Is Iron Man's Extremis problems happening during Civil War? *spoilers*

[jackolover]

I started this thread a long time ago and it has disappeared off the forum. At the time, posters were sure extremis had no part in Tony's personality, because they thought Extremis was pre-CW.

Now that IM 12 is out, It has become clear that Extremis is very much a part of Tony Starks makeup, because he still contains those pesky, little, nanites after IM 12.

So, Iron Man's behavior in Civil War is affected by Extremis. I, personally hadn't specifically, seen the Extremis effect in Starks personality, being under the impression that he would be rid of extremis, in some way, at about issue 12 of IM. However, in light of this new revelation, I am now open to judging Tony a little more harshly. I am now thinking that Tony's viscious attack on Cap is the extremis brutality. And also the spray he gave Jessica Drew, in NA.

What I can't reconcile, is that in IM 12, Tony sacrificed his life to save Steve Rodgers. If Tony is a loose cannon, compliments of the extremis virus, maybe he has learnt to control his extremism during the last story arc of Iron Man, and what we are actually seeing is not the extremis Tony Stark, but a post-extremis Tony Stark.

[Slade.]

honestly i never thought of this lol i completly forgot about extremis. good point.

[XPac]

I'll assume Millar doesn't intend to have any of Tony's actions purely movitated by nothing more than his own beliefs in what is right or not. Otherwise, it ruins the premise of Civil War.

That said, the Extremis does provide an easy cop out if any future writers ever hand his possible mistakes to be potentially excused down the line. It's a pretty easy retcon.

[the Dagman]

So we need Photon to blast him with a high-intensity EMP to fix Tony or something? Are these the same nanites he is using to control the super-villains he is using I wonder? I really hope there is a non-copout way to bring him back. Iron Man was always one of my favorite heroes when growing up, but he is not the same man these days. I thought Marvel had learned their lesson with "the Crossing" and having to contrive Teen Tony to fix him then. But right now, Iron Man is no better than the worst villains in the Marvel Universe. And that is something I never thought I would ever think about him.

[Loestal]

So we need Photon to blast him with a high-intensity EMP to fix Tony or something? Are these the same nanites he is using to control the super-villains he is using I wonder? I really hope there is a non-copout way to bring him back. Iron Man was always one of my favorite heroes when growing up, but he is not the same man these days. I thought Marvel had learned their lesson with "the Crossing" and having to contrive Teen Tony to fix him then. But right now, Iron Man is no better than the worst villains in the Marvel Universe. And that is something I never thought I would ever think about him.


Please...to claim he is no better than the worst villains is rediculous.

[CyberCoyote]

Don't read IM, but I've followed some of the reviews. Are these things contagious? Can they be used to explain away the whole of CW in the end?

[the Dagman]

Please...to claim he is no better than the worst villains is rediculous.

I am free to think as I please, thank you very much. Please refrain from calling people's opinions "rediculous" as it is inflammatory and insulting. :evilangry I am sure you would like not to have your opinions equally disrespected.

_________________________

Millar's characterisation of not only Iron Man but Reed Richards and Hank Pym is so off kilter. Why would two of these three conspire to exile the Hulk into outer space because he is uncontrollable, only to create another being in the same strength class who is apparently equally uncontrollable? Total non-sequitor.

[jackolover]

Don't read IM, but I've followed some of the reviews. Are these things contagious? Can they be used to explain away the whole of CW in the end?


I don't think so. I have to believe, that so far in CW, Tony was Tony. Not warped by nanite extremis. That's not to say Tony's violence wasn't touched with extremis, but all I've seen is a reasonable Tony, under the circumstances. And remember, Tony sacrificed himself for Steve in IM 12. Extremis doesn't completely control him.

[IMJ]

I started this thread a long time ago and it has disappeared off the forum. At the time, posters were sure extremis had no part in Tony's personality, because they thought Extremis was pre-CW.

Now that IM 12 is out, It has become clear that Extremis is very much a part of Tony Starks makeup, because he still contains those pesky, little, nanites after IM 12.

So, Iron Man's behavior in Civil War is affected by Extremis. I, personally hadn't specifically, seen the Extremis effect in Starks personality, being under the impression that he would be rid of extremis, in some way, at about issue 12 of IM. However, in light of this new revelation, I am now open to judging Tony a little more harshly. I am now thinking that Tony's viscious attack on Cap is the extremis brutality. And also the spray he gave Jessica Drew, in NA.

What I can't reconcile, is that in IM 12, Tony sacrificed his life to save Steve Rodgers. If Tony is a loose cannon, compliments of the extremis virus, maybe he has learnt to control his extremism during the last story arc of Iron Man, and what we are actually seeing is not the extremis Tony Stark, but a post-extremis Tony Stark.


Unless in the future they retcon this, all I can say is that if you guys read Extremis and the newest arc and believe that Extremis is controlling Tony, then you guys read something incorrectly. Tony is not a loose cannon because of Extremis, and it was other factors that influenced his behavior in the recent IM arc. Tony's behavior in CW is only being influenced by Millar.

[jackolover]

Unless in the future they retcon this, all I can say is that if you guys read Extremis and the newest arc and believe that Extremis is controlling Tony, then you guys read something incorrectly. Tony is not a loose cannon because of Extremis, and it was other factors that influenced his behavior in the recent IM arc. Tony's behavior in CW is only being influenced by Millar.

I don't know why you should say that. In the IM arc Tony was killing people randomly and even cap was questioning whether Tony was all there. Fury was very concerned about the effect of extremis, so I don't see that it was any other factors that you refer too. It is a coincidence that when the extremis got into his body, he behaved like the first recipient of extremis, and started killing people to end a conflict.

I still suspect a remnant of the virus' effect, is hovering inside him somewhere.

[garin]

The Extremis enhancile doesn't make you crazy.

Tony's behaviour was influenced by it only in that his attitude was changed by his greatly enhanced abilities. He went a little mad with power, perhaps, not insane from the physical effects of Extremis on his brain.

[jackolover]

Don't read IM, but I've followed some of the reviews. Are these things contagious? Can they be used to explain away the whole of CW in the end?

Sorry no other posters answered. My understanding is this extremis only affects the host and cannot jump to other hosts, as far as the 2 people who have had it are concerned. They are very powerful, but you can kill those with extremis if you cut their heads off. I don't think you can explain away CW as extremis running amok. Besides, Marvel are assuring us CW is not some outside plot device, but a political story.

[jackolover]

Are these the same nanites he is using to control the super-villains he is using I wonder? I really hope there is a non-copout way to bring him back.

The nanites used on the super-villians can't be his extremis nanites, so I have to assume they are different ones. But I can't be sure Tony's friend Maya Hanson is not a part of CW. She seems to know a hell of a lot about these things.

[jackolover]

I'll assume Millar doesn't intend to have any of Tony's actions purely movitated by nothing more than his own beliefs in what is right or not. Otherwise, it ruins the premise of Civil War.

I'll give you that. I agree the main intention was not to have extremis affecting Tony's behaviour. But I almost thought the aggression Tony showed in IM and NA, was more extremis than the power mad Tony. He looks like he has it under control, but there is always something niggling at the back of my mind.

I would definately like the Knaufs to do an expose' on the effects of extremis on behaviour, because I'm not sure it's just power madness that Tony is expressing. I think extremis is like the Alien black costume spiderman tried to wear. I think extremis is trying to take over Iron Man.

[Kirayoshi]

I'll assume Millar doesn't intend to have any of Tony's actions purely movitated by nothing more than his own beliefs in what is right or not. Otherwise, it ruins the premise of Civil War.How can you ruin a total disaster? :evilsmile
Trust me, the premise was ruined at least one Thor clone ago!

[Slade.]

Whatever anyone says, Tony HAS been acting DIFFERENT in the last few issues of IM. That's obvious. To other characters, and to any readers who ain't blind.

[IMJ]

I don't know why you should say that. In the IM arc Tony was killing people randomly and even cap was questioning whether Tony was all there. Fury was very concerned about the effect of extremis, so I don't see that it was any other factors that you refer too. It is a coincidence that when the extremis got into his body, he behaved like the first recipient of extremis, and started killing people to end a conflict.

I still suspect a remnant of the virus' effect, is hovering inside him somewhere.

Oh for God's sake. In the third or so arc of the story they flatly state outright that there is a control chip in his brain which is manipulating him. It had nothing to do with Extremis.

[jackolover]

Oh for God's sake. In the third or so arc of the story they flatly state outright that there is a control chip in his brain which is manipulating him. It had nothing to do with Extremis.

No. What you're reffering too is the Execute Program storyline, where the Chinese kid took control of him. The Extremis storyline had no controller (even if the control chip was there), yet Tony still killed people. No one controlled him to kill in the extremis storyline. Otherwise, why didn't Tony kill randomly right from the year dot? Tony's had the chip since his origin in the 60's. He didn't. His controller killings were only done after extremis.

So I still hold to my argument.

[garin]

He didn't kill anyone "randomly" in Extremis, either.

He killed the terrorists in his origin flashback; so yes, he did (occassionally) kill from the year dot. The only other person he killed, and the only one that was post-Extremis, was Mallen. Tony tried to talk Mallen down, but killed him when he had no other choice. And damned him for making him do it.

[jackolover]

He didn't kill anyone "randomly" in Extremis, either.

He killed the terrorists in his origin flashback; so yes, he did (occassionally) kill from the year dot. The only other person he killed, and the only one that was post-Extremis, was Mallen. Tony tried to talk Mallen down, but killed him when he had no other choice. And damned him for making him do it.

Okay, not randomly. But killing someone is not his usual method. And he also did someone in NA and Cap had to chastise Tony there. What I'm saying is I think both Mallen and the NA killing were over the top due to Extremis. I wouldn't expect Tony to kill in such a mean, devil-may-care fashion as he did in NA, and just the finality of blowing Mallens head off, seems so out of character. Are you saying you don't see the crude violence of these incidents as strange behaviour?

I do, so I stick to my original argument.

[garin]

I think you're getting mixed up.

The Cap/Iron Man conforntation was during Execute Program in his own book, not in New Avengers. He stopped the Crimson Dynamo's heart, only because he was sure he could restart it again and it seemed the quickest way to take him down. This was a manifestation of his Extremis-borne arrogance, not bloodlust.

Edit: forgot to point out, he did restart his heart. He didn't kill him.

[Jake V]

Okay, not randomly. But killing someone is not his usual method. And he also did someone in NA and Cap had to chastise Tony there. What I'm saying is I think both Mallen and the NA killing were over the top due to Extremis. I wouldn't expect Tony to kill in such a mean, devil-may-care fashion as he did in NA, and just the finality of blowing Mallens head off, seems so out of character. Are you saying you don't see the crude violence of these incidents as strange behaviour?

I do, so I stick to my original argument.
Who did he kill in New Avengers?

And the violence wasn't crude or strange. These were terrorists he was killing, not supervillains. Mallen slaughtered a federal building, could breathe fire, and had zero chance of being rehabilitated. He had to be put down.

[jackolover]

I think you're getting mixed up.

The Cap/Iron Man conforntation was during Execute Program in his own book, not in New Avengers. He stopped the Crimson Dynamo's heart, only because he was sure he could restart it again and it seemed the quickest way to take him down. This was a manifestation of his Extremis-borne arrogance, not bloodlust.

Edit: forgot to point out, he did restart his heart. He didn't kill him.

I think we both are. The execute program arc was so far behind I don't know how we could relate it to New Avengers. It's like 12 months behind. It would be tough, but you may be right.

And I agree with you, the Crimson Dynamo hit was extremis, not bloodlust.

Edit : I just read IM 7 and you're right. I thought it was New Avengers because they appeared. Sorry about the mistake.

[Jake V]

I think we both are. The execute program arc was so far behind I don't know how we could relate it to New Avengers. It's like 12 months behind. It would be tough, but you may be right.

And I agree with you, the Crimson Dynamo hit was extremis, not bloodlust.
No, it was Tony.

Taking advantage of the new powers Extremis allows him.

[jackolover]

Who did he kill in New Avengers?

And the violence wasn't crude or strange. These were terrorists he was killing, not supervillains. Mallen slaughtered a federal building, could breathe fire, and had zero chance of being rehabilitated. He had to be put down.

Still, I felt it was way out of character, for how Marvel try to portray their heros. He stopped Crimson Dynamo's heart.

[jackolover]

No, it was Tony.

Taking advantage of the new powers Extremis allows him.

You like bloodlust, I see, Jake V?

[Jake V]

Still, I felt it was way out of character, for how Marvel try to portray their heros. He stopped Crimson Dynamo's heart.
It ended the fight and he immediately revived him.

I don't see the problem.

[garin]

I think we both are. The execute program arc was so far behind I don't know how we could relate it to New Avengers. It's like 12 months behind. It would be tough, but you may be right.Huh? The scene we're talking about took place in Iron Man #7, it's not a matter of opinion. He's never killed anyone in New Avengers.

[jackolover]

It ended the fight and he immediately revived him.

I don't see the problem.

Sorry about the delay in answering. I just got in.

Like I said, you like bloodlust. I don't think Tony would normally behave like that, so I think it's out of character.

[jackolover]

Huh? The scene we're talking about took place in Iron Man #7, it's not a matter of opinion. He's never killed anyone in New Avengers.

You're right. I have edited my previous response.

[IMJ]

No. What you're reffering too is the Execute Program storyline, where the Chinese kid took control of him. The Extremis storyline had no controller (even if the control chip was there), yet Tony still killed people. No one controlled him to kill in the extremis storyline. Otherwise, why didn't Tony kill randomly right from the year dot? Tony's had the chip since his origin in the 60's. He didn't. His controller killings were only done after extremis.

So I still hold to my argument.

Yes. I am referring to Execute Program. I was doing that because I thought it was blatantly obvious that during the Extremis arc Tony was not being "controlled" and unforetunately assumed that the ridiculousness of your arguement could only have come from that. That being the case, I'll address your "real arguement".

He killed Mallen and did as much because the story demanded it to demonstrate what kind of a Hulk level villain Mallen was becoming. The story itself demonstrates as much, and exemplifies the neccessity of Iron Man's actions. Furthermore, holding on to your arguement is only a vague attempt to make it non-falsifiable which means it's a bad arguement in the first place.

The point is that Stark didn't want to kill Mallen, but this was done to show the "Extremity" (oooh, a correlation here to the title even providing more support) of the situation. All you are doing here is falling back on the age old debate about Superheroes killing people and the black and white nature of that debate. The truth is, and this is to be blunt and not to be condescending, but the truth is that your arguement about this circumvents the story and is contrived.

[jackolover]

Yes. I am referring to Execute Program. I was doing that because I thought it was blatantly obvious that during the Extremis arc Tony was not being "controlled" and unforetunately assumed that the ridiculousness of your arguement could only have come from that. That being the case, I'll address your "real arguement".

He killed Mallen and did as much because the story demanded it to demonstrate what kind of a Hulk level villain Mallen was becoming. The story itself demonstrates as much, and exemplifies the neccessity of Iron Man's actions. Furthermore, holding on to your arguement is only a vague attempt to make it non-falsifiable which means it's a bad arguement in the first place.

The point is that Stark didn't want to kill Mallen, but this was done to show the "Extremity" (oooh, a correlation here to the title even providing more support) of the situation. All you are doing here is falling back on the age old debate about Superheroes killing people and the black and white nature of that debate. The truth is, and this is to be blunt and not to be condescending, but the truth is that your arguement about this circumvents the story and is contrived.


Maybe I am a little naive, but I hold that heros don't kill. Period. That they do kill is a failure, and the death of Mallen is a failure. You have brought up very good arguments to dismiss mine, but I wish to disagree with you about what we constitute 'what the story demanded'. I don't think because I disagree with you on that, that I need to be attacked over my stance.

I still hold to my argument, and agree to disagree, so lets leave it at that.

[Kefky]

Like I said in another thread, the only way the extremis armor is affecting Stark is in his ego. Anything overly-violent he did in the arc was the due to the fact that someone else was using it to mind-control him.

So yea, if marvel ever feels like coping out, this could provide a backdoor. But right now, Stark is just Stark.

[IMJ]

Like I said in another thread, the only way the extremis armor is affecting Stark is in his ego. Anything overly-violent he did in the arc was the due to the fact that someone else was using it to mind-control him.

So yea, if marvel ever feels like coping out, this could provide a backdoor. But right now, Stark is just Stark.

This is a perfect illustration of the point I was making as well. Regardless of who agrees with heroes kill or otherwise; the fact of the entire matter is that Stark was not and is not being "controlled' by Extremis. To say otherwise is to exemplify a lack of understanding of the story.

Kefky, this was well put, IMO.

[jackolover]

Tony admits to Maya Hansen that Extremis effected him during CW.

"Extremis knaws away at your humanity. Do you know what it took to regain that humanity? It took a war"

That's the clearest indication that the early appearances of Tony in CW were in fact less Tony Stark, and more Extremis speaking.

I mean, I hate to say this, but as Bucky was stating that something else was going on for Steve Rogers to be killed after CW, that even Sharon Carter noticed that Cap was inexplicably taken out of SHIELD custody and placed in Federal Marshall custody. And if Bucky could see that security was lax in the transfer, then Tony, as security chief, should have known that securty was lax. BUT TONY NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT SECURITY THEN OR AFTER. We saw Tony choke up at the funeral for Steve, but he never made a statement. WAS IT BECAUSE TONY WAS A PART OF THE CONSPIRACY THAT ALLOWED CAP TO BE KILLED?

[Captain Commander]

Tony admits to Maya Hansen that Extremis effected him during CW.

"Extremis knaws away at your humanity. Do you know what it took to regain that humanity? It took a war"

That's the clearest indication that the early appearances of Tony in CW were in fact less Tony Stark, and more Extremis speaking.

Every time they alter Tony's power set in some way (Extremis, SKIN etc) something happens to make the upgrade a liability.

[GHalecki]

That "new cool ability biting him in the ass" goes at least as far back as around issue 210 or so of the first volume, here he had some sort of chamilion/cloaking field built into the red/silver armor that turned out to be harmful.

Exactly when, in relation to the rest of the stories around him, did Tony get the Extremis? For example, the way Tony was acting in NA, Illuminati, CW, WWH, MA and SI were more or less consistant with each other. Tony was a self centered, self important, shortsighted, jerk on a "I am smarter than you so I must be right" power trip. When you have a hero who is willing to cross so many lines in terms of lying and betrayal, having him commit murder or at least manslaughter and terrorism, now and then is not out of the question. All of this was consistant with each other, but largely inconsistant with his previous history.

If they want to back track on the most extreme stuff because it make him look TOO evil (the terrorism and killing), that is fine. But leaving him only a "little" evil (Negative Zone prison, Thor Clone, SPIN etc) is just a waste. If you want a Tony who is an immoral jerk, then OWN IT. A Tony who did what he did to She-Hulk is not signifigantly diferent than a Tony who plotted a terrorist strike to try and start a war. He really is not any more likable, but he is LESS hatable. If you have someone that you can't really like because he is evil, but you can't bring yourself to hate because he isn't all THAT evil, then you have someone who you just don't really care about, period. This state of mediocrety and compromise would kill the charachter like nothing else could. I may not LIKE that they made Tony into Dr Doom, but at least I CARE that they did. If they only turned him into the Wizard or Egghead, I would not even be bothered enough to dislike it.

So if they want to clean Tony up, find a way to go back as far as shooting Banner off into space (I THINK that is chronologigaly the first of his big mistakes recently). If not don't bother at all.

If Marvel collectively WERE able to say something like "ok, all of the following really stupid, crappy, short sighted and flat out villianous things that Tony did over the last few years was not really his fault. Here is out escape hatch. Please take this as an excuse to completely ignore all of the terrible charachter asasinations that we did to him, through poor editorial choices and poor writing. We realy want to have an Iron Man who is actually both smart and heroic again. Please just work with us on this one." I would gladly just swallow it and pretend that all of the bad stuff was just an unplesant dream.
But if they want to clean it up then really clean it up. No half measures left "vague and undefined".

[psm]

All of this was consistent with each other, but largely inconsistent with his previous history.

Armor Wars, Galactic Storm, the Crossing (although that has luckily been retconned) and Stark sleeping with Janet Van Dyne would disagree with you. Those personality traits have been with the character for quite some time.

[GHalecki]

Armor Wars, Galactic Storm, the Crossing (although that has luckily been retconned) and Stark sleeping with Janet Van Dyne would disagree with you. Those personality traits have been with the character for quite some time.

I kind of agree with you but only to a point.

Armor Wars was Tony going out of control on an ego trip. Galactic Storm was Tony being all "I know better than you, so if you disagree, what you say doesn't count". Sleeping with Jan was just being a sleezy self centered jerk.
I agree with all of these completely.

It is a matter of degrees though.
It is one thing to decide "We are killing the Supreme Inteligence because I said so" and saying "You are all going to hand over your lives, souls, and freedom to the government or go to jail in the Negative Zone because I said so."

It is one thing to sleep with your teammate under false pretenses, and quite another to sleep with a teammate, and then cripple them afterwords because she will probably be a nusence to you over the fact of something terrible that she found out that you did.

Tony went out of control in Armor Wars. But generally speaking, he only killed by accident. His intention was to use methods more extreme than usual because he felt the situation was extreme and justified it. His goal was perfectly clear and clean. He attacked people with his technology that he felt responsible for creating, for the express purpose of taking the technology out of their hands. His goal was to prevent bad things.
In CW he planned a terroriest strike for the sole purpose of drawing more power under his control, so he could impose his world view. Tony has always manipulated people, but in this case it escalated into demanding full out control of them. Not convincing them to act to his will, but forcing subservience from them. His immediate goal was to collect power as an end.

It is like a guy who robbs convenience stores, and occasionally roughs up someone if he really has to in order to get the money. There is a diference between that and a thug who goes into the store wantanly hurting people for it's own sake, and kills at the drop of a hat because he doesn't want to ask twice.

[psm]

His goal was to prevent bad things.

His goal was the same for CW. Nothing changed. I don't even agree that the degree was different. I don't quite see how killing a prison (Supreme Intelligence) is less evil or amoral than anything he did in CW. Yeah, I know you do and I don't want to get in a debate because I know neither of us will change our views. The fact is that many of the characteristics you are talking about have been with the character for 20 years now. Sometimes they take the forefront and sometimes they don't but they're there. The only difference I can see is that the internet wasn't around for those events.

[SquidSquod]

I rather have Marvel clean up Tony Stark with upcoming more effective & good deeds instead of blaming squarely to Extremis.

Yes, Extremis does affect Tony's judgement but not everything can be blamed to Extremis. Just like Tony's sin of producing landmines: the mines are still out there claiming lives but Tony can still help & save more human lives in other ways. It's like you totalled your dad's car and you can never get the car back but you can still chip in to pay for a brand new more expensive car.

[GHalecki]

His goal was the same for CW. Nothing changed. I don't even agree that the degree was different. I don't quite see how killing a prison (Supreme Intelligence) is less evil or amoral than anything he did in CW. Yeah, I know you do and I don't want to get in a debate because I know neither of us will change our views. The fact is that many of the characteristics you are talking about have been with the character for 20 years now. Sometimes they take the forefront and sometimes they don't but they're there. The only difference I can see is that the internet wasn't around for those events.

With the killing of the Supreme Inteligence, at least he was able to justify it to himself and the others by saying "it is just a machine". And depending on how you look at it, he MIGHT have even been right.
There is a big diference in doing something that you can tell your self is okay, in order to achieve a goal, and doing something that in and of itself is completely inexcusable, but justifying it by the ends you hope to achieve.

It is kind of like the argument between abortion and murder.
If a woman has an abortion, she is killing SOMETHING, even if in her mind it is just a collection of cells and tissue. She can make a justification based on her value and perceptions that it isn't wrong, by saying that what she is doing may be undesirable, but not really wrong. But that doesn't mean that is would then be in charachter to murder an already born child. It is only a matter of degrees and timing between aborting a fetus a month before it is born and killing a baby a week after. But the devil is in the details, isn't it?

In Armor Wars, Tony primarily went after villians, who he frankly probably would have butted heads with anyway eventually. And then he attacked the Vault. Well, the government had it coming anyway, for all of the hastle that they had given him over the years. And so what if they would need to come up with a diferent security system once Tony disabled the Guardsmen. What is REALLY that big of a deal anyway? It had been a while and they were probably due for an upgrade anyway. And then he went after Stingray. He wasn't REALLY a super heo anyway. Just a scientist that poked around under water. Not even a REAL scientist. Just an oceanographer. So Tony ruffled some feathers. Rubbing a nobody like Newell the wrong way is unfortunate, but Tony didn't do it maliciously. It was just a matter that the potential danger in Tony's mind regarding some of his tech out there that might be duplicated and fall into the wrong hands balanced against the rights of one guy that Tony really didn't think mattered all that much. And as it turned out, no real harm was done, since it wasn't his tech in the Stingray armor anyway, so everyone should just drop it.

It is all about incrimentalism. And justification. And being able to say at every single step of the way "it is just a tiny thing that I am completely justified to do it because it accomplishes my goal. I would never do anythign THAT bad."

A guy might embezzle ten million dollars from a company, but he would never THINK about mugging a guy for hit three hundred dollar paycheck.

That same level of self delusion and false rationalization went from the level that allowed Tony to be seen a a flawed and sometimes misguided hero who just gets caught up in making dome poor choices, to being a flat out villianous, despotic, maniac.
Throwing a rock at a gang of teenage punks on your lawn may be seen as an unfortunate but somewhat justifiable choice, if one of those kids actually get's injured by your rock. Even shooting one of them if you feel that you may be somehow threatened, can be justified.
But if you go out with a rifle and start picking off teenagers because you think that they probably are plotting agaonst you...that is something else, that is not understandable, and not justifiable. Even if your overall end that you are using to justify your actions is to protect your newborn baby at home.

[psm]

With the killing of the Supreme Intelligence, at least he was able to justify it to himself and the others by saying "it is just a machine". And depending on how you look at it, he MIGHT have even been right.

It is kind of like the argument between abortion and murder.

A guy might embezzle ten million dollars from a company, but he would never THINK about mugging a guy for hit three hundred dollar paycheck.

Throwing a rock at a gang of teenage punks on your lawn may be seen as an unfortunate but somewhat justifiable choice, if one of those kids actually get's injured by your rock. Even shooting one of them if you feel that you may be somehow threatened, can be justified.
But if you go out with a rifle and start picking off teenagers because you think that they probably are plotting against you...that is something else, that is not understandable, and not justifiable. Even if your overall end that you are using to justify your actions is to protect your newborn baby at home.

None, of your analogies have any correlation to the actual debate. It is not like abortion vs murder or like an embezzler mugging someone or shooting teenagers with a rifle. I have no desire to debate you if you continue using such weighted examples. Then again I really don't wish to debate you regardless. If you truly see CW compared to Galactic Storm the way you have mentioned we have no frame of reference and I completely disagree with you. To me killing a prison with no authority from the government just because you feel it's justified is a deplorable act. It's not justifiable. I think it's much easier to justify the actions Stark took in CW than the one murder he committed in GS. You obviously have a different moral code where murder of p.o.w. without trial is acceptable but sending people to prison for breaking the law isn't.

[IceFire]

With the killing of the Supreme Inteligence, at least he was able to justify it to himself and the others by saying "it is just a machine". And depending on how you look at it, he MIGHT have even been right.
There is a big diference in doing something that you can tell your self is okay, in order to achieve a goal, and doing something that in and of itself is completely inexcusable, but justifying it by the ends you hope to achieve.

It is kind of like the argument between abortion and murder.
If a woman has an abortion, she is killing SOMETHING, even if in her mind it is just a collection of cells and tissue. She can make a justification based on her value and perceptions that it isn't wrong, by saying that what she is doing may be undesirable, but not really wrong. But that doesn't mean that is would then be in charachter to murder an already born child. It is only a matter of degrees and timing between aborting a fetus a month before it is born and killing a baby a week after. But the devil is in the details, isn't it?

In Armor Wars, Tony primarily went after villians, who he frankly probably would have butted heads with anyway eventually. And then he attacked the Vault. Well, the government had it coming anyway, for all of the hastle that they had given him over the years. And so what if they would need to come up with a diferent security system once Tony disabled the Guardsmen. What is REALLY that big of a deal anyway? It had been a while and they were probably due for an upgrade anyway. And then he went after Stingray. He wasn't REALLY a super heo anyway. Just a scientist that poked around under water. Not even a REAL scientist. Just an oceanographer. So Tony ruffled some feathers. Rubbing a nobody like Newell the wrong way is unfortunate, but Tony didn't do it maliciously. It was just a matter that the potential danger in Tony's mind regarding some of his tech out there that might be duplicated and fall into the wrong hands balanced against the rights of one guy that Tony really didn't think mattered all that much. And as it turned out, no real harm was done, since it wasn't his tech in the Stingray armor anyway, so everyone should just drop it.

It is all about incrimentalism. And justification. And being able to say at every single step of the way "it is just a tiny thing that I am completely justified to do it because it accomplishes my goal. I would never do anythign THAT bad."

A guy might embezzle ten million dollars from a company, but he would never THINK about mugging a guy for hit three hundred dollar paycheck.

That same level of self delusion and false rationalization went from the level that allowed Tony to be seen a a flawed and sometimes misguided hero who just gets caught up in making dome poor choices, to being a flat out villianous, despotic, maniac.
Throwing a rock at a gang of teenage punks on your lawn may be seen as an unfortunate but somewhat justifiable choice, if one of those kids actually get's injured by your rock. Even shooting one of them if you feel that you may be somehow threatened, can be justified.
But if you go out with a rifle and start picking off teenagers because you think that they probably are plotting agaonst you...that is something else, that is not understandable, and not justifiable. Even if your overall end that you are using to justify your actions is to protect your newborn baby at home.

So would you put Stark in the same band as the Punisher. Every step of the way and with every criminal he kills, he feels it it justified. To us there is a big difference between a murderer and a mugger, but to Frank Castle there is no difference and both should die. Society would not agree, but in his mind it is entirely justifiable, just like Starks actions above.

Either the entire mindset is wrong and a flaw in the character, or none of it is, half measures don't count.

[GHalecki]

None, of your analogies have any correlation to the actual debate. It is not like abortion vs murder or like an embezzler mugging someone or shooting teenagers with a rifle. I have no desire to debate you if you continue using such weighted examples. Then again I really don't wish to debate you regardless. If you truly see CW compared to Galactic Storm the way you have mentioned we have no frame of reference and I completely disagree with you. To me killing a prison with no authority from the government just because you feel it's justified is a deplorable act. It's not justifiable. I think it's much easier to justify the actions Stark took in CW than the one murder he committed in GS. You obviously have a different moral code where murder of p.o.w. without trial is acceptable but sending people to prison for breaking the law isn't.

"Killing a prison with no authority from the government just because you feel it's justified is a deplorable act" is what you say.
I agree, but that is not PRECISELY what happened with the Supreme Inteligence. At least not necissarily, any way. The ACTUAL facts of the situation are in no way as cut and dry as you seem to be claiming that they are.
Is the Supreme Inteligence a person or a machine? There IS room to debate that. And that debate forms the moral corrilary to decide if what you are doing is destroying a machine or killing a person.
It is not a matter of what anyone thinks the answer is. It is a matter of how the person comitting the action views those actions.

You use the word "deplorable". What is it EXACTLY that you deplore about what Tony did at that particular event? You can only hold someone accountable, or deplore in your words, for the choices that they make. For example, you can't blame someone for not being able to see in the dark, because they have no control over it, and therefore are blameless for the situation. So you must be blaming him for a CHOICE that he made. For the sake of arguement, assume that Tony percieved that the SI was a machine, and not a person. If the SI WAS a machine as he percieved it, then what he CHOSE to do was correct. You can not hold a correct choice against him. It makes no sense.
Deciding that the SI needed to be destroyed was NOT a mistake, because that is what his reason interpreted what his perceptions told him. What you CAN question is if his perceptions were correct, but that is also out of his hands. It is like blaming someone for not opening a lock because the combination he was given is incorrect. You can also question if his reason properly interpreted that wich his perceptions told him. If his logic was not sufficient, he is also blameless, because he is only as smart as he is. It is like blaming someone for not remembering a phone number. Someone's limitations are what they are, no more and no less.

Is there imperical proof as to if the SI should have been treated like a man or a machine? One of those IS correct, but either option is supportable, but lacking definitive proof, depending on how you are defining man and how you are defining machine. That is a judgement based on one's one value, or interpretation, of how to define such things. That is where the debate comes in. Of this there can be no question.

What Tony IS guilty of, by right of logic, is how he split the team and created needless conflict by exceeding the rules of condust that he had agreed to with his team. That is a far deeper and more layered point.

As far as the no authority from the government aspect, that is all just absolute crap. There is the issue of law, and there is the issue of justice, and to a hero, the latter must ALWAYS supercede absense the prior. There WAS no "government" that held power over the situation, therefore your argument on that point has no point.

[psm]

"Killing a prison with no authority from the government just because you feel it's justified is a deplorable act" is what you say.
I agree, but that is not PRECISELY what happened with the Supreme Inteligence. At least not necessarily, any way. The ACTUAL facts of the situation are in no way as cut and dry as you seem to be claiming that they are.
Is the Supreme Inteligence a person or a machine? There IS room to debate that. And that debate forms the moral corrilary to decide if what you are doing is destroying a machine or killing a person.
It is not a matter of what anyone thinks the answer is. It is a matter of how the person committing the action views those actions.

You use the word "deplorable". What is it EXACTLY that you deplore about what Tony did at that particular event? You can only hold someone accountable, or deplore in your words, for the choices that they make. For example, you can't blame someone for not being able to see in the dark, because they have no control over it, and therefore are blameless for the situation. So you must be blaming him for a CHOICE that he made. For the sake of arguement, assume that Tony percieved that the SI was a machine, and not a person. If the SI WAS a machine as he percieved it, then what he CHOSE to do was correct. You can not hold a correct choice against him. It makes no sense.
Deciding that the SI needed to be destroyed was NOT a mistake, because that is what his reason interpreted what his perceptions told him. What you CAN question is if his perceptions were correct, but that is also out of his hands. It is like blaming someone for not opening a lock because the combination he was given is incorrect. You can also question if his reason properly interpreted that which his perceptions told him. If his logic was not sufficient, he is also blameless, because he is only as smart as he is. It is like blaming someone for not remembering a phone number. Someone's limitations are what they are, no more and no less.

Is there empirical proof as to if the SI should have been treated like a man or a machine? One of those IS correct, but either option is supportable, but lacking definitive proof, depending on how you are defining man and how you are defining machine. That is a judgment based on one's one value, or interpretation, of how to define such things. That is where the debate comes in. Of this there can be no question.

What Tony IS guilty of, by right of logic, is how he split the team and created needless conflict by exceeding the rules of conduct that he had agreed to with his team. That is a far deeper and more layered point.

As far as the no authority from the government aspect, that is all just absolute crap. There is the issue of law, and there is the issue of justice, and to a hero, the latter must ALWAYS supercede absense the prior. There WAS no "government" that held power over the situation, therefore your argument on that point has no point.

What amazes me most is how you can rationalize the events of GW which were much more cut and dry than CW. First off, if there is room to debate whether something is alive or not, it's a good philosophy not to kill them. There was never any indication by Stark that the Supreme Intelligence didn't have a consciousness. He was willfully committing an act of murder. Something much worse than anything he did in Armor Wars or CW. You are just trying to use some bs rationalization to change what happened.

As for no government you are wrong. There is the US government, the U.N., the Shiar government and the Kree government (what was left of it). Since the Supreme Intelligence was a p.o.w. he should have been handed over to one of those governing bodies. Instead Stark decided on his own (against the majority of the Avengers) that he would take matters into his own.

As for the law vs justice, how is justice served when one person believes he can act as judge, jury and executioner. I'm not even sure why you are trying to defend the character's actions.

[GHalecki]

So would you put Stark in the same band as the Punisher. Every step of the way and with every criminal he kills, he feels it it justified. To us there is a big difference between a murderer and a mugger, but to Frank Castle there is no difference and both should die. Society would not agree, but in his mind it is entirely justifiable, just like Starks actions above.

Either the entire mindset is wrong and a flaw in the character, or none of it is, half measures don't count.

In certain ways Stark is acting EXACTLY along the same principles as the Punisher. In some ways he is far less honest. Tony understood that the things he was doing (I will use his actions in Armor Wars particularly to keep things a little more clear).
Tony knew that the things he was doing were wrong, but he identified them as only being a "little bit wrong", and wrongly made the judgement that they were JUSTIFIABLE, despite this fact. You knew that he thought this because he was apologizing the whole time and offering justifications and excuses for it, because of the minority of the offenses.
The Punisher is doing what he thinks is right in his estimation. He makes no justifications, excuses, or apologies. Why would he? You only apologize when you are wrong. You only make excuses when there is some transgression to excuse. You only make justifications if you give a damn what someone else thinks.
That is the premise of the charachter. He is doing what he feels is right, by ignoring the law and serving justice as he sees it needing to be served. It is a completely honorable and righious way of living to him. Of course, this is only the case because he is nuts.
Punisher is crazy, but he is honest. Stark is sane, but dishonest.

My original statement was that what Tony has been doing lately is out of charachter with what he had been doing before. The arguement against me was that Tony did have a history of this kind of thing, previous. That is the debate.

A perfect example that can be corrolated between the two is how he treated other heroes. Look at the way he treated Ant-Man and Stingray and Captain America in Armor Wars, ve the way he treated Captain America, She-Hulk, and Spider-Man in (and around) CW.

In AW he bribes Ant-Man into doing something that he really didn't want to do, by using financial and personal pressure to prey on Scott's friendship, gratitude, and desire to care for his daughter.
In SW he bribes Spider-Man, tries to threaten Peter's family, and that fails, and finally he attacks him and tries to capture him and throw him in jail (remember, at that point, Peter had broken no laws, he just disagreed with Stark).

There is a big diference between saying to Scott "You know, you could really use this money I am offering. Don't you want to be able to afford a nicer house and stuff for your daughter Cassie?" and saying to Peter "You know, all of a sudden, I'm not so sure that I really can keep your aunt and wife safe if you stop working for me. If you go underground and leave them comnpletely unprotected, I am pretty much going to just let them get killed by the first bad guy that comes accross. It isn't my problem".
There is WORLD of diference. One is pretty slimy, the other is outright evil.

Tony used to be a minipulative jerk who would occasionally do something wrong. Now he is way beyond that and had become a dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil.

[psm]

Tony used to be a manipulative jerk who would occasionally do something wrong. Now he is way beyond that and had become a dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil.

And that's why it's pointless to debate you. Your perception of the character is so far from the reality of the character that there is no common ground to argue on.

[newscott]

And that's why it's pointless to debate you. Your perception of the character is so far from the reality of the character that there is no common ground to argue on.

I don't think he's really alone in thinking Iron Man is tyrannical. Perception is subjective, and can't really be compared to what "is real".

[psm]

I don't think he's really alone in thinking Iron Man is tyrannical. Perception is subjective, and can't really be compared to what "is real".

He's not alone in his thinking. However, at some point don't you have to question you're perceptions when only a small minority (that's getting smaller) feels the same way. Perception/interpretation is subjective and allows for a lot of leeway (especially with details) but there are some fundamental "facts" that even it can't change. Considering Stark to be a "dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil" is just false.

[mikekerr3]

He's not alone in his thinking. However, at some point don't you have to question you're perceptions when only a small minority (that's getting smaller) feels the same way. Perception/interpretation is subjective and allows for a lot of leeway (especially with details) but there are some fundamental "facts" that even it can't change. Considering Stark to be a "dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil" is just false.

It's only false if you don't consider a lot of the stuff he does evil. For me he routinely does things that are criminals and often things that are outright evil. But those things are acceptable to you.

Many of Starks fans see the bit with the ambasssador qas being a rought tactic, I see as an act of terrorism that might have lead to a War that could have destroyed the world, for a tiny gain.

Risking a few billion lives to gain a few points of popularity seems pretty damned evil to me, as was mind controlling and torturing Osborn. The torture was when Osborn tried to say what happened.

We all have different ideas of what is evil and what is not, yours have no special weight to anyone but yourself. Mine do not either.

Factually you can't prove whether he was good or evil that's a value judgment, you can say that he's a criminal but that's not a subjective judgement and not directly related to morality.

[GHalecki]

What amazes me most is how you can rationalize the events of GW which were much more cut and dry than CW. First off, if there is room to debate whether something is alive or not, it's a good philosophy not to kill them. There was never any indication by Stark that the Supreme Intelligence didn't have a consciousness. He was willfully committing an act of murder. Something much worse than anything he did in Armor Wars or CW. You are just trying to use some bs rationalization to change what happened.

As for no government you are wrong. There is the US government, the U.N., the Shiar government and the Kree government (what was left of it). Since the Supreme Intelligence was a p.o.w. he should have been handed over to one of those governing bodies. Instead Stark decided on his own (against the majority of the Avengers) that he would take matters into his own.

As for the law vs justice, how is justice served when one person believes he can act as judge, jury and executioner. I'm not even sure why you are trying to defend the character's actions.

First of all, I am NOT rationalizing the events of anything. I am showing what Tony's rationalization was, what his flow of logic must have been. I simply stated that there is a point of view that he was acting from, other then the childish notion of him saying "I am going to do something wrong because I want to". Of course you are amazed by this because you don't understand this. No way am I trying to change what happened. You are just misrepresenting what happened by saying it is all cut and dry, whenb it wasn't.
If there is debate of if it was a man or machine, then killing/destroying it is certainly not the apropriate choice. However I was poionting out that to Tony, there WAS no debate. He knew what he knew, in his own mind.

Could you tell me what juristiction that the US or the UN have that the Kree Empire agreed grant them over their leadership? So why would you think that they had juristiction of any sort to pass any form of legally binding judgement on the Supreme Inteligence? Wouldn't the US Supreme Court be just as arbtrary a decider of the situation as a group of Avengers, since none of them had a LEGAL authority in the situation?
The whole concept of "legal" and "government" is predicated on there being a higher authority that someone is subjected to that they submit to being subject to. There WAS no such higher legal or governing authority in existance that the Supreme Inteligence submitted to. Since he did not submit to any authority, he was not entitled to any sort of due process, above and beyond that witch he granted the billions of people that he murdered.
And I am POSITIVE you are wrong in saying that Stark decided anything on his own in this matter. He wasn't even the one that execuited the SI. It was the Black Knight. And I am ALMOST sure that Tony's side was the prevailing decision based on a vote. But I'm not 100% on that.
How can justice be served when one person believes he can commit any act (such as killing billions of people of the Kree Empire like the SI did) with out repercussion, because nobody would be WILLING to take it upon themself to act as judge, jury or executioner?
Personally, I was on Cap's side. Unlike some, though, that doesn't preclude me from a logical exploration of the point of view that I am opposed to.

[psm]

Factually you can't prove whether he was good or evil that's a value judgment, you can say that he's a criminal but that's not a subjective judgment and not directly related to morality.

Saying he is good or evil is also not the same as saying he is a "dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil". Besides the fact that he's not a dictator or a tyrant he also doesn't routinely commit acts that can be considered evil. Over the past twenty years you can point to a few major events where his actions could be perceived as "evil". I would not call that routine by any definition.

[GHalecki]

He's not alone in his thinking. However, at some point don't you have to question you're perceptions when only a small minority (that's getting smaller) feels the same way. Perception/interpretation is subjective and allows for a lot of leeway (especially with details) but there are some fundamental "facts" that even it can't change. Considering Stark to be a "dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil" is just false.

Without actually lifting definitions from a dictionary...

Dictatorial- Look at how he handled Peter Parker. Peter realized something that Tony was doing was questionable in his estimation. Tony responded by threats, extortion, and finally force, with the threat of unjust imprisonment for the SOLE offense of disagreeing with him and threatening to expose him. That pretty much can be correctly described by the word dictatorial.

Evil- Terrorism, blackmail, torture, reckless indifference to pain, suffering, and death...all of these things can be readily attributed to Tony's actions over the last few years. Roll all of that up and you get the word Evil.

Tyrant- pretty much the same definition as dictator, and that was already covered.

Routinely- It seems that many of these evil actions that I listed above were done with little or no concern, and were accepted as commonplace with no regret or at least no willingness to prevent their reoccurance. And these things all happened in a seemingly constant interrelated succession.They were treated as expected, or at least acceptable, or in other words, as "routine". At least rountine in considering the timeline of the most recent five to eight years or so.

On this basis, I stand by exactly what I said as being accurate.

[psm]

On this basis, I stand by exactly what I said as being accurate.

And that's why I said it's pointless to debate you. It's an extremist view using the fringe definitions of those words. There is no common ground between us which I'm sure we are both grateful for.

[GHalecki]

Can you rationally dispute, using any reasonable definitions of the words that make up my charichterization for Tony, that any of those words are not accurate to do so?

[jackolover]

I rather have Marvel clean up Tony Stark with upcoming more effective & good deeds instead of blaming squarely to Extremis.

Yes, Extremis does affect Tony's judgement but not everything can be blamed to Extremis. Just like Tony's sin of producing landmines: the mines are still out there claiming lives but Tony can still help & save more human lives in other ways. It's like you totalled your dad's car and you can never get the car back but you can still chip in to pay for a brand new more expensive car.

No, Extremis is more than just regurgitating old behaviors. Tony Stark was blowing peoples heads off. He was killing the Crimson Dynamo, (who he meets in the latest book by the way), and bringing him back to life, which may not have worked. Extremis was dehumanizing Tony Stark and this is what Tony was worried about, and it seems was a factor in his behavior in CW. Sure Tony did similar things in the past, but that was Tony. I'm suggesting the machine was doing them this time, in CW, and Millar and JMS made the machine stand out. It was why Steve and Peter wanted Tony to take his helmet off. They wanted to see their was still a human inside the armor.

[jackolover]

I can accept that in principle, Tony Starks plan for the super human community was logical. It was his approach in Extremis that made it brutal. No argueing about the SHRA and it being a legitimate goal.

Extremis, on the other hand, has never been fully described. The impression I get is that it isn't sentient, like Venom, or the Worlsmind, but something Zombifying.

[mindcrime]

as quoted in 'execute program" part 6: reported psychological side effects of extremis..

Nick Fury: "animal tests show incidents of paranoia, increased hostility, violent ideation, and a mark tendency toward social isolation." "all of which have been observed in mr. stark & attested to by a number of his colleagues."

mmmm....i wonder how much this did effect him?

[GHalecki]

My ORIGINAL point was that if they wanted to use Extremis or some other "cop out" to clean up Tony's record and reputation, I am all for it, as long as it is comprehensive. Either say that ALL of the really crappy things Tony did were attributed to someone or something else, exhonoring him, or just own the fact that he is a real bastard, and be proud of it.

The point of contention is what the demarcation between the acceptable crappy things that he has done and the inexcusable REALLY crappy things that he has done.

My contention is that the more inexcusable acts can be confined to, but MUST include, the events starting (according to my understanding of the timeline) with shooting Hulk off into space, where the older events were less severe and have already been dealt with to a sufficiend level to explain them away to some level.

Armor Wars- it was done in good faith with clearly defined, good intentions. That does not excuse the things he did, however I maintain that doing those things made him shortsighted, vain, childish, hypocritical and reckless, but it didn't qualify him as being actually evil. He can get passed that, and in fact did so a long time ago.

Galactic Storm- Tony made a judgement call based on his strong belief in the way he understood the facts. He was sure that destroying the Supreme Inteligence was in fact a machine to be destroyed, as opposed to a person that would be killed. If the actuality was that he was a machine, then there is no problem, and Tony was clearly correct. If the actuality is that the SI was a person, then it is not a case of Tony making a bad choice, it is a matter of Tony being wrong. There is a diference between making a bad decision based on mininterpreting the situation, and using poor judgement. The first one can be excused far more redily than the second. Tony absolutely could have interpreted that the Supreme Inteligence was just a dangerous machine to be dismantled and disarmed.
This is all simple linear logic, and can't really be disputed in any real way.

I do believe that Tony used all of the above as a justification, PRETENDING to believe it, to satisfy his own illusion of himself as a moral and just person.
Personally, I think what Tony ACTUALLY did was just got pissed off and indignant, and wanted vengence by killing the Supreme Inteligence for what he did. I think that at least some of the other Avengers that voted with him (Herc comes to mind specificly without a doubt) were thinking exactly that.
This is speculation on my part, but I think that this is the original intent of the story. But in this day and age, original intent of a story seems to be coming in a more and more distant second place to the twisting interpretations of what the latest writer wants it to mean.
I am just saying that under the premise that I outlined originally, there is a way for it to be presented that Tony taking part in killing the SI is not some great sin, but only a misinterpretation of the situation where he made a bad call, nothing more.

[mikekerr3]

Saying he is good or evil is also not the same as saying he is a "dictatorial evil tyrant who routinely does things that are evil". Besides the fact that he's not a dictator or a tyrant he also doesn't routinely commit acts that can be considered evil. Over the past twenty years you can point to a few major events where his actions could be perceived as "evil". I would not call that routine by any definition.

But in the last three years or so I could say that he has committed evil acts on a routine basis. Over the life of the character no, but since the CW started most decidedly yes.

He;s not dictatorial he's just an authoritarian who was deluded enough to think he could tell the future, And he was tyrannical in his overweening ego many of his goals and his methods.

Add in he let his ego write checks that his ass is paying for new, too bad it's not just him that's paying.

[tavella]

And that's why it's pointless to debate you. Your perception of the character is so far from the reality of the character that there is no common ground to argue on.

No, they are pretty much correct; Tony was going for tyranny. In fact, that's perhaps his biggest sin. In his quest for power, he carefully destroyed all checks and balances, all regard for rights, and accumulated power into a single set of hands. Deludedly thinking he would always be the only person holding that power. Of course, that's why we *have* checks and balances, why we have inalienable rights -- because our founders and many since have realized that all power will be abused; that when rights are stripped, people will be oppressed. That the worst monsters in history have been those who believed that they knew what was best and believed they should be unbounded in achieving that.

Tony (Reed, too, but we are looking at Tony here) believed he was the Philosopher King, that the country was best off if it was controlled by him, the wise man. He was willing to ignore the breaking of laws (as long as it suited him), willing to break them himself, willing to present insane murderers as public heroes, willing to turn friends into killing machines. As long as it put him in power.

And of course, because he wasn't the perfect genius he believed he was, because Reed doesn't in fact know how to perfectly predict the future -- he not only caused great suffering himself, he made of his position a throne for Norman Osborne to rule from, wreaking even more suffering.

[jackolover]

as quoted in 'execute program" part 6: reported psychological side effects of extremis..

Nick Fury: "animal tests show incidents of paranoia, increased hostility, violent ideation, and a mark tendency toward social isolation." "all of which have been observed in mr. stark & attested to by a number of his colleagues."

mmmm....i wonder how much this did effect him?

I wonder who these colleagues are? Happy Hogan, SecDef department members, Reed Richards, Steve Rogers?

Because the Extremis could have been talking when the Hulk was exiled and Sue complained to Tony during CW, that Reed follows everything Tony does, because Reed looks up to Tony. So that would explain Reed and Tony on SHRA and convincing Xavier and Black Bolt on the Hulk.

[jackolover]

No, they are pretty much correct; Tony was going for tyranny. In fact, that's perhaps his biggest sin. In his quest for power, he carefully destroyed all checks and balances, all regard for rights, and accumulated power into a single set of hands. Deludedly thinking he would always be the only person holding that power. Of course, that's why we *have* checks and balances, why we have inalienable rights -- because our founders and many since have realized that all power will be abused; that when rights are stripped, people will be oppressed. That the worst monsters in history have been those who believed that they knew what was best and believed they should be unbounded in achieving that.

Tony (Reed, too, but we are looking at Tony here) believed he was the Philosopher King, that the country was best off if it was controlled by him, the wise man. He was willing to ignore the breaking of laws (as long as it suited him), willing to break them himself, willing to present insane murderers as public heroes, willing to turn friends into killing machines. As long as it put him in power.

And of course, because he wasn't the perfect genius he believed he was, because Reed doesn't in fact know how to perfectly predict the future -- he not only caused great suffering himself, he made of his position a throne for Norman Osborne to rule from, wreaking even more suffering.

I agree with most of what you say.

I would point out that recently Reed Richards did find out the SHRA had to go the way it did, because it was the best outcome. Reed may have deluded himself into making those findings, I don't know.

And though Tony's methods were suspect, in that he outlawed the anti-regs, the idea of the SHRA and Tony being in control of all the secret identities was a tenable premise, although the other aspects of 42, and "chasing down heroes" was over the top. Tony may have been a robot when he carried out the SHRA, but I don't think he was a despot. And by the end of the CW, Tony admits that the Extremis influence had been purged. There is the fact that the Extremis is still in his system, albeit a very downgraded memory.

[mikekerr3]

I agree with most of what you say.

I would point out that recently Reed Richards did find out the SHRA had to go the way it did, because it was the best outcome. Reed may have deluded himself into making those findings, I don't know.

And though Tony's methods were suspect, in that he outlawed the anti-regs, the idea of the SHRA and Tony being in control of all the secret identities was a tenable premise, although the other aspects of 42, and "chasing down heroes" was over the top. Tony may have been a robot when he carried out the SHRA, but I don't think he was a despot. And by the end of the CW, Tony admits that the Extremis influence had been purged. There is the fact that the Extremis is still in his system, albeit a very downgraded memory.

The SHRA was a tenable premise in a country without a Constitution, in a world without a UN charter perhaps, The methods used in it's enforcement are what I find evil. Even Tony did not think the law was a good idea, just unavoidable.

I would like for him to have been driven by extremis while doing those things. it would be nice to look at Iron man as a hero again.

[jackolover]

The SHRA was a tenable premise in a country without a Constitution, in a world without a UN charter perhaps, The methods used in it's enforcement are what I find evil. Even Tony did not think the law was a good idea, just unavoidable.

I would like for him to have been driven by extremis while doing those things. it would be nice to look at Iron man as a hero again.

Yeah, he's certainly come a long way since DoS, so maybe we will see the hero emerge after this storyline, but it is taking a long time.

[jackolover]

Tony Stark suffered for his stance on the SHRA, as was shown in the Civil War crossover, so there was uncertainty that his stance was the right one.

However, Tony Stark, once he made that choice, certainly took it too the extreme, moreso than what was neccesary.

To me, the Civil War was an agressive approach to something that honorable men like the super heroes, should have negotiated to a suitable reconciliation. Now maybe the Skrulls were manipulating policy, and the enthusiasm with which the government was implimenting the policy of the SHRA. But apart from that, I felt Tony Stark was a more than willing participant in that enthusiam; actions which he should never have allowed. That is what I have the most difficulty accepting about Stark in the Civil War. The 3 Pro-reg leaders (Pym /Skrull, Stark and Richards) actually formulated the methods to capture and defeat super heroes, like turncoats to their own. Pym and Richards did not set the pace in Civil War. Stark took the tools of the 100 ideas, and drove it through the super heroes.

The change in Stark from when he was SecDef, to when he was treated with the Extremis, was palpable. The gaining of Extremis happened immediately before the New Avengers : Illuminati issue. From then on, we had a completely different Tony Stark. An irrational Tony Stark. He hears Maria Hill say, "Do something about the Hulk because if you don't we'll do something about you". Tony Stark would normally say, "Just try it *****, and you will see what hell looks like". Instead, we got a Tony Stark that reacted to the trigger of authority and just took Hills message on face value, and did something about the Hulk, even though Namor warned him against it, because Banner had been a friend. Stark did it again after Stamford all through the Civil War. Stark didn't see that there were friends anymore, and that's how he reacted in Civil War. If Stark still considered the super heroes his friends, would he have made Clor, or 42, both of which were abominations, and both of which were calculated to scare super heroes into submission?

My dilema with Stark remained. He spoke about the trauma of whether he was doing the right thing, but his actions, when he did act, were those of a despot. I don't think the Stark before Extremis would have forced the Civil War into such a brutal beating of the super heroes.