Did Iron Man ever come clean about ASM #531?

[Mark (nonick)]

I have not been buying all of the tie in books for Civil War, so I don't know if any of this stuff has been answered:

I was just wondering if Tony Stark ever came clean about his involvement with Titanium Man and trying to influence the Senate Panel in ASM 530-531?

If he's now all about the letter-of-the-law, it seems like he would have some explaining to do for the Conspiracy, Assault, Destruction of Property, Endangering etc. that he was responsible for in the ASM 530-531. Not to mention the violation of "trust."

Did he ever cop to it? Did he get amnesty or anything for that stuff?

Also, in the Illuminati Special, he seemed to be Pro-Reg from the start, so was all of that stuff in the Senate hearing just reverse psychology, trying to manipulate Peter into saying the "wrong" things?

[Jmacq1]

He hasn't come clean, that I know of.

Which may well be the "fatal mistake he hasn't calculated on" in the upcoming New Avengers issue.

What happens when the Titanium Man comes forward and suddenly the government's poster-boy -hired- a super-villain to attack them?

Plus Peter would be a wee bit ticked about it too, I'd imagine. ;)


As for Tony's sentiments, I -don't- think he -wanted- registration, but he felt it was inevitable and while he tried to stave it off as well as he could, he was unable to succeed. So now he's just trying to gain what measure of control over the process that he can, to try to mitigate the effects/make it all work better for -everyone-, civilian and superhero alike.

Of course, he's still using some underhanded and duplicitious means to do it, so....take from that what you will.

[oldscool]

remember he also was unable to convince the iluminati to come out in favor of it so he may have been trying to stall the proces untill it could get more suport amongst heros (and not lead to the cilil war we now have)

the samford incident made him realise that (in his oppinion) the act couldent be put off untill then and was nedded now

[IMJ]

Honestly, the more I read the message boards, the more I'm TRULY, TRULY finding that Iron Man might be the MOST misunderstood character in comics right now.

This isn't directed at anyone here or in this thread per se, but honestly either many people simply don't understand the character, or have read the parts with Iron Man's role in CW and have a serious reading comprehension problem. I suppose if we get drawn into it, I'll try to support this with concrete facts, but the whole thing is so muddied and mired by now it's unreal.

[Markavian]

Honestly, the more I read the message boards, the more I'm TRULY, TRULY finding that Iron Man might be the MOST misunderstood character in comics right now.

This isn't directed at anyone here or in this thread per se, but honestly either many people simply don't understand the character, or have read the parts with Iron Man's role in CW and have a serious reading comprehension problem. I suppose if we get drawn into it, I'll try to support this with concrete facts, but the whole thing is so muddied and mired by now it's unreal.
Iron man is trying to have the law implemented fairly . He is trying to allay puublic fears as well as protect Superhuman rights.If Iron man HADNT tried to convince the Senate Panel with the Titanium Man Stunt the Bill would have been more draconian and we would have Henry Peter Gyrich or someone as strict in Iron Mans Position which would be worse to the nth degree.

[XPac]

Iron man is trying to have the law implemented fairly . He is trying to allay puublic fears as well as protect Superhuman rights.If Iron man HADNT tried to convince the Senate Panel with the Titanium Man Stunt the Bill would have been more draconian and we would have Henry Peter Gyrich or someone as strict in Iron Mans Position which would be worse to the nth degree.

Hmmm... I do wonder if it would be preferable to having Gyrich over Hill though. Both aren't exactly fans of the superhero community, but I'm not sure Gyrich shares the same lack of respect for human life as Hill. Maybe he's murdered people too, and I just don't recall though.

[IMJ]

Iron man is trying to have the law implemented fairly . He is trying to allay puublic fears as well as protect Superhuman rights.If Iron man HADNT tried to convince the Senate Panel with the Titanium Man Stunt the Bill would have been more draconian and we would have Henry Peter Gyrich or someone as strict in Iron Mans Position which would be worse to the nth degree.

THANK YOU!!!
See? That wasn't too hard to get?!!! U da man.

[Mark (nonick)]

Iron man is trying to have the law implemented fairly . He is trying to allay puublic fears as well as protect Superhuman rights.If Iron man HADNT tried to convince the Senate Panel with the Titanium Man Stunt the Bill would have been more draconian and we would have Henry Peter Gyrich or someone as strict in Iron Mans Position which would be worse to the nth degree.
I see. So for IM, the end justifies the means? If anyone, anywhere, hired a powerful known/admitted terrorist to "attack" someone in a VERY public place - while, say my wife and kid were there? You think editing a Senate Bill justifies that?

[Markavian]

I see. So for IM, the end justifies the means? If anyone, anywhere, hired a powerful known/admitted terrorist to "attack" someone in a VERY public place - while, say my wife and kid were there? You think editing a Senate Bill justifies that?
Throwing a SHEILD Agent onto a busy highway causing a huge pile up and litterily kidnapping Minors to entice them to commit violence and sedition justifies the Ends ?

[Mark (nonick)]

Throwing a SHEILD Agent onto a busy highway causing a huge pile up and litterily kidnapping Minors to entice them to commit violence and sedition justifies the Ends ?Thanks, but I didn't ask for a game of tit-for-tat. I asked if Iron Man hiring a super-powered 10 ft. man-bot felon to attack your "partner" unbeknownst to him, near the Lincoln Memorial with clearly visible civilians is excusable because he wanted to influence a probatory Senate Hearing?

[scottv]

Throwing a SHEILD Agent onto a busy highway causing a huge pile up and litterily kidnapping Minors to entice them to commit violence and sedition justifies the Ends ?


Where is that from... I know that I haven't read all of the tie ins but I think that I might have to start getting more because I think I am missing some stuff. Also I see both sides IM is trying to do what he feels is best for the superhumans because he knows that with or without him the bill would have become law but atleast he can stand out as a leader and help to try and stop an all out blood bath of the superhumans. That was a really long sentence... most likely a run on. The other side sees IM as betraying them and trying to take the glory for himself. Now this is just how I think it is please if you have your opinions about it which I am sure you do. I would really like to hear them because I like to get the story from every angle.

P.S.
From what I have read IM hasn't come clean about the whole mess from ASM 531, which I thought was a good issue

[Markavian]

Thanks, but I didn't ask for a game of tit-for-tat. I asked if Iron Man hiring a super-powered 10 ft. man-bot felon to attack your "partner" unbeknownst to him, near the Lincoln Memorial with clearly visible civilians is excusable because he wanted to influence a probatory Senate Hearing?
By serving in a Thankless job trying to fairly implement the SHRA to both reassure the Fearful Public and safefguard Superhumans rights .

[Markavian]

Where is that from... I know that I haven't read all of the tie ins but I think that I might have to start getting more because I think I am missing some stuff. Also I see both sides IM is trying to do what he feels is best for the superhumans because he knows that with or without him the bill would have become law but atleast he can stand out as a leader and help to try and stop an all out blood bath of the superhumans. That was a really long sentence... most likely a run on. The other side sees IM as betraying them and trying to take the glory for himself. Now this is just how I think it is please if you have your opinions about it which I am sure you do. I would really like to hear them because I like to get the story from every angle.

P.S.
From what I have read IM hasn't come clean about the whole mess from ASM 531, which I thought was a good issue
Civil War 2 Cap broke the Young Avengers out of SHEILD Custody and caused a huge pile up amoung NYPD cars in doing so .......Hurled a SHEILD Guard onto the Pavement from a Truck moving 40 MPH or faster...

[XPac]

Thanks, but I didn't ask for a game of tit-for-tat. I asked if Iron Man hiring a super-powered 10 ft. man-bot felon to attack your "partner" unbeknownst to him, near the Lincoln Memorial with clearly visible civilians is excusable because he wanted to influence a probatory Senate Hearing?

To Iron Man it clearly was, since he did it.

Tony is a shady hero... there's no getting around that. He'll lie and manipulate people to achieve the desired end he seeks. Which is why you kind of have to groan when you hear Tony's pro registration speech about heroes and laws... not that anything he is saying is wrong, but when he's hardly a hero that will shy away from breaking any law he feels needs to be broken.

It IS actually good to have heroes like that though... there are times the ends DO justify the means. Not saying the incident with Titanium Man is one of them but they do exist. The only real problem is Tony getting on a soap box and lecturing about it now. It's coming from the wrong guy.

That's why when he's giving speeches to his team, you can get a kind of sense that they're not buying it. Cause truthfully Tony only buys it up to a point.

[IMJ]

I see. So for IM, the end justifies the means? If anyone, anywhere, hired a powerful known/admitted terrorist to "attack" someone in a VERY public place - while, say my wife and kid were there? You think editing a Senate Bill justifies that?

Your logic is circumplexic rather than linear and you are playing with words to rationalize a basic impulse to make a point. It's easy to say "Oh so for -insert name here- the end justifies the means?" as a questioned point because it's cliche to say. Many people do this unfortunately.... without having a valid arguement people state quick catch phrases to make points they have no basis to truly make.

Captain America jumped the shark in the story. And to address this on your terms, EVEN if to Stark the ends justify the means, in the comic book environment we are reading the story in it only serves to give him an edge that he would go so far to do what he believes in. If anyone here is a terrorist, it's Captain America who assaulted Iron Man blatantly out of nowhere "for what HE believes in". THAT is a terrorist action. Iron Man hasn't acted "first" in an assault yet.

Additionally, just in case we draw into this further, if you carefully read my first paragraph there is no insult to you there, rather an observation of what you've written, in my own opinion.

[Mark (nonick)]

Firstly, no need to pre-defend yourself from flame. Not my style. There's absolutely no chance of me getting THAT angry about a Comic Book thread.

Second. If you read MY post, you will see I have made absolutely no mention of Captain America in this thread. I simply asked if Iron Man had admitted to, or answered for his actions. If the only defense of Iron Man is via the "Well, Cap did it too!!!" method, I'm not sure that cuts it. I find his duplicitous "edge" to be unappealing and unnecessary, and much less honorable than a straight up conflict. Especially given his public "You're breaking the law." persona.

Point 1: Prior to Civil War's first shot, Iron Man hired Titanium Man to assault Spider-Man in a specifically public arena. And he did not appear to be pulling his punches to me.

Point 2: His "friend" Spider-Man was not aware of the plan, and the fight they had was as real as any I've seen.

Point 3: There were at least some civilians present.

Point 4: Federal public property (in fact nationally-significant public property) was damaged in the brawl.

Point 5: All of this was in order sway a Senate Committee to do what HE wanted them to do.

And, again, all of this was prior to ANYTHING Captain America did (not that it matters). If you want to play semantics with "assault", then I suppose IM would be considered guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Assault, Treason (I think hiring a heavily armed terrorist to attack D.C. qualifies), all while attempting to prejudice the Senate committee. Oh yeah, not to mention the violation of Peter's trust.

This is a pretty outlandish little scheme just to get the vote you want. It is by NO means defensible - he's attempting to circumvent our very system of governing ourselves. It smacks of something someone like Lex Luthor would pull.

Whether or not Cap should be doing what he's doing is open to debate, but it has no impact on what Iron Man did here.

[BigBoss]

I am not sure but I dont think so.

[Jmacq1]

Your logic is circumplexic rather than linear and you are playing with words to rationalize a basic impulse to make a point. It's easy to say "Oh so for -insert name here- the end justifies the means?" as a questioned point because it's cliche to say. Many people do this unfortunately.... without having a valid arguement people state quick catch phrases to make points they have no basis to truly make.

Captain America jumped the shark in the story. And to address this on your terms, EVEN if to Stark the ends justify the means, in the comic book environment we are reading the story in it only serves to give him an edge that he would go so far to do what he believes in. If anyone here is a terrorist, it's Captain America who assaulted Iron Man blatantly out of nowhere "for what HE believes in". THAT is a terrorist action. Iron Man hasn't acted "first" in an assault yet.

Additionally, just in case we draw into this further, if you carefully read my first paragraph there is no insult to you there, rather an observation of what you've written, in my own opinion.

Give me a freaking break. Iron Man's a great character, but Mark is dead-on here. Stark's actions endangered civilians -and- members of government, and was quite certainly blatantly illegal. It's precisely the kind of behavior the SHRA is supposedly designed to prevent. What would've happened if something went wrong? What if a stray blast from Titanium Man knocked down the Washington Monument while it was filled with tourists? Or killed a bus full of civilians? What if Titanium Man overestimated Spidey and hit him with a shot that put him out cold or seriously injured him?

Ultimate, Iron Man's actions only solidified the government's view of Registration as necessary. He was either lying about being against the registration idea from the beginning, or he arranged an irresponsible and dangerous stunt because he thought it was "right" and it backfired. Which makes him no better than Captain America.

And Markavian: I'm sure it would've been -much- better for those Teenagers to get shipped to the Negative Zone without trial. Clearly they were already anti-registration (since they hadn't registered), so it's hardly as if Cap was "enticing" them with anything they weren't already doing.

[Francis]

litterily kidnapping Minors to entice them to commit violence and sedition?

I'm afraid that the kidnapping was done by the pro-reg side there. The minors were in "protective custody" - they had had their liberty removed via overwhelming force or subterfuge without due process, and locked up without trial. In short, they had been kidnapped. By the pro-reg side.

Therefore, all Cap was doing in that incident (I'm no great fan of his - but you're twisting facts to fit your beliefs) was freeing minors from being unlawfully kidnapped (clear habeas corpus violation), and allowing them the opportunity to help others suffering from the same conditions.

[CMBMOOL]

Give me a freaking break. Iron Man's a great character, but Mark is dead-on here. Stark's actions endangered civilians -and- members of government, and was quite certainly blatantly illegal. It's precisely the kind of behavior the SHRA is supposedly designed to prevent. What would've happened if something went wrong? What if a stray blast from Titanium Man knocked down the Washington Monument while it was filled with tourists? Or killed a bus full of civilians? What if Titanium Man overestimated Spidey and hit him with a shot that put him out cold or seriously injured him?

Ultimate, Iron Man's actions only solidified the government's view of Registration as necessary. He was either lying about being against the registration idea from the beginning, or he arranged an irresponsible and dangerous stunt because he thought it was "right" and it backfired. Which makes him no better than Captain America.

And Markavian: I'm sure it would've been -much- better for those Teenagers to get shipped to the Negative Zone without trial. Clearly they were already anti-registration (since they hadn't registered), so it's hardly as if Cap was "enticing" them with anything they weren't already doing.


Now That is what I'm complaining about.

Sure Tony tried to make a the best out of a bad situtation but if he were to understand the pain and sorrow that his allies and comardes endured if they were resisgtered then maybe he would understand.

What if he just told the truth about the Washington fight to Peter and maybe talked to Captain America before the War began ? :confused:

[oldscool]

Captain America jumped the shark in the story. And to address this on your terms, EVEN if to Stark the ends justify the means, in the comic book environment we are reading the story in it only serves to give him an edge that he would go so far to do what he believes in. If anyone here is a terrorist, it's Captain America who assaulted Iron Man blatantly out of nowhere "for what HE believes in". THAT is a terrorist action. Iron Man hasn't acted "first" in an assault yet.


he lured the anti avengers to one of his factorys with a phony distress call and then had cloak and wican shot so they couldent simply escape that seems to me like he acted first there

[Markavian]

I'm afraid that the kidnapping was done by the pro-reg side there. The minors were in "protective custody" - they had had their liberty removed via overwhelming force or subterfuge without due process, and locked up without trial. In short, they had been kidnapped. By the pro-reg side.

Therefore, all Cap was doing in that incident (I'm no great fan of his - but you're twisting facts to fit your beliefs) was freeing minors from being unlawfully kidnapped (clear habeas corpus violation), and allowing them the opportunity to help others suffering from the same conditions.
When Law Enforcement takes youn into Cusodty its NOT Kidnapping.The Law has the LEGAL Right to take minors who are breaking the law or acting in a way that endangers themselves or society into Custody and Adults as well.Due Process was to be carried out in due course. Or it was before Terrorists attacked :rolleyes:

[Francis]

When Law Enforcement takes youn into Cusodty its NOT Kidnapping.The Law has the LEGAL Right to take minors who are breaking the law or acting in a way that endangers themselves or society into Custody and Adults as well.Due Process was to be carried out in due course. Or it was before Terrorists attacked :rolleyes:

What exactly were they charged with? Due process needs to be carried out immediately and continuously rather than in due course - to do otherwise is illegal and once again renders it back to kidnapping (as it was as far as the Young Avengers were concerned - even if the state had the legal right to act as they did, Cap was still rescuing them from kidnapping). And if they were being transported to the Negative Zone, that is in violation of their human rights as it sends people mad.

[Berkey]

I'd like Titanium man come back and ruin tony's image so the gov takes a look at the superheros that are pro reg and think none of them can be trusted and then the Gov. decides to set a new SHRA 1. either go to the negative zone or 2. Give up being a superhero all together b/c it seems like sheild would like to handle everything on it's own

[XPac]

I'd like Titanium man come back and ruin tony's image so the gov takes a look at the superheros that are pro reg and think none of them can be trusted and then the Gov. decides to set a new SHRA 1. either go to the negative zone or 2. Give up being a superhero all together b/c it seems like sheild would like to handle everything on it's own

That would sort of be poetic justice since Iron Man inadvertently killed the previous Titanium Man (or maybe the one before that one, not sure how many there were) in Armor Wars.