know for it's active conversion or even especially conservative politics (it has a wide variety of branches).

So no, Bush is not an evangelical Christian (as that term is currently used in the political context it was used in this discussion) nor is he a "born again" Christian.

Lastly, not that it is any of your business, but I am a Catholic.

You were the one that first started arguing the born again bit, when up to that point it had only been posited that Bush was evangelical. Bush is confirmed to be Methodist, and Methodism falls under the umbrella of Evangelical churches. If you saw my last link, you'd also see that Methodists believe in a concept of "New Birth", which is, in fact, part and parcel, the same concept as being born again. But this is obviated by the fact that, despite all your incorrect assertions, "evangelical" does not nor has it ever been synonymous with "born again", and insisting it does won't make it true.

That's my last off-topic post. Apologies to everyone else.

[Bobster777]

When you put it like that... what's the point of even trying to argue? America used the bomb to show its might. And you wonder why you're so hated all over the world?
You obviously don't read your history. If they hadn't had used the bomb, the war would have been prolonged even longer leading to the deaths of more Japanese and Americans. The Japanese weren't going to surrender at that point. So, yes, the atom bomb is an ugly human invention. However, in that situation, it saved many lives.

[Pike]

You were the one that first started arguing the born again bit, when up to that point it had only been posited that Bush was evangelical. Bush is confirmed to be Methodist, and Methodism falls under the umbrella of Evangelical churches. If you saw my last link, you'd also see that Methodists believe in a concept of "New Birth", which is, in fact, part and parcel, the same concept as being born again. But this is obviated by the fact that, despite all your incorrect assertions, "evangelical" does not nor has it ever been synonymous with "born again", and insisting it does won't make it true.

That's my last off-topic post. Apologies to everyone else.

Actually evangelical has been used in the context of being "born again". Moreover, in current parlance, evangelical refers to those Christian churches that actively preach and seek to spread the teachings of Christ and the bible. In fairness, that does not describe the current Methodist church.

Bush is no more religious than Al Gore or Bill Clinton. He does, however, reach out to a different religious base.

In sum, Bush in is personal religious persuasion is a moderate protestant and, in the current context, cannot be described as an evnagelical Chrsitan or a "born again" Christian.

[Pike]

When you put it like that... what's the point of even trying to argue? America used the bomb to show its might. And you wonder why you're so hated all over the world?

Nice generalities.

The atom bomb basically prevented another world war breaking out every couple of years.

Do you really think the world would have been better off if the Nazis or the Soviets had gotten the bomb first?

See the difference? Facists and communists were trying to get the bomb. Last time I check, the anti-reg aren't chasing after the ultimate nullifier.

[Markavian]

When you put it like that... what's the point of even trying to argue? America used the bomb to show its might. And you wonder why you're so hated all over the world?
Why your misbegotten Country needs America to protect it?

[Exo]

See the difference? Facists and communists were trying to get the bomb.

Actually the Nazis were at the time developing the bomb for peaceful purposes aswell. There are a handful of innovative ideas that involve the use nuclear bombs (creating canals, space propulsion etc).

[Markavian]

You obviously don't read your history. If they hadn't had used the bomb, the war would have been prolonged even longer leading to the deaths of more Japanese and Americans. The Japanese weren't going to surrender at that point. So, yes, the atom bomb is an ugly human invention. However, in that situation, it saved many lives.
MacArthur who haad been accurate in his estimates of Allied and Japanese casulties on Okinawa after he had missed the number at Iwo Jimi said 500,000- 1,000,000 US Dead and 3,000,000- 10,000,000 Japanese dead IF we landed with a conventinal Army . General MacArthur said he was relived the war was ended so quickly by the bomb as he didnt want to have to send more young men to their death.

[Pike]

Actually the Nazis were at the time developing the bomb for peaceful purposes aswell. There are a handful of innovative ideas that involve the use nuclear bombs (creating canals, space propulsion etc).

Yes but their primary purpose was to use it offensively. Also, given the Nazis history why should we believe or even care what else they were going to use it for (though I see your point if you were just trying to make an observation).

[Exo]

Yes but their primary purpose was to use it offensively.

Of course. It's a bomb.

[trickster]

Why your misbegotten Country needs America to protect it?

No shit. Which country would that be? And who says the world needs American protection? Are you sure you're not just protecting your own interests? Not to mention that you sold all of Eastern Europe to the Communists without any remorse.

Lucky us you're here to protect the world from the Red Skull.

[Bobster777]

I think you both should give it a break. This bashing country stuff is really dumb.

[Pike]

No shit. Which country would that be? And who says the world needs American protection? Are you sure you're not just protecting your own interests? Not to mention that you sold all of Eastern Europe to the Communists without any remorse.

Lucky us you're here to protect the world from the Red Skull.

So it would have made a lot more sense for America to then fight the Soviets? Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and fighting 20M soviets in 1945 probably wasn't a good idea.

Can you give me a better alternative than having America as the sole superpower? Let's say America vanished tomorrow, would the world be safer with Communist China as the sole superpower of a newly dicatorial Russia?

I think not.

[Exo]

So it would have made a lot more sense for America to then fight the Soviets? Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and fighting 20M soviets in 1945 probably wasn't a good idea.

Can you give me a better alternative than having America as the sole superpower? Let's say America vanished tomorrow, would the world be safer with Communist China as the sole superpower of a newly dicatorial Russia?

I think not.

Ooh, I'd love to see how that would turn out. You should be writing comic books. :D

[Markavian]

I said that because he made a crack at my country . Lets stick to the Subject . I wonder if the President even knows of the Cloning ?

[Bobster777]

I said that because he made a crack at my country . Lets stick to the Subject . I wonder if the President even knows of the Cloning ?
Officially, probably not. Considering how cloning is very illegal, I don't think he would ever admit he knows even if he did.

[Hush Little Batman]

No, it's "jumping the shark" because it fails to reclaim that popularity.

"Jumping the shark" is a fairly specific term that only applies in rather specific circumstances. The story could be as unbelievable as all get out, but only if it loses popularity/readership/viewership does it really "jump the shark".

That's not entirely accurate. "Jumping the Shark" isn't really about a show losing popularity; it's when a show has lost all creativity and resorts to stupid and outlandish plot devices because the writers/producers don't know what to do anymore. It's true it can also be used to signify when a show has lost ratings and popularity, but it's more about having hit the creative peak and then slowly getting worse and wrose.

Two great examples of a show jumping are 'ER' and 'Charmed'. In the case of the former, it's still on NBC and, at this time, is in no danger of being canceled (though most of its viewers agree that it sucks now). In the latter's case, the majority of its fanbase say the show JTS when Shannen Doherty's character died, but the show ran for five more seasons after that, so while it "JTS" creatively, it maintained steady ratings.

[gorthon616]

The problem here is, no, it isn't "war."

How, exactly, and in detail, is Captain America's Anti-SRA movement MORE dangerous than an attack by Doctor Doom, or the invasion of the Avengers Mansion by the Masters of Evil/Wrecking Crew?

What possible, legitimate reason is there for EITHER side to resort to lethal force, when as a general rule, they don't use that force against REAL supervillains?

Yes, Stamford was a (ham-handed, poorly written) tragedy, but would that suddenly mean that Tony has decided Steve is more of a threat than someone like the Mandarin, or any other villain he has fought more than once or twice?

The reaction is far in excess of the event it is responding to, IMHO. That's my gripe, and from reading these boards, I am not alone in that belief. Sure, things can get heated, but THIS was worth a Thor-Clone, when, say, ONSLAUGHT wasn't? Do you see the problem with this?

And to counter your "loyal readers" claim? You're right. There are a LOT of people (at Marvel and DC) that will read anything with the company stamp on it. And that's a shame, because we know the Big Two can do better. Again, you're right, when people buy this, they send the message loud and clear that THIS is what they want.

Take it and run.

BOOM.

The real Civil War going on here, isn't between the heroes. It's between the fans. And I'm on Civil War Sucks (But I'm such a nut that I'm buying it anyways). What side are you on?

[trickster]

You obviously don't read your history. If they hadn't had used the bomb, the war would have been prolonged even longer leading to the deaths of more Japanese and Americans. The Japanese weren't going to surrender at that point. So, yes, the atom bomb is an ugly human invention. However, in that situation, it saved many lives.

Oh I do read my history. I just don't buy this statement.

Quote from Wikipedia:


It has been claimed that the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) were major factors that led to the Japanese surrender, and the official end of World War II. However, many American leaders disagree, including General McArthur. See http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) that includes "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." Ref.: Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power



I said that because he made a crack at my country . Lets stick to the Subject . I wonder if the President even knows of the Cloning ?


Truth hurts, doesn't it? Or rather, is annoying.

Your post seems to imply that somehow every country in the world owes America their existence.

And people said Batman was paranoid? Iron Man's worse by a longshot.
And how come they didn't arrest Sue as a traitor right away for helping the "outlaws" escape?


Nope. Which I'm guessing means the faux Thor is destined for a very brief lifespan

Even shorter than you think. They show the scientists poking around his head and blood dripping.

[Markavian]

Oh I do read my history. I just don't buy this statement.

Quote from Wikipedia:





Truth hurts, doesn't it? Or rather, is annoying.

Your post seems to imply that somehow every country in the world owes America their existence.

And people said Batman was paranoid? Iron Man's worse by a longshot.
And how come they didn't arrest Sue as a traitor right away for helping the "outlaws" escape?
I know Macarthur was quoted in his Biography as saying the Bomb saved many lives. I know you hate America but thats all right. We hate your kind as well.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I know Macarthur was quoted in his Biography as saying the Bomb saved many lives. I know you hate America but thats all right. We hate your kind as well.

Wow, way to generalize....... Seriously, I'm very happy most of the Americans I live near don't act like you, or as you would say, "your kind".

[Pike]

You need to be careful when quoting wikipedia (though I did it myself in this very thread).

MacArthur went on the record several times approving the dropping of the bomb. The reality is that it saved more lives as a ground assault in Japan would have been a nightmare.

If you want to point to Allied atrocities (as opposed to Hitler's death campans, Japan's systematic rape, torture and execution of Chinese and Koreans, Stalins massacre of over 30 million of his own people) then you should focus your energies on the firebombing of Dresden which was an indefensible act.

Of course, your initial analogy just isn't very good but you know that by now.

[Markavian]

Wow, way to generalize....... Seriously, I'm very happy most of the Americans I live near don't act like you, or as you would say, "your kind".
I dont take it well. Last i recall I havent said a word about your country.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I dont take it well. Last i recall I havent said a word about your country.

That's funny, cause I'm a Nigerian-American.

[Alpow]

You're right, clearly people like the Vulture with a history of petty crime should rate FAR higher than the entire symbol of American culture, her living legend and oldest hero running around completely unchecked leading a group of super-powered individuals OPENLY defying the law, resisting all police forces and battling back with little or no regard for collateral damage using potentially ruthless techniques.
Cap is doing nothing different than he was doing a few weeks ago and he is no more a threat to people than he was then, people like Vulture on the other hand are still a threat.

This is like concentrating all police power on catching an unlicensed driver and just ignoring armed robbers and murderers.

[bulbasteve]

Cap is doing nothing different than he was doing a few weeks ago and he is no more a threat to people than he was then, people like Vulture on the other hand are still a threat.

This is like concentrating all police power on catching an unlicensed driver and just ignoring armed robbers and murderers.

He was busting people out of prison transports and resisted arrest before Civil War?

[Alpow]

He was busting people out of prison transports and resisted arrest before Civil War?

Yes he has a long history of helping the innocent and scuppering the plans of evil doers.

[bulbasteve]

Yes he has a long history of helping the innocent and scuppering the plans of evil doers.

So when did he last bust people out of prison transport who was rightfully under arrest according to united states law and attack police officers? You said this is what he was doing for in the weeks leading up to Civil War. So either you have evidence of this or you do not. Your statement is leading me to believe you don't.

I mean come on people look at Magneto's post. It's nice to make blanket statements and all...but isn't there enough stuff to complain about already and not stuff which is directly contradicted by what is actually shown in the comics?

[Alpow]

So when did he last bust people out of prison transport who was rightfully under arrest according to united states law and attack police officers? You said this is what he was doing for in the weeks leading up to Civil War. So either you have evidence of this or you do not. Your statement is leading me to believe you don't.

I clearly meant that Cap and his group were continuing to practice being a vigilante as he had done so before.

I gave a sarcastic response to what I take to be you being deliberately obtuse; if you weren't then I am sorry you couldn't understand what I was quite plainly saying (which to recap is that vigilante hero work, which is what Cap and the others were being hunted for before any other crimes were added on top, is no more dangerous, to ciivliains, “today” than it was before the reg act and since Cap hasn’t always been considered to be more of a threat to eth average citizen than Vulture it is clearly incorrect that he should be considered to be so now).

With that said however I don’t see a great moral difference between average heroing and what Captain America + friends are getting up to now, heroes regularly defy the law and even clash with the government(it is pretty much all the X-men do for example, as do people on the pro reg side let alone the antis She Hulk participated in covering up her involvement in a rampage she committed, Richards stole government property, Iron man used technology which wiped peoples memories in a fashion which clearly constitutes assault and so on and so forth) so Cap beating up Shield goons and busting people out of custody is little different than similar actions before committed by most (if not all) heroes.

[bulbasteve]

I clearly meant that Cap and his group were continuing to practice being a vigilante as he had done so before.

But that ISN'T all he is doing in Civil War. You were deliberately ignoring what is actually happening and painted him as a hero who was only doing exactly was he was doing before, in fact your statement was "Cap is doing nothing different than he was doing a few weeks ago". Now clearly, whatever your intent was, that statement is NOT true. Right?

[Alpow]

Now clearly, whatever your intent was, that statement is NOT true. Right?

If we are going to try and nit pick our way to victory then that statement could never be true since a few weeks ago he had never breathed the air within any of those particular Nick Fury safe house, nor had he surfed on top of a jet (certainly not that particular jet) so congratulations on proving the obvious there.

However if we are going to actually comprehend sentences by judging the context they are in then it takes us back to where we were.

I made a comment about Cap being at the top of the Super villain list (in response to a discussion about why nobody cared about actual super villains), he isn't there because he beat up a government official or two (something which again isn't that uncommon for heroes) he is there because he is an unregistered vigilante, or as Magneto Rocks put it "You're right, clearly people like the Vulture with a history of petty crime should rate FAR higher than the entire symbol of American culture, her living legend and oldest hero running around completely unchecked leading a group of super-powered individuals OPENLY defying the law, resisting all police forces and battling back with little or no regard for collateral damage using potentially ruthless techniques."

Now apart from him having good PR he doesn't differ (in the eyes of the law) from Vulture (or other more worthy villains) in the categories of defying the law or resisting police forces so it becomes clear that what sets him apart is that he is defying the SHRA (that would be the bolded stuff about the, quite incorrect, accusation that Cap isn't concerned with collateral damage) and that is why he is worthy of a top super villain spot, not because he threw a cop out of a car, not because he rescued some kids from being sent to a gulag for the rest of their lives but because he is breaking the SHRA.

The fact that the government views Cap causing trouble for their legislation as being a greater problem than people trying to murder, rape and pillage citizens is exactly what I was heaping scorn upon with my comment (and it is also the exact line that MR takes in explaining why Cap is so worthy of being viewed as the number one threat to America)

[The White-Spider]

..the Vulture is an example of a weak villain that is beneath the radar of SHIELD.

Which has focused on the true threats, such as those posed by the Prowler.


while there are those "walking nukes" still you know...walking around


Run Frog-Man, run!

[Alpow]

The issue at hand is his vigilante activities which haven't changed and present no more danger now than they did before the SHRA (which means he is no more of a threat to the people today than he was then).

Then after that we get to the fact that Cap is doing what he has always done - fighting the bad guys whilst being unconcerned what the law or government says about it.

[Alpow]

And AGAIN you do this. You say "Cap is doing what he has always done" but your interpretation of this seems to be "Cap is doing what he has always done, when you leave out all the things he's doing now that he never did before!"

No I say Cap is doing what he is always done as it regards the reason why he is the top of the villain list, i.e. vigilante activities, he may no longer be flossing, he may have taken up knitting but that isn't relevant to the issue at hand.

Then we get onto the separate issue that the incidents you keep trying to raise (which aren’t the reasons he is topping the villain list, even by your own admission, it is the fact that he is breaking the SHRA and the ridiculous notion that he no longer cares about collateral damage) are simply part and parcel of heroing work, they regularly ignore the law and government to do the right thing and that is all Cap is doing when he chucks a shield bloke out of a car to save some children.

[Jmacq1]

Pre-freaking-cisely.

The fact that they have to be written this way for the crossover to work notwithstanding, the Pro-Reg is a bunch of idiots for trying to cram this law down the throats of any and all they can get their hands on.

They would have been far more politically savvy to simply let the Anti-Reg heroes continue to operate in a "cold war" situation.

Why, you ask? Simple, because by not taking any offensive actions against the Anti-Reg, and instead concentrating on working with the heroes you already have on the Pro-Registration side, you accomplish a few different things:

A: You can focus on coordinated strikes on villains and major threats. You know, the people that threaten innocent civilians with death (and worse) every time they make a move, as opposed to magically becoming "more dangerous" than they were before simply because the President signed a piece of paper.

B: By doing the above, you not only garner more public goodwill, you also show the merits of the Pro-Reg side in a purely benevolent, non-oppressive fashion. Implementing the law with a "soft touch" may very well cause many of the Anti-Reg heroes to rethink their position and return to the fold much more effectively than beating the crap out of them and threatening them with life imprisonment in another dimension until they sign up. We certainly haven't heard about dozens of people signing up after they end up in the Neg-Zone prison, have we?

C. By avoiding direct confrontation with the "Secret Avengers" and the like, the Pro-Reg gives Cap and his faction all the rope they need to "hang" themselves. If they're as "dangerous" as some people like to claim, then eventually they're going to make a mistake that will turn the public even further against them, and then the Pro-Reg (having been proven "right" in all matters) has carte blanche to do whatever it is they need to do to take them down...assuming most of said Anti-Reggers haven't seen the light and switched sides after whatever "Tragedy" occurred (though of course the fact that such a tragedy might not ever occur is one of the reasons the Pro-Reg has gone "iron-fisted tyrant" on people....can't have the Secret Avengers stick around and prove that their "futurist vision" might not be correct, now can we?

But of course, as noted above, for the story to work, the Pro-Reg have to be tyrants, and the Anti-Reg have to be thugs. Consistent characterization be damned, we've got whiz-bang superhero fights to portray! Yippee!

[Alpow]

Prowler has openly defied the law, and YES, this makes him no better than the criminals he claims to hunt. He IS a criminal, because the definition of criminal is one who partakes in criminal acts, IE: Disobeys the LAW OF THE LAND. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we like and follow.

That is such a load of nonsense, Reed Richards stole government property (theft would be against the LAW OF THE LAND, right?) Ironman did the same and beat up government officials in the Amour wars, all Heroes regularly break and enter, Stark (and other people with the ability to fly) routinely violates the border of foreign nations (which would be illegal), Wolverine rarely keeps his body count down to single figures, heroes regularly threaten and even assault people to get information out of them.


Oh yes and Stark broke a friend out of a federal prison so she could aid him in a task.

So I take it Ironman, Reed Richards, She Hulk, Wolverine and the rest of the bunch are all "So-called heroes" as well.

No?

Then why would that be, because they are pro Reg right(well with the exception of Wolverine)?

This coming from an anti-regger? I don't think the anti-reg side are evil- on the contrary, I understand their point of view. I think they're wrong.

I said they don't have to be evil, however when they commit evil acts then that makes them evil, based upon their actions no just because they aren't on "my" side,

They ARE preventing SHIELD from doing things. How are SHIELD supposed to go around hunting lawbreakers if they ignore some laws and enforce others?

The Police regularly do this sort of thing (ignoring the fact that the Police routinely disregard minor or ridiculous offences, this is why you didn't see a lot of US cops devoted to enforcing sodomy laws or British police enforcing blasphemy laws), you don't think more police power gets devoted to solving a murder than it does dealing with littering?

If the anti-reggers weren't defying the law, SHIELD could concentrate more on super-villains, and tat's a fact.

Yes and if wishes were horses......

Shield have the option of where to devote their resources, they have chosen and the consequence are theirs, trying to shift the blame to the Anti-reggers doesn't work because the choice lies with Shield.

If we take the road you are attempting then the Anti-reggers can still argue it isn't their fault because the law was changed, if the law hadn't been changed then they wouldn't have had to go rogue and so on and so forth.



Unfortunately, your initial premise is wrong. The anti-reggers are focusing SOME attention on fighting villains and some on breaking out criminals.

No, they are (or were) focusing on fighting villains and rescuing people from Shield, if Shield isn't rounding them up (because they are concentrating on actual bad guys) then the Anti-reggers would leave them alone.

SHIELD are not gorging themselves on power, they are enforcing THE LAW.

It is statements like this that completely discredit Pro-reggers, it is either biased beyond belief or shows a fatal lack of knowledge about the subject (and in your case it isn't the latter), Shield obviously wishes to gain control over the super powered people (as does the government in general).

The entire organisation (like most organisations) revolves around accruing more power, either because they just want power for powers sake or because they believe they need more power to be able to do more good.

[Magneto Rocks]

Well all righty then, let me be more specific:
Sure they are, and in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, however the police don't direct the same amount of resources to capturing jaywalkers and litterbugs that they do to murderers and terrorists. Different laws and different kinds of criminals have more or less "weight" to how fervently they're sought by the government. That's where the difference lies.

I'm sorry? Vulture is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. Prowler is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. That's that.

Bring about a peaceful end of the war? An end to organized resistance maybe, but there'll be anti-reg heroes from now until eternity, and as poorly as Cap's been written in this crossover, sacrificing his freedom and that of the heroes following him would be just as out of character as everything else.

If Cap says "Fine, this is what's right, let's register with the government" half the resistance will follow him. Without those forces, even if Cap and co don't ctively aid the pro-reggers, the bulk of the unregistered heroes would be defeated in a month. Sure there'll be holdouts and those who resist, but that doesn't constitue a 'war'- that's like saying World War II never ended because there were those Germans who didn't give in. And guess what- Cap isn't required to sacrifice his freedom. he's required to do what is right.


You misunderstand where I'm coming from, which is understandable because I wasn't precisely clear. I didn't mean to imply that there would be no enforcement of the SHRA, just that (as noted above) you don't have to throw all your resources at the Anti-Reg faction. You are familiar with the "Cold War" premise, no?

Basically, if an unregistered hero makes themselves easy to apprehend, you apprehend them. Then you give them a completely above-the-board, public trial, and find a humane way of holding them that doesn't involve shipping them to another dimension where "US Laws don't touch them". Hell, give established heroes (those with no prior criminal convictions and/or a long-stablished reputation as a "good guy") probation for a "first offense" and offer them yet another opportunity to sign on. If they refuse and get busted doing the vigilante thing again, then you throw the book at them. But no more of this "guilty until proven innocent" crap that the Pro-Reg has been operating under since the law was signed.

Ah, thank you for clarifying and making my point BETTER. So now you 'selectively' arrst those for breaking the same law. If Suspect A is easy to apprehend, you apprehend him. If Suspect B does the same thing and ISN'T easy to apprehend, let him go. You're right about one thing- if there was no active war between the two factions, these guys WOULD get fair, normal trials- but they'd lose, since most of these self styled vigilantes would make impassioned pleas that they had been helping people- thus admitting to vigilante activity and their guilt. Find me a safe way of holding them if you can.

I'm not sure there are ANY heroes with no prior criminal convictions. And reputations are all very well, but if I have a 'reputation' as a good driver and I then go on a crazy booze night should I be let off?This reputation business opens up a further slippery slope. Who decides what heroes have a good enough reputation? Would this even be excised- high profile anti-reggers like Cap would have no hesitation in telling the court that when released, he would continue as an unregistered hero. What would the court do then?

Do you think for a second that Cap etc would TAKE this chance they're offered? Don't give me that "no, but it could be offered..." rubbish. Cap has been offered chance and chance again and turned them all down.


If an unregistered hero (or group of unregistered heroes) causes another mini-tragedy, then you take them down and follow the above procedure, minus the "probation" aspect. Play up the fact that their actions are proving the Pro-Reg side correct. Both to the public and to the accused heroes. However bear in mind that ultimately 99.9 percent of the "Tragedies" are actually because of the actions of villains, not heroes. More on this later.

Well this seems a pretty rubbish way of making laws. This is 'Wait and see...' policy. Facts and figures say a super human tragedy is inevitable. (CW2) Some of the smartest men on the planet say it's inevitable. LOGIC and common sense says it's inevitable. But you think they should wait and see, at the cost of all these lives? At least in implementing the SHRA, there wouldn't be much death if any.


You must be one of the most politically naive people on the planet.

From the guy who thinks some people should be given a pass for commiting the same crime as others.

Who said anything about "announcing" this stuff? You make token arrests and take down targets of opportunity. Or even better, you focus your attention on cleaning up all of the unregistered and at-large villains before you worry overly much about the unregistered heroes. What are the Anti-Reg heroes going to do when there's no one left to be "vigilant" against?

There will always be villains. You are suggesting they blur the line between hero and villain. Who gets to judge who's a super-villain? If someone's never killed anyone but robbed seven banks, they're a villain- right? Why- because they broke the law. But hang on, so did those anti-reg 'heroes'....

They both broke the law, they should both be stopped. And as for 'announcing'- sooner or later, somneone's going to ask why no-one is doing anything about Cap's group running around. I think they can work out a very transparent policy.

Also, you forget one huge thing- CAP'S role in the equation. You think he will LET SHIELD arrest targets of oppurtunity? Cap will be up in arms busting out every single anti-regger he can but because he isn't a 'target of oppurtunity', nothing will be done. Is he just counted as an unregistered hero the same as others when he breaks open a SHIELD convoy to break out (I refuse to use the term rescue) the heroes inside?

But in practice it's no different from the way laws are enforced now. Do the police get crucified when someone kills somebody in their city? No, they normally don't. You concentrate your resources on the "pros" (Training programs, greater coordination between heroes, support of SHIELD and the Government) of the Pro-Registration side and minimize the "cons" (condemning basically good people to life sentences, cloning living WMDs, depriving people technically under US Jurisdiction of the protection of US Laws).

Well firstly, I'm sure Thor would love to be classified as a living WMD. That said, I'll take one registered living WMD over the HUNDREDS of unregistered living WMDs. Tom Brevoort has already said these guys WILL get trials- just AFTER this whole crisis is over, and I'll take him as the authority any day. I also doubt that anyhone will ever stay in that prison for 'life'- they'll register sooner or later. And being the genius you are, you tell me what should be done with apprehended unregistered heroes with the power to kill hundreds.

The Pro-Reg side has built in protection because they've sided with the government. We've already seen it since there's certainly no investigation or trial being conducted for "Clor's" use of excessive force. We see it in the real world when the entirety of the FBI doesn't get fired after 9/11. Even superheroes can't be everywhere all the time (though many Pro-Reg proponents seem to believe that they'll all become magically infallible if everyone were Pro-Reg).

...Well strangely I can't see anything to argue with there, since it's not really an argument. Though I do disagree that anyone thinks they'll be magically infallible.

You still assume that this was being "announced". The government and law-enforcement rarely "announce" how they're directing their resources or how exactly they're going to go about enforcing the laws. Hell, even as it stands now Tony Stark only tends to "announce" his implementation measures once it reaches a point that he can't keep it secret anymore (IE the press being on the verge of finding him out). Give me some credit, I'm not completely naive (though you seem to maintain a very simplistic view of "the law"). If you concentrate on the actual villains and manage to clean that side of things up (as in theory the Pro-Reg faction should easily be able to do), then what does the Anti-Reg have left to do? And if you can't clean that side up, then the SHRA is an empty promise anyway, isn't it? (Which is the ultimate truth of the SHRA anyway, at least from a storytelling perspective)

WHo defines who is a villain? What 'villains' do you even mean- are there many major a listers left? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's a greater number of super-villains behind bars, dead or retired now than there has been for most of marvel history? It might be easier for the pro-reggers to GET these villains, as I've said again and again, if they weren't being undermined at every turn by the Living Legend telling everyone how evil and wrong they are.

Actually I think my argument is fine. I enjoy our debates and you often have good points, but I think you're being overly simplistic about "the law" and how it is enforced.

And I think you continue to overestimate the degree of support the people can have for what you propose, and I think you fail to grasp how you are suggesting the most injust system of law I've heard of- yes, worse than detaining living WMDs for life.

[Agent Helix]

Since when is Typeface a living WMD?

[Magneto Rocks]

This debate is getting so heated and interesting it can't all fit into one post! Anyway....

That is such a load of nonsense, Reed Richards stole government property (theft would be against the LAW OF THE LAND, right?) Ironman did the same and beat up government officials in the Amour wars, all Heroes regularly break and enter, Stark (and other people with the ability to fly) routinely violates the border of foreign nations (which would be illegal), Wolverine rarely keeps his body count down to single figures, heroes regularly threaten and even assault people to get information out of them.

Yup, those things are wrong. I agree completely, they're wrong and they shouldn't have been done, and Stark etc are saying that. :)

Oh yes and Stark broke a friend out of a federal prison so she could aid him in a task.

So I take it Ironman, Reed Richards, She Hulk, Wolverine and the rest of the bunch are all "So-called heroes" as well.

No?

Then why would that be, because they are pro Reg right(well with the exception of Wolverine)?

They were breaking laws etc, they were doing the wrong thing. Now in many cases this was to stop some massive scheme which threatened the world, or the country. Not the case in the Civil War. But She-Hulk, Reed, Tony- they're coming out and they are SAYING "We were wrong to break the law, we will atone for it. We will be the role models that we should be."

The Police regularly do this sort of thing (ignoring the fact that the Police routinely disregard minor or ridiculous offences, this is why you didn't see a lot of US cops devoted to enforcing sodomy laws or British police enforcing blasphemy laws), you don't think more police power gets devoted to solving a murder than it does dealing with littering?

The police regularly do it, sure. Lots of police regularly take bribes too. Doesn't mean it's right.


Shield have the option of where to devote their resources, they have chosen and the consequence are theirs, trying to shift the blame to the Anti-reggers doesn't work because the choice lies with Shield.

If we take the road you are attempting then the Anti-reggers can still argue it isn't their fault because the law was changed, if the law hadn't been changed then they wouldn't have had to go rogue and so on and so forth.

There is no evidence that they are devoting more resources to anti-reggers than they are to super-villains- on the contrary, they assigned one of their top super-villain teams to take down criminals.


No, they are (or were) focusing on fighting villains and rescuing people from Shield, if Shield isn't rounding them up (because they are concentrating on actual bad guys) then the Anti-reggers would leave them alone.

...Oh, well that's great. Think about that foir a second. If a gang attack a prison to bust out their boss- well then, it's the prison's fault, for imprisoning the boss in the first place!

It is statements like this that completely discredit Pro-reggers, it is either biased beyond belief or shows a fatal lack of knowledge about the subject (and in your case it isn't the latter), Shield obviously wishes to gain control over the super powered people (as does the government in general).

Heh, well I'm glad you don't think I lack knowledge- and may I say it's a pleasure to have another person to argue with, Alpow. Soon I'll have a rogues gallery greater than Spider-Man :P

But to return to the point, there's no evidence to support your claims that SHIELD wish to gain control of them. But yeah, the government want to control them. Does that make them wrong? Are the government wrong for wanting to control the police? Oh wait... they
DO



May I also say this is all getting very off-topic. It's turning into a great anti-reg/pro-reg debate (Haven't had one this interesting in a while) but the thread IS about Spider-Man....

Of course, naturally I'm of the opinion that you've deliberately changed tacks because you already lost the Spidey villains debate. ;)

[Alpow]

Yup, those things are wrong. I agree completely, they're wrong and they shouldn't have been done, and Stark etc are saying that. :)

Are they?

Stark (and being charitable here and avoiding any possible references to him being an obsessive control freak) is essentially going along with SHRA because he is afraid what will happen if he doesn't, he seems to regard it as nothing more than the lesser evil.

Since Stark is deliberately circumventing justice (the purpose of the Negative zone prison being to make it impossible for any lower court to intervene) it still seems like he exalts doing the right thing over doing the lawful thing.

They were breaking laws etc, they were doing the wrong thing. Now in many cases this was to stop some massive scheme which threatened the world, or the country.

Stark broke his friend, who was responsible for multiple deaths, out of jail (I just love the comparison to Cap's supposed high crime of saving a bunch of teenagers for the negative zone prison) to save himself, Reed stole that ship for scientific curiosity, She Hulk ripped the roof off a nerds house because he was posting names on the internet, Wolverine was destroying damage control property because he was (rightfully) ticked with them, these aren't saving the world of country events.

Not the case in the Civil War.

That rather depends upon your perspective, Cable certainly thinks it could and I myself don't think giving one man an amry of super clones is that healthy for the future of democracy.

Beyond that we have that Cap thinks he is saving his nation from itself.

But She-Hulk, Reed, Tony- they're coming out and they are SAYING "We were wrong to break the law, we will atone for it. We will be the role models that we should be."

So what you are saying is that up until civil war 1# you didn't consider any of marvels heroes to actually be heroes?

The police regularly do it, sure. Lots of police regularly take bribes too. Doesn't mean it's right.

So you don't think it is right to prioritise murder over littering, is that because you view littering as so heinous or because you don't really care about murder?

Or is it because you have the strange idea that all laws are equal and thus all crimes are, if that is so then I hope you campaign for a single sentence for all crimes (hmm, death for littering... or $50 fine for murder).

There is no evidence that they are devoting more resources to anti-reggers than they are to super-villains- on the contrary, they assigned one of their top super-villain teams to take down criminals.

Ah but I haven't argued they are doing (remember earlier when I said "if we accept the premise") what I am arguing is that it would be wrong for them to do so something which you don't agree with (you have already come out and endorsed the idea that Captain America is a bigger villain than the vulture).

If you are willing to concede that point then the matter is resolved.

...Oh, well that's great. Think about that foir a second. If a gang attack a prison to bust out their boss- well then, it's the prison's fault, for imprisoning the boss in the first place!

That isn't what I am saying (I went to lengths to avoid saying that since that is exactly the faulty logic you are using to absolve Shield of any responsibility for their decisions), I am saying that the idea that Cap will keep attacking them is incorrect and thus they could disengage, Cap made the choice to free those teenagers (just as Tony chose to free that friend who was responsible for several murders) and he bears the responsibility for that action (I just happen to agree that given the circumstances he made the right call, although that is a side issue).


Heh, well I'm glad you don't think I lack knowledge- and may I say it's a pleasure to have another person to argue with, Alpow. Soon I'll have a rogues gallery greater than Spider-Man :P

Well as long as I more on the Green Goblin end of things instead of down with the Kangaroo.

But to return to the point, there's no evidence to support your claims that SHIELD wish to gain control of them. But yeah, the government want to control them. Does that make them wrong? Are the government wrong for wanting to control the police? Oh wait... they
DO

I made no judgement about whether it was right for them to want more power, in fact I pointed out that there are legitimate reasons good people would want more power however it is quite clear that Shield wish to accrue power, they were mining the Savage land for just such a reason, they mind scanned Spiderman for that reason, they want Stark to build weapons for them for that reason and so on and so forth.

If they have the Supers working for them it makes them more powerful and better able to do their job, it would be odd if they didn't want that extra power (although I think Shield has other reasons for those who view Shield as the formeost in nice guys that justification should suffice).

Of course, naturally I'm of the opinion that you've deliberately changed tacks because you already lost the Spidey villains debate. ;)

I never entered that debate (hence my caveat about accepting that premise earlier) except to point out that it would be wrong for Shield to target Cap more than villains, I haven't said that they are allowing Super villains to run free, let alone specifically Spidey ones.

The evidence seems to be that the villains are actually under control (since Zemo has the unrealistic ability to accomplish that at a wave of his hand), ignoring Osborne and that future train wreck, although I suppose given the events of the latest Thunderbolts that may have come undone.

[Alpow]

Since when is Typeface a living WMD?

Very few heroes could actually be classed as such but it makes nice sound bite for Pro Reg propaganda.

[Agent Helix]

I mean, it's important to bear in mind again that, like the "aftermath" of House of M, none of this matters. Which mutants got depowered? Ones no one cares about. Who's getting thrown in Reed Richard's Spectacular Space Prison? Characters like Typeface and the Living Mummy (Not an American citizen, I might add! Or even IN America, to my knowledge). Marvel is hamstringing the Pro-Registration side of things by putting "extremely powerful vigilantes" like friggin' Prowler and Solo in the superprison, simply because no fans will get uppity at the loss of second stringers.

Everything in Civil War is done in service of sales, the entire Pro vs. Anti argument doesn't even matter, because none of it actually makes a damn lick of sense.

[Jmacq1]

I'm sorry? Vulture is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. Prowler is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. That's that.

And I'm the one "blurring the line between hero and villain?" No, I'm sorry, that clearly belongs to you in this equation. You choose to see the whole situation as filtered solely through the lens of "the law". And that may be a valid viewpoint, but for many people "the law" is not the arbiter of who's a "hero" and who's a "villain". People's actions are the arbiter of that, and no, breaking the law doesn't always equal "wrong" particularly in a world populated by the extremes that frequent the Marvel Universe.

If Cap says "Fine, this is what's right, let's register with the government" half the resistance will follow him. And guess what- Cap isn't required to sacrifice his freedom. he's required to do what is right.

Only "right" to you (and other Pro-Reg advocates). By your logic, I guess the US should still be under British Rule cause boy, those revolutionaries sure did break a lot of laws! Clearly they didn't do what's "right" and thus were only deserving of life imprisonments and/or death!

Right?

Nevermind the past actions of the Pro-Reg "poster boy". Actions for which he's never been brought to trial, nor suffered any lasting negative repercussions from. I guess it's OK to be "above the law" if you sign on to and support the SHRA?

Which side has "an unjust system" now?

*snip* Do you think for a second that Cap etc would TAKE this chance they're offered? Don't give me that "no, but it could be offered..." rubbish. Cap has been offered chance and chance again and turned them all down.

I already explained this. He goes out and does it again, and then he gets the book thrown at him. At least they're getting full due process, whether they win or lose. Cap can't argue with that. Unlike the current situation which pokes so many holes in due process that there's no way in hell Cap would reconsider his position on it. Remember, Cap never said that he wouldn't follow the law until Hill told him he'd have to hunt other heroes (and promptly got attacked when he indicated refusal). Once again, a "soft touch" might have produced a far better result. If the positive aspects of the law are played up prior to Cap fully made up his mind he might very well see that it isn't as "skewed" as Hill's actions portrayed it.

Heck, he might have given Tony those five minutes he wanted and it wouldn't have required any deception on anyone's part.

Well this seems a pretty rubbish way of making laws. This is 'Wait and see...' policy. Facts and figures say a super human tragedy is inevitable. (CW2) Some of the smartest men on the planet say it's inevitable. LOGIC and common sense says it's inevitable. But you think they should wait and see, at the cost of all these lives? At least in implementing the SHRA, there wouldn't be much death if any.

Facts and figures from who? Pro-Registration proponents. Nevermind that nothing specifically states that Superhuman Registration and government regulation is the only way to avert said tragedy. It's a convenience for Tony's "master plan", but have any alternative options been explored?

Do all the smartest men on the planet say it's inevitable? Not that we can say for sure. That Bill Foster fella was a pretty smart guy and he was against the law. T'Challa's a genius near Stark's level and he seems to think the law's a bad idea.

Actually logic and "figures" would more likely lead to less chance of a "superhuman tragedy". Especially when you figure that the superhuman community just lost several million members (Between Genosha and Decimation), and that they've been operating for decades without any such "tragedy."

From the guy who thinks some people should be given a pass for commiting the same crime as others.

Especially when it's a rubbish law to begin with. But furthermore, there's this little thing called "intent". Believe it or not, it does apply in American courts of law, and can quite often make the difference between a "guilty" and "not guilty" verdict. Or at the very least a downgrading of the charges altogether.

There will always be villains. You are suggesting they blur the line between hero and villain. Who gets to judge who's a super-villain? If someone's never killed anyone but robbed seven banks, they're a villain- right? Why- because they broke the law. But hang on, so did those anti-reg 'heroes'

No, they're a "villain" because they commit evil acts with evil (or self-serving) intent. You're the one that "blurs the lines" here. In fact, you erase the line altogether and lump everyone together as "villain" because "they broke the law!"

I'm glad you agree that the SHRA is really just pointless though, since as you stated: "There will always be villains."

They both broke the law, they should both be stopped. And as for 'announcing'- sooner or later, somneone's going to ask why no-one is doing anything about Cap's group running around. I think they can work out a very transparent policy.

"We continue our search for Captain America's resistance at all times. He's proven to be a very elusive target." Nevermind that most of Captain America's activities are likely going to include (if the policy I've outlined is followed): Fighting villains and...not much else. I don't see the public being up in arms because Captain America is still saving lives despite not having signed a piece of paper. They're not even "up in arms" about Cap in the comics now.

Also, you forget one huge thing- CAP'S role in the equation. You think he will LET SHIELD arrest targets of oppurtunity?

Cap certainly would let them take down "targets of opportunity". He's hardly shown up at every arrest site has he? Furthermore, if you're concentrating on villains instead of heroes, I'm quite certain he'll be more than happy to let the Pro-Reg side arrest whoever they want.

Well firstly, I'm sure Thor would love to be classified as a living WMD. Tom Brevoort has already said these guys WILL get trials- just AFTER this whole crisis is over, and I'll take him as the authority any day. I also doubt that anyhone will ever stay in that prison for 'life'- they'll register sooner or later. And being the genius you are, you tell me what should be done with apprehended unregistered heroes with the power to kill hundreds.

"Clor" is a living WMD. Thor is not. But "Clor" was cloned with the express purpose of being the equivalent of a "living WMD". That's the point of the term. It's also easy for Tom Brevoort to say "after" when he already knows the ending of the story (which I suspect will render such "trials" a moot point anyway). Funny, one of those things in the Bill of Rights also assures a "speedy" trial, if I'm not mistaken. But I guess some due process is OK to ignore? How about "cruel and unusual punishment?" (taking people to another dimension) How about "Innocent until proven guilty?" (I don't see much bail being offered to these superhumans. Even the ones that -don't- have the "power to kill hundreds"). And let's face it, the vast majority of superhumans don't have that power (much less the unregistered variety) short of using the means available to any human being with determination and resources. Or beating people to death one-by-one with their bare hands. Is Daredevil going to blow up a few buildings if he's given bail? No, not likely. How about Prodigy? Also unlikely. Nevermind that there's already been prisons perfectly capable of holding the vast majority of metahumans, so long as nobody interferes with them.

People break out of regular prisons too...does that mean we should put all our prisons outside US Soil on remote islands in the ocean?

As for "life sentences", where are the folks that were imprisoned but then "signed up?" Clearly by your reasoning, if they were properly informed that it was "sign up or life imprisonment" there would have been plenty that said "screw this, I'll sign!" And yet no evidence of such. Hmmm, I suspect there's plenty of people who'd be there a good long time, if not life.

Who defines who is a villain? What 'villains' do you even mean- are there many major a listers left? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's a greater number of super-villains behind bars, dead or retired now than there has been for most of marvel history? It might be easier for the pro-reggers to GET these villains, as I've said again and again, if they weren't being undermined at every turn by the Living Legend telling everyone how evil and wrong they are.

So will there "always be villains" or are there "none left?" Should only "A list villains" be hunted? Also see above: if the Pro Reg were only going after villains, I'm sure Captain America isn't going to be interfering with their actions. He didn't show up to start repairing the giant robot or keep Iron Man from helping to rescue the 198 did he? The whole point of my "strategy" is that it gives Captain America far less ammunition to make those accusations of "evil" and "wrong."

And I think you continue to overestimate the degree of support the people can have for what you propose, and I think you fail to grasp how you are suggesting the most injust system of law I've heard of- yes, worse than detaining living WMDs for life.

And I still disagree. The current system is vastly more "unjust" as it stands. As it has been said many times: "The law is not always just."

[ViciousX]

Prowler has openly defied the law, and YES, this makes him no better than the criminals he claims to hunt. He IS a criminal, because the definition of criminal is one who partakes in criminal acts, IE: Disobeys the LAW OF THE LAND. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we like and follow.

Tell that to George Washington. Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. Tell that to John Hancock. Tell that to Benjaman Franklin.

If they agreed with you, America would still be under the rule of the British Empire.

[Eallison]

I'm sorry? Vulture is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. Prowler is a super-powered individual who runs around breaking the law. That's that.

Um, no. Do you really not comprehend the idea of scale, here?

Because, according to your absurd statement above;

A jaywalker and a serial killer both behave badly.

Is it true? Literally, yes. In any intelligent fashion, no. If the serial killer "behaves badly," then there really is no way to claim that the jaywalker did the same. The two actions are so incredibly different that to compare the one to the other lessens the impact of the serial killer. If murder is "a bad thing," for example, then jaywalking is so much LESS than that that comparing the two in the same sentence is absurd.

You know, I have replied to some of your posts and deleted many times (after cooling off), but now I HAVE to ask;

Given your dogmatic, unwavering view that All Laws MUST be obeyed, and not obeying makes one equivalent to Bullseye, how have you been able to stomach comic superheroes before Civil War? How have you been able to read Marvel before?

I mean, heroes have ALWAYS broken laws, no matter how many times you want to ignore it for the sake of your arguement. Why is Tony forgiven his transgressions when you wish to, in essence, crucify Captain America for his?

I mean, according to you, there is no difference, here. A law was broken, and all laws should be enforced -- so what's the argument? Why will you forgive one and not another, for the same thing (because, remember, YOU said Prowler and Vulture were equivalent because they both broke laws)?

Take it and run.

[bulbasteve]

Tell that to George Washington. Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. Tell that to John Hancock. Tell that to Benjaman Franklin.

If they agreed with you, America would still be under the rule of the British Empire.

Come on this argument died awhile ago here.... *has a flashback*

The Anti's somewhere missed the adage about Democracy depending on four boxes: Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. In that order! The Anti's skipped straight to Ammo, and that seriously undermines their legitimacy (though not the rightiousness of their cause). They're playing Weather Underground instead of Veterans for Peace. Which group was more effective in getting us out of Vietnam?

Good times...good times.

[Alpow]

Of course the problem is that they can't get on the soap box because when anybody is suspected of being disloyal they are attacked (cap by Shield, Spiderman by Stark) and the media has had the thumb screws put to it (arresting Sally, the standard veto Shield gets).
It is also difficult to protest a law when those who don't obey it get sent to a dark hole and aren't allowed contact with the outside world again, people who did regular civil disobedience tended to get out of jail at some point to spread the word.

The ballot box isn't that useful for a minority, with a panicky and reactionary mob and certainly not when box number one is undermined.

Jury is out because Stark has gone to great lengths to ensure it will never go before a jury (and he has admitted this).

Which leaves us ammo, which they aren't really using (in the violent revolutionary sense), yet.

As an aside this doesn't really adders the revolutionary war example because the ammo box was resorted to fairly early on there as well (tarring and feathering of those siding with the law, RN ships boarded and their captains shot, massive destruction of property,assaults on Soldiers by organised mobs etc - all of this happened even as Britain gave in time and again).

[XPac]

Of course the problem is that they can't get on the soap box because when anybody is suspected of being disloyal they are attacked (cap by Shield, Spiderman by Stark) and the media has had the thumb screws put to it (arresting Sally, the standard veto Shield gets).
It is also difficult to protest a law when those who don't obey it get sent to a dark hole and aren't allowed contact with the outside world again, people who did regular civil disobedience tended to get out of jail at some point to spread the word.

The ballot box isn't that useful for a minority, with a panicky and reactionary mob and certainly not when box number one is undermined.

Jury is out because Stark has gone to great lengths to ensure it will never go before a jury (and he has admitted this).

Which leaves us ammo, which they aren't really using (in the violent revolutionary sense), yet.

As an aside this doesn't really adders the revolutionary war example because the ammo box was resorted to fairly early on there as well (tarring and feathering of those siding with the law, RN ships boarded and their captains shot, massive destruction of property,assaults on Soldiers by organised mobs etc - all of this happened even as Britain gave in time and again).

The thing is Civil War really started about the Helicarrier when Hill and her forces attacked Cap. And there are only so many boxes for Cap to stand on in the 30 seconds between him disagreeing with Hill over the registration and Hill's men shooting at him.

The ballot and Jury boxes don't mean a whole lot while you're being gunned down.

[bulbasteve]

Of course the problem is that they can't get on the soap box because when anybody is suspected of being disloyal they are attacked (cap by Shield, Spiderman by Stark) and the media has had the thumb screws put to it (arresting Sally, the standard veto Shield gets).

There is Thing who is allowed to move to France and She Hulk who is defending Speedball in court. So no your "disloyal" argument is not based on what we have seen. And of course Sally was let go after she told them what they wanted to know and she sat down with the Congressmen who burst her conspiracy theory bubble. But possibly you were smart and dropped Frontline and didn't get the news.

Also as we have gone over time and time again Cap was an Agent of SHIELD who had to follow orders. Ok? I don't know how many ways you guys want Tom to say it before you get it in your heads that yes a soldier can be "attacked" if they are being disloyal to their commanding officer. But let's quote it one more time for fun: "Captain America is an operative of SHIELD, given a direct order from SHIELD's Director. If this had been Spider-Man, then this might be a different case, but as Cap is a part of SHIELD, then his defiance of both the act and the directives of SHIELD are similar to a military officer going against the directives of command--even if that officer were given great latitude in the past."

OK? Now do you anti-reg guys all pinky swear to never make that argument again? I mean really? What else do you guys need?

It is also difficult to protest a law when those who don't obey it get sent to a dark hole and aren't allowed contact with the outside world again, people who did regular civil disobedience tended to get out of jail at some point to spread the word.

Again, a great argument a few months ago, but Speedball was allowed to go in front of Congress itself. Now granted he was shot, but that Congress it about as outside world as you can get. Not to mention the frequent mention of his pending Trial.

The ballot box isn't that useful for a minority, with a panicky and reactionary mob and certainly not when box number one is undermined.

Hey the democrats seem to be on the verge of winning back the house and senate, I don't think all the minorty voters will be kicking their feet in the dirt that their views won't be respected now that those nasty dems will be in power! :p Now I don't want to get too politial but your reactionary mob and undermining of free speech may have overtones in the current political climate (gasp!)

Jury is out because Stark has gone to great lengths to ensure it will never go before a jury (and he has admitted this).

Uuuuh he said She-Hulk was going to court, obviously that means it will go before a jury. What he said is that she can do nothing in court, not that she can't go. And remember this man is an engineer not a legal scholar, he can't do a thing about what a court would decide.

Which leaves us ammo, which they aren't really using (in the violent revolutionary sense), yet.

As an aside this doesn't really adders the revolutionary war example because the ammo box was resorted to fairly early on there as well (tarring and feathering of those siding with the law, RN ships boarded and their captains shot, massive destruction of property,assaults on Soldiers by organised mobs etc - all of this happened even as Britain gave in time and again).

Attacking police officers and breaking people out of jail IS ammo. And as to the Revolutionary war, the box quote was "the three boxes of democracy", not a Moncarchy. But the declaration of independence has a handy dandy list of all the stuff they tried but failed to get!

[jackolover]

Everything in Civil War is done in service of sales, the entire Pro vs. Anti argument doesn't even matter, because none of it actually makes a damn lick of sense.

Yeah, well, why do you think there is sales like for CW, off the charts. Because it OBVIOUSLY matters, to a lot of people interested in the debates. If it didn't make a lick of sense, why would people be so immersed by it? I just canvessed a simple little discrepency about Spideys rogues on the loose, and it exploded into another Cap is right, no, the pro-regs are right swing fest. That's how unimportant people feel CW and SHRA is.

And I gotta tell ya. The points made by the debaters in this thread have evolved, and become very convincing on both sides. I have sat with awe at the style and gauge of their arguments. If I was looking at a heavy weight fight, right now, I would have everyone on equal points. I think it's still locked, just like the CW.

[jackolover]

People break out of regular prisons too...does that mean we should put all our prisons outside US Soil on remote islands in the ocean?."

No, but those that do escape, aren't vigilantes. Vigilantes are outlawed, and slippery devils. Too slippery. Common criminals escaping? Less of a problem

So will there "always be villains" or are there "none left?" Should only "A list villains" be hunted? Also see above: if the Pro Reg were only going after villains, I'm sure Captain America isn't going to be interfering with their actions. He didn't show up to start repairing the giant robot or keep Iron Man from helping to rescue the 198 did he? The whole point of my "strategy" is that it gives Captain America far less ammunition to make those accusations of "evil" and "wrong."

But that's not why IM wants Cap put out of the picture. Cap is a focal point for all anti-regs, and taking him out expediates their negation. You can't have a counter culture existing in your own, or your society, (or law) crumbles. Thus, get rid of the counter culture.

[Jmacq1]

No, but those that do escape, aren't vigilantes. Vigilantes are outlawed, and slippery devils. Too slippery. Common criminals escaping? Less of a problem

See, there you go. Some of you Pro-Regs want to talk "real world parallels" and some of you don't. Which is it gonna be? How is a "vigilante" any more dangerous than a criminal that goes out and DELIBERATELY kills/rapes/robs people? Please explain that dichotomy to me.

Seriously, do you people have NO concept of "doing things for the common good" vs. "doing things because I enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on other people?" You all must have really despised every Marvel hero prior to Civil War, since y'know...they basically were ALL criminals. Or did you all just start reading with "Civil War #1"?

But that's not why IM wants Cap put out of the picture. Cap is a focal point for all anti-regs, and taking him out expediates their negation. You can't have a counter culture existing in your own, or your society, (or law) crumbles. Thus, get rid of the counter culture.

I think you'd better look up the meaning of "counter culture". Since it's both perfectly legal to be part of a counterculture (note that I did not say that Captain America and the Secret Avengers' actions are legal, but being part of a counterculture is not in and of itself illegal), and has been an engine of a vast number of beneficial social changes in the United States. For instance, we had a huge youth counterculture in the 1960's in the US. And guess what? We're still here! But I guess in your world (or at least Stark's world) that all political opposition should be crushed so we can live under a totalitarian regime?

[Agent Helix]

Yeah, well, why do you think there is sales like for CW, off the charts. Because it OBVIOUSLY matters, to a lot of people interested in the debates. If it didn't make a lick of sense, why would people be so immersed by it?

I COULD tell you why, but it would come across as me being really, really mean.

[The White-Spider]

They're (The Prowler and the Vulture) both equally criminals. The difference is, Prowler is a target it is MUCH easier to quietly and quickly bring to justice.

I wonder why that is? Could it be because Hobie Brown has no intention to harm or violate the general populace, and, conversly, desires to aid and assist them? Whereas the Vulture would likely beat the tar out of anyone that stood between him and a $2,000 watch.

Isn't that the heart of the entire matter? These people, through choice, genetics or accident acquired powers and abilities. For years they were in places where the police, SHIELD, and government agents were not when lives needed to be saved or people had no one else to turn in order to escape harm.

One can agree that registration is in the best interests of the Marvel U, but to see people who have put their safety on the line and the lives of their loved ones in the balance -- in order to rescue people and counter those with the power to annihilate them -- as being equal to crackpots, muggers, murderers and would-be world conquers, is silly.

Villains have a primary goal: self gain. Heroes have a primary goal: helping others. These two are opposites. [Shh!] Villains have proven willing to go to disgusting lengths to obtain their goals and heroes of both sides, pre-reg, have sacrificed much out of a simple sense of justice and morality.
They didn't wake up one day and decide to don armor, swing between buildings and toss star
branded disks around because "crimes are against the law!" They were focused on the good they
could do for the people on the ground, not the particular article of the penal code that states "Henceforth the invasion of Earth and the consumption of its citizenry are duly prohibited."



As for the antis forcing SHIELD's hand? The government's policies changed and the the anti-regs responded to that change. They weren't fighting the government in the past because jumping twenty feet into the air to save a cat from a tree didn't get you locked up in another dimension, a "few weeks ago." Now, if you wear a purple scarf around your head and spook the gang members out of your neighborhood, the government will be beating down your door, and possibly you personally unless you agree to use your powers/abilities when they say, where they say and how they say.

Brevoort has all but outright said that the SHRA is mostly a display case law that serves primarily as a tactic to get people to sign up with government and use their powers as directed. Is it the opinion of the pro-regs that power can never be used to the benefit of society unless that power in guided by government committees? Will Iron-Man have to wait for a U.N. resolution to pass before he can act against a direct threat from super powered dictator to attack the United States? Maybe engage in some 10 party talks about Latveria's testing of its new orbital death ray? Would a Marvel citizen be safer if the political parties wanted to wait until after elections to deal with signs of a potential military buildup by nations such as Atlantis?

It's well known that the anti-registration side continues to want to aid the general populace. However, they want to be independent operatives. The question is whether or not its worth human lives and millions of dollars to keep Steve Rogers from knocking around guys like Jigsaw and Toomes, because he didn't fill out the proper paper work. I say no. I had no problem with the SHRA in principle, yadda(3). It's the way it's been twisted by Stark, SHIELD, and others [if Brevoort's assertions about the law itself being balanced are valid] that is ridiculous.

Honestly, Parker is "dangerous" enough to warrant a [extralegal?] pre-emptive strike after acting "very suspiciously," about his beliefs; but teen killer, "I do it cause I'm psycho" Osborn is a "candidate for rehabilitation" and fit to lead a U.S. superhuman taskforce? Please.

[Alpow]

There is Thing who is allowed to move to France

It's odd that if he disagrees with registration so much he doesn't stay and campaign against it.

and She Hulk who is defending Speedball in court. So no your "disloyal" argument is not based on what we have seen.

Stark complains in his files about She Hulk not seeing the big picture and in Spiderman he seems rather dismissive of Jen's attempts at a proper legal process.

And of course Sally was let go after she told them what they wanted to know and she sat down with the Congressmen who burst her conspiracy theory bubble. But possibly you were smart and dropped Frontline and didn't get the news.

Did she tell them what they wanted to know?

Anyway as the Senator's admitted she never should have been taken in at all, if it wasn't for the senators intervention she might not have gotten out at all.


Also as we have gone over time and time again Cap was an Agent of SHIELD who had to follow orders. Ok? I don't know how many ways you guys want Tom to say it before you get it in your heads that yes a soldier can be "attacked" if they are being disloyal to their commanding officer.

The problem is that Tom has been all over the place about whether Cap ahs to obey orders or not

But let's quote it one more time for fun: "Captain America is an operative of SHIELD, given a direct order from SHIELD's Director. If this had been Spider-Man, then this might be a different case, but as Cap is a part of SHIELD, then his defiance of both the act and the directives of SHIELD are similar to a military officer going against the directives of command--even if that officer were given great latitude in the past."

OK? Now do you anti-reg guys all pinky swear to never make that argument again? I mean really? What else do you guys need?

Well first off the books over rule Tom and they don’t agree with that assessment and we also have the fact that Tom has said the following which conflicts with that statement

We have Tom saying (in direct response to a question about whether Cap has to follow Hill’s orders)

“Cap certainly had SHIELD status before CIVIL WAR--in NEW AVENGERS #3 or #4, he makes reference to having "Champion Status", which was presumably granted to him by Nick Fury. So he was definitely on the books as a SHIELD operative, albeit an independent one.”

Note independent there, if he thought Cap had to then he could have just said “Yes.”

Then we have

“He did, however, refuse a direct order from the Director of SHIELD, and was thereafter considered a credible threat. The question of the legality of SHIELD's response is another matter, and one that nobody will know the answer to until such a point as those events are subject to some form of legal scrutiny.”

Where he says Hill’s actions may not have been legal, it is pretty black and white if Cap has to follow her so something else must be going on.

So it isn’t as simple as you wish (actually think?) it is.

Again, a great argument a few months ago, but Speedball was allowed to go in front of Congress itself. Now granted he was shot, but that Congress it about as outside world as you can get.

Again still a valid argument currently from those with eyes and also willing to see.

First we have the fact that only Speedball has been given this right, one might even read into that a subtle play on the behalf of the Pro-reg since Speedball turning up in full costume, especially given the hatred directed his way, is not going to be the best advertisement for the anti side but he will help the Pros.

Second we have the fact that this is happening rather late in the day and had been denied to him earlier and till is denied to everybody else.

Finally we have no indication that this is more than a whim of Reeds and there was no guarantee going in that this would happen.

Thus he antis were denied the soap box.

Not to mention the frequent mention of his pending Trial.

Only outside of the universe (and a single reference in Tony Starks files), inside the MU there have been indications he won’t get one and if he does get one (unlike everybody else who it has been clearly stated won’t get one) it likely only because the public is demanding a show trial for what he has supposedly done.

Hey the democrats seem to be on the verge of winning back the house and senate, I don't think all the minorty voters will be kicking their feet in the dirt that their views won't be respected now that those nasty dems will be in power! :p

Super humans are a minority like no other (especially with the mutants going mass extinction), thus they can’t possibly influence either party.

In other words there are far more votes in playing to the knee jerk reflex of the ignorant than there is in listening to the super humans.

The ballot box is denied to them.

Now I don't want to get too politial but your reactionary mob and undermining of free speech may have overtones in the current political climate (gasp!)

I would say your political climate was more along the lines of an apathetic and largely ill informed (due to both apathy and deliberate spinning of facts by the administration) populace than one that was demanding that something/anything be done (that may have been he case immediately post September 11th however but it wasn’t by the time we got to Iraq).

Uuuuh he said She-Hulk was going to court, obviously that means it will go before a jury.

Ermm no he said

Peter: “But She-Hulk. Jennifer Walters in is court every day defending these guys making motions…..”

Stark: “She can make all the motions she wants. This is outside the jurisdiction of local and federal courts. This is an act of congress signed by the President. All the Supreme Court can intervene and I happen to know they won’t”.

They have been denied the jury box.

But let’s make it clearer

Peter: “Following the law means these people get a trial before you imprison them for the rest of their lives. You can’t just lock them away…..”

Stark: “We can and we have”.

It seems rather clear to me, but maybe you dropped Amazing Spiderman for some reason and didn’t get the news.

What he said is that she can do nothing in court, not that she can't go.

Which is semantic nonsense; he has said they won’t have a trial and no attempts on her part can get them one.

No trial means no jury, therefore they are being denied box number three. QED.

And remember this man is an engineer not a legal scholar, he can't do a thing about what a court would decide.

He has placed them in an area which is outside the jurisdiction of the courts for that very reason, so that the courts he can’t control won’t do something pesky like point out the illegality of his actions.

The only court that can get involved won’t because he has them on his side through whatever means he has employed.



Attacking police officers and breaking people out of jail IS ammo.

No ammo is to attempt a violent revolution, Cap isn’t trying to overthrow the Federal government.

And as to the Revolutionary war, the box quote was "the three boxes of democracy", not a Moncarchy.

The idea that a monarchy can’t be a democracy is a completely incorrect and grossly simplistic view.

Is Britain not a democracy, are the Scandinavia countries, Belgium, Spain?
Canada, Australia. New Zealand or any of the 16 places with the British monarch as their head of state.

If you really believe what you just wrote above then I can just right you off as un-knowledgeable (to put it in pacific terms) so just be clear whether that is you actual stance or if you were just bending you position in order to try and win an argument.

But the declaration of independence has a handy dandy list of all the stuff they tried but failed to get!

Yeah the British sure were devils setting up that Indian reservation and letting the French in Quebec have their own legal system, not to mention giving people fair trials, treating them as average subjects and revoke internal taxation as the Americans had desired.

The British weren’t imprisoning people without trial for life, which puts them one step ahead of the Pro-reg at this point.

[Alpow]

One can agree that registration is in the best interests of the Marvel U, but to see people who have put their safety on the line and the lives of their loved ones in the balance -- in order to rescue people and stop those with the power to annihilate them -- as being equal to crackpots, muggers, murders and would-be world conquers, is silly.



This isthe problem the Pro-Reg debaters have, they have taken their position on one side of the fence and seen it turn into an indefensible nightmare (just as the Anti position said it would).

They now have the choice of either backing down and admitting they were wrong (which is about as likely to happen on the internet as fish spontaneously sprouting wings) or they can hold their nose and try to defend the Pro-Reg actions even though it leads to ridiculously bad logic and people making ridiculous statements comparing Captain America to super villains.

The anti-reg side has things a little easier by design because Captain Americas actions aren't that important, Anti-Reg wants a return to the status quo, they don't want Cap ruling the universe nor do they want things to continue as is.

[Magneto Rocks]

Oh My God. I have an obscene amount to catch up on. Well, I'll do my best but this will take multiple posts and a great deal of time :P

Are they?

Stark (and being charitable here and avoiding any possible references to him being an obsessive control freak) is essentially going along with SHRA because he is afraid what will happen if he doesn't, he seems to regard it as nothing more than the lesser evil.

The only evidence I can find to support the 'lesser evil' theory is based on his actions in Road to Civil War which are irrelevant given that he later refers to Stamford as the moment of clarity, the wake-up call. And I still don't see how that's anything but heroic- if they DON'T go along with SHRA, it will pass and could become fascist and evil. If they DO, it won't- well, stands less chance of it. (Though I'm sure others would dispute that.)

Since Stark is deliberately circumventing justice (the purpose of the Negative zone prison being to make it impossible for any lower court to intervene) it still seems like he exalts doing the right thing over doing the lawful thing.

Find me somewhere in the US Consitution where it states that sealing prisoners in an alternate zone of space and time is illegal. :P No, but seriously- I don't see how it's illegal to do this. In fact according to your statement, you just said it was the RIGHT thing.

Stark broke his friend, who was responsible for multiple deaths, out of jail (I just love the comparison to Cap's supposed high crime of saving a bunch of teenagers for the negative zone prison) to save himself, Reed stole that ship for scientific curiosity, She Hulk ripped the roof off a nerds house because he was posting names on the internet, Wolverine was destroying damage control property because he was (rightfully) ticked with them, these aren't saving the world of country events.

Thank you for clarifying, I was referring in general, not to these events. However, I feel it will not do either of us justice if I argue about a case where I do not know the facts- please clarify the issue of Iron Man so I can research it a little, then we can have a better informed and generally more enjoyable argument over that topic.

Actually, if we go by the original story, Reed also wanted to beat those damned commies into outer space. Much of these older stories must be taken with a pinch of salt. That aside, if we take it that Reed stole a ship out of scientific curiosity... then he shouldn't have. Simple as that.

She-Hulk- Of course, She-Hulk had no legal right to rip the roof off his house. There COULD be an argument made that Iron Man has clearly been given special executive powers for the duration of this crisis and authorised her to do what had to be done, but rather than make that I will simply agree that she could not do this.

And Wolverine wasn't acting legally OR in a morally correct capacity so that seems irrelevant.

That rather depends upon your perspective, Cable certainly thinks it could and I myself don't think giving one man an amry of super clones is that healthy for the future of democracy.

Army of super clones? Give me your source. Oh hang on, you don't have one- there is ONE clone, and until we see otherwise that's what we go with.

Beyond that we have that Cap thinks he is saving his nation from itself.

Yeah, but the nation doesn't seem to want saving.


So what you are saying is that up until civil war 1# you didn't consider any of marvels heroes to actually be heroes?

Not what I'm saying at all. Prior to Civil War, these heroes were saving people, making lives better etc, and yes- breaking laws doing it. There was no active push to make them reprehensible for their actions- indeed, they were publicly commended even when they did break laws. They did the greater good, and though they were 'wrong' to break the laws, the good they did outweighed that and often it was for good ends. Breaking the law for the purpose of beating up Iron Man is NOT a good end.

So you don't think it is right to prioritise murder over littering, is that because you view littering as so heinous or because you don't really care about murder?

Given that I didn't SAY that....

Or is it because you have the strange idea that all laws are equal and thus all crimes are, if that is so then I hope you campaign for a single sentence for all crimes (hmm, death for littering... or $50 fine for murder).

I never said all crimes should be punished equally. I said it was unfair to pursue other laws more than SHR, when a badfly enforced SHRA could cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

Ah but I haven't argued they are doing (remember earlier when I said "if we accept the premise") what I am arguing is that it would be wrong for them to do so something which you don't agree with (you have already come out and endorsed the idea that Captain America is a bigger villain than the vulture).

If you are willing to concede that point then the matter is resolved.

I have not endorsed the idea that Cap is a bigger villain than the Vulture, unfortunately for you. I said he SHOULD be higher on the SHIELD priority list than the Vulture. But if it makes you happy- the Vulture is a bigger villain than Cap. Nowa bigger CRIMINAL on the other hand... :P

That isn't what I am saying (I went to lengths to avoid saying that since that is exactly the faulty logic you are using to absolve Shield of any responsibility for their decisions), I am saying that the idea that Cap will keep attacking them is incorrect and thus they could disengage, Cap made the choice to free those teenagers (just as Tony chose to free that friend who was responsible for several murders) and he bears the responsibility for that action (I just happen to agree that given the circumstances he made the right call, although that is a side issue).

You went to lengths?

...

They weren't very good ones, given that you did exactly what you 'strove' to avoid.


Well as long as I more on the Green Goblin end of things instead of down with the Kangaroo.

Well if you mean you keep coming back again and again with stupid ideas and get foiled over and over....

j/k ;)

I made no judgement about whether it was right for them to want more power, in fact I pointed out that there are legitimate reasons good people would want more power however it is quite clear that Shield wish to accrue power, they were mining the Savage land for just such a reason, they mind scanned Spiderman for that reason, they want Stark to build weapons for them for that reason and so on and so forth.

If they have the Supers working for them it makes them more powerful and better able to do their job, it would be odd if they didn't want that extra power (although I think Shield has other reasons for those who view Shield as the formeost in nice guys that justification should suffice).

...Well, we have no argument here then.



I never entered that debate (hence my caveat about accepting that premise earlier) except to point out that it would be wrong for Shield to target Cap more than villains, I haven't said that they are allowing Super villains to run free, let alone specifically Spidey ones.

Not that debate is the POINT OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD. We are getting completely off topic here!

[Magneto Rocks]

And I'm the one "blurring the line between hero and villain?" No, I'm sorry, that clearly belongs to you in this equation. You choose to see the whole situation as filtered solely through the lens of "the law". And that may be a valid viewpoint, but for many people "the law" is not the arbiter of who's a "hero" and who's a "villain". People's actions are the arbiter of that, and no, breaking the law doesn't always equal "wrong" particularly in a world populated by the extremes that frequent the Marvel Universe.

I can see your justification. I'd say we're blurring the line equally when it suits our individual purposes :P

I do not see this solely through the lens of the law. I am willing to concede that there are times when it is necessary to break the law for the sake of all, depending on what's at stake. This is not such a time. I also wish to point out I have gone to lengths to avoid labelling those who break the law as out-right villains, preparing to label them as 'so-called heroes'.


Only "right" to you (and other Pro-Reg advocates). By your logic, I guess the US should still be under British Rule cause boy, those revolutionaries sure did break a lot of laws! Clearly they didn't do what's "right" and thus were only deserving of life imprisonments and/or death!

Hmm, let's see.

Washington et al attempted to violently overthrow the reigning government and drive it out completely so they could establish their own government.

Cap wants to overthrow one law but not the government and in fact, wants to enforce pretty much every other law out there.

Yeah, I'd say that comparison kind of fell apart right away.

Oh and yeah, y'know believe it or not not everyone thinkgs Geotge Washington et al DID do the right thing. Not judging myself, just commenting.


Nevermind the past actions of the Pro-Reg "poster boy". Actions for which he's never been brought to trial, nor suffered any lasting negative repercussions from. I guess it's OK to be "above the law" if you sign on to and support the SHRA?

I'd say Spidey's more the pro-reg poster boy than anyone else actually...

Which side has "an unjust system" now?

Um... yours?


I already explained this. He goes out and does it again, and then he gets the book thrown at him. At least they're getting full due process, whether they win or lose. Cap can't argue with that.

Yes. Yes he can. Very, very easily.

He HAS BEEN OFFERED THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. And EVERY time he says no. And if they let him go, he'll do the SAME THING, and that is frankly ridiculous because there are LIVES on the line and if they let him go and his reckless action kills people, then who gets crucified?

Notice I had to talk about the public reaction since you earlier made quite clear the lives themselves don't matter, just what they cause for either side.

And you seriously think Cap wouldn't argue about legality if he was taken in after what you described? What colour is the sky in your world?

Unlike the current situation which pokes so many holes in due process that there's no way in hell Cap would reconsider his position on it. Remember, Cap never said that he wouldn't follow the law until Hill told him he'd have to hunt other heroes (and promptly got attacked when he indicated refusal). Once again, a "soft touch" might have produced a far better result. If the positive aspects of the law are played up prior to Cap fully made up his mind he might very well see that it isn't as "skewed" as Hill's actions portrayed it.

Firstly, it was VERY obvious Cap had made up his mind. He was never going to support the act. And Hill did what she thought she had to at the time- so did Cap. She's no more reprehenible than he is by your argument.

Heck, he might have given Tony those five minutes he wanted and it wouldn't have required any deception on anyone's part.

Yes, I'm sure Tony's so sorry he decieved Cap in order to offer him a CHANCE before SHIELD sicced a Thor Clone on him.

Facts and figures from who? Pro-Registration proponents. Nevermind that nothing specifically states that Superhuman Registration and government regulation is the only way to avert said tragedy. It's a convenience for Tony's "master plan", but have any alternative options been explored?

Ah yes. Some of the smartest men on earth are pro-reg proponents therefore ALL of their facts and figures must be completely wrong! That Logic is UNARGUABLE!

Ahem, yes. Tony's master plan which, y'know, didn't appear to exist until now... Anyway, SHR CAN avert said tragedy. Can you think of a better way besides your ridiculous Cold War Theory?


Do all the smartest men on the planet say it's inevitable? Not that we can say for sure. That Bill Foster fella was a pretty smart guy and he was against the law. T'Challa's a genius near Stark's level and he seems to think the law's a bad idea.

We've actually heard nothing about T'Challa on the law. His complaints have been about how it was enforced. And frankly, Bill Foster isn't quite... well, anywhere near, the level of Reed Richards or Hank Pym. Reed has been established as probably/possibly the smartest man on Earth, and his greatest rival, Doom... well, they can't exactly ask him for help. Not to mention Tony Stark's pretty damn smart and Peter's hardly an idiot either...

Actually logic and "figures" would more likely lead to less chance of a "superhuman tragedy". Especially when you figure that the superhuman community just lost several million members (Between Genosha and Decimation), and that they've been operating for decades without any such "tragedy."

They have been operating for decades and there HAVE been disasters. I would assume Genosha and M-Day have slowed the rate of tragedy, However, give me all the 'logic and figures' you want to conjure up, in the end the smartest man in the universe we;re discussing has stated conclusively that figures and facts OPPOSE you, and no offence but... I'll take him over you.

Especially when it's a rubbish law to begin with. But furthermore, there's this little thing called "intent". Believe it or not, it does apply in American courts of law, and can quite often make the difference between a "guilty" and "not guilty" verdict. Or at the very least a downgrading of the charges altogether.

I think the Water Tax is a rubbish law. Can I be morally correct in gathering an army to go and fight criminals while refusing to pay water tax and battling the police with potentially lethal force?

'Intent'... wow, I guess I'd never head of that or took it into account at ALL.

No, they're a "villain" because they commit evil acts with evil (or self-serving) intent. You're the one that "blurs the lines" here. In fact, you erase the line altogether and lump everyone together as "villain" because "they broke the law!"

In that case, Vulture isn't a villain. hell, half of the guys we've been calling villains aren't villains. I mean, is anyone really going to make a case that the Vulture is 'evil'? Especially when we found out have the money he stole recently was for his grandson's chemo? Robbing may be morally and legally wrong but 'evil' is a little strong.

You've just gone the opposite direction from blurring the line, now you're painting everything black and white- but mostly black. And I have stated again and again- these guys aren't villains, they are so-called heroes.

I'm glad you agree that the SHRA is really just pointless though, since as you stated: "There will always be villains."

Are you insane?

The point of the SHRA is to drastically reduce super-crime, it CANNOT be eradicated. That's like saying that anti-theft laws are pointless because there will always be theft!

"We continue our search for Captain America's resistance at all times. He's proven to be a very elusive target." Nevermind that most of Captain America's activities are likely going to include (if the policy I've outlined is followed): Fighting villains and...not much else. I don't see the public being up in arms because Captain America is still saving lives despite not having signed a piece of paper. They're not even "up in arms" about Cap in the comics now.

...So when Cap breaks open a convoy in the middle of a crowded street and they send zero forces to stop him, they claim he was very elusive, do they? As for 'up in arms'- we've seen little civilian PoV, and what we have seen... they kind of HAVE been up in arms often. (See... oh, most of Civil War.)

Cap certainly would let them take down "targets of opportunity". He's hardly shown up at every arrest site has he? Furthermore, if you're concentrating on villains instead of heroes, I'm quite certain he'll be more than happy to let the Pro-Reg side arrest whoever they want.

Maybe he hasn't shown up at every arrest site because he's been PRETTY DAMN BUSY. And seriously- you think Mark Millar is writing Cap out of character? According to you he'll just LET people he thinks are 'heroes' be arrested because villains are being taken down too. Way to ignore all that continuity!


"Clor" is a living WMD. Thor is not.

Then I'd suggest you don't call him one.

[Magneto Rocks]

But "Clor" was cloned with the express purpose of being the equivalent of a "living WMD".

Actually, given that they thought it was just like him, we can safely say Clor was created to act as a totally non-lethal safeguard and Hell, maybe even a friend after the war.

So... not an a-bomb.

That's the point of the term. It's also easy for Tom Brevoort to say "after" when he already knows the ending of the story (which I suspect will render such "trials" a moot point anyway). Funny, one of those things in the Bill of Rights also assures a "speedy" trial, if I'm not mistaken. But I guess some due process is OK to ignore?

The Bill of Rights also says a lawful militia may bear weapons. I mean, besides the fact I thinkyour Bill of Rights sucks and doesn't include enough good rights and too many pointless rights, it is ridiculous to expect the law to proceed as per usual in a time of crisis and war.

How about "cruel and unusual punishment?" (taking people to another dimension) How about "Innocent until proven guilty?" (I don't see much bail being offered to these superhumans. Even the ones that -don't- have the "power to kill hundreds").

You don't see bail offered? See pretty much any early issue of Frontline. Done.

Cruel? Up to an individual. Being taken to an alternate dimension is not in itself cruel, anymore than being taken to a prison is. I'm pretty sure that give that these guys were all CLEARLY WITNESSED commiting vigilante activity and most resisted arrest that they can be pretty damn decisively proven guilty.

And let's face it, the vast majority of superhumans don't have that power (much less the unregistered variety) short of using the means available to any human being with determination and resources. Or beating people to death one-by-one with their bare hands. Is Daredevil going to blow up a few buildings if he's given bail? No, not likely.

Not LIKELY? Not good enough. You don't need to 'blow up a building'.

How about Prodigy? Also unlikely. Nevermind that there's already been prisons perfectly capable of holding the vast majority of metahumans, so long as nobody interferes with them.

Yeah, that last part is ALWAYS the clincher, isn't it?

People break out of regular prisons too...does that mean we should put all our prisons outside US Soil on remote islands in the ocean?

I'm fairly certain there isn't a massive mob running around who would break other mobsters out of every prison they could if they got the chance and who are easily capable of it.

As for "life sentences", where are the folks that were imprisoned but then "signed up?" Clearly by your reasoning, if they were properly informed that it was "sign up or life imprisonment" there would have been plenty that said "screw this, I'll sign!" And yet no evidence of such. Hmmm, I suspect there's plenty of people who'd be there a good long time, if not life.

Suspect away. We've seen a VERY small number of inmates thus far. My 'reasoning' as you call it, is common sense and knowledge of human nature. I mean, you seem to be either suggesting that

A): They aren't given the chance- which is lunacy as Tony has many reasons TO give them the chance and NO reasons not to
Or
B): They are given the chance but not one of them has EVER accepted it, EVER! In which case- now who's being naive?


So will there "always be villains" or are there "none left?" Should only "A list villains" be hunted? Also see above: if the Pro Reg were only going after villains, I'm sure Captain America isn't going to be interfering with their actions. He didn't show up to start repairing the giant robot or keep Iron Man from helping to rescue the 198 did he? The whole point of my "strategy" is that it gives Captain America far less ammunition to make those accusations of "evil" and "wrong."

If you're trying to point out contradictions you're falling flat on your face. There will always be villans... but there's less now than in a long time. THat seems prety clear. And actually, if you hjad READ my post it would be pretty clear that most A-listers have been caught, many b-listers are being caught, and yes I think Cap should be a higher prirority than C or D-listers. The whole point of your 'strategy' is that it means Cap and co can operate and break the law unopposed.

And I still disagree. The current system is vastly more "unjust" as it stands. As it has been said many times: "The law is not always just."

Disagree away. I'll just keep arguing back.

MANY more arguments to go, I'll endeavour to do as many as I can throughout the evening...

[bulbasteve]

Referring to Magneto Rocks arguments - Just that they can't find Spidey's rogues, for whatever reason.

'Aw, they're dead. We think they're dead. They're retired, yawn'.

That don't cut it with me. I think Shield is deliberately ignoring Peters being in danger.

Wait...being DEAD doesn't cut it for you? What do you want, SHIELD to start digging up graves to make supersure they are dead? Jeez man....

I think you'd better look up the meaning of "counter culture". Since it's both perfectly legal to be part of a counterculture (note that I did not say that Captain America and the Secret Avengers' actions are legal, but being part of a counterculture is not in and of itself illegal), and has been an engine of a vast number of beneficial social changes in the United States. For instance, we had a huge youth counterculture in the 1960's in the US. And guess what? We're still here! But I guess in your world (or at least Stark's world) that all political opposition should be crushed so we can live under a totalitarian regime?

Wait a minute...didn't I just quote that they are the equivalent to the weather underground in the 60s? Should they have not been crushed? "Counterculture" doesn't protect attacking the government.

It's odd that if he disagrees with registration so much he doesn't stay and campaign against it.

So? It is HIS decision. Just saying "oooh that is really odd", does not change the fact he was NOT attacked or put in jail. Your really grasping at straws. Either you are right and noone is allowed to dissent and he is put in jail, or you are wrong and he is free to move to France. Moving to France is what the evidence shows. So stop grasping at straws and say if you are right or wrong.

Stark complains in his files about She Hulk not seeing the big picture and in Spiderman he seems rather dismissive of Jen's attempts at a proper legal process.

And Bush was dismissive of the Supreme Courts attempts to change gitmo, but guess what? What he says does not matter! It's up to the Supreme Court.

Anyway as the Senator's admitted she never should have been taken in at all, if it wasn't for the senators intervention she might not have gotten out at all.

Might? She wasn't. End of story. The senator doesn't know what SHIELD would have done one way or another.

The problem is that Tom has been all over the place about whether Cap ahs to obey orders or not

No, he only clarified that Independent does not mean you are magically able to refuse direct orders. Now come on do you pinky swear you will never make such an argument again? It's over and done, ok? It's just absured to make your argument based on the word "independent" but just ignore later when he says HE HAS TO FOLLOW ORDERS. That is only a contradiction in your own mind because you read too much into the word independent.

Where he says Hill?s actions may not have been legal, it is pretty black and white if Cap has to follow her so something else must be going on.

So it isn?t as simple as you wish (actually think?) it is.

Again that does not change the fact he is still required to follow her orders, epecially when you consider this is an espionage agency which does far shadier things than what it did with cap, and certainly would not be very affective if an agent can just decide willy nilly they don't want to do something for them.

First we have the fact that only Speedball has been given this right, one might even read into that a subtle play on the behalf of the Pro-reg since Speedball turning up in full costume, especially given the hatred directed his way, is not going to be the best advertisement for the anti side but he will help the Pros.

She-Hulk said he SHOULDN'T wear the costume. It was no "subtle play", it is what Speedball wanted to do. Now that I know you didn't drop Frontline, I don't know what to think...

And also he is the only one we have seen have stories centered around the legal system. Now come on you were the one talking about the books overrulling statements by the editor, I sure think the books overrule what you THINK is happening. Because he WAS given the right and you said people weren't being given the right.

Second we have the fact that this is happening rather late in the day and had been denied to him earlier and till is denied to everybody else.

Finally we have no indication that this is more than a whim of Reeds and there was no guarantee going in that this would happen.

Again you need your evidence in the actual books themselves. Thing goes to France, She-Hulk is publically defending anti-reg people, Speedball is allowed to speak before Congress. That IS a soapbox. You have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE of it NOT being allowed. Until the time you do actually get some you have no point.

Only outside of the universe (and a single reference in Tony Starks files), inside the MU there have been indications he won?t get one and if he does get one (unlike everybody else who it has been clearly stated won?t get one) it likely only because the public is demanding a show trial for what he has supposedly done.

Well maybe you should find them and quote them and show that they are unbiased sources like guidebook or the editor. Sally or someone saying noone will have a trial is just more paranoid ramblings, and even pro-reggers don't are not always 100% right about the minutia of the law. But the editor IS always right, he makes the continuity, he isn't a character inside it who may or may not understand the political system at all.

Super humans are a minority like no other (especially with the mutants going mass extinction), thus they can?t possibly influence either party.

Let's make a short list shall we?

Iron Man: Secretary of Defense, Shaped the current registration act. Runs the negative zone prison.

Reed Richards: Single handedly got the previous superhuman registration act off the table the first time around. Let's focus on that shall we? ONE superhuman got the registration act taken off the agenda before...and you calll that not being able to influence either party? I can't wait to hear you answer to this one :rolleyes:

No trial means no jury, therefore they are being denied box number three. QED.

Again just because Stark says something does not make it magically true, he either doesn't know or is just plain lying to Peter. Again as I have said there is reference to Speedballs public TRIAL. Now come on, what are you going to say Civil War Files is wrong just because you THINK it is? Guess what, unless you have some real unbiased evidence for it, you have no point.

No ammo is to attempt a violent revolution, Cap isn?t trying to overthrow the Federal government.

If you attack the government that IS ammo. Regardless of if your ends are that you scare the government into going your way or you totally overthrow it. Ammo means you try to change what you want to change VIOLENTLY, it does not just mean revolution. It's almost like you are "bending you position in order to try and win an argument", fancy that.

The idea that a monarchy can't be a democracy is a completely incorrect and grossly simplistic view.

Is Britain not a democracy, are the Scandinavia countries, Belgium, Spain?
Canada, Australia. New Zealand or any of the 16 places with the British monarch as their head of state.

If you really believe what you just wrote above then I can just right you off as un-knowledgeable (to put it in pacific terms) so just be clear whether that is you actual stance or if you were just bending you position in order to try and win an argument.

But...you are the one who is bending your position right now to win an argument? You are seriously comparing 18th century britian to modern day Canada, Austriala and Britian and other places with only titual monarchs. I mean geez its a bad argument on the face of it, but then to go and claim I'm the one bending positions in the next paragraph.

[Magneto Rocks]

<politely applauds> We make a hell of a team, bulbasteve. We pro-reggers need to stick together ;)

(Though I maintain the few pro-reggers on the boards should get organized! We could assemble a comprehensive list of replies to the frequently cited (and frequently wrong) points that are always brought up, we could provide more blatant propaganda for the propaganda threat, we could point out the many things backing up the SHRA and fabourable things about Stark etc, all in one thread!)

[Alpow]

The only evidence I can find to support the 'lesser evil' theory is based on his actions in Road to Civil War which are irrelevant given that he later refers to Stamford as the moment of clarity, the wake-up call.

In the civil war files he says he doesn't trust the government to enforce the SHRA properly but that they have to go along with it because next time the Feds will just lock them all up, this is what he is saying to the President for Pete's sake.

He takes this line elsewhere, the idea that they should go along now or next time the government will just eliminate them.


And I still don't see how that's anything but heroic- if they DON'T go along with SHRA, it will pass and could become fascist and evil. If they DO, it won't- well, stands less chance of it. (Though I'm sure others would dispute that.)

Yeah dodged a bullet there. :p

Find me somewhere in the US Consitution where it states that sealing prisoners in an alternate zone of space and time is illegal. :P No, but seriously- I don't see how it's illegal to do this.

People have the right to a trial, the SHRA could easily be considered to endorse involuntary servitude and I'm sure judges would have other issues (cruel and unusal punishment for example).

The very fact that Stark felt the need to shield his activities from the courts tells us that he doesn't consider them upto legal scrutiny.

In fact according to your statement, you just said it was the RIGHT thing.

In Stark's mind it probably is the right thing because he believes that the ends justify the means and that it is either half of the super human population having their lives destroyed or all of them.

Thank you for clarifying, I was referring in general, not to these events. However, I feel it will not do either of us justice if I argue about a case where I do not know the facts- please clarify the issue of Iron Man so I can research it a little, then we can have a better informed and generally more enjoyable argument over that topic.

Well the friend gets put in jail in the first arc of Ironmans newest book (she tested a device which creates super humans on a guy who was a militia nut, he proceeded to kill a lot of people as he marched on Washington with the intent of destroying the Federal government).

He breaks her out in the next (and most recent arc) because he needs her help to try and figure out why he (Stark) keeps murdering people (including a plane full of people).

Now I don't have issue with his actions, but I think it would be rather hypocritical for somebody who believes "the law is the law" to endorse those actions whilst also condemning Cap rescuing children from a lifetime in the negative zone.

However the key question here is whether Ironman was a so-called hero

Actually, if we go by the original story, Reed also wanted to beat those damned commies into outer space. Much of these older stories must be taken with a pinch of salt. That aside, if we take it that Reed stole a ship out of scientific curiosity... then he shouldn't have. Simple as that.

So has Reed Richards for his entire pre civil war history been a so-called hero.

She-Hulk- Of course, She-Hulk had no legal right to rip the roof off his house.

So pre civil war was she a "so-called hero"?

And Wolverine wasn't acting legally OR in a morally correct capacity so that seems irrelevant.

He brought those really responsible for Stamford (Nitro and Damage Control) to justice which means he has done a lot more to help the situation than Stark has thus far.

Ms Sharp didn't seem to have issue with his actions either.

However again the question is whether Wolverine is a "so-called hero"? (in his case many would actually argue he isn't a hero but I doubt it would be because he fractured a law or two).

Army of super clones? Give me your source. Oh hang on, you don't have one- there is ONE clone, and until we see otherwise that's what we go with.

Nope, there is one clone and the rest will be ready in a month.

I think it is pretty clear that the Fifty state initiative involves the roll out of a clone army.

If I'm wrong I will apologise but all the evidence points that way at the moment.

Yeah, but the nation doesn't seem to want saving.

Which is how we know Cap is a true patriot, he is saving his nation even when he won't get glory or salutations for it.

Not what I'm saying at all. Prior to Civil War, these heroes were saving people, making lives better etc, and yes- breaking laws doing it. There was no active push to make them reprehensible for their actions- indeed, they were publicly commended even when they did break laws. They did the greater good, and though they were 'wrong' to break the laws, the good they did outweighed that and often it was for good ends. Breaking the law for the purpose of beating up Iron Man is NOT a good end.

So then you admit that a hero can break the law and still be a hero.

Now that would be all well and good except that you said

"Prowler has openly defied the law, and YES, this makes him no better than the criminals he claims to hunt. He IS a criminal, because the definition of criminal is one who partakes in criminal acts, IE: Disobeys the LAW OF THE LAND. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we like and follow."

Now you count argue Prowler isn't a hero because he breaks the law whilst saying that Stark can break the law and still be a hero.

You have now taken the position that the ends justify the means, which means you only consider Prowler to not be a hero because he is anti reg (because in your opinion violating the SHRA has no good end).

That is exactly what I said you were doing, you consider Prowler to no longer be a heor because he is on the other side (whilst I can still consider She Hulk to be a hero even though she isn't on "my side").

Given that I didn't SAY that....

No but it is the only logical basis from your conclusion (and I'm not the only one who went straight to this), however you have already back peddled from the idea that the law is the law above so I'm guessing you realise that it was an unjustifiable position.

I never said all crimes should be punished equally. I said it was unfair to pursue other laws more than SHR, when a badfly enforced SHRA could cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

Wrong, you compared targeted policing to accepting bribes and said it was not right.

You also said that "How are SHIELD supposed to go around hunting lawbreakers if they ignore some laws and enforce others?"

The implication being that all laws must be enforced equally.

You have no changed your position of this issue, I assume you now believe that targeted policing is ok?

What is going on here is that you are arguing from your conclusion, you believe targeted policing to be a threat to the SHRA (because somebody suggest it as an alternative) but when the flaw is pointed out there you pull a bait and switch and instead argue that the SHRA is clearly a more important law (i.e. murder is more important than littering). This implicitly concedes the earlier argument whilst trying to avoid drawing attention to the fact.

However being a kind soul I will accept your concession on that point and look at your new idea.

The idea that the SHRA will prevent the deaths of hundreds whilst targeting super villains will save less lives is essentially to make the argument that regular heroes have the potential to kill more people (and are more likely to do so) than Villains.

You ignore the fact however that collateral damage only happens because of the villains (and in this case it wasn't even collateral damage because it was not the New Warriors actions which caused those deaths) no villains and no deaths, so targeting villains saves the same amount of lives as the SHRA right out of the gate.

You also make the rather silly argument that in the 13 or so years of the age of heroes that villains haven't killed more than died at Stamford, since they have clearly they are the bigger threat and thus enforcing the laws that target them is more important than the SHRA.

Since you concede above that targeted policing is OK then unless you think the heroes more dangerous you must also concede that targeting heroes over the villains is flawed and wrong.

So those are you options, argue hero danger > villain danger or concede the entire argument.

Where we go from here I leave to you.

I have not endorsed the idea that Cap is a bigger villain than the Vulture, unfortunately for you. I said he SHOULD be higher on the SHIELD priority list than the Vulture. But if it makes you happy- the Vulture is a bigger villain than Cap. Nowa bigger CRIMINAL on the other hand... :P

If Cap is a greater threat to the lives of people than the vulture then surely he is the bigger villain (since in your eyes he can't be a hero).

To be continued

[Alpow]

You went to lengths?

You have never heard that expression?

They weren't very good ones, given that you did exactly what you 'strove' to avoid.

strove Pronunciation (strv)
v.
Past tense of strive.

strive Pronunciation (strv)
intr.v. strove (strv), striv·en (strvn) or strived, striv·ing, strives
1. To exert much effort or energy; endeavor.
2. To struggle or fight forcefully; contend: strive against injustice.

You didn't address what I said (you didn't even get anywhere with grammatical nitpicking either), try again.


Well if you mean you keep coming back again and again with stupid ideas and get foiled over and over....

j/k ;)

Would that describe the Kangaroo or the Goblin?

:)


...Well, we have no argument here then.

So you have done a 180 and now think Shield want the extra power?

Not that debate is the POINT OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD. We are getting completely off topic here!


No, I am addressing the point that you think they would be right to ignore villains (although you don't think they are, another example of the covering your bases scatter gun attack I outlined earlier) which is very germane... wait there


ger·mane Pronunciation (jr-mn)
adj.
Being both pertinent and fitting. See Synonyms at relevant.

where was I...
oh yes it is very germane to the question of Shield ignoring Spideys villains since it addresses whether they are ethically right to do so.

[Magneto Rocks]

In the civil war files he says he doesn't trust the government to enforce the SHRA properly but that they have to go along with it because next time the Feds will just lock them all up, this is what he is saying to the President for Pete's sake.

He takes this line elsewhere, the idea that they should go along now or next time the government will just eliminate them.

I've said before and I say again, I take Civil War Files very lightly given it doesn't fit correctly into continuity and doesn't fit with what we've seen in the real comics. In any case, I disagree- you agree, but it makes no difference to the majroity of our argument. These posts are getting so long we need to cut out the pointless stuff ;)


Yeah dodged a bullet there. :p

Oh you may laugh but it would have been interesting to see the SHRA WITHOUT Stark and co.... ;)

People have the right to a trial, the SHRA could easily be considered to endorse involuntary servitude and I'm sure judges would have other issues (cruel and unusal punishment for example).

It could be considered that, yes. But as you basically admit yourself by saying "it could be considered"... it could also be considered not to be. Ergo- hang on!

er‧go  [ur-goh, er-goh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–conjunction, adverb
therefore.

Ergo, there;s no argument since we are agreeing to disagree.

The very fact that Stark felt the need to shield his activities from the courts tells us that he doesn't consider them upto legal scrutiny.

Actually, I feel it tells us that that would be a long and arduous debate- hold that thought.

ar‧du‧ous  [ahr-joo-uhs or, especially Brit., ahr-dyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1. requiring great exertion; laborious; difficult: an arduous undertaking.
2. requiring or using much energy and vigor; strenuous: making an arduous effort.
3. hard to climb; steep: an arduous path up the hill.
4. hard to endure; full of hardships; severe: an arduous winter.

In this case referring to 1.

Now, to return to the point- I feel it tells us that it would be a long and arduous debate which is best postponed a short time until the current state of emergency is over. Debate over the legality and morality of that all you like.

In Stark's mind it probably is the right thing because he believes that the ends justify the means and that it is either half of the super human population having their lives destroyed or all of them.

Hah, now who's backtracking. You implied it WAS the right thing, but now you claim that you said Stark THOUGHT it was the right thing.

A freudian slip, my- hang on!

[/b]Freudian slip 

(in Freudian psychology) an inadvertent mistake in speech or writing that is thought to reveal a person's unconscious motives, wishes, beliefs or attitudes.[/b]

Okay, I'm going to stop this now- I think you get the point. Don't treat me like an idiot.

A freudian slip, my friend? ;)

Well the friend gets put in jail in the first arc of Ironmans newest book (she tested a device which creates super humans on a guy who was a militia nut, he proceeded to kill a lot of people as he marched on Washington with the intent of destroying the Federal government).

He breaks her out in the next (and most recent arc) because he needs her help to try and figure out why he (Stark) keeps murdering people (including a plane full of people).

Now I don't have issue with his actions, but I think it would be rather hypocritical for somebody who believes "the law is the law" to endorse those actions whilst also condemning Cap rescuing children from a lifetime in the negative zone.

However the key question here is whether Ironman was a so-called hero

Will read up on this so I can see it in context. However, I love how you 'children' and forget to add 'lawbreaking children' and you say 'rescuing' but forget to say 'violently rescuing using reckless life-threatening tactics'.


So has Reed Richards for his entire pre civil war history been a so-called hero.

So pre civil war was she a "so-called hero"?

Ho ho! Now I see your little game. Very nice try, that could have worked. Could've, should've, would've... didn't.

I do not believe I accused them of being so-called heroes for breaking the law in and of itself. I accused them of that for breaking the law for no greater good and for selfish ends which serve only to aid themselves and not anybody else- for encouraging and promoting it, and not ONLY breaking the law, but violently and recklessly resisting all law-abiding forces that try to stop them, when only doing their duty.

But I didn't make that clear above- my error, not yours- I apologize.

He brought those really responsible for Stamford (Nitro and Damage Control) to justice which means he has done a lot more to help the situation than Stark has thus far.

No, those really responsible can be listed below:

Nitro
Speedball
Namorita
Night Thrasher
Cobalt Man

We can throw in Coldheart et al, plus maybe even the camerman and the studio executive if you really want.

And no, I'd say Stark has done a LOT more.

Ms Sharp didn't seem to have issue with his actions either.

Um... she asked if Wolvie regretted it. That can hardly be considered picking a stance one way or the other.

However again the question is whether Wolverine is a "so-called hero"? (in his case many would actually argue he isn't a hero but I doubt it would be because he fractured a law or two).

See above

Nope, there is one clone and the rest will be ready in a month.

I think it is pretty clear that the Fifty state initiative involves the roll out of a clone army.

If I'm wrong I will apologise but all the evidence points that way at the moment.

Think away, but you can't use it as a point in an argument for the next 2 weeks until we know for sure.

Which is how we know Cap is a true patriot, he is saving his nation even when he won't get glory or salutations for it.

Is this a joke?

Oh the mighty patriotic Cap! He is saving them even when they don't want to be saved- in fact they seem to want to be saved FROM him. Wow, I guess those extremist groups who want to save us from damnation must all be right to!

So then you admit that a hero can break the law and still be a hero.

Did I deny it? If so I apologize.

"Prowler has openly defied the law, and YES, this makes him no better than the criminals he claims to hunt. He IS a criminal, because the definition of criminal is one who partakes in criminal acts, IE: Disobeys the LAW OF THE LAND. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we like and follow."

Now you count argue Prowler isn't a hero because he breaks the law whilst saying that Stark can break the law and still be a hero.

Stark didn't actively resist arrest and battle the forces sent to take him down. Plus you forget one HUGE difference. These unregistered heroes are commiting illegal acts EVERY SINGLE TIME they do this- it's the same offence over and over and over again. If Stark breaks someone out, that's one offence.

You have now taken the position that the ends justify the means, which means you only consider Prowler to not be a hero because he is anti reg (because in your opinion violating the SHRA has no good end).

Heh. An anti-regger accused me of ends justify the means. That's cute mr overthrow-the-government. I consider Prowler not to be a hero because he does notact anything like a hero should and forfeits any right to the title.

That is exactly what I said you were doing, you consider Prowler to no longer be a heor because he is on the other side (whilst I can still consider She Hulk to be a hero even though she isn't on "my side").

No, I consider Prowler no longer to be a hero because... wait, I just explained this. Twice.

[bulbasteve]

<politely applauds> We make a hell of a team, bulbasteve. We pro-reggers need to stick together ;)

(Though I maintain the few pro-reggers on the boards should get organized! We could assemble a comprehensive list of replies to the frequently cited (and frequently wrong) points that are always brought up, we could provide more blatant propaganda for the propaganda threat, we could point out the many things backing up the SHRA and fabourable things about Stark etc, all in one thread!)

Everytime I think I'm out...they pull me back in!

I think an FAQ is a good idea, I'll just ran a few by Tom one final time so that maybe these guys will stop with that damn Cap and Hill argument, you should post some too.

And I just read finally read Extremis and The Inevitable, Stark is the best character out there now.

[becominAfanAgain]

To this Debate all I have to say is How many people would like to be locked up by the law without a trail . Marshal Law type deal. If you like that then Pro. Reg you should be.

[Magneto Rocks]

No but it is the only logical basis from your conclusion (and I'm not the only one who went straight to this), however you have already back peddled from the idea that the law is the law above so I'm guessing you realise that it was an unjustifiable position.

Huh? It's really not the only logical basis at all. The fact that multiple people made an error does not make it any less of an error. The law is the law. That's fact. It can't be denied, it's irrefutable. It IS the law, by definition. That's what it IS.

law1  [law] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.


Wrong, you compared targeted policing to accepting bribes and said it was not right.

It was a throwaway comparison, giving examples of how just because something is done, it doesn't make it right. I did not mean to equate the two to one another. Hell, this is a new post so, just for clarification:

e‧quate  [i-kweyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), e‧quat‧ed, e‧quat‧ing.
1. to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent: We cannot equate the possession of wealth with goodness.

You also said that "How are SHIELD supposed to go around hunting lawbreakers if they ignore some laws and enforce others?"

The implication being that all laws must be enforced equally.

Ah, this is where the misunderstanding arose. My fault, my profuse apologies. (No, I won't define profuse. Work it out.)

My MEANING was simple:

All laws must be enforced equally- IE: If breaking law A is considered a crime, then breaking law C MUST be considered a crime as well.
All laws should not be enforced with equal amounts of force/response.

I believe I used the term 'equal' imrpoperly, causing this- and I apologize.

You have no changed your position of this issue, I assume you now believe that targeted policing is ok?

That's correct. I have no changed my position, correct grammer: I have NOT changed position in the INTENTION of which I wrote the original words.

What is going on here is that you are arguing from your conclusion, you believe targeted policing to be a threat to the SHRA (because somebody suggest it as an alternative) but when the flaw is pointed out there you pull a bait and switch and instead argue that the SHRA is clearly a more important law (i.e. murder is more important than littering). This implicitly concedes the earlier argument whilst trying to avoid drawing attention to the fact.

No, it's that you misunderstood me- as I said, my fault entirely.

However being a kind soul I will accept your concession on that point and look at your new idea.

There was no concession but I appreciate your so-called 'kindness' whereby you make yourself look superior to the casual onlooker, assuming they have followed these reams of text which I find to be rather doubtful.

The idea that the SHRA will prevent the deaths of hundreds whilst targeting super villains will save less lives is essentially to make the argument that regular heroes have the potential to kill more people (and are more likely to do so) than Villains.

Actually, no. I believe the SHRA will be more effective targetting villains AND so-called heroes. You seem to believe it should only target villains.

You ignore the fact however that collateral damage only happens because of the villains (and in this case it wasn't even collateral damage because it was not the New Warriors actions which caused those deaths) no villains and no deaths, so targeting villains saves the same amount of lives as the SHRA right out of the gate.

This is an ENORMOUS generalisation. So who was the villain who caused the collateral damage when Cap destroyed a good few police cars and stole a SHIELD transit vehicle? Heroes cause collateral damage- just ask the Thing.

You also make the rather silly argument that in the 13 or so years of the age of heroes that villains haven't killed more than died at Stamford, since they have clearly they are the bigger threat and thus enforcing the laws that target them is more important than the SHRA.

I don't argue that at all. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Since you concede above that targeted policing is OK then unless you think the heroes more dangerous you must also concede that targeting heroes over the villains is flawed and wrong.

Except no, I don't. In any case, we are often discussing different kinds of danger- but I'll leave that point for now.

So those are you options, argue hero danger > villain danger or concede the entire argument.

...Only no, I have many many options. You are attempting constantly to make broad generalisations. Every case is unique and there are many cases where heroes ARE a greater danger- and others where they are not. There are different kinds of villains- to quote your earlier argument, should Vulture be targeted the same as, say, Magneto? (And I don't mean me!)

If Cap is a greater threat to the lives of people than the vulture then surely he is the bigger villain (since in your eyes he can't be a hero).

Cap is a massive threat in a variety of ways, but I have never once claimed he should be a villain.

You and Jmac blurred the lines of hero/villain and were caught in the act and have both resorted to black and white in a flawed attempt at proving me wrong. One does not have to be a hero OR a villain.

I also note you both change tacks very rapidly- the last post I countered was all about me calling them villains. As soon as you realised that I HADN'T, suddenly you are talking about 'so-called heroes' etc and trying to maim my arguments. I soldier on nevertheless

PS: Wow, I really enjoyed making these posts. Your addition has really spiced up these debates again Alpow and I can't thank you enough for some very entertaining arguments. As I said referenced before, when this is all over jmacq, xpac, bulbasteve, you and I plus some of the other big debators must all convene to discuss some of our earlier arguments in hindsight. I look forward to it already.

I think an FAQ is a good idea, I'll just ran a few by Tom one final time so that maybe these guys will stop with that damn Cap and Hill argument, you should post some too.

I have no questions, you got all the good ones! Sadly, it's pointless. If/When we get yes answers, the antis will tell us it doens't count because it's not in the comics. If we were to get no answers, they would be hailed as a signal that the antis were right all along.

[Alpow]

So? It is HIS decision. Just saying "oooh that is really odd", does not change the fact he was NOT attacked or put in jail.

No but then again he didn't try to stop it either, he just left rather than peacefully protest against it so we don't know what the reaction would have been.

Your really grasping at straws. Either you are right and noone is allowed to dissent and he is put in jail, or you are wrong and he is free to move to France. Moving to France is what the evidence shows. So stop grasping at straws and say if you are right or wrong.

I'm not saying he isn't allowed to move to France, am saying that it is odd that given he dislikes the law he didn't choose to peacefully protest it and instead left.

I am also saying that since he didn't try to get the law repealed through peaceful means that we don't now what the reaction would have been to him trying to do so.

We do however know that the evidence indicates that neither Spiderman nor Cap were given this option.

And Bush was dismissive of the Supreme Courts attempts to change gitmo, but guess what? What he says does not matter! It's up to the Supreme Court.

But Stark (who I would credit with a bit more intelligence than Bush) knows for a fact that they won't get involved, he isn't the sort to wing it so he obviously has something backing up that idea.

Might? She wasn't. End of story. The senator doesn't know what SHIELD would have done one way or another.

The Senator had to intervene to get her out which seems to indicate she was going to have trouble getting out otherwise and the Senator said that what had already been done to her was wrong.

No, he only clarified that Independent does not mean you are magically able to refuse direct orders. Now come on do you pinky swear you will never make such an argument again?

How about you stop being condescending and actually address what I am saying.

I know you will probably have more success (with convincing yourself since anything more is too much to ask) with you current strategy of sticking you hands over your eyes and shouting that you can't read it but it is rather bad manners to waste peoples time.

It's over and done, ok? It's just absured to make your argument based on the word "independent" but just ignore later when he says HE HAS TO FOLLOW ORDERS. That is only a contradiction in your own mind because you read too much into the word independent.

No.

He was asked straight up

"What was Caps status with SHIELD prior to Civil War? Was he technically a subordiante to Agent Hill under her command? I think a lot of people wondered that because of what happened at the start of Civil War. Since the registration wasn't in effect yet, the question was raised about whether Cap had the right to refuse Hill's order or not."

And he didn't respond " no he can't refuse an order"

Instead he waffled about Cap being independent (which would be in relation to the part of question where it is queried whether he is subordinate to Hill)

Again that does not change the fact he is still required to follow her orders,

Since it is evidence that speaks directly to the fact that Tom doesn't know whether it is illegal or not for him to disobey orders you aren't addressing the evidence in favour of just repeating your conclusion.

epecially when you consider this is an espionage agency which does far shadier things than what it did with cap, and certainly would not be very affective if an agent can just decide willy nilly they don't want to do something for them.

As I have already pointed out (and to which Tom admits) Cap isn't a regular Shield agent so it wouldn't just be any agents refusing orders willy nilly, but you already knew that.

She-Hulk said he SHOULDN'T wear the costume. It was no "subtle play", it is what Speedball wanted to do. Now that I know you didn't drop Frontline, I don't know what to think...

Nor did I say it wasn't what Speedball wanted, I will say it again because apparently you didn't get it the first time.

Sending Speedball to argue against registration is a good move for the Pros because Speedball isn't a good spokesman.

And also he is the only one we have seen have stories centered around the legal system. Now come on you were the one talking about the books overrulling statements by the editor, I sure think the books overrule what you THINK is happening. Because he WAS given the right and you said people weren't being given the right.

One person out of many has been given the soapbox and it was at the outset so they were denied this avenue when Cap initially went to the ammo box.

Again you need your evidence in the actual books themselves. Thing goes to France, She-Hulk is publically defending anti-reg people, Speedball is allowed to speak before Congress. That IS a soapbox. You have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE of it NOT being allowed. Until the time you do actually get some you have no point.

I have Cap and Parker (as well as everybody in the Neg zone), you have somebody running off rather than using the Soap box... no wait that doesn't actually help you and you have She Hulk defending people except that isn't actually the soap box it is the jury box and since they are being denied trial that doesn't work either.

So you have Speedball which I have already addressed, try again.

Well maybe you should find them and quote them and show that they are unbiased sources like guidebook or the editor.

You want me to quote references I just said don't exists, ermm what?

On top of that break from reality I don't have to prove the negative you have to prove the positive.

Sally or someone saying noone will have a trial is just more paranoid ramblings, and even pro-reggers don't are not always 100% right about the minutia of the law. But the editor IS always right, he makes the continuity, he isn't a character inside it who may or may not understand the political system at all.

No the editor isn't always right because they are human beings who can make mistake or they can have their work retconned by somebody else down the line.

Canon is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the universe because it is the evidence right there on the page, Tom can say whatever he likes but decades down the line all that remains to be looked at will be what is on the page.

Anyway Stark says they aren't getting trials, he is quite clear about it and since canon is canon that stands until it is shown to be different.

There i no point discussing this if you are going to joyfully ignore what you don't like, just admit you have your position and nothing is going to alter it and we can go about out business.

Let's make a short list shall we?

Iron Man: Secretary of Defense, Shaped the current registration act. Runs the negative zone prison.

Reed Richards: Single handedly got the previous superhuman registration act off the table the first time around. Let's focus on that shall we? ONE superhuman got the registration act taken off the agenda before...and you calll that not being able to influence either party? I can't wait to hear you answer to this one :rolleyes:

That would be soap box not ballot, super humans are too small a minority to matter in elections and Reed convincing a few people in office (and Stark getting into office in one of his periodic in the closest periods) doesn't change that.


Again just because Stark says something does not make it magically true,

No but he should know what he is talking about, if somebody ask the colour of my curtains and I tell them does it make its suddenly magically true? No but there is a fair bet I actually know what colour my curtains are.

he either doesn't know or is just plain lying to Peter.

You have no canon reason to believe that, you are just arguing what you want to be true.

What reason does he have to lie to Peter, especially a lie which harms his plans (unless Stark is secretly working against the SHRA).

Again as I have said there is reference to Speedballs public TRIAL. Now come on, what are you going to say Civil War Files is wrong just because you THINK it is? Guess what, unless you have some real unbiased evidence for it, you have no point.

I have addressed this before, I will stop repeating myself but I'm going to quote myself since you could have missed it.

"it likely only because the public is demanding a show trial for what he has supposedly done."

We can easily reconcile Speedballs trial (if it ever appears) and the others not getting a trial in that fashion, it doesn't require us to throw out evidence and thus makes William (of Occam) happy.


To be continued.

[Alpow]

If you attack the government that IS ammo. Regardless of if your ends are that you scare the government into going your way or you totally overthrow it. Ammo means you try to change what you want to change VIOLENTLY, it does not just mean revolution. It's almost like you are "bending you position in order to try and win an argument", fancy that.

Interesting you are the ultimate authority on what constitutes ammo in another persons old saying... well I new you were the ultimate authority once civil war and what constitues canon but I didn't realises your power spread to the real world as well.

Then we have this notion that I care whether Cap has used the ammo box, I view the ammo box as indication of the common American idea that the government needs be violently overthrown if it doesn't play nice and that isn't what Cap is trying to do.

He also isn't using violence to get the government to change it's mind, his freeing the other heroes (i.e. the violence) isn't designed to change the governments mind.


But...you are the one who is bending your position right now to win an argument?

Yawn.

You are seriously comparing 18th century britian to modern day Canada, Austriala and Britian and other places with only titual monarchs.

You said monarchies can't be democracies now if you are saying 18th century Britain wasn't a democracy because it was a monarchy well then.... you would still be wrong.

18th century Britain was ruled by parliament, the King had very little power, he could appoint the cabinet but he was bound by convention to only do so for those that could rule the house meaning that in effect the party (although firm parties didn't exist as such then) choose a short list of PM's and king got to chose which one he liked(you could equate this to Senators being chosen by state legislatures or the President being elected by people elected by the people).

However the fact that Pitt the Elder because PM whilst George III was king (George hated Chatham ) illustrate that the Kings hand could easily be forced in this regard.

Now if you want to argue it wasn't a democracy because most people didn't have the vote then you might have a point but that doesn't have anything to do with it being a monarchy (after all the US which was a republic still had a limited franchise, first based upon property, then based upon race and gender and finally just based upon race).

And just for the record George III only used the powers that the current Queen uses, he had somewhat more leeway in who he appointed (mainly due to the less rigid party system) but that is it (well he also took a more active interest in politics but the Queen isn’t forced to keep a distance by law).

I mean geez its a bad argument on the face of it, but then to go and claim I'm the one bending positions in the next paragraph...well usually the hypocracy isn't written right out.

I'm sure those who aren't looking to score cheap shot and can actually read will gather both that I didn't make that argument nor that I twisted your position.

[bulbasteve]

No but then again he didn't try to stop it either, he just left rather than peacefully protest against it so we don't know what the reaction would have been.

He didn't just leave he announced that he was leaving the country, he did not sneak off into the night. NOONE stopped him or said he could not. That is obviously a soapbox move. To use the analogy, if an actor would have actually left the country after the 04 election he would have gotten a lot more press than they do by having stuck around like they have and just say that Bush sucks.

We do however know that the evidence indicates that neither Spiderman nor Cap were given this option.

Spider-Man? Where do you get that Spidey wanted to go on a soapbox? You have no evidence he was going to go to the media or anything. He is not a good example for that. You DO want to follow what the books say, right?

But Stark (who I would credit with a bit more intelligence than Bush) knows for a fact that they won't get involved, he isn't the sort to wing it so he obviously has something backing up that idea.

We only have what he SAYS not what he KNOWS. I did not notice any thought bubbles on Stark.

The Senator had to intervene to get her out which seems to indicate she was going to have trouble getting out otherwise and the Senator said that what had already been done to her was wrong.

Wrong or not that doesn't mean she would or would not have been let go. Fact is she WAS let go, and unless there is a "What If the Senator never showed up" issue you cannot say one way or the other, so drop it.

Since it is evidence that speaks directly to the fact that Tom doesn't know whether it is illegal or not for him to disobey orders you aren't addressing the evidence in favour of just repeating your conclusion.

Now you are going to say what another person does or doesn't know? I didn't know you were a psychic too, you can't actually read the thought bubbles on real people you know.

As I have already pointed out (and to which Tom admits) Cap isn't a regular Shield agent so it wouldn't just be any agents refusing orders willy nilly, but you already knew that.

Again if you read the quote I posted, he said that doesn't matter, even if he was given leeway in the past that doesn't mean he didn't have to follow orders.

Nor did I say it wasn't what Speedball wanted, I will say it again because apparently you didn't get it the first time.

You said "One might even read into that a subtle play on the behalf of the Pro-reg since Speedball turning up in full costume". She-Hulk was AGAINST the idea, it was not a "play" on anyones part but speedballs.

One person out of many has been given the soapbox and it was at the outset so they were denied this avenue when Cap initially went to the ammo box.

Now you say Cap went to the ammo box? Didn't you previously say: "No ammo is to attempt a violent revolution, Cap isn't trying to overthrow the Federal government." What a contradiction.

I have Cap and Parker (as well as everybody in the Neg zone), you have somebody running off rather than using the Soap box... no wait that doesn't actually help you and you have She Hulk defending people except that isn't actually the soap box it is the jury box and since they are being denied trial that doesn't work either.

So you have Speedball which I have already addressed, try again.


Cap nor Parker was about a soapbox, both were about them not following orders, not about them appearing on CNN or something. Obviously a PUBLIC trial is a soap box as well as jury box. Even cases where a side loses a particular case is still important in shaping public opinion.

And do not forget YOU are the one that claimed she was not going to be allowed the jury box, so then obviously what she is doing according to you would only be the soap box. Also do not forget that Jen has appeared on CNN in CW1 and wrote an article for the Bugle and there is no evidence she was censored in any way on them. So clearly she is out there in the media. Also she took on the case of the person leaking the New Warriors names so she was again both on the soapbox and jury box.

Oh and don't forget the Thing. So that is 2 to your 0. But hey maybe I'll add Firestar retiring and make that 3.

You want me to quote references I just said don't exists, ermm what?

On top of that break from reality I don't have to prove the negative you have to prove the positive.

This isn't a scientific debate there is no can't prove a negative line of reasoning (ie: Iron Man: "Noone can speak out against the government!" is "proving a negative"). Noone has said noone is allowed to speak out against the government. And these books are HIGHLY biased.

Canon is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the universe because it is the evidence right there on the page, Tom can say whatever he likes but decades down the line all that remains to be looked at will be what is on the page.

Unlike actual canon (you know... like the bible) noone claims that everything written down is actually TRUE. It is absured on the very face of it to say that everything said BY A CHARACTER is default true because it is written in the comic. Tony Stark does not have the lasso of truth tied around his waist, he can lie or be misinformed as well as anyone can.

That would be soap box not ballot, super humans are too small a minority to matter in elections and Reed convincing a few people in office (and Stark getting into office in one of his periodic in the closest periods) doesn't change that.

A. Your argument that they could not influence political parties was listed under ballot, so clearly you think (rightly) that ballot does not ONLY mean elections.

B. Reed was talking to Congress not just "a few people in office".

C. Stark came out as Iron Man shortly before he was appointed Secretary of Defense and was "out of the cloest" all during his tenure, hell in disassembled he was addressing the U.N. in full costume. So wow...you REALLY don't pay attention to your beloved canon do you?

Interesting you are the ultimate authority on what constitutes ammo in another persons old saying... well I new you were the ultimate authority once civil war and what constitues canon but I didn't realises your power spread to the real world as well.

You just said it as well in the post right before this that he used ammo, so clearly you think the same way as I do.

You said monarchies can't be democracies now if you are saying 18th century Britain wasn't a democracy because it was a monarchy well then.... you would still be wrong.

I never said that, all I said was that Britian was not a democracy it was a monarchy. Which has no other implications than exactly what it says. And unless you are going to argue that 18th Century Britian is in any way shape or form as democratic as the United States, just give up the goat.

Especially since the saying about the jury box is talking about the final power of the Supreme Court in deciding constitutionality, which is why it is the last before ammo. So unless you can turn up a Supeme Court in 18th Century Britian please do stop going off on tagents.

[Magneto Rocks]

I also wanted to add that that was an excellent last post by bulbasteve and frankly he's better at this than I am, and has picked up on much I missed out. The pro-side is far from dead. Indeed, considering the vast proportion of Antis to pros I must say we are making a much better show.

[bulbasteve]

I also wanted to add that that was an excellent last post by bulbasteve and frankly he's better at this than I am, and has picked up on much I missed out. The pro-side is far from dead. Indeed, considering the vast proportion of Antis to pros I must say we are making a much better show.

No YOU ARE. I'm just trying to fight for what is being shown in the comic, I'm not even trying to get into the actual issues portrayed in civil war!

That being said I still think we should try for a FAQ of some sort, at least in that way instead of typing "no seriously, Cap totally had to follow orders", we could just link to the topic and focus on more interesting stuff. Like is it RIGHT not HOW it is being enacted.

[Eallison]

No YOU ARE. I'm just trying to fight for what is being shown in the comic, I'm not even trying to get into the actual issues portrayed in civil war!

That being said I still think we should try for a FAQ of some sort, at least in that way instead of typing "no seriously, Cap totally had to follow orders", we could just link to the topic and focus on more interesting stuff. Like is it RIGHT not HOW it is being enacted.

Good luck with that -- I'm going to bring up the same issue I did before -- with all due respect to Mr. Brevoort, once the comic is printed, that's the final say. He, or Mr. Millar, or anyone else involved with the creative process can add their opinions as to what they meant to convey, or the like, but at the end of the day, it's what's in print that is canon.

The Cap/Hill issue is still far from cut-and-dried. I know what was said, and I know what I read, and the two do not necessarily mesh. Add to that the issue with the overall control of the arc (Sue left Reed nicely, Sue pitched a fit first, YOU decide, Gentle Reader!), and even the CANON isn't always clear.

As has been stated, ad nauseum, the problem is not only one of conventions of the genre (I laugh when Magneto Rocks talks about taking some of the old Reed Richards canon with a grain of salt while he tries to do just the opposite with the modern canon, I say welcome to the conventions of the genre, you want to ignore some of them? This is what you get unless the story is very tight, and CW to date isn't), but of the craft being executed (again, with all due respect to the creators, I do not think ANYONE deliberately makes an inferior product).

Which Negative Zone prison is real? The one from ASM, or Frontline? Which method of leaving did Sue use, the one in CW, or in FF?

Comics are a visual medium, what we see and read on the page are it. Comments in blogs or message boards are nice, but at the end of the day, that's ALL they are. They bear no real, legitimate impact on the product produced.

As an example, DC produced Armageddon 2001. Originally, the villain Monarch was to be Captain Atom. For whatever reason (rumor is it was deduced by fans and speculated on on the 'Net), DC changed the story, and made Monarch Hawk, instead.

It didn't work very well, and people could see the cracks in the story. Now, it's an interesting story, that it should have been Atom, and despite some leanings that way, it ended up being Hawk. At the end of the day, the book, as printed, was what stood. This comes, of course, with the omnipresent caveat that ANYTHING in comics can be retconned.

Just a suggestion.

As for whether something is right, how it is being enacted plays right into that. In fact, that should be an OBVIOUS thing :rolleyes: I mean, we'd ALL agree that a more safe and secure society is a good thing, right? But how good would it be if it meant police could execute criminals on the spot?

In other words, the ends do not justify the means. And that's pretty much exactly why "is it RIGHT, not HOW it is being enacted" is a dangerous statement. Now, maybe that's not quite what you meant, but that is definitely how I read it.

Take it and run.

[Magneto Rocks]

Good luck with that -- I'm going to bring up the same issue I did before -- with all due respect to Mr. Brevoort, once the comic is printed, that's the final say. He, or Mr. Millar, or anyone else involved with the creative process can add their opinions as to what they meant to convey, or the like, but at the end of the day, it's what's in print that is canon.

The Cap/Hill issue is still far from cut-and-dried. I know what was said, and I know what I read, and the two do not necessarily mesh. Add to that the issue with the overall control of the arc (Sue left Reed nicely, Sue pitched a fit first, YOU decide, Gentle Reader!), and even the CANON isn't always clear.

It is in situations precisely like the one you describe where we turn to the Editors. The difficulty is that the policy among anti-reggers doesn't seem to be "Ignore the Editors." It seems to be "Ignore the editors except when they make an anti-reg argument." If something is unclear such as how Sue left Reed and the editor explains a solution which works, you cannot discard it as non canon because it was not spelled out for you in the books. To do so is laughable in itself.

As has been stated, ad nauseum, the problem is not only one of conventions of the genre (I laugh when Magneto Rocks talks about taking some of the old Reed Richards canon with a grain of salt while he tries to do just the opposite with the modern canon, I say welcome to the conventions of the genre, you want to ignore some of them? This is what you get unless the story is very tight, and CW to date isn't), but of the craft being executed (again, with all due respect to the creators, I do not think ANYONE deliberately makes an inferior product).

Laugh away. The fact remains that if we take these old stories word perfect then Reed wanted to beat the commies- problem was, Soviet Russia had already fallen when he took the rocket using our sliding timescale... Plus as we all know, storytelling etc was much more simplistic. I'm not saying discard old stories, I'm pointing out that they can't be taken with as much weight as modern stories in this context since firstly, they're supposed to take place 13 years ago and secondly sections of them no longer make sense, whereas modern stories do, for the time being at least.

Which Negative Zone prison is real? The one from ASM, or Frontline? Which method of leaving did Sue use, the one in CW, or in FF?

Aha, but this is where your argument falls apart. Which Neg. Zone prison is real? Hmm... a quandry. Wait, according to Tom Brevoort the one in Frontline was still heavily under construction and would have ended up like the one in ASM. That makes perfect sense and works with the story- you can't say it isn't true just because it isn't in the books- it's a logical, reasonable explanation which works and has been stated by the EDTIORS.

Comics are a visual medium, what we see and read on the page are it. Comments in blogs or message boards are nice, but at the end of the day, that's ALL they are. They bear no real, legitimate impact on the product produced.

I disagree politely.

It didn't work very well, and people could see the cracks in the story. Now, it's an interesting story, that it should have been Atom, and despite some leanings that way, it ended up being Hawk. At the end of the day, the book, as printed, was what stood. This comes, of course, with the omnipresent caveat that ANYTHING in comics can be retconned.

These two situations cannot be compared at all. Knowledge of what WAS SUPPOSED to be ORIGINALLY cannot be compared with knowledge of what it IS supposed to be NOW, AT THIS MOMENT and what fully works within the story laid down in the comics.


As for whether something is right, how it is being enacted plays right into that. In fact, that should be an OBVIOUS thing :rolleyes: I mean, we'd ALL agree that a more safe and secure society is a good thing, right? But how good would it be if it meant police could execute criminals on the spot?

Rubbish- luckily, the pro-reggers can't.

In other words, the ends do not justify the means. And that's pretty much exactly why "is it RIGHT, not HOW it is being enacted" is a dangerous statement.

I agree, the ends don't justify the means. And bulbasteve and myself have been defending HOW it is being enacted. We have never once said "Well, the end result is good so how is not important!" We have constantly and consistently defended the process- in my case through out-and-out defence, in bulba's case through simple statement of facts.

[jackolover]

See, there you go. Some of you Pro-Regs want to talk "real world parallels" and some of you don't. Which is it gonna be? How is a "vigilante" any more dangerous than a criminal that goes out and DELIBERATELY kills/rapes/robs people? Please explain that dichotomy to me.?

To explain the difference.

Common criminals (unless they are serial killers) usually do harm to another INDIVIDUAL. Super powered people have the potential to harm MANY individuals and so are deemed more dangerous. (That being said, I wonder if having the potential to do harm, can be legislated for?)




I think you'd better look up the meaning of "counter culture". Since it's both perfectly legal to be part of a counterculture (note that I did not say that Captain America and the Secret Avengers' actions are legal, but being part of a counterculture is not in and of itself illegal), and has been an engine of a vast number of beneficial social changes in the United States. For instance, we had a huge youth counterculture in the 1960's in the US. And guess what? We're still here! But I guess in your world (or at least Stark's world) that all political opposition should be crushed so we can live under a totalitarian regime?

Maybe counterculture IS incorrect. Maybe counter-society, as exampled by Caps revolutionaries. I don't think the British thought Washingtons forces were legal, so, wanted them rubbed out, because of the harm it was doing the British society at the time. You can't function as you did, if 2 worlds are trying to exist in the same space.

[jackolover]

I wonder why that is? Could it be because Hobie Brown has no intention to harm or violate the general populace, and, conversly, desires to aid and assist them? Whereas the Vulture would likely beat the tar out of anyone that stood between him and a $2,000 watch.

Isn't that the heart of the entire matter? These people, through choice, genetics or accident acquired powers and abilities. For years they were in places where the police, SHIELD, and government agents were not when lives needed to be saved or people had no one else to turn in order to escape harm.

This brings up a point I came across on History Channel, about freedom of speech.

Everyone is allowed to say whatever they want, have any bigotted opinion they want to express, just that they can't act on that belief.

Here are the questions that deal with SHRA, (and this from Wikapedia/RegistrationActs/ Issues, allerories..) -

1. Just like freedoms to act, are restricted to make it criminal to harm other individuals, are SH powers the exercising of harmful abilities? Or, just exercising anyones right to intervene, in ANOTHERS harmful act. This hasn't been tested in court in MU.

2. Is massively destructive potential, any different to harmful words, (but not harmful actions)? If not, then potential, is protected by the first amendment.

3. Dr Frederick Wertham oversaw the restrictive comics codes in comics in the 1950's, when he convinced the comic companies that violence in comics equated to violence in youth. Is Iron Man trying to protect the SH community from the super powers PERCIEVED self-destructive tendencies? (example - like a SHRA that would round up all heroes, and lock them away, permanently). Because if he is, he is also breaking the first amendment, of freedom to exist, and express ones self, (without doing harm).

[jackolover]

Wait...being DEAD doesn't cut it for you? What do you want, SHIELD to start digging up graves to make supersure they are dead? Jeez man....

Well, in this MU, no ones dead. There have been so many resurections, it's a wonder the cops haven't got files on which number it is now. (What 4th or 5th)? For example, I wouldn't be assuming a Norman Osborn is dead. I'd be checking out his known hideouts.

[bulbasteve]

Well, in this MU, no ones dead. There have been so many resurections, it's a wonder the cops haven't got files on which number it is now. (What 4th or 5th)? For example, I wouldn't be assuming a Norman Osborn is dead. I'd be checking out his known hideouts.

I think that's just a convention of the genre we have to live with, while we know Hawkeye will be back eventually...I really think it would suck if the characters did too (though it would probably be a very interesting one-shot story).

I haven't read what Bulba said and I doubt I will, I will respond to you tomorrow as I said but if it makes you feel better about your arguments by being deluded enough to think I am engaging in verbal fencing out of fear rather than morbid curiosity then go ahead(I can't really see how you are taking my points apart since you are solidly on the defensive since it is your justification for why you view certain things in a particular manner nor does it make much sense for me to respond if I was feeling out numbered, I would have simply ignored the thread, I thought conspiracy theories were supposed to be an anti thing).

I'm done with this little joust, you may have the last werd?! (that last bit is parting gift of both spelling and grammar errors, go nuts).

Oh we all know you read it. I mean just because you were wrong about a few continuity things doesn't mean you should just ignore entire posts, us pro guys make our mistakes too, it's really no big deal (but we will still make fun of you! :p)

Plus we stick to our own discussions generally, I don't see how it is really ganged up on. I haven't quoted one thing of yours that you posted to Magneto and neither did he to one of your posts to me. And everyone else on here is anti-reg, WE should be feeling outnumbered!

[jackolover]

Laugh away. The fact remains that if we take these old stories word perfect then Reed wanted to beat the commies- problem was, Soviet Russia had already fallen when he took the rocket using our sliding timescale... Plus as we all know, storytelling etc was much more simplistic. I'm not saying discard old stories, I'm pointing out that they can't be taken with as much weight as modern stories in this context since firstly, they're supposed to take place 13 years ago and secondly sections of them no longer make sense, whereas modern stories do, for the time being at least.


You know, I have an issue with not giving equal weight to old stories. I think the origin of the heros, back in the 1960's were of classic significants to the heros character and behavior. Later recons were used to give different takes, that the new writer wanted to portray, but we will always remember the circumstances under which these characters appeared.

Younger readers will disagree, and want to hide the seed bed of the heros begginings. But to the purists, retcons just seem silly, when you think of the context these heros grew up in.

Editors can change where these heros come from all they like, but the power of heros is the character they were born with, and making Iron Man an alcoholic, and Ant Man a wife beater, doesn't change the heros they are to me.

[bulbasteve]

You know, I have an issue with not giving equal weight to old stories. I think the origin of the heros, back in the 1960's were of classic significants to the heros character and behavior. Later recons were used to give different takes, that the new writer wanted to portray, but we will always remember the circumstances under which these characters appeared.

Younger readers will disagree, and want to hide the seed bed of the heros begginings. But to the purists, retcons just seem silly, when you think of the context these heros grew up in.

Editors can change where these heros come from all they like, but the power of heros is the character they were born with, and making Iron Man an alcoholic, and Ant Man a wife beater, doesn't change the heros they are to me.

I don't think those examples are very good. Heck Stark and Pym you have to admit, great origins or not (well except pyms), they were fairly generic characters. I don't see how Gwen Stacy getting killed is any different than Tony Stark being an alcoholic (Pym's just suck cause nooone wants to seriously deal with the issues of even a short term case of domestic abuse).

But I don't think just changing the time period is bad. Who cares if Reed wasn't trying to beat the reds into space, or that Tony was in Afghanistan when he became Iron Man, or Peter was getting a computer instead of a microscope.

[Eallison]

I think that's just a convention of the genre we have to live with, while we know Hawkeye will be back eventually...I really think it would suck if the characters did too (though it would probably be a very interesting one-shot story).

And here is where the issue of Civil War bites you AND Marvel in the butt.

NOW you want to live with a convention of the genre? Funny how one of the other major conventions of the genre, the tacit acceptance of costumed vigilantes, is being neatly vivisected by this Marvel Event, and you and others have no problem with it.

I'm sorry, but you cannot accept the one without the other -- not without a LOT more buildup. In fact, weren't you one of the ones saying that it was foolish that there were so many superhuman fights with zero casualties at one time?

That's ANOTHER convention of the genre.

When you (the collective you, not you specifically) start unravelling the tapestry, you should pay attention to all the threads you are affecting. You can't deconstruct one major convention of the genre, and then fall back on others to make your job easier.

If, for the sake of the story, I am to accept the "realistic" argument that the SRA means the end of the "Wild West" in Marvel, why should I put stock in any other conventions of the genre. After all, you (collective again) decided to ignore one for the sake of the story, why are any of the others sacred anymore? I should start expecting that "realism" to be applied to ALL the conventions of the genre, unless otherwise spelled out.

After all, one thing I used to take for granted in comics is gone, there is now no reason to assume others will remain intact.

See what happens when you change the entire tone of a shared universe overnight? :)

Take it and run.

[Jmacq1]

To explain the difference.

Common criminals (unless they are serial killers) usually do harm to another INDIVIDUAL. Super powered people have the potential to harm MANY individuals and so are deemed more dangerous. (That being said, I wonder if having the potential to do harm, can be legislated for?)

That actually brings up a point I was pondering early today when I wasn't able to access the net:

I have a question for the Pro-Registration proponents:

Do you realize that the SHRA is essentially prosecuting people for what they might do instead of what they've actually done?

IE: Superheroes have the potential to be dangerous! Therefore we must regulate them and lock up any of them that refuse to bow to the governments' orders!

So my postulate is this: Every human being on the planet could potentially be a murderer, or even a mass murderer. No matter how unlikely it may be in many cases (indeed the majority of cases) that any of these people will actually deliberately murder someone, the possibility is there.

So do you now believe that all people should be in prison and/or constantly monitored by the government because they are a potential threat to society?

If so, enjoy your police state.

If not, do you see the hypocrisy of arguing that such should be the case for superheroes?

"But the Superheroes are more powerful/living WMDs/Etc...!"

Sure, but any human being with reasonable intelligence and physical capability could possibly get ahold of the means to create a WMD and implement it. Once again, it's unlikely...but not impossible. So do we lock everyone up because they might kill lots of people with WMDs now?

You see the cycle now? You can't/shouldn't penalize or single out a segment of people for what they might do. You prosecute them for what they have done. Particularly when the majority of superhumans in the Marvel Universe do not get a choice as to whether they were superhuman or not.

"But they can retire! Except in the cases where SHIELD/the Government might really really need them for a big emergency!"

So what happens if the superhuman (with a useful power or three) in question is a coward? A pacifist? A conscientious objector? Particularly if their metahuman power is strictly/largely offensively-oriented. It would seem as soon as they "disobey orders" they get sent to jail/prosecuted for failing to follow orders.

Where's the justice in that? Cowardice isn't a crime, neither is pacifism or conscientous objection. Not everyone is cut out to be a "supercop"/peacekeeper/whatever no matter how much training you give them or what power they might have.

"But we have a draft in the US! It even discriminates against females because it only applies to males!"

Fair enough, I'd say if the US instituted the draft again than superhuman males should be just as eligible for it as everyone else. But you should -not- target one segment of the population for a "backdoor draft" just because it's politically convenient.

Would you all support it if the government said "All black males register with the government because we know you're all potential criminals. Oh, and you'll also all be first on the lists to get drafted if we reinstitute it?"

[bulbasteve]

And here is where the issue of Civil War bites you AND Marvel in the butt.

NOW you want to live with a convention of the genre? Funny how one of the other major conventions of the genre, the tacit acceptance of costumed vigilantes, is being neatly vivisected by this Marvel Event, and you and others have no problem with it.

That is really....stupid. WHY is it either or? You are seriously saying that we have to uphold either all of them or none? Anyway Civil War Files already rationalized people dying over and over in the New Warriors profile. So that isn't an issue of Civil War, it's been covered.

"But the Superheroes are more powerful/living WMDs/Etc...!"

Sure, but any human being with reasonable intelligence and physical capability could possibly get ahold of the means to create a WMD and implement it. Once again, it's unlikely...but not impossible. So do we lock everyone up because they might kill lots of people with WMDs now?

You are not born with the abilities of WMDs. Normal people have to actually go GET them. And of course we do make sure it is very hard to actually get those things. The analogy just doesn't work. Superhumans are new and uncharted territory, gun contrtol is just best analogy most can think of even that doesn't fit completely.

Edit: to get into that more. Think of the examples where there is no analogy to any weapon known to us, Psychics and reality warpers. Remember that it is often said that House of M lead to Civil War, just think what the government must think when they found out the heroes were hiding the fact that a superhero was able to change the entire world. And think of the daily paranoia of even your average pychic, espectially with guys like Purple Man around (although not technically a psi). Sure having a walking WMD like the Hulk is scary, he could take over the country by by destroying all of our armies, but Prof X? He could have taken over the country with a THOUGHT. That sort of thing isn't paranoia or not understanding superheroes, it's just common sense that by the very NATURE of their powers they are a real danger.

"But they can retire! Except in the cases where SHIELD/the Government might really really need them for a big emergency!"

So what happens if the superhuman (with a useful power or three) in question is a coward? A pacifist? A conscientious objector? Particularly if their metahuman power is strictly/largely offensively-oriented. It would seem as soon as they "disobey orders" they get sent to jail/prosecuted for failing to follow orders.

So? They just say no and face whatever criminal charges might be taken if someone who shoots anti-galactus spray out of his butt doesn't use it on Galactus when SHIELD seriously needs them. Take it to court, it's an interesting issue. But one that hasn't even been brought up yet (now or in the past I think) and may never be with the sheer amount of people with powers who can do almost anything and want to. And remember since they are not a member of SHIELD they would not be "disobeying orders", which is part of the reason why they "blackmailed" Wonder Man and didn't just say you have to do it or you go to jail.

[garin]

Do you realize that the SHRA is essentially prosecuting people for what they might do instead of what they've actually done?
According to your reasoning, people caught driving a motor vehicle without a license are similarly being prosecuted for something they might do. They haven't hurt anyone, so what's the big deal?

The fact is, they have done something. They've failed to meet the obligations that come with their status.

So my postulate is this: Every human being on the planet could potentially be a murderer, or even a mass murderer. No matter how unlikely it may be in many cases (indeed the majority of cases) that any of these people will actually deliberately murder someone, the possibility is there.

So do you now believe that all people should be in prison and/or constantly monitored by the government because they are a potential threat to society?

If so, enjoy your police state.I think you're kind of missing the point.

The function of the Negative Zone prison is not punishment, it is quarantine. Superhumans wind up in there if they refuse to co-operate with the assessment and training necessary to deal with their powers. The fear in many cases is less what they might do intentionally than what they may do unintentionally.

The point is often raised that the registration is an unfair intrusion into people's lives because many of them didn't choose to receive their powers. It seems to me that's a good reason for why we should regulate them.

If someone drives without a license, we can confiscate their car. You can quite easily be prohibited from driving a car until you've demonstrated that you can handle it responsibly. A superhuman's powers, however, are indivisible from the person themselves. We can't (and in most cases, neither can they) inhibit their powers until they've proven they can use them responsibly. We have to take a different approach. We have to make sure they can use their powers responsibly before they're let out into the wider world.

"But they can retire! Except in the cases where SHIELD/the Government might really really need them for a big emergency!"

So what happens if the superhuman (with a useful power or three) in question is a coward? A pacifist? A conscientious objector? Particularly if their metahuman power is strictly/largely offensively-oriented. It would seem as soon as they "disobey orders" they get sent to jail/prosecuted for failing to follow orders.

Where's the justice in that? Cowardice isn't a crime, neither is pacifism or conscientous objection. Not everyone is cut out to be a "supercop"/peacekeeper/whatever no matter how much training you give them or what power they might have.In some situations, those are indeed crimes. If the situation is dire enough to require rounding up everyone with powers to deal with it, then it's analogous to a draft during wartime. Except the stakes are probably much higher.

But we have a draft in the US! It even discriminates against females because it only applies to males!"

Fair enough, I'd say if the US instituted the draft again than superhuman males should be just as eligible for it as everyone else. But you should -not- target one segment of the population for a "backdoor draft" just because it's politically convenient.

Would you all support it if the government said "All black males register with the government because we know you're all potential criminals. Oh, and you'll also all be first on the lists to get drafted if we reinstitute it?"The potential criminals bit has nothing to do with anything. If black males were ten times better fighters than everyone else, then that position wouldn't be so silly. Especially if your enemies were all fielding troops at that level of efficiency.

[The White-Spider]

According to your reasoning, people caught driving a motor vehicle without a license are similarly being prosecuted for something they might do. They haven't hurt anyone, so what's the big deal?

The fact is, they have done something. They've failed to meet the obligations that come with their status.

More precisely, the obligations that come with their activity.
If an anti is unknown and doesn't engage in the use of
powers he is theoretically safe. The second he does use them
it's open game. The difference is that most powers are a function
of the person's being. Peter Parker couldn't avoid his spider-sense
and instincts pushing him to jump 20ft' clear of serious danger
if he tried.

Now, the question becomes the ethics of punishing a person for involuntary
behaviour. I'm not genetically predisposed to driving, but what's happening to Ms. Marvel on a cellular level is anyone's guess. There are people who are predisposed to paranoia and thrill seeking, etc. Where is the line drawn before you're penalizing a person for his inherent nature?


I think you're kind of missing the point.

The function of the Negative Zone prison is not punishment, it is quarantine. Superhumans wind up in there if they refuse to co-operate with the assessment and training necessary to deal with their powers. The fear in many cases is less what they might do intentionally than what they may do unintentionally.

That's actually worse than it being a prison. Prisons exist to punish crimes with the hope of those imprisoned becoming normally functioning members of society, afterwards. The N. Zone prison, as a "quarantine" is declaring superhumans a viral threat to society than must either be contained indefinitely or controlled completely. Under that analogy there is no middle ground for the human beings who happen to be empowered. You wake up one morning with the ability read minds and you have two choices: life in an otherworldly dimension or life under government control. Call it what you want. Fair, unfair, just realize that no one wants to wake up to that kind of reality, even if they come to accept it.

A draft ends when the war is over. Prison sentences end after punishment is rendered. It never ends for a person with powers, no matter what he decides.
He has lost something fundamental, forever, that all other humans have.
Thus the questioning of whether or not something terribly wrong is occuring in the world of the Marvel U.


If someone drives without a license, we can confiscate their car. You can quite easily be prohibited from driving a car until you've demonstrated that you can handle it responsibly. A superhuman's powers, however, are indivisible from the person themselves. We can't (and in most cases, neither can they) inhibit their powers until they've proven they can use them responsibly. We have to take a different approach. We have to make sure they can use their powers responsibly before they're let out into the wider world.

Let's make this more interesting. The driver is taking a person to the hospital in a life or death situation, and is too young to be licensed. To act means breaking the law. Inaction could mean someone's death and going against every moral fibre of the driver. Either way, he isn't acting in his own interests, but for the well being of another.

That is the predicament of the super hero. If Spidey retired because he didn't want to be a government agent, and saw someone, anyone, in danger -- his choice is either to try to save lives or abide by the law.

The SHRA as implemented now, to my mind, is not only about what's moral, legal or patriotic. It's about what's most important -- what the highest priorities in [this fictional] society should be. Better that people live to sue Peter Parker for property damage, than to have him and hundreds like him fail to act out of fear of their personal lives being ruined -- resulting in the deaths of thousands per year.

Better to have the full might of the government focused on those working to harm society than those who have, and continue, to fight to ensure its safety. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, it's just plain ineffective and counterproductive to force the two options above with no middle ground for people who, while making mistakes, ensure the safetly of far more human lives than they put in jeoparody.

[jackolover]

I don't think those examples are very good. Heck Stark and Pym you have to admit, great origins or not (well except pyms), they were fairly generic characters. I don't see how Gwen Stacy getting killed is any different than Tony Stark being an alcoholic (Pym's just suck cause nooone wants to seriously deal with the issues of even a short term case of domestic abuse).

But I don't think just changing the time period is bad. Who cares if Reed wasn't trying to beat the reds into space, or that Tony was in Afghanistan when he became Iron Man, or Peter was getting a computer instead of a microscope.


Certainly, Gwen Stacy getting killed is like the other 2 examples, and I loved the Ant man origin.

As to whether Peter got a computer rather than a microscope, in Ultimate Spiderman, yes it does not matter, and works quite well. But, where Iron Man came from and Ant Man came from, are fulcrum points in their historical personality, and people, when they get interested, will keep going back to read that story, no matter how everything gets rebooted.

About Reed stealing a rocket ship because of the Russians, I don't remember the paranioa with the Reds of those days. Maybe somebody out there is able to elaborate on that for us. Here in Australia, we didn't get much angst about those things.

[jackolover]

That actually brings up a point I was pondering early today when I wasn't able to access the net:

I have a question for the Pro-Registration proponents:

Do you realize that the SHRA is essentially prosecuting people for what they might do instead of what they've actually done?

IE: Superheroes have the potential to be dangerous! Therefore we must regulate them and lock up any of them that refuse to bow to the governments' orders!

So my postulate is this: Every human being on the planet could potentially be a murderer, or even a mass murderer. No matter how unlikely it may be in many cases (indeed the majority of cases) that any of these people will actually deliberately murder someone, the possibility is there.

So do you now believe that all people should be in prison and/or constantly monitored by the government because they are a potential threat to society?

If so, enjoy your police state.

If not, do you see the hypocrisy of arguing that such should be the case for superheroes?

"But the Superheroes are more powerful/living WMDs/Etc...!"

Sure, but any human being with reasonable intelligence and physical capability could possibly get ahold of the means to create a WMD and implement it. Once again, it's unlikely...but not impossible. So do we lock everyone up because they might kill lots of people with WMDs now?

You see the cycle now? You can't/shouldn't penalize or single out a segment of people for what they might do. You prosecute them for what they have done. Particularly when the majority of superhumans in the Marvel Universe do not get a choice as to whether they were superhuman or not.

"But they can retire! Except in the cases where SHIELD/the Government might really really need them for a big emergency!"

So what happens if the superhuman (with a useful power or three) in question is a coward? A pacifist? A conscientious objector? Particularly if their metahuman power is strictly/largely offensively-oriented. It would seem as soon as they "disobey orders" they get sent to jail/prosecuted for failing to follow orders.

Where's the justice in that? Cowardice isn't a crime, neither is pacifism or conscientous objection. Not everyone is cut out to be a "supercop"/peacekeeper/whatever no matter how much training you give them or what power they might have.

"But we have a draft in the US! It even discriminates against females because it only applies to males!"

Fair enough, I'd say if the US instituted the draft again than superhuman males should be just as eligible for it as everyone else. But you should -not- target one segment of the population for a "backdoor draft" just because it's politically convenient.

Would you all support it if the government said "All black males register with the government because we know you're all potential criminals. Oh, and you'll also all be first on the lists to get drafted if we reinstitute it?"

Bravo, Jmacq1. I tried to address this in this thread myself, but you expressed it a bit clearer. Just because a hero has the potential to to be a WMD, doesn't give the government the right to confiscate their freedom, just because of 'political expediency'.

Similar situations have occurred in real life including Flint, the Husler publisher who won case after case of defamation law suits, all losses, overturned in the supreme court, because of the first amendment. The flag burning cases were the same. The cross burning bigotry case was, again, the same. All because you can't isolate one section of the community to litigation. If you allowed even one, then the government could stretch it to anything they wanted, just to keep in office.

[jackolover]

According to your reasoning, people caught driving a motor vehicle without a license are similarly being prosecuted for something they might do. They haven't hurt anyone, so what's the big deal?

The fact is, they have done something. They've failed to meet the obligations that come with their status.

Your example of a car licence doesn't fit. People have recognised, being properly tested and licenced for driving, has been essential from a very long time ago. SH powers were never recognised to be that dangerous until now.

I cite the case of the University students, who were shouted at, to stop making noise, who took the shouters to court for political correctness in abuse. That was thrown out of court, because hurting peoples feelings can't be seen as a crime.

What people are doing with the SHRA is like applying political correctness on SH's. It's not reasonable to do, seeing as these people have had powers all these years. No. SHRA is just like politcal correctness, agitated by that woman whose son died in Stamford.

[jackolover]

I think you're kind of missing the point.

The function of the Negative Zone prison is not punishment, it is quarantine. Superhumans wind up in there if they refuse to co-operate with the assessment and training necessary to deal with their powers. The fear in many cases is less what they might do intentionally than what they may do unintentionally.

The point is often raised that the registration is an unfair intrusion into people's lives because many of them didn't choose to receive their powers. It seems to me that's a good reason for why we should regulate them.

If someone drives without a license, we can confiscate their car. You can quite easily be prohibited from driving a car until you've demonstrated that you can handle it responsibly. A superhuman's powers, however, are indivisible from the person themselves. We can't (and in most cases, neither can they) inhibit their powers until they've proven they can use them responsibly. We have to take a different approach. We have to make sure they can use their powers responsibly before they're let out into the wider world.

That's not what is being applied here with the SHRA and NZ. It is the heavy handed application, to a specific group, that makes this law so unconstitutional. You have to forget about SH's being potential WMD's because if you allow the subjugation of SH's, you open the book on subjugation of any group for any reason the government sees fit. That's why the constitution was made. So just this sort of over-reaction can't occur.

[jackolover]

In some situations, those are indeed crimes. If the situation is dire enough to require rounding up everyone with powers to deal with it, then it's analogous to a draft during wartime. Except the stakes are probably much higher.


I'll tell you what. What if your national emergency did arise, and the government got just the right SH to deal with it, and stood him in front of the threat, and said - okay, now kill it? What if the SH didn't? You are left with nothing. You can't force a SH to do something he doesn't want to do, if he decides to refuse. Rounding up SH's assumes you have puppets that will do as you say. You can't point a SH at a threat and always expect the weapon will fire. Sometimes the weapon is having a bad day, or hates your guts and just refuses to be dictated by the 'man'. Registration isn't a guarentee you will have SH's at your disposal as you think. Loss of individual freedoms for SH's will come back and bite the government in the bum, if this SHRA persists with what you are suggesting. It has to be a bit fairer.

[jackolover]

Where is the line drawn before you're penalizing a person for his inherent nature?.

Criminal action. If no one has commited a harmful act, then let that SH alone. No Registration. No NZ. No blackmail. Just leave them alone, until, like everyone else, a SH goes berserk, and then you can arrest them. With the Stamford example, you arrest the perpetrators - the New Warriors, and the bad guys. You don't go out and collectively round up all SH's because your feelings are hurt that so many people are killed. That's descimination.

[Alpow]

Oh you may laugh but it would have been interesting to see the SHRA WITHOUT Stark and co.... ;)

On the one hand Stark is a moderating influence (he isn’t a bad guy) but on the other he, Reed et al bring a lot more competence and power to the table.

I don’t think the neg zone would have been possible without them, no clones either, the super villain attack dogs are also less likely which basically means that it would have been cape killers pretty much failing to bring Cap in and the SHRA going back to the drawing board.

It could be considered that, yes. But as you basically admit yourself by saying "it could be considered"... it could also be considered not to be. Ergo- hang on!

First you missed out the things which it clearly violates and second I don’t have to argue that it is a breech the fact that an argument can be assembled that could threaten the SHRA is enough reason for Stark to want to avoid letting that argument be heard in open court.

Stark is a planner and he won’t leave these things to chance, I hope we can at least agree on that.

Now, to return to the point- I feel it tells us that it would be a long and arduous debate which is best postponed a short time until the current state of emergency is over.

You are conjuring this up out of nowhere, Stark does not say it is just for now, in fact Peter comments about it being an interim solution and Stark says it is a final solution to the anti reg problem…..

Well close enough 

You just want it to be a temporary issue because you know it being permanent is wrong.

Debate over the legality and morality of that all you like.

When suspending the courts is illegal and postponing public debate until it’s convenient is also illegal and both are immoral.

Not much to debate there.

Hah, now who's backtracking. You implied it WAS the right thing, but now you claim that you said Stark THOUGHT it was the right thing.

It was just a way of saying he still thinks the ends justify the means saying “Stark still exalts doing what he at that moment considers to be the right thing over the lawful thing” is a lot more clunky.

So care to address the actually point that Stark is still willing to ignore the law?

Will read up on this so I can see it in context. However, I love how you 'children' and forget to add 'lawbreaking children' and you say 'rescuing' but forget to say 'violently rescuing using reckless life-threatening tactics'.

I love how you say “lawbreaking children” and not”lawbreaking heroic children who were helping people and got punished for it” and how you don’t say “violently rescuing from a life sentence in a dimension than sends people insane where they would never get a trial using reckless life threatening tactics”.

And no that is not an admission that Cap was reckless.

Ho ho! Now I see your little game. Very nice try, that could have worked. Could've, should've, would've... didn't.

Oh but it did because the distinction you make below is exactly the one I said you were making, it isn’t about the law (despite all your chatter and ALL CAPS words to contrary) it is about the fact that they are anti-reg.

I do not believe I accused them of being so-called heroes for breaking the law in and of itself. I accused them of that for breaking the law for no greater good and for selfish ends which serve only to aid themselves and not anybody else- [/quote]

Actually you just said it was because they broke the law, I have had to mine down to this point where you make the distinction.

Did Cap not aid fellow “so-called” heroes by defying the SHRA (Luke Cage for example)?

Lets be clear here Cap could have quite easily have been Pro Reg, it wouldn’t have been a great deal of skin off his nose he has chosen to break the law not out of selfishness but out of duty to his friends and the ideals he believes his country should stand for.

for encouraging and promoting it, and not ONLY breaking the law, but violently and recklessly resisting all law-abiding forces that try to stop them, when only doing their duty.

Heroes routinely resist those who try to stop them law breaking as well (Ironman hit Cap during the Armour wars for example, how is that as a counter example to your early comment about Cap not having the right to break the law just to beta up Ironman).

The only difference between Ironmans lawbreaking and Caps is that you agree with Ironmans definition of the greater good and not Caps, it comes down to the fact that Cap is anti like I said it did.

So you only consider then “so-called heroes” because they disagree with you, that has been my point all along and I take issue with such an idea because it makes it too easy to just label the other side and then ignore them.

You should be able to see that Cap wants what is best (as I do with Stark) and thus still consider him a hero since you can’t disagree with his actions (which you would endorse if Stark was committing them for the greater good).

But I didn't make that clear above- my error, not yours- I apologize.

Apology accepted.

To be continued

[Alpow]

No, those really responsible can be listed below:

Nitro
Speedball
Namorita
Night Thrasher
Cobalt Man

We can throw in Coldheart et al, plus maybe even the camerman and the studio executive if you really want.

And no, I'd say Stark has done a LOT more.

This boggles the mind, if I supply you with a gun in the hopes you will kill a lot of people so I can profit in some manner and you do so I am obviously responsible for that crime second only to yourself.

I cannot even begin to comprehend why you exclude damage control; I honestly mean that I don’t have a clue where you are coming form.

Um... she asked if Wolvie regretted it. That can hardly be considered picking a stance one way or the other.

She didn’t complain about him being exactly the sort of monster she was against, she probably just didn’t have a wolverine action figure to give him.

Think away, but you can't use it as a point in an argument for the next 2 weeks until we know for sure.

Sure I can, all the evidence points towards this and we debate other things in this manner (we haven’t seen Speedball gets his trial but it is still getting debated, we haven’t see people spend the rest of their lives in jail but it is still being debated).



Is this a joke?

Oh the mighty patriotic Cap! He is saving them even when they don't want to be saved- in fact they seem to want to be saved FROM him. Wow, I guess those extremist groups who want to save us from damnation must all be right to!

You have already taken the stance that you would agree with law breaking actions if you agreed with the goal so why complain about Cap going against the will of majority in anon codified way.

Again it comes down to you holding a different opinion of what is the greater good.

Did I deny it? If so I apologize.

You made a plain statement that Prowler wasn’t a hero because he broke the law, as I say above I read it as Prowler is no longer a hero because he broke your pet law and doesn’t agree with you but that isn’t what you said.

Stark didn't actively resist arrest and battle the forces sent to take him down.

So now the difference is resisting arrest, a person is only a hero if they can outrun those who are trying to arrest them.

Anyway in Armour wars he punched Cap who was trying to bring him in so you are incorrect in what you say above, is Stark still a hero because if he is then you are moving the goalposts and if he isn’t you are leaving the goalposts in a ridiculous position.

Plus you forget one HUGE difference. These unregistered heroes are commiting illegal acts EVERY SINGLE TIME they do this- it's the same offence over and over and over again. If Stark breaks someone out, that's one offence.

So now it’s volume of crime, I would reopen the quality of crime argument but I will wait to see how your respond to it elsewhere.

Heh. An anti-regger accused me of ends justify the means. That's cute mr overthrow-the-government.

Nobody wants to overthrow the government; I should be worried about this argument spraying me with fear gas.

With that said you country is founded upon the idea that it is ok to overthrow the government if you don’t like it.

On top of that overthrowing the government is an end; no mention is made of the means to achieve that

Finally I didn’t say whether I believed the ends justified the means I simply said that is the idea you are subscribing to and it is dangerous one, especially if you are incorrect about whether the end is a good one.

I consider Prowler not to be a hero because he does notact anything like a hero should and forfeits any right to the title.

You don’t consider the anti-reg people to be heroes because they hold a different opinion to you, I don’t engage in such zealot behaviour against the pro reg people and that is (part of) what I have been saying.

Huh? It's really not the only logical basis at all. The fact that multiple people made an error does not make it any less of an error. The law is the law. That's fact. It can't be denied, it's irrefutable. It IS the law, by definition. That's what it IS.

Nobody is disputing that but it is also irrelevant because you are saying that all laws must be enforced equally, that only follows if all laws are as serious as one another.

It was a throwaway comparison, giving examples of how just because something is done, it doesn't make it right. I did not mean to equate the two to one another.

Then what was the point, you were clearly saying that both were wrong or did the comparison have some hidden meaning, if so then present it.

All laws must be enforced equally- IE: If breaking law A is considered a crime, then breaking law C MUST be considered a crime as well.
All laws should not be enforced with equal amounts of force/response.

I believe I used the term 'equal' imrpoperly, causing this- and I apologize.

No I understood you, the problem is that some laws are more serious that others, so again do you want the same amount of police work going to catching litterers as catching murderers.

That's correct. I have no changed my position, correct grammer: I have NOT changed position in the INTENTION of which I wrote the original words.

So I take it you still hold to the idea that the police targeting their activities and resources is wrong?

No, it's that you misunderstood me- as I said, my fault entirely.

Well it is certainly decent of you to say so but I don’t think I did.

This is about whether the Police are right to target certain criminals over others (based upon the seriousness of their crime) the idea about all crimes being equally bad grows out of that (because it is the only way to justify treating all crimes equally).

Actually, no. I believe the SHRA will be more effective targetting villains AND so-called heroes. You seem to believe it should only target villains.

I don’t think it should anything to do with villains (this recent idea that the SHRA also has clauses which target villains and is thus more than registration and draft worries me even more because it seems unnecessary and bloated), I am discussing whether it is more important to have Cap behind bars or the villains.

Based upon who is the greater threat to people clearly it is the villains and it is your contention that the opposite is true which is the root of our disagreement.

This is an ENORMOUS generalisation. So who was the villain who caused the collateral damage when Cap destroyed a good few police cars and stole a SHIELD transit vehicle? Heroes cause collateral damage- just ask the Thing.

Heroes cause collateral damage when they are in battles, which is usually against bad guys but you are correct that on occasion the people who need to be dealt with aren’t bad guys (they can be just following orders) but it is very rare and it wasn’t that which the SHRA was brought about to put a stop to (I very much doubt people would be supporting the SHRA if it was billing put forward as a way to stop three car pile ups).

Beyond that we have the rare instances where mind control/gamma bomb/ etc causes a hero to go about destroying stuff but there isn’t much the SHRA can do to prevent that.

Of course there isn’t much the SHRA can do to prevent another Stamford in any way so I guess it is equally effective in those instances.


I don't argue that at all. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Then obviously rogue heroes are less of a threat than villains and the villains are the more pressing matter to attend to and Shield so give the villains their primary attention.

Except no, I don't.

But wait a mo, above in the post you say

“It was a throwaway comparison, giving examples of how just because something is done, it doesn't make it right. I did not mean to equate the two to one another.”

Now you say you didn’t mean to equate the two, I assume you meant you didn’t mean to say they were equally bad but you still think both bad.

If so then this takes us back to what I have already said on the issue and you haven’t addressed, so I will say it again and please don’t snip this.

Do you believe that the Police should give equal resources to preventing/catching those who murder and those who litter?

Yes/No.

If you answer that question we can trim these posts down.

...Only no, I have many many options. You are attempting constantly to make broad generalisations. Every case is unique and there are many cases where heroes ARE a greater danger- and others where they are not.

Are there, what heroes have cased more damage (and are likely to do so) than an on the loose Venom (ignoring the nanotech thing, which this isn’t about).

There are different kinds of villains- to quote your earlier argument, should Vulture be targeted the same as, say, Magneto? (And I don't mean me!)

Well Magneto is an odd case so let’s use Venom or Bullseye (since these are both very dangerous individuals that no sane person could believe should be out from behind bars).

In that case, clearly I believe that Venom and Bullseye should gain more attention from Shield than the Vulture, this is my entire point.

[Alpow]

Cap is a massive threat in a variety of ways, but I have never once claimed he should be a villain.

He is a threat to those who have the SHRA as their agenda (in the same way MLK was a threat to those against civil rights), he isn’t a threat to the people.

One does not have to be a hero OR a villain.


Perhaps we disagree on what a villain is, you seem to think that Cap is both dangerous (more dangerous than some villains) and that he can’t be considered a hero, now to me that makes him somebody who is putting many peoples lives at risk in a non heroic pursuit.
That to my mind makes him a villain, if you think of a villain as somebody who deliberately has as their aim

I came to the conclusion it was because they were Anti-Reg and you didn’t address this point.

Sadly, it's pointless. If/When we get yes answers, the antis will tell us it doens't count because it's not in the comics. If we were to get no answers, they would be hailed as a signal that the antis were right all along.

Not by me, I have been quite clear that the comics take precedence (I have a long history of debating fandom material and this has always been the rule so this is why I take the position), Tom’s word is only supplementary or useful in arguing with somebody who takes his word as their evidence.

[jackolover]

The fear in many cases is less what they might do intentionally than what they may do unintentionally.

The Fear that the community has, should not be the driving force of legislation. It's not like the SH's are terrorist cells, just waiting to attack it's citizens. The SH's want to live in peace and safety in their communities, just like everyone else. Making the SH's a focus of the communities fear was a big mistake. If they wanted to make a SHRA, (and there are good reasons for doing this), then it should have been an orderly arrangement within the SH community, not forced on them through legislation, with restictive stipulations and consequences, for failure to comply. If it was handled as a reformation of SH activity, I don't think Cap would have reacted the way he did.

[garin]

Now, the question becomes the ethics of punishing a person for involuntary
behaviour. I'm not genetically predisposed to driving, but what's happening to Ms. Marvel on a cellular level is anyone's guess. There are people who are predisposed to paranoia and thrill seeking, etc. Where is the line drawn before you're penalizing a person for his inherent nature?There are people predisposed to pedophilia and violent murder, as well. We still deal with them through the courts. The line is drawn when there is potential harm to others.

A very large part of all human behaviour has, as it's root cause, factors outside of the individual's control. We still hold them accountable, because otherwise the idea of responsibility is meaningless.

Call it what you want. Fair, unfair, just realize that no one wants to wake up to that kind of reality, even if they come to accept it.Of course not. I imagine very few people would like to be born blind, either. Accidents of birth can have negative effects on our lives. It's unfortunate, but true. Being born superhuman can be both a blessing and a curse.

Let's make this more interesting. The driver is taking a person to the hospital in a life or death situation, and is too young to be licensed. To act means breaking the law. Inaction could mean someone's death and going against every moral fibre of the driver. Either way, he isn't acting in his own interests, but for the well being of another.

That is the predicament of the super hero. If Spidey retired because he didn't want to be a government agent, and saw someone, anyone, in danger -- his choice is either to try to save lives or abide by the law.

The SHRA as implemented now, to my mind, is not only about what's moral, legal or patriotic. It's about what's most important -- what the highest priorities in [this fictional] society should be. Better that people live to sue Peter Parker for property damage, than to have him and hundreds like him fail to act out of fear of their personal lives being ruined -- resulting in the deaths of thousands per year.In your analogy, the person can drive the other to the hospital, but may still be charged with a driving offense because what he did was illegal. This is exactly the same as the unlicensed superhuman using their powers to save a life. You weigh the options and you make your choice.

I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make. Do you think we should abolish the requirement for driver's licenses because somebody without one might feel the need to drive in an emergency?

[garin]

I'll tell you what. What if your national emergency did arise, and the government got just the right SH to deal with it, and stood him in front of the threat, and said - okay, now kill it? What if the SH didn't? You are left with nothing. You can't force a SH to do something he doesn't want to do, if he decides to refuse. Rounding up SH's assumes you have puppets that will do as you say. You can't point a SH at a threat and always expect the weapon will fire. Sometimes the weapon is having a bad day, or hates your guts and just refuses to be dictated by the 'man'. Registration isn't a guarentee you will have SH's at your disposal as you think. Loss of individual freedoms for SH's will come back and bite the government in the bum, if this SHRA persists with what you are suggesting. It has to be a bit fairer.Of course there are no guarantees. If the only person who can save the world refuses to do so, you are screwed, SHRA or no SHRA.

[Alpow]

Of course there are no guarantees. If the only person who can save the world refuses to do so, you are screwed, SHRA or no SHRA.

So it would probably be a good idea not to treat them like second class citizens.

[garin]

So it would probably be a good idea not to treat them like second class citizens.Because they might let the world end out of spite? These are your heroes?

[The White-Spider]

There are people predisposed to pedophilia and violent murder, as well. We still deal with them through the courts. The line is drawn when there is potential harm to others.

Not quite. The line is drawn based on the person's actions. Not potential actions. A person born predisposed towards seeking adrenaline rushes could become a sky diver instead of a serial killer. My point is that when you start "quarantining" people who have a different set of genetic traits -- not because of what they've done -- but because they have those traits, period,
you're already heading in a questionable direction.


A very large part of all human behaviour has, as it's root cause, factors outside of the individual's control. We still hold them accountable, because otherwise the idea of responsibility is meaningless.

And when we start holding people responsible for their capabilities instead of their choices the idea of justice becomes meaningless, which is my point.


Of course not. I imagine very few people would like to be born blind, either. Accidents of birth can have negative effects on our lives. It's unfortunate, but true. Being born superhuman can be both a blessing and a curse.


I'm not speaking about the feelings of individuals towards their powers.
I'm speaking about society's responsbilities to people that could not help
being what they are and can't undo what they've become. There are those
who are mentally unstable and not particularly safe to be around, but are sent
to care facilities instead of prison because they are not bad human beings, or criminals.
They merely lack the control with which to interact with the world around them.

There could at least be some recognition that most of these people don't deserve to be locked away from civilization for life because they might cause harm unintentionally. Yet for Marvel's pro faction, there in no middle ground solution. Not yet any way.


In your analogy, the person can drive the other to the hospital, but may still be charged with a driving offense because what he did was illegal. This is exactly the same as the unlicensed superhuman using their powers to save a life. You weigh the options and you make your choice.

Exactly. The entire point is that there are some things, things which are not
at all wrong in and of themselves, that are worth the consequences one might have to face to accomplish them -- at least to the one making that choice. This isn't a joy ride for the anti-side. They are driven to act towards worthwhile goals but unwilling to be under government control for life or shipped off planet Earth.



I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make. Do you think we should abolish the requirement for driver's licenses because somebody without one might feel the need to drive in an emergency?

No. I think we should be sophisticated enough to understand the layers of complexity that exist in the decision making processes of people and that there are degrees of right and wrong beyond the legal scope. To see so many posts stating "He didn't follow that order" and "SHRA makes it a crime now, period" -- as if there's no more thought that needs to be put to the matter -- greatly oversimplifies things. Of course you don't undo traffic laws just in case someone needs to save his ill Mom or Pop -- you say "d*mn the write up I'm not gonna let her die!", and get in the car.

Clearly the analogy is exceptional and calls for a decision. The same for Rogers, Parker and the others who are seeing their entire county and way of life transforming rapidly around them. Peter may not agree with the goverment, but he'll still give hell to anyone trying to harm or kill and innocent person. That's the kind of man he is. These characters are saying "I hate this, it could tear my life apart, but it's worth fighting for."

Yet, there are people who carry on as if they can't understand the concept that a character would choose to do something other than get in line and sign up. Because it's the law.

[Alpow]

Because they might let the world end out of spite? These are your heroes?
Not everybody with powers is a hero and it wouldn't be out of spite.

Why should a super human feel any particular kinship with the people keeping them in bondage?

[Magneto Rocks]

On the one hand Stark is a moderating influence (he isn’t a bad guy) but on the other he, Reed et al bring a lot more competence and power to the table.

...And god knows ya don't want competence enforcing the law!

I don’t think the neg zone would have been possible without them, no clones either, the super villain attack dogs are also less likely which basically means that it would have been cape killers pretty much failing to bring Cap in and the SHRA going back to the drawing board.

We'll agree to disagree- I think you'd be surprised.

First you missed out the things which it clearly violates and second I don’t have to argue that it is a breech the fact that an argument can be assembled that could threaten the SHRA is enough reason for Stark to want to avoid letting that argument be heard in open court.

Indeed you don't need to argue that it is a breech since presumably it is not.

But if you mean BREACH, then it may be enough reason for him to WANT it, you have zero evidence that is why he is doing it.

You are conjuring this up out of nowhere, Stark does not say it is just for now, in fact Peter comments about it being an interim solution and Stark says it is a final solution to the anti reg problem…..

I am conjuring NOTHING out of nowhere. This is extremely unclear and I am putting forth a theory which makes logical sense where little else does. Stark is an opinionated character who is clearly very tired and extremely overworked having a vicious debate with the man who is supposed to be his second and quite angry. We cannot take everything which comes out of his mouth as the law.

You just want it to be a temporary issue because you know it being permanent is wrong.

No, you just want it to be a permanent issue because you know it being temporary is perfectly justifiable.


When suspending the courts is illegal and postponing public debate until it’s convenient is also illegal and both are immoral.

Not much to debate there.

Tony has been empowered by the President of the United States to do this, and for the duration of the crisis it is not illegal. They are also NOT postponing public debate and immorality is left up to an individual's views.


It was just a way of saying he still thinks the ends justify the means saying “Stark still exalts doing what he at that moment considers to be the right thing over the lawful thing” is a lot more clunky.

No it was NOT.

So care to address the actually point that Stark is still willing to ignore the law?

By pointing out that he's not, really?

I love how you say “lawbreaking children” and not”lawbreaking heroic children who were helping people and got punished for it” and how you don’t say “violently rescuing from a life sentence in a dimension than sends people insane where they would never get a trial using reckless life threatening tactics”.

Aha, well here we have the difference. I didn't say that because it's not true. :)

Oh but it did because the distinction you make below is exactly the one I said you were making, it isn’t about the law (despite all your chatter and ALL CAPS words to contrary) it is about the fact that they are anti-reg.

I'm not replying to this stuff from now on because you just admitted that you ignore my words to the contrary. Let me just say that I am slightly more aware of my beliefs and reasons than you. :)

Actually you just said it was because they broke the law, I have had to mine down to this point where you make the distinction.

Apparantly didn't take much mining given that I freely admit it.

Did Cap not aid fellow “so-called” heroes by defying the SHRA (Luke Cage for example)?

Yes. What's your point?

I mean, I myself am pretty sure that when you, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING, with no greater goal except self preservation, violently and with EXTREMELY dangerous force attack law enforcement doing only their duty without them attacking you first and if you then refuse to step down until you fall.... yeah, that in my mind constitues somewhat of a forfeit to the title 'hero'.

Lets be clear here Cap could have quite easily have been Pro Reg, it wouldn’t have been a great deal of skin off his nose he has chosen to break the law not out of selfishness but out of duty to his friends and the ideals he believes his country should stand for.

Well here we disagree intensely. I feel everything in Cap's personality leads him to be anti-reg from the start.

Heroes routinely resist those who try to stop them law breaking as well (Ironman hit Cap during the Armour wars for example, how is that as a counter example to your early comment about Cap not having the right to break the law just to beta up Ironman).

Not all that good as the circumstances are completely different.

So you only consider then “so-called heroes” because they disagree with you, that has been my point all along and I take issue with such an idea because it makes it too easy to just label the other side and then ignore them.

I said above I won't respond to these things. This is the last time.

You should be able to see that Cap wants what is best (as I do with Stark) and thus still consider him a hero since you can’t disagree with his actions (which you would endorse if Stark was committing them for the greater good).

I do see that Cap wants what he believes is best. That does not make him a hero. Doctor Doom wants what he believes is best- so is he a hero now too?
Is Magneto?

[Magneto Rocks]

This boggles the mind, if I supply you with a gun in the hopes you will kill a lot of people so I can profit in some manner and you do so I am obviously responsible for that crime second only to yourself.

I cannot even begin to comprehend why you exclude damage control; I honestly mean that I don?t have a clue where you are coming form.

You implied Damage Control are more responsible than anyone else. I disagree. Firstly, DC as a whole (Heh, not the other DC) are not responsible. Walter Declun, on the other hand, could indeed be found guilty of some charges. The fact remains he is not as responsible as any of the people there at the scene. That I neglected to mention this above was my mistake, but I'm done apologizing to you when you so rarely apologize for your own COLOSSAL errors.

She didn?t complain about him being exactly the sort of monster she was against, she probably just didn?t have a wolverine action figure to give him.

That's entirely speculation, you cannot say she was for or against his actions.

Sure I can, all the evidence points towards this and we debate other things in this manner (we haven?t seen Speedball gets his trial but it is still getting debated, we haven?t see people spend the rest of their lives in jail but it is still being debated).

Speedball's trial has been solicited, the jail thing has been mentioned. Your evidence for a clone army is the following:

-There was a Thor Clone
-We see something in a tank
-They mention new forces

Hardly enough to constitute real proof. In 2 weeks, we can argue aboiut this. For now- there's enough to debate without going into future potential topics.


You have already taken the stance that you would agree with law breaking actions if you agreed with the goal so why complain about Cap going against the will of majority in anon codified way.

What do I have against Cap deciding he's right and all of America is wrong? While the OTHER side in this debate say our side is AGAINST democracy? GEe well I don't know!

You made a plain statement that Prowler wasn?t a hero because he broke the law, as I say above I read it as Prowler is no longer a hero because he broke your pet law and doesn?t agree with you but that isn?t what you said.

That's correct- it is not what I said.

So now the difference is resisting arrest, a person is only a hero if they can outrun those who are trying to arrest them.

Haha, I would say that's clever but... well, it's not. You are deliberately and willfully misinterpreting me at every turn- for what purpose I do not know, whether it be to frustrate me or look better to the casual onlooker.

So now it?s volume of crime, I would reopen the quality of crime argument but I will wait to see how your respond to it elsewhere.

No, every time I point out something obvious you treat it as a whole new argument and a contradiction of what I earlier said when it simply is not.

With that said you country is founded upon the idea that it is ok to overthrow the government if you don?t like it.

No, MY country was founded on the idea that it's okay to kick overthrow the government if they are a foreign invader who tyrannised it for 700 years and refused it man yliberties such as freedom of religion and brutally surpressed it, plus that people should have the right to govern themselves. YOUR country is founded on the idea that a people should have the right to govern themselves.

Finally I didn?t say whether I believed the ends justified the means I simply said that is the idea you are subscribing to and it is dangerous one, especially if you are incorrect about whether the end is a good one.

It is NOT the idea I am subscribing to, rending this point moot and invalid.

Nobody is disputing that but it is also irrelevant because you are saying that all laws must be enforced equally, that only follows if all laws are as serious as one another.

That is ridiculous. Are you saying we should ignore tax laws because they aren't as serious as murder laws?

No I understood you, the problem is that some laws are more serious that others, so again do you want the same amount of police work going to catching litterers as catching murderers.

To I need to quote myself to you? The forces used to enforce each law is not equal, ergo more forces can be used to enforce murder laws, not contradicing myself at all.

So I take it you still hold to the idea that the police targeting their activities and resources is wrong?

Given the utter lack of evidence to support that, you take it wrong.

This is about whether the Police are right to target certain criminals over others (based upon the seriousness of their crime) the idea about all crimes being equally bad grows out of that (because it is the only way to justify treating all crimes equally).

But it isn't about that at all! Why must you continue to claim it is?

I don?t think it should anything to do with villains (this recent idea that the SHRA also has clauses which target villains and is thus more than registration and draft worries me even more because it seems unnecessary and bloated), I am discussing whether it is more important to have Cap behind bars or the villains.

And I've said repeatedly it depends on the villains. But yeah, I think it's more important to have Cap behind bars than Will o' the wasp.

Heroes cause collateral damage when they are in battles, which is usually against bad guys but you are correct that on occasion the people who need to be dealt with aren?t bad guys (they can be just following orders) but it is very rare and it wasn?t that which the SHRA was brought about to put a stop to (I very much doubt people would be supporting the SHRA if it was billing put forward as a way to stop three car pile ups).

That was one of the many things the SHRA was to put a stop to.

Beyond that we have the rare instances where mind control/gamma bomb/ etc causes a hero to go about destroying stuff but there isn?t much the SHRA can do to prevent that.

Actually, there is. Despatch the heroes who are best suited to the job to take the hero gamma bombed-'hero' down rather than just whoever's in the area.

Of course there isn?t much the SHRA can do to prevent another Stamford in any way so I guess it is equally effective in those instances.

Yeah because untrained heroes, recklessness, lack of overall support, lack of the right heroes to do the job and a lack of suitable intelligence- none of these things were factors at Stamford at all, nosirree bob!

Then obviously rogue heroes are less of a threat than villains and the villains are the more pressing matter to attend to and Shield so give the villains their primary attention.

Again to lump every villain in together.

But wait a mo, above in the post you say

?It was a throwaway comparison, giving examples of how just because something is done, it doesn't make it right. I did not mean to equate the two to one another.?

Now you say you didn?t mean to equate the two, I assume you meant you didn?t mean to say they were equally bad but you still think both bad.

No, I don't at all. You said that the police did it, I said the police take bribes and it doesn't make them right. I did NOT say they were both wrong. I said taking bribes was wrong and that other actions the police took were not necessarily right. I can see how you would draw the conclusion you did- it was wrong.

Do you believe that the Police should give equal resources to preventing/catching those who murder and those who litter?

Yes/No.

If you answer that question we can trim these posts down.

NO! AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG DESPITE YOUR BLATANT REFUSAL TO LISTEN!

Now let's trim, shall we?

Are there, what heroes have cased more damage (and are likely to do so) than an on the loose Venom (ignoring the nanotech thing, which this isn?t about).

The Hulk and The Thing spring to mind, Scarlet Witch does too, Thor... there are a couple of dozen answers given the current Venom has only been around maybe 2 years. Spidey's done a good bit of damage in his time! (Actually pulled a building down o nVenom fairly recently.)

Well Magneto is an odd case so let?s use Venom or Bullseye (since these are both very dangerous individuals that no sane person could believe should be out from behind bars).

Why, because Magneto doesn't fit your argument? Until 2 weeks ago we didn't even know if Venom/Gargan had killed ANYBODY.

In that case, clearly I believe that Venom and Bullseye should gain more attention from Shield than the Vulture, this is my entire point.

If it'es your point, then we agree.

Not everybody with powers is a hero and it wouldn't be out of spite.

Hate to intrude on this argument but if you allow Earth to die because you were mistreated, I hardly see how that can be out of anything BUT spite.

Why should a super human feel any particular kinship with the people keeping them in bondage?

Because they all face impending annihilation?

[Alpow]

...And god knows ya don't want competence enforcing the law!

Not when it is a bad law, if a law was passed tomorrow making it illegal to won bread (for whatever reason) I wouldn’t want people enforcing who could actually ensure I couldn’t get bread.

We'll agree to disagree- I think you'd be surprised.

I think everybody agrees that Stark and Reed are certainly those most capable of pulling this off, in fact a lot of people raised this point when Tony was accused of war profiteering.

Indeed you don't need to argue that it is a breech since presumably it is not.

But if you mean BREACH,[]/quote]

Please cut the grammar Nazi stuff out, it is rather petty and it adds additional unnecessary hassle.

[quote]then it may be enough reason for him to WANT it, you have zero evidence that is why he is doing it.

Are you honestly telling me that no prison on earth could have housed these super humans, especially the less fearsome ones.

I am conjuring NOTHING out of nowhere. This is extremely unclear and I am putting forth a theory which makes logical sense where little else does. Stark is an opinionated character who is clearly very tired and extremely overworked having a vicious debate with the man who is supposed to be his second and quite angry. We cannot take everything which comes out of his mouth as the law.

The argument had only just stated and Stark is hardly going to make his position worse on a whim but we can agree to disagree, I will take what is on the page and you can look at some way to ignore it.

No, you just want it to be a permanent issue because you know it being temporary is perfectly justifiable.

No because I have already said that I don’t agree with it being temporary either, we just disagree I will go with canon and you can ignore it, we can drop the trial issue now since we have reached an impasse(you can respond if you like on this point but I will just trim it in my next response as I will anything else I outline for dropping).

Tony has been empowered by the President of the United States to do this, and for the duration of the crisis it is not illegal.

A President can carry out illegal actions, he can empower Tony to run the country as his own personal fiefdom on a whim but it wouldn’t make it legal.

They are also NOT postponing public debate and immorality is left up to an individual's views.

Well I don’t want to get into a debate on moral relativism so lets agree to disagree there.

Public debate is being postponed because the trials which are important to that debate have been shelved (according to you, to me they aren’t going to happen), people have been prevented from getting on their soap boxes and vital information is being withheld from the populace(like criminals being used as law enforcement and a clone army being built.

No it was NOT.

Listen, I now my own mind better than you do, it is rather arrogant of you to say what I am saying.

We can drop this as well however because you have nothing left to add on the point.

By pointing out that he's not, really?

Well we disagree as I point out above.

Yes. What's your point?

That he isn’t acting purely out of selfish motives as you allegeded the so called heroes were.

I mean, I myself am pretty sure that when you, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING, with no greater goal except self preservation, violently and with EXTREMELY dangerous force attack law enforcement doing only their duty without them attacking you first and if you then refuse to step down until you fall.... yeah, that in my mind constitues somewhat of a forfeit to the title 'hero'.

Except that Cap isn’t just doing this out of self preservation, he could have easily just signed up and just taken orders from Shield (which you think he already has to do anyway).

This is something you are ignoring, Cap hasn’t acted for selfish motives or just for self preservation (nor did Luke Cage as he could have simply left the country), by ignoring their motivations you ignore why they are still heroes.

Well here we disagree intensely. I feel everything in Cap's personality leads him to be anti-reg from the start.

So do I, what I said was that if Cap was just out for himself (as you allege the so-called heroes are) then he would have been better just signing up.



Not all that good as the circumstances are completely different.

Don’t just say they are, explain why they are.

Stating something does not prove it.

I do see that Cap wants what he believes is best. That does not make him a hero. Doctor Doom wants what he believes is best- so is he a hero now too?
Is Magneto?

Magneto could be argued to be a hero (except for his baggage from early in his history when he was just a 2d villain), Doom too often spends time just looking out for Doom (i.e. his feud with Richards).


You implied Damage Control are more responsible than anyone else.

No I think DC are more responsible than the New Warriors.

I disagree. Firstly, DC as a whole (Heh, not the other DC) are not responsible. Walter Declun, on the other hand, could indeed be found guilty of some charges. The fact remains he is not as responsible as any of the people there at the scene.

No he is more responsible than anybody other than Nitro because he armed Nitro in the hopes he would kill a lot of people, that shows intent which the New Warriors didn’t have.

The New Warriors at worst are guilty of negligence and wilful endangerment, Declun is guilty of aiding and abetting Nitro, arming him with intent and conspiracy to commit murder.

That's entirely speculation, you cannot say she was for or against his actions.

Meh, we will disagree.


Hardly enough to constitute real proof. In 2 weeks, we can argue aboiut this. For now- there's enough to debate without going into future potential topics.

Again we disagree, the evidence is there but if you wish to ignore it then we can drop the point.




What do I have against Cap deciding he's right and all of America is wrong? While the OTHER side in this debate say our side is AGAINST democracy? GEe well I don't know!

I haven’t said the Pros are against democracy (and I don’t care what my side has argued, go find the Anti group mind, if it exists, and argue with it) but they are against civil rights and the freedom of the press and I doubt Stark is all that concerned with democracy (although that would be the least of my problem with his actions).

Now I asked why you have a problem with Cap going against a public poll when you don’t have a problem with Stark (or others) going against laws that implicitly are endorsed by the majority (I’m sure most people are against jail breaks).

You still haven’t addressed this central issue.

That's correct- it is not what I said.

Which takes back round in the circle to you having admitted that breaking the law is ok thus it isn’t as simple as your originally said.

You are deliberately and willfully misinterpreting me at every turn- for what purpose I do not know, whether it be to frustrate me or look better to the casual onlooker.

You didn’t answer the point, please stay on topic.

No, every time I point out something obvious you treat it as a whole new argument and a contradiction of what I earlier said when it simply is not.

Then explain why it is not please.

No, MY country was founded on the idea that it's okay to kick overthrow the government if they are a foreign invader who tyrannised it for 700 years and refused it man yliberties such as freedom of religion and brutally surpressed it, plus that people should have the right to govern themselves.

I apologise I took you for an American, but the point stands that such is what Caps country stands for.

YOUR country is founded on the idea that a people should have the right to govern themselves.

No my country isn’t really founded on any one idea; it is far too old for that sort of thing.

It is NOT the idea I am subscribing to, rending this point moot and invalid.

You have said it is ok to ignore the law for the greater good, i.e. that if the end is good enough it can make valid the means.

You have endorsed that point.

But we can drop this point since you can’t really argue it other than to say you haven’t in the face of the evidence.

That is ridiculous. Are you saying we should ignore tax laws because they aren't as serious as murder laws?

Well it can be argued tax laws are more important since society would collapse without them however I didn’t say we should ignore lesser laws only that we should concentrate on the more serious ones.

To I need to quote myself to you? The forces used to enforce each law is not equal, ergo more forces can be used to enforce murder laws, not contradicing myself at all.

But you have already said that they can’t concentrate on villains because the antis are about now this is either because you have an objection to targeted policing (something which you have now recanted despite earlier comparisons) or because you think the antis are a bigger threat to people.

You haven’t justified why you think that is (and have in fact that you don’t think it entirely true).

[Alpow]

But it isn't about that at all! Why must you continue to claim it is?

Because you won’t show it to be otherwise and again it isn’t just me other people took you comments in the exact same manner.

However you have stated flat out that you aren’t against targeted policing so we have resolved that issue.

And I've said repeatedly it depends on the villains. But yeah, I think it's more important to have Cap behind bars than Will o' the wasp.

Who is more likely to cause somebody’s death?

That was one of the many things the SHRA was to put a stop to.

How?

Cap already has all the training, Speedball was obviously well respected because he has worked with the police in the past, how would the SHRA have prevented Stamford?

Actually, there is. Despatch the heroes who are best suited to the job to take the hero gamma bombed-'hero' down rather than just whoever's in the area.

So the ideal solution is to take longer to prevent the rampage, that is going to cause more damage.

Especially since heroes are going to be spread over the entire US, what if the ideal hero to fight this threat is in Hawaii and the threat is in Georgia.

Yeah because untrained heroes, recklessness, lack of overall support, lack of the right heroes to do the job and a lack of suitable intelligence- none of these things were factors at Stamford at all, nosirree bob!

Since Shield didn’t know where Nitro was obviously intelligence available to them wouldn’t have helped.
The heroes available were able to do the job, they were just blindsided by something outside of their control which just about any hero would have been.

Again to lump every villain in together.

Yes because the villains actually want to cause harm and have a record of doing so, heroes on the other hand don’t and have a record of not doing so.

No, I don't at all. You said that the police did it, I said the police take bribes and it doesn't make them right. I did NOT say they were both wrong. I said taking bribes was wrong and that other actions the police took were not necessarily right. I can see how you would draw the conclusion you did- it was wrong.

So what you are saying is that rather than address the point you raised something that was irrelevant (lets look at this I say it is right and happens, you say just because it happens doesn’t make it right however you always held it to be right, why then raise the fact that it may to be right when you actually think it is –you just unnecessarily confused the issue and lengthened the discussion).

As for me drawing the wrong conclusion, considering others did as well I would say the fault doesn’t lie with this side.

NO! AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG DESPITE YOUR BLATANT REFUSAL TO LISTEN!

OK, thank you for finally being clear.

The Hulk and The Thing spring to mind, Scarlet Witch does too, Thor... there are a couple of dozen answers given the current Venom has only been around maybe 2 years. Spidey's done a good bit of damage in his time! (Actually pulled a building down o nVenom fairly recently.)

The Hulk is a non issue for the SHRA, as is scarlet witch and Thor.

Thing was working with the SHRA and didn’t seem to have gotten any extra training so he was still as much of a threat as ever and the Pros built a Thor that was clearly more dangerous than regular Thor, I’m not seeing the upside.

I will point out you didn’t mention any Secret Avengers/active Antis(those who we are discussing needing to be in prison) which you really should to try and convince us that they are where Shield should be concentrating their efforts.

Why, because Magneto doesn't fit your argument? Until 2 weeks ago we didn't even know if Venom/Gargan had killed ANYBODY.

No because Magneto might not even be a villain however I would say Magneto is clearly a bigger threat than Cap (or Vulture), both because he has greater capacity for violence and is also more likely to use it against the people.

As for Gargan (what a prince, he’s killed more Shield agents than the antis so far), you can take Bullseye as your example instead if you like, the nit picking details aren’t that important to the general analogy.

If it'es your point, then we agree.

Then we just need to identify why you consider Cap to outrank the villains.

Hate to intrude on this argument but if you allow Earth to die because you were mistreated, I hardly see how that can be out of anything BUT spite.

That would rather depend upon what the world being destroyed entailed, if you mean literally the Earth exploding then quite possibly (although it could just be a lack of self interest) but just the end of civilisation or (more relevantly) the end of the US is quite reasonable.

I wouldn’t blame (in the past) any slave in the US for not fighting to defend the US from foreign invasion for example.

Because they all face impending annihilation?

That’s no need to feel kinship just self preservation and as long as they can get out somehow (cut a deal with the invader or some other way to survive) then they have n real reason to rally to the flag.

[Magneto Rocks]

Right, we seem to be in for mass trimming time...

Not when it is a bad law, if a law was passed tomorrow making it illegal to won bread (for whatever reason) I wouldn’t want people enforcing who could actually ensure I couldn’t get bread.

Ignoring my urge to point out your spelling error, I'll agree on principle. Point Trimmed.

I think everybody agrees that Stark and Reed are certainly those most capable of pulling this off, in fact a lot of people raised this point when Tony was accused of war profiteering.

Oh yes. But what would happen without them is anyone's guess, and has no relevance to this- I apologize for bringing it up. Point Trimmed.

Please cut the grammar Nazi stuff out, it is rather petty and it adds additional unnecessary hassle.

You started it, but fair enough. Point Trimmed.

Are you honestly telling me that no prison on earth could have housed these super humans, especially the less fearsome ones.

Yes.

The argument had only just stated and Stark is hardly going to make his position worse on a whim but we can agree to disagree, I will take what is on the page and you can look at some way to ignore it.

Reading past issues of ASM shows that this argument has been going- even if somewhat non-verbally, for weeks now. You take what's on the page and I'll actually think about it.

No because I have already said that I don’t agree with it being temporary either, we just disagree I will go with canon and you can ignore it, we can drop the trial issue now since we have reached an impasse(you can respond if you like on this point but I will just trim it in my next response as I will anything else I outline for dropping).

I'll respond. Seriously, my huge thanks for saying I could. Because y'know, in a debate where free speech etc is part and parcel, I really need to be given permission to retaliate to what I see as being wrong. My eternal gratitude to you.

Anyway, I'm just going to say again that no- you go with literal canon, I think about it. Don't bother quoting this, as I won't respond. Point Trimmed.


A President can carry out illegal actions, he can empower Tony to run the country as his own personal fiefdom on a whim but it wouldn’t make it legal.

True. Luckily, he hasn't. Point Trimmed.

Public debate is being postponed because the trials which are important to that debate have been shelved (according to you, to me they aren’t going to happen), people have been prevented from getting on their soap boxes and vital information is being withheld from the populace(like criminals being used as law enforcement and a clone army being built.

This is a time of crisis and civil war. Information is being withheld, yes, but when this is all over I have no doubt MOST of it will be released to the public. This isn't a serious argument since th esame thing happens in any war.

Listen, I now my own mind better than you do, it is rather arrogant of you to say what I am saying.

Stop telling me what I think and I will do vice versa.

That he isn’t acting purely out of selfish motives as you allegeded the so called heroes were.

Well we can agree to disagree. Point Trimmed.

Except that Cap isn’t just doing this out of self preservation, he could have easily just signed up and just taken orders from Shield (which you think he already has to do anyway).

Oh let me be quite clear, I feel Cap is behaving much more heroically than most antis. He has motives which are not purely self presevation, I just disagree with those motives.

This is something you are ignoring, Cap hasn’t acted for selfish motives or just for self preservation (nor did Luke Cage as he could have simply left the country), by ignoring their motivations you ignore why they are still heroes.

I am readily open to concede that Cap may still be a hero given the circumstances, but please explain to me what greater purpose Cage served by not leaving. He disobeyed the law and quite possibly killed some SHIELD agents to prove a point?

Magneto could be argued to be a hero (except for his baggage from early in his history when he was just a 2d villain), Doom too often spends time just looking out for Doom (i.e. his feud with Richards).

Doom believes everything he does is for the greater good. He wants to ascend to the world throne because he thinks it makes the world better, he feuds with Richards because he believes Richards is impeding his rightful ascension. Don't confuse the issue- Doom thinks he's doing what is right- doing what you think is right does not make you a hero automatically.[/quote]


No he is more responsible than anybody other than Nitro because he armed Nitro in the hopes he would kill a lot of people, that shows intent which the New Warriors didn’t have.

The New Warriors at worst are guilty of negligence and wilful endangerment, Declun is guilty of aiding and abetting Nitro, arming him with intent and conspiracy to commit murder.

Declun is never proven to have done anything. He stated no motive for why he would have given MGH to Nitro. All we have is the Atlanteans word. Still, I am readily willing to concede Declun is AS responsible as the NW, but not more.

I haven’t said the Pros are against democracy (and I don’t care what my side has argued, go find the Anti group mind, if it exists, and argue with it) but they are against civil rights and the freedom of the press and I doubt Stark is all that concerned with democracy (although that would be the least of my problem with his actions).

Okay, so you don't care what your side think, we will drop the 'hive mind' notion. This means all of your later "Others thought this as well..." statements invalid. You THINK they are against these things, I don't. Simple as that. Point Trimmed.

Now I asked why you have a problem with Cap going against a public poll when you don’t have a problem with Stark (or others) going against laws that implicitly are endorsed by the majority (I’m sure most people are against jail breaks).

You still haven’t addressed this central issue.

No, you said he's saving them when they don't want to be saved. Yeah, sounds an awful lot like Doctor Doom.



Which takes back round in the circle to you having admitted that breaking the law is ok thus it isn’t as simple as your originally said.

I douibt I simplified it that much but if so then fine, I was wrong. No big deal- I can admit I'm human, unlike you guys. Point trimmed.

I apologise I took you for an American, but the point stands that such is what Caps country stands for.

A thousand different views can be expressed on what it stands for.

No my country isn’t really founded on any one idea; it is far too old for that sort of thing.

Heh, too non-Americans busy arguing heatedly about what America was founded for :P

But we can drop this point since you can’t really argue it other than to say you haven’t in the face of the evidence.

And you can't really argue back other than to say I have. Agreed, point dropped.

Well it can be argued tax laws are more important since society would collapse without them however I didn’t say we should ignore lesser laws only that we should concentrate on the more serious ones.

Then we don't disagree. But you DID imply it. Point Trimmed.

But you have already said that they can’t concentrate on villains because the antis are about now this is either because you have an objection to targeted policing (something which you have now recanted despite earlier comparisons) or because you think the antis are a bigger threat to people.

I have not recanted what I never said. You are over-simplifying. I said they can't concentrate on villains becuase the antis are- not 'about' but because the antis are ACTIVELY and openyl DEFYING the law and impeding it with violent force. That's all.

[Magneto Rocks]

Because you won’t show it to be otherwise and again it isn’t just me other people took you comments in the exact same manner.

But since you don't care what other anti-reggers say....

Who is more likely to cause somebody’s death?

Frankly... Cap.

Cap already has all the training, Speedball was obviously well respected because he has worked with the police in the past, how would the SHRA have prevented Stamford?

See answer below!



So the ideal solution is to take longer to prevent the rampage, that is going to cause more damage.

Especially since heroes are going to be spread over the entire US, what if the ideal hero to fight this threat is in Hawaii and the threat is in Georgia.

Well given that there are so few heroes with unique powers and given the INCREDIBLE unlikelihood of that event, AND given that I'm almost certain SHIELD would make a teleportation device between Hawaii/Alaska and the main US.... they DO now have full access to flying and teleporting heroes to get them there swiftly. Which is much more than was there under the old law.

Since Shield didn’t know where Nitro was obviously intelligence available to them wouldn’t have helped.

SHIELD weren't actively seeking villains as they are now.

The heroes available were able to do the job, they were just blindsided by something outside of their control which just about any hero would have been.

Not true at all. For someone like Cap or the FF, containing Nitro would have been priority 1.

Yes because the villains actually want to cause harm and have a record of doing so, heroes on the other hand don’t and have a record of not doing so.

Not every villain.

So what you are saying is that rather than address the point you raised something that was irrelevant (lets look at this I say it is right and happens, you say just because it happens doesn’t make it right however you always held it to be right, why then raise the fact that it may to be right when you actually think it is –you just unnecessarily confused the issue and lengthened the discussion).

I was bringing it up because it applied to multiple points, not just one.

As for me drawing the wrong conclusion, considering others did as well I would say the fault doesn’t lie with this side.

Imagine my surprise.

OK, thank you for finally being clear.

Thanks not accepted. Thank YOU for finally acknowledging what was said.

The Hulk is a non issue for the SHRA, as is scarlet witch and Thor.

Accepted.

Thing was working with the SHRA and didn’t seem to have gotten any extra training so he was still as much of a threat as ever and the Pros built a Thor that was clearly more dangerous than regular Thor, I’m not seeing the upside.

He was not as much a threat as ever- SHIELD had a way to checl he was operating normal and a means to take him down should he stop. Oh, and Clor is LESS powerful than Thor, plus he was being controlled so logic would tell us he was in fact less dangerous.

I will point out you didn’t mention any Secret Avengers/active Antis(those who we are discussing needing to be in prison) which you really should to try and convince us that they are where Shield should be concentrating their efforts.

Well let's see....

Wolverine is obvious.

Cage caused a crapload of damage in NA 22, plus his seedy past.

Spider-Woman was a HYDRA agent, you can guess how much damage THEY have caused.

The Young Avengers had a future Kang the Conqueror in their ranks so they are hardly spotless.

Cable's caused a pretty big amount of destruction in his time....

Need I go on? (WHy do I think you'll say yes?)

No because Magneto might not even be a villain however I would say Magneto is clearly a bigger threat than Cap (or Vulture), both because he has greater capacity for violence and is also more likely to use it against the people.

Yeah... Magneto killed a couple of thousand people since his 'redemption' even ignoring the Xorneto ruin... the guy couldn't be considered a 'hero' since the 80s.

As for Gargan (what a prince, he’s killed more Shield agents than the antis so far), you can take Bullseye as your example instead if you like, the nit picking details aren’t that important to the general analogy.

Nope, an argument can be made that the antis have killed more. We can take Bullseye as an example but we've been arguing details so long I forgot the original- my apologies, could you refresh my memory?

Then we just need to identify why you consider Cap to outrank the villains.

Hmm. Why do I consider Cap to outrank Will o' the wasp... that;s a tough question indeed.

That would rather depend upon what the world being destroyed entailed, if you mean literally the Earth exploding then quite possibly (although it could just be a lack of self interest) but just the end of civilisation or (more relevantly) the end of the US is quite reasonable.

I wouldn’t blame (in the past) any slave in the US for not fighting to defend the US from foreign invasion for example.

Oh good lord, you didn't seriously just play the slave card, did you? That in itself completely ruins your analogy.

That’s no need to feel kinship just self preservation and as long as they can get out somehow (cut a deal with the invader or some other way to survive) then they have n real reason to rally to the flag.

Then they're certainly not a hero- point invalid.

[Alpow]

Yes.

So no earth side prison could hold Prowler, a man who has no powers himself?

Or typeface?

What about Stark's allusion to the fact that those who help the antis will end up in the neg zone as well, that must have some reason beyond keeping them secure.

True. Luckily, he hasn't. Point Trimmed.

So the point stands that you were incorrect to say the Presidents say so automatically make something legal.

This is a time of crisis and civil war. Information is being withheld, yes, but when this is all over I have no doubt MOST of it will be released to the public. This isn't a serious argument since th esame thing happens in any war.

So in this time of war normally recourse to informed discourse have been suppressed.

Oh let me be quite clear, I feel Cap is behaving much more heroically than most antis. He has motives which are not purely self presevation, I just disagree with those motives.

OK then, so which antis do you know are only doing it for themselves?

And how do we square your reasoning that it is OK to break the law as long as you are doing it for non selfish reason and the fact that Cap is doing it for non selfish reasons with the so-called heroes generalisation for the antis.

I am readily open to concede that Cap may still be a hero given the circumstances,

OK then, so now we just need to acknowledge that just being anti doesn't make one a so-called hero and then come up with a list and evidence of those who we now are being selfish.

but please explain to me what greater purpose Cage served by not leaving. He disobeyed the law and quite possibly killed some SHIELD agents to prove a point?

Yes however as I said he was not being selfish.

Doom believes everything he does is for the greater good. He wants to ascend to the world throne because he thinks it makes the world better, he feuds with Richards because he believes Richards is impeding his rightful ascension. Don't confuse the issue- Doom thinks he's doing what is right- doing what you think is right does not make you a hero automatically.

Its pretty clear that Doom feuds with Richards because he has a score to settle with him.

However you are correct that being a hero isn't strictly down to thinking you are doing what is best but you have drawn the distinction to be doing it for the greater good which Cap certainly thinks he is.

. Still, I am readily willing to concede Declun is AS responsible as the NW, but not more.

Well we disagree but allowing that is enough progress for now.

"Others thought this as well..." statements invalid.

No because they are for different reason, it isn't an appeal to popularity but to demonstrate that I wasn't some odd man out interpreting things in an odd way.

No, you said he's saving them when they don't want to be saved. Yeah, sounds an awful lot like Doctor Doom.

On that single data point, Doom is also willing to break every moral boundary to achieve his ends and that sounds a lot like somebody else who waltzes around in a tin suit.

Heh, too non-Americans busy arguing heatedly about what America was founded for :P

Well the Americans wouldn't have a clue. :)

I have not recanted what I never said. You are over-simplifying. I said they can't concentrate on villains becuase the antis are- not 'about' but because the antis are ACTIVELY and openyl DEFYING the law and impeding it with violent force. That's all.

So your contention would be that their active defiance of the law warrants more resources than what the villains are upto.

I have trimmed a lot of the parting shot still things ("you did imply this" etc) because it won't lead to anything good but this doesn't mean I admit those accusations are correct.

[Alpow]

Frankly... Cap.

please explain why you think this.

Well given that there are so few heroes with unique powers and given the INCREDIBLE unlikelihood of that event, AND given that I'm almost certain SHIELD would make a teleportation device between Hawaii/Alaska and the main US.... they DO now have full access to flying and teleporting heroes to get them there swiftly. Which is much more than was there under the old law.

Oh no doubt things might be come more efficient (there are downsides like red tape and political interference however which will hurt effciency) but I still doubt that it automatically means less collateral damage or that another Stamford won't happen.

On the teleportation point will Shield have ready access to them and not instead be keeping them sedated somewhere in the neg zone.

SHIELD weren't actively seeking villains as they are now.

They said they were pursuing the Raft break out prisoners and if they weren't dong it then they were both lying and ignoring their duty (what makes us think they can be relied upon to do this after civil war).

Does Shield not care about villains being on the loose, if so then that is a pretty shocking indictment of the organisation.

Not true at all. For someone like Cap or the FF, containing Nitro would have been priority 1.

The FF would have been able to do so because they have somebody with a force field but why would Cap be worried about Nitro, given his previous power levels he wouldn't have been that great a threat (not to mention that Nitro was targeted by one of the NW's heavy hitters).

Not every villain.

Being a villain usually implies they are upto no good.

You also didn’t address the main point with this aside, in general are villains not more likely to cause harm than heroes.

Has this not been what has happened in the past?

I was bringing it up because it applied to multiple points, not just one.

Not that I saw and you probably should have pointed out where else it did, however we can lay this to rest.



He was not as much a threat as ever- SHIELD had a way to checl he was operating normal and a means to take him down should he stop.

Care to outline what this involved.

You also ignore that I was focusing on collateral damage which no amount of monitoring will prevent (since they haven’t pulled him from the field over it).

Oh, and Clor is LESS powerful than Thor, plus he was being controlled so logic would tell us he was in fact less dangerous.

How many heroic giants have actually Thor murderer, how many times has Thor (in his right mind) tried to murder a dozen people and only been prevented from doing so by Sue Storm.

I would rather have Thor watching my back than Clor any day of the week.
Well let's see....

Wolverine is obvious.

Wolveirne isn’t an active anti and he isn’t a threat to good folk anyway.

Cage caused a crapload of damage in NA 22, plus his seedy past.

Well as long as we aren’t holding that wrongful conviction against him and completely ignoring the idea that a person can reform (I assume you are worried about Ms Marvel and Stark because of their past of substance abuse, not exactly the sort of people you want wielding a lot of power).

Cage only caused damage in self defence, he didn’t set out to cause damage and given you hold the NW responsible for Stamford surely Shield engaging in combat n a populated area with tanks and gun ships also qualifies them as responsible for that damage (along with Cage).

Spider-Woman was a HYDRA agent, you can guess how much damage THEY have caused.

She is no longer a Hydra agent and hasn’t be a true one for some time, she is no more of a threat than that (although Hydra is no doubt a more potent threat and would damage more attention than her).

The Young Avengers had a future Kang the Conqueror in their ranks so they are hardly spotless.

This is all based upon maybes, this guy was a villain, this guy might be a villain.

It still doesn’t compare with those who are villains.

Cable's caused a pretty big amount of destruction in his time....

Cable doesn’t seem to be a proper active anti (and has removed himself from the war) however I wouldn’t rate Cable as a great threat at the moment.

Yeah... Magneto killed a couple of thousand people since his 'redemption' even ignoring the Xorneto ruin... the guy couldn't be considered a 'hero' since the 80s.

As I said I wanted a more clear cut villain which Magneto isn’t.

Nope, an argument can be made that the antis have killed more.

Then make it since this is what everything we are discussing revolves around.

Hmm. Why do I consider Cap to outrank Will o' the wasp... that;s a tough question indeed.

Then answer it please, I have already asked once.

Oh good lord, you didn't seriously just play the slave card, did you? That in itself completely ruins your analogy.

Not really, but I suspect we disagree about the character of the backdoor draft so there is little point pursuing it further.

Then they're certainly not a hero- point invalid.

I believe I address this with “Not everybody with powers is a hero”.

I have again snipped/ignored anything I considered to be useless baiting and again this doesn't mean I concede these things were correct.

[Magneto Rocks]

So no earth side prison could hold Prowler, a man who has no powers himself?

Or typeface?

Indeed, my fault now that I read the question more closely. Earth prisons could hold SOME of these heroes. If, y'know, Cap didn't break them open.

What about Stark's allusion to the fact that those who help the antis will end up in the neg zone as well, that must have some reason beyond keeping them secure.

He didn't allude that, he simply said it would be a terrible thing to be there.

So the point stands that you were incorrect to say the Presidents say so automatically make something legal.

I didn't make that point, therefore this is moot.

So in this time of war normally recourse to informed discourse have been suppressed.

Discourse has in no way been surpressed. You're acting as though stark is breaking into TV studios and threatening on pain of death not to discuss the SHRA.

OK then, so which antis do you know are only doing it for themselves?

....Most of them. Let's see- if we take 'themselves' to mean their super-powered kind, since that is still being selfish.... Then from the pre-CW4 antis....

The Young Avengers
Power Man
Possible Hercules- it's unclear
Falcon
Possible Goliath- it's unclear


And how do we square your reasoning that it is OK to break the law as long as you are doing it for non selfish reason and the fact that Cap is doing it for non selfish reasons with the so-called heroes generalisation for the antis.

Again you do this- every case is unique yet you continue to treat it as though I'M the one lumping everything into the same category.

OK then, so now we just need to acknowledge that just being anti doesn't make one a so-called hero and then come up with a list and evidence of those who we now are being selfish.

Well let's acknowledge it since I never said otherwise.


Its pretty clear that Doom feuds with Richards because he has a score to settle with him.

Almost Direct Quote from Fantastic Four #499:

"(Richards) has continually impeded an ascension which would benefit everybody...."

Doom thinks it's for the greater good, Richards is his buggest obstacle.

However you are correct that being a hero isn't strictly down to thinking you are doing what is best but you have drawn the distinction to be doing it for the greater good which Cap certainly thinks he is.

Yawn, I haven't drawn that at all but it's nice to see this fiction you are writing.

Well we disagree but allowing that is enough progress for now.

Given that it's zero progress, you clearly have very low standards.

On that single data point, Doom is also willing to break every moral boundary to achieve his ends and that sounds a lot like somebody else who waltzes around in a tin suit.

And again we disagree. Certainly Doom has principles and he is NOT willing to break every moral boundary- you show a severe lack of understanding about the character if you think he does. Perhaps this explains why you think Tony does too...

Well the Americans wouldn't have a clue. :)

Alpow, I can say something to you I never thought I would, (with the exception of agreements to disagree) so let's cherish this and hold it as a moment of unfamilair brotherhood for a moment

-I agree.


So your contention would be that their active defiance of the law warrants more resources than what the villains are upto.

And AGAIN you act as though I'm in favour of MORE attention focused on all so-called 'heroes' than villains. Must we continually repeat this same quarrel?

I have trimmed a lot of the parting shot still things ("you did imply this" etc) because it won't lead to anything good but this doesn't mean I admit those accusations are correct.

So basically you trimmed off the parts of the argument you found inconvenient. Don't worry, I'll be sure to do that as well from now on.

[Magneto Rocks]

please explain why you think this.

Let's see, why could I possibly think that a man who can control the alignment of electromagnetic particles in his body (IE: Phase) and has a history of minor petty crime and failing to accomplish anything represents less of a threat than a genetically advanced super soldier with amazing gymnastic abilities, enhanced strength, speed, vision, etc, who also happens to be a master tactician and unsurpassed in hand-to-hand combat with a history of always perservering and never giving up.

Seriously, I just can't work it out.

Oh no doubt things might be come more efficient (there are downsides like red tape and political interference however which will hurt effciency) but I still doubt that it automatically means less collateral damage or that another Stamford won't happen.

On the teleportation point will Shield have ready access to them and not instead be keeping them sedated somewhere in the neg zone.

Well I don't think they would keep them sedated at all and I think there WOULD be less collateral damage but this argument has run it's course.

They said they were pursuing the Raft break out prisoners and if they weren't dong it then they were both lying and ignoring their duty (what makes us think they can be relied upon to do this after civil war).

Does Shield not care about villains being on the loose, if so then that is a pretty shocking indictment of the organisation.

Well I'd assume they were more worried about world-threat villains like Molecule Man and Count nefaria, but even so the issue here isn't whether Nitro was there, it's what they knew about him and SHIELD could certainly have given better intelligence- quite possibly even detecting that Nitro's power levels were 'amped up'.


The FF would have been able to do so because they have somebody with a force field but why would Cap be worried about Nitro, given his previous power levels he wouldn't have been that great a threat (not to mention that Nitro was targeted by one of the NW's heavy hitters).

Well the fact that they were in a suburban district and Nitro can EXPLODE would certainly have been enough for Cap, one of the most citizen-careful heroes in comics.

Being a villain usually implies they are upto no good.

You also didn’t address the main point with this aside, in general are villains not more likely to cause harm than heroes.

Has this not been what has happened in the past?

Give me a frame of reference- an example where heroes were running around unchecked defying the law and fighting government forces oike this and I'll give you your answer.

How many heroic giants have actually Thor murderer, how many times has Thor (in his right mind) tried to murder a dozen people and only been prevented from doing so by Sue Storm.

Ah, I was speaking in terms of POTENTIAL danger. Well actual Thor has taken over the world, which I'd consider midlly more dangerous than killing Goliath.

Cage only caused damage in self defence, he didn’t set out to cause damage and given you hold the NW responsible for Stamford surely Shield engaging in combat n a populated area with tanks and gun ships also qualifies them as responsible for that damage (along with Cage).

Self Defence normally doesn't start with hurling a couch through a wall at forces who have not yet made any violent move on you.
Not really, but I suspect we disagree about the character of the backdoor draft so there is little point pursuing it further.


I believe I address this with “Not everybody with powers is a hero”.

I have again snipped/ignored anything I considered to be useless baiting and again this doesn't mean I concede these things were correct.

We were discussing captured heroes.

I may have snipped/trimmed/ignored/hacked out any sections I considered to be useless baiting, please don't assume they were correct.