Are Tony and co. war profiteering?

[Kefky]

Alright, I figured this is gonna be one of those subjects that we're gonna talk about from now on, so might as well start a topic about it. ;)

In case some of you haven't seen it, it was shown in the preview for tomorrow's ASM that the government's investing big money on the companies dealing with the SRA. Here's the link:

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/001758956.cfm

The real-world analogy is more than obvious, and damage control is clearly in it just for the dough, as has been shown in the current issues of wolverine, but it doesn't seem to be as cut-as-dry as that.

Tony and co. are undetaking a massive project here that involves cloning and nanities. We don't know the details about 50-state initiative, but from what we already know, it's pretty clear that it'll take a massive amount of funds to keep it going. And I don't wanna spoil anything, but as its shown in ASM 535, there's a ridicoulus amount of hi-tech technology going on there too. Probably isn't gonna be cheap to mantain it.

Now, I don't know the details about the Van-Dyne family fortune, but both Tony and Reed have been shown having financial problems lately. So they clearly need this money. Is it even possible for them to be making a profit here? What do you guys think?

[The Charlatan]

As dead to me as a character as Tony Stark is right now, I still don't beleive that he's doing any of this for any personal financial profit. He's still doing this for his princples. Any incedental profit coming from this he probably regards as 'dirty, but nessicary'.

[bulbasteve]

I really doubt it, these guys have enough on their plate already. Anyway they are just about the only corporations who actually have that sort of technology that aren't about a million times more evil than SHIELD in its wildest dreams could ever hope to be.

[stillanerd]

Ah, another fine instance that shows the pro-registration side are not the good guys, especially when JMS is making comparisons between Stark Enterprises and Halliburton. Oh yeah, Marvel's not REALLY commenting on current events.:rolleyes:

However, the ones who seem to be doing the most war-profiterring are Damage Control. It was just revealed in Wolverine that not only did they supply Nitro with mutant growth hormones and encourage him to create random destruction (meaning Stamford wasn't entirely an accident) and thus creating more fights between superhumans (which, of course, encreases their profit margins from all the no-bid contracts they get from cleaning up the wreckage left behind during said superhero battles) but they're also utilizing and adapting the wrecked technology and tissue samples left behind in those battles to create their own super-soldiers.

[Vaal]

This may be icing on the cake for Tony, but Reed honestly seems just to be content to make and play with new toys (like the Negative Zone insanity fortress)

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

Heh, 'insanity fortress,' I like that.

I think a case could be made that there's no immoral profiteering going on - I'm not sure, but I'd need to see more evidence (including, obviously, reading ASM535 thoroughly when it comes out here this afternoon). But consider: how many companies could really be trusted to competently provide the infrastructure that SHIELD/the government needs? Is there anyone else out there who could supply and maintain the equipment and facilities we've seen, without spending months or years in R&D, and risking multiple failures through inexperience?

The no-bid angle is worrisome - but again, consider how long it takes for a standard bidding process these days. Congress appoints a sub-committee to twiddle their thumbs for months on end coming up with the RFP, would-be contractors are given months more to decide whether to even bid, and it can be literally years before a bid is chosen. If you got peeved waiting for CW4 to arrive, just be glad it didn't have to go through Washington. It's not uncommon for a need to be obsolete by the time a contractor is finally selected to provide for it. Under those circumstances, and given the critical nature of the crisis now, there's good reason to skip it all, and simply appoint the contractor who seems best suited to do the job from day one. If you make the wrong choice and your contractor screws it up, you're in deep crap - but that's a fair risk, compared to having to fight a superhero civil war without proper hardware or facilities for years.

[XPac]

Hmmm... I wanna give him the benefit of the doubt and say that whatever profit Tony is clearly making off of this is simply a nice coindicence. And I guess there's nothing inherently wrong with making a profit.

But at the same time, it did look like Peter had some concerns, even if he raised them in his usual joking manner. If Peter has concerns, I'm thinking maybe we should have them too.

[jackolover]

I would be interested in knowing whether Tony, Reed and Pym have formed a company. Why not? Superhero Amalgamated. Like you say, these guys are not doing well financially, and the best way to get comfortably solvent, is if they come together and do projects of the sort like in CW. They seemed to have formed themselves into an ad hoc group anyway. Why not incorporate. It may stave off any more Ultron debarkles, with 3 minds instead of one putting it together.

I have liked this aspect of CW, that the 3 genius' are cooperating over a common goal. Reeds enthusiasm with being in the company of such illustrious gentlemen has made him more animated then normal.

So yes, I do think they are profiteering from this CW, and I like it.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

But at the same time, it did look like Peter had some concerns, even if he raised them in his usual joking manner. If Peter has concerns, I'm thinking maybe we should have them too.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Peter has a very strong moral compass, and that's somewhere I'd listen closely to what he had to say, but is he really very well-versed in the ways of big business? Making a profit isn't illegal or immoral - in times of war, one of the things you really, really want is for your war businesses to be on sound financial footing, so that they'll be able to keep turning out product as long as they're needed. Of course, there's plenty of ways to go about making a profit that are immoral - see Damage Control. But is Peter experienced enough in corporate affairs to be able to tell the difference between Stark Industries profiteering and prospering - especially considering he's evidently just hearing about this stuff second-hand from CNN?

[jaxcs]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Peter has a very strong moral compass, and that's somewhere I'd listen closely to what he had to say, but is he really very well-versed in the ways of big business? Making a profit isn't illegal or immoral - in times of war, one of the things you really, really want is for your war businesses to be on sound financial footing, so that they'll be able to keep turning out product as long as they're needed. Of course, there's plenty of ways to go about making a profit that are immoral - see Damage Control. But is Peter experienced enough in corporate affairs to be able to tell the difference between Stark Industries profiteering and prospering - especially considering he's evidently just hearing about this stuff second-hand from CNN?

Yeah, but here's the thing. Those words were put into his mouth by a writer. So, if he says something, it is possible that there is some foreshadowing going on. Unless, of course, the writers decided to change course mid stream and we know that never happens, right?:D

That said, I don't think of TS as a war profiteer, the same way Damage Control is a war profiteer. TS has many sins to his name, insane greed isn't one of them.

[trickster]

This may be icing on the cake for Tony, but Reed honestly seems just to be content to make and play with new toys (like the Negative Zone insanity fortress)

Actually, you'll see they are profiteering if you read ASM 535. Although I can sympathize with Reed in that issue. Iron Man, though? No doubt about it. IM and Cap are like Rex Mason (Metamorpho) and John Stewart, respectively in that JLU episode.



hearing about this stuff second-hand from CNN?


I dunno, "no-bid contract" sounds like a no-brainer to anyone with well even a quarter of a brain.


Making a profit isn't illegal or immoral - in times of war, one of the things you really, really want is for your war businesses to be on sound financial footing, so that they'll be able to keep turning out product as long as they're needed

No, but at least don't preach morals when you're getting no-bid contracts and killing your friends in the process.

Tony's making a killing... in the stock market, I mean. :D

[Jmacq1]

As much crap as he's been pulling, I suspect when Tony says "Really? I hadn't noticed." He probably meant it.

As busy as he is coordinating the "Super Hero Task Force" I'd wager that Stark International is probably firmly in the control of its' board of directors or whatnot. Tony can't really be bothered to deal with that stuff right now.

[the Dagman]

That report stated that because Stark Enterprises is a public company, Stark has become one of the richest men in the country as a result of his stock price increase. (This is pointed out after noting FF Inc. is a private holding company. If a company is not private, then it is public. Meaning it is publicly traded on the stock market.) This means that he is NOT in financial dire straits and he is profiting from the suffering of others. In my book, that is immoral. It may not be illegal, it is immoral. Then again, he only makes that money if he sells part or all of his stock. And if he does so, he may be at risk of losing control of his company. Although he could use his stock as collateral for a loan.

[Markavian]

And I think this must be added: No one But Stark and FF Inc could do the things the SHRA Calls for.nd while they may be getting a lot of money I bet there isnt a huge profit margin because what they are doing is so revolutionary and ground breaking.The Ror (Rate of Return) Would probally be higher if they had invested elsewhere.But The thing about Goverment contracts is they are THERE . And likely to stay there. I hazard a guess long term they will net a good profit in the end.Unless the Hulk or Secret Avengers drop in and busts everything up..I dont think insurance would cover that.

[Kefky]

But at the same time, it did look like Peter had some concerns, even if he raised them in his usual joking manner. If Peter has concerns, I'm thinking maybe we should have them too.

Not really. The issue's told completely from Peter's point of view, and it's showing him become a bit more neurotic. I'm not saying it's not another reason for him to worry, but I don't think it his suspicion should be immidiately taken as fact either.


Actually, you'll see they are profiteering if you read ASM 535.

Really? I read the issue, and I don't think I'm see what you're seeing.

And if you're gonna post a spoiler, change the color of the writing to white so other people don't trow a trantum. ;)


That report stated that because Stark Enterprises is a public company, Stark has become one of the richest men in the country as a result of his stock price increase. (This is pointed out after noting FF Inc. is a private holding company. If a company is not private, then it is public. Meaning it is publicly traded on the stock market.) This means that he is NOT in financial dire straits and he is profiting from the suffering of others. In my book, that is immoral. It may not be illegal, it is immoral. Then again, he only makes that money if he sells part or all of his stock. And if he does so, he may be at risk of losing control of his company. Although he could use his stock as collateral for a loan.

Again, though, is it inconceivable that all this money would go to their projects, considering they're obviously very expensive even to maintain?

[CyberCoyote]

I'm hoping this is actually the 'out' those of us not happy with the portrayal of Reed and Company were looking for.

Reed and Tony, as part of their double secret scout's honor pledge, aren't allowed to share their 'secret plans' with anyone.

The only thing they keep saying to try and justify themselves is, 'please, we have a plan' or things to that affect.

Things they are doing now that are AWFUL: cloning Thor--not much positve in there..unless it's a robot not a clone and they're fooling the officials.

Nanites in villains: well, if they developed these as a way to keep tabs on villains who're difficult to contain wouldn't that be a good thing?

The Neg-Zone Prison: I'd say it's a lot better than the 'Raft' which was a joke, but then if they escape they get to cause trouble in another universe (bad guys, not the heroes that're contained): What if that isn't the negative zone, though? What if it's a pocket dimension void of life? HEck, let's retcon Reed's creation of the Universe and say he played along with the insane alien and this is the universe IT created when Reed transported him to 'unspace' to protect reality :)

SHIELD is dirty. No bones about it in my book. Could be the corruption is so deep Tony and Reed have no idea how deep and fear if they reveal anything they'll be found out. Another thing, imagine if Foster's death was a fake? They kept saying he was too smart to be in on the anti-reg side. What if he's not dead? What if that was all a set up. He's dead and buried.. they make themselves look WORSE intentionally, and Bill can use pym particles to shrink down and work as a spy. Bill got the info he needed from the anti-side and was in fear of being found out..?

NOW Tony and Reed are making HUGE amounts of money directly from the dirty govt types that are pushing this. They have access to more and more internal info because of the ploy. Not sure if Cap will ever accept this, but it might seem the only way for Reed and Tony to ultimately topple the govt control aspect of the SHRA, they may have..get this..decided to sacrifice everything. Their personal lives. their professional careers, EVERYTHING, in order to make this work out right in the end. In the end they can do as Reed did so long ago. Blackmail the govt if need be, buy them out. Heck, expose the corruption and destroy it, proving that no govt should be given these living nuclear arms just because they were born in the country. It wouldn't work in the real world, but in the Marvel U the heroes could form their own SHRA training facilities and promote professionalism among their own with long time heroes like Cap and others in charge. The Govts would have liasons, but they'd be there for reporting and for the checks and balances, not to control heroes as private militia.

This would fix it for me. If it turns out the dispicable acts they're doing aren't because 'it has to be done', but because the only way to save the heroes is by martyring themselves to everyone and everything they hold dear. It's got holes, sure, but the story seems to have them anyway.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

Yeah, but here's the thing. Those words were put into his mouth by a writer. So, if he says something, it is possible that there is some foreshadowing going on.
Perhaps, but that goes both ways - JMS may be using Spider-Man's concerns to foreshadow the revelation of profiteering down the line, but bringing the writer into things also means you have to take into account that JMS, whom I respect very much as an author, nonetheless has a tendency to interpret 'showing both sides of the story' as 'showing how one side is awesome and the other sucks.' He doesn't separate well, for all his brilliance - back in Babylon 5, even when you could see he was trying to show the 'other side' as just average guys doing their jobs, they ended up looking like leery sonsofbitches at best. So I think it's a tough call whether we're seeing foreshadowing of actual wrongdoing, or just the fact that the writer doesn't like what's going on.


I dunno, "no-bid contract" sounds like a no-brainer to anyone with well even a quarter of a brain.
Yeah, but is ABC news (or whoever, I think there was an ABC logo in back of one of the news screens) telling people why no-bid contracts were awarded? Are they privy to the reasons why that decision was taken? Does Peter understand the ramifications of putting the contract through the bidding process, and why it might be circumvented for good reasons?


No, but at least don't preach morals when you're getting no-bid contracts and killing your friends in the process.
What's Tony supposed to do, run at a loss? Refuse the no-bid contract and force the government to go elsewhere, or pressure them to open up a years-long bidding and approval process meaning that the war will be over by the time the insanity fortress comes on-line? Or build the facility at cost, and just hope like hell that no extra R&D costs come up or he'll end up having to lay off hundreds or thousands of people to make ends meet?

Remember - Tony went to Washington prior to Stamford to stop this from happening. He compromised himself, arranged a fake supervillain attack, to stop this from happening. He only changed his mind when 600 people got blown to bits and he had to look into a mother's face at her son's funeral. If he was in it for the profit, he's got a darned circuitous way of going about it.

[sherlockbones]

And I think this must be added: No one But Stark and FF Inc could do the things the SHRA Calls for.nd while they may be getting a lot of money I bet there isnt a huge profit margin because what they are doing is so revolutionary and ground breaking.The Ror (Rate of Return) Would probally be higher if they had invested elsewhere.But The thing about Goverment contracts is they are THERE . And likely to stay there. I hazard a guess long term they will net a good profit in the end.Unless the Hulk or Secret Avengers drop in and busts everything up..I dont think insurance would cover that.

so you think lockheed, boing, etc are developing new stealth jets out of patriotism (or altruism) and not because there is a good profit? i don´t think so. they charge the tax payers money for their "ground breaking" (nice metaphor in a conversation about military gear btw) research projects.

if you try to base your argumentation with economics, remember the laws of costs and benefits (some destroyed urban places every now and then opposed to paying agents that worked for free before) or the factor of externalities (fighting a civil war with all it´s damages when you still could negotiate).
there is a lot to argue from a economical pov. to bastarize eisenhower: we might be save from arabian goat herders, but a growing number of our children is not receiving proper education.
there is always a price to pay. but you still can chose what you are willing to pay

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

"If the world around the person making the decision benefits more than he does, such as in areas of education, or safety, then the good will be underprovided; if the costs to the world exceed the costs to the individual making the choice in areas such as pollution or crime then the good will be overprovided from society's point of view."

"Externalities are important in economics because they may lead to economic inefficiency. Because the producers of negative externalities do not have an incentive to take into account the effect of their actions on others, the outcome will be inefficient. There will be too much activity that causes negative externalities such as pollution, and not enough activity that creates positive externalities, relative to an optimal outcome. As noted, external costs also can imply political conflicts, rancorous lawsuits, and the like. This may make the problem of externalities too complex for the concept of Pareto optimality to handle. Similarly, if too many positive externalities fall outside the participants in a transaction, there will be too little incentive on parties to participate in activities that lead to the postive exernalities."

[Kefky]

so you think lockheed, boing, etc are developing new stealth jets out of patriotism and not because there is a good profit? i don´t think so. they charge the tax payers money for their "ground breaking" (nice metaphor in a conversation about military gear btw) research projects

Clones and nanotechnology aren't the same as aircrafts, though.

[sherlockbones]

Clones and nanotechnology aren't the same as aircrafts, though.

1. is the state of the art tech in their universe 2. is the state of the art tech in ours

[Kefky]

1. is the state of the art tech in their universe 2. is the state of the art tech in ours

But one is clearly MUCH more expensive than the others. And clones and nanitiesare are nowhere near as common in the MU as aircrafts are in our world.

[sherlockbones]

But one is clearly MUCH more expensive than the others. And clones and nanitiesare are nowhere near as common in the MU as aircrafts are in our world.

how is nano tech that expansive? a basic concept (even achieved today) is that nano bots reproduce themselves.
name me 10 countries in our world that have stealth jets plz.
how much do you think it will cost you to develop the F-35 Lightning II anyway and how many countries could afford that?

but the main point i´d like to discuss is: what does society gain from shra and its offsprings and what does it have to pay. i think the costs far exceed the benefits, so if tony and reed still convince the administration to raise their funds, they are making profits against the interests of the citizens

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

but the main point i´d like to discuss is: what does society gain from shra and its offsprings and what does it have to pay. i think the costs far exceed the benefits, so if tony and reed still convince the administration to raise their funds, they are making profits against the interests of the citizens
It's not Tony and Reed's job to advocate the interests of the citizens - that's what the government is for (I know, I know... take a moment to stop laughing). If Fantastic Stark Industries or whatever influenced Congress and the President to make Registration happen, because they thought they could make a buck out of it, it's Congress and the President who have a case to answer.

[kalorama]

It's not Tony and Reed's job to advocate the interests of the citizens - that's what the government is for (I know, I know... take a moment to stop laughing). If Fantastic Stark Industries or whatever influenced Congress and the President to make Registration happen, because they thought they could make a buck out of it, it's Congress and the President who have a case to answer.

And Stark and Richards are just innocent businessmen making an honest buck?

Nonsense.

First of all, Stark has made it abundently clear that, as far as he's concerened, his actions vis-a-vis Registration are in fact being done to advocate the interests of the citizens: the average American citizen put at risk by fallout from unrestrained vigilante activities and the super-powered citizens subject to registration. So the idea that he has no larger responsibility to the world is undercut by his own dialogue. Clearly, he thinks he does have such a responsibility.

Second, there are laws, rules, and limits governing how commercial industries can lobby and influence Congress with regard to passing legislation favorable to them. It's not a free-for-all. Having the men in charge of implementing Federal law enforcement policy also be the primary stockholders in businesses that profit from the implementation of said policy, at the very least, rubs up against theat line, and most likely leaps across it.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

So the idea that he has no larger responsibility to the world is undercut by his own dialogue. Clearly, he thinks he does have such a responsibility.
Good for him - but he's a private citizen, if he's acting out of a sense of civic responsibility that's commendable, but not required. It's the government that is required to act in the interest of its citizens.

Now personally, I figure Tony Stark is pretty much on the up-and-up, with regards to profiteering. He may be making a fair packet, but he's also sinking a huge slice of his company into the Registration effort, and if it goes south it'll take a lot of his profit with it - so he's not just making a buck and a quick getaway. And moreover, he's doing it not because he thinks it'll be profitable, but because he believes it's right. The profit is a bonus, meaning he can keep his employees and give his shareholders a return - he's a savvy businessman, he's not going to charge idealistically in without a thought to who's going to pay the bills. War industry isn't inherently any dirtier than any other kind of industry - we just get madder when it's dirty, because people die. But that doesn't mean that anyone getting paid to make military hardware is a crook, any more than any other company which makes a product and takes its share of the sale price.


Having the men in charge of implementing Federal law enforcement policy also be the primary stockholders in businesses that profit from the implementation of said policy, at the very least, rubs up against theat line, and most likely leaps across it.
It comes down to who's in charge - Tony Stark or the President? Tony isn't, so far as I'm aware, a member of the government in any capacity. If he's in a position of authority in the Registration movement, it can only be because the government decided to put him there, and if they did that without having any control over him, that's their damned fault.

[kalorama]

It comes down to who's in charge - Tony Stark or the President? Tony isn't, so far as I'm aware, a member of the government in any capacity. If he's in a position of authority in the Registration movement, it can only be because the government decided to put him there, and if they did that without having any control over him, that's their damned fault.

So if your boss sells you a car that you know was stolen, then it's their fault for selling it to you and you bear no responsibility for willingly entering into the deal because he's your boss and you were just a powerless dupe?

Sorry, but that's not how the law works. If both sides willingingly and knowingly enter into an illegal transaction, then both sides are guilty.

If Stark's profteering from the activities of his involvement in Registration enforcement is a violation of Federal law, then the fact that the governemnt allowed him to do it does not, legally or morally, absolve him of any responsibility on his part. It just makes both him and whatever governemnt officials made the deal with him equally culpable. It's not a zero-sum game. Guilt and responsibility can hue to multiple subjects.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

If Stark's profteering from the activities of his involvement in Registration enforcement is a violation of Federal law
Okay, let's look at it simply - what is it that Tony Stark is supposedly doing wrong here? Is he violating Federal law? Is he acting against the best interests of the American people in order to make a profit? He certainly believes what he's doing to be in the best interests of the American people - and the President, who (in theory) speaks for the American people, has told him to do what he's doing. The only thing that even hints at anything not above-board is that Stark Industries got a no-bid contract - and there's perfectly valid reasons why that might've been the case, stated earlier in the thread somewhere.

Tony Stark did not enact the law - he lobbied for it, sure, but it's the government who made the law, and Stark isn't in the government. It's legal to argue and lobby for a law to be made, even if it's a crappy law that does more harm than good. There's no law against proposing a bad law. So what is it that Tony's supposed to have done wrong here?

[Slumber Hulk]

It's said that CW#5 will shed more light on the motivations of Tony and Reed.

But I really do NOT think they are doing what they are doing to make money. Many of their actions seem completely out of character but there is no reason to believe they are thinking about dollars and cents.

[kalorama]

Okay, let's look at it simply - what is it that Tony Stark is supposedly doing wrong here? Is he violating Federal law? Is he acting against the best interests of the American people in order to make a profit? He certainly believes what he's doing to be in the best interests of the American people - and the President, who (in theory) speaks for the American people, has told him to do what he's doing. The only thing that even hints at anything not above-board is that Stark Industries got a no-bid contract - and there's perfectly valid reasons why that might've been the case, stated earlier in the thread somewhere.

Tony Stark did not enact the law - he lobbied for it, sure, but it's the government who made the law, and Stark isn't in the government. It's legal to argue and lobby for a law to be made, even if it's a crappy law that does more harm than good. There's no law against proposing a bad law. So what is it that Tony's supposed to have done wrong here?

Your argument has nothing really to do with my point.

To put it quite simply (as you say):

A person appointed to a public policy position within the Federal government, a position from which they can influence, make, or enforce public policy (and at the very least Tony is doing the third) cannot use that position (or information gained through that position or activity resulting from that position) as a platform to enhance his or her own personal or business fortunes. At the very least it's an ethical conflict of interest. At the very worst it's a violation of Federal law which explicitly prohibits such activity within certain parameters. The fact (if it is, in fact, fact) that Tony doesn't get a twice monthly government paycheck signed by the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't change that. The rule of law still applies even if the position is only an advisory one. This is especially (and, one would think) obviously true if the conflict of interest is demonstrated in the form of sweetheart contracts awarded to the advisors company in possible violation of Federal rules requiring a competitive bidding process for such contracts.

While there MAY be a legitimate excuse for circumventing the bid process, the circumstance of it creates an obvious appearance of conflict that makes it reasonable to wonder (and logically impossible to automatically dismiss) the possibility of shady back door deadlings.

We know, for a fact, that Stark's company is profiting off what's happening in the MU. Do we know that Stark is breaking the law in the process? No. Does it create a fairly obvious appearance of conflict? Definitely. Can we reasonably dismiss or ignore the possibility that he's breaking the law, given the circumstances and the appearance? Hardly. Is it something that, had it happened in real life, would have legitimately raised plenty of red flags, questions, and calls for investigation? Damn right it would.

[AnthonyJ]

The key question about profiteering is really this: are those people making profits from the war making an active attempt to create or sustain the war?

Damage Control would seem to be engaged in active profiteering: they are doing things that actively increases the level of superhuman violence, and then profiting from the cleanup.

Stark and Reed don't seem to be doing that. Sure, they make devices that are useful for the war, and they're undoubtedly making money off of it, but they don't seem to be trying to cause or worsen the conflict.

[kalorama]

The key question about profiteering is really this: are those people making profits from the war making an active attempt to create or sustain the war?

Damage Control would seem to be engaged in active profiteering: they are doing things that actively increases the level of superhuman violence, and then profiting from the cleanup.

Stark and Reed don't seem to be doing that. Sure, they make devices that are useful for the war, and they're undoubtedly making money off of it, but they don't seem to be trying to cause or worsen the conflict.

Two completely different things. Damage Control is a private contractor offering a service for a fee. No one in the company's management structure is serving as direct access advisor to the President on policy matters concerning the same superhuman affairs whose fallouts they're making a profit from.

Apples and oranges.

And they don;t have to be actively attempting to advance or worsen the conflict for their actions to be in violation of applicable laws. From an ethical/legal stand point, that's not necessarily relevant.

[Niro]

Well spiderman 535 proves that Tony Stark Industries is profitting from the war

[Kefky]

Well spiderman 535 proves that Tony Stark Industries is profitting from the war

Not really.

[Niro]

Yea it does, his company gets like a 2 billion dollar contract for those super-human holding facilities they designed. His stocks are on the up, and like it said in the issue "he is now of the country's wealthiest men"

[trickster]

Not really.

Which part of 2 billion don't you understand?

[Kefky]

Yea it does, his company gets like a 2 billion dollar contract for those super-human holding facilities they designed. His stocks are on the up, and like it said in the issue "he is now of the country's wealthiest men"

Tony and Reed were having financial problems before, and they obviously needed a ridicoulus amount of money for these projects. They're building a clone army, mantaining a hi-tech prison, and providing SHIELD with weapons and supplies.

If they were in it for the dough, they'd just be sitting back and going about this in a half-assed way. Instead, they're pretty much obssesed with the whole project.

[Kefky]

Which part of 2 billion don't you understand?

2 billion seems too little for a clone army and a hi-tech prison as big as city.

[Red Lotus]

This kind of bugs me that mavel did this. When the New Avengers started Tony said then that he didn't have the money to back the Avengers, but now they are making it look like he is going to make a killing off of Civil War. Which would make people think that one of his reason for being pro is money.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

Well spiderman 535 proves that Tony Stark Industries is profitting from the war
Profiting isn't the same as profiteering - you want a war industry to be doing well, because that means it'll be around for as long as you need it, and have the capital and shareholder confidence to expand production and/or fund new R&D if the conflict requires more and better hardware.

Profiteering is making an excessive profit out of those in need, and that's a tricky thing to define. $2 billion may sound like a lot, but when you consider the costs involved in developing, building, and operating a prison in the negative zone and pioneering a super-human cloning program... Heck a single stealth fighter costs $45 million, and that's just the cost of knocking another one off a production line that already knows exactly how to make 'em.

[sherlockbones]

2 billion seems too little for a clone army and a hi-tech prison as big as city.

plz tell what an appropriate sum for scifi-tech research is

for 2 billion you can buy 200 state-of-the-art warplanes

[Kefky]

This kind of bugs me that mavel did this. When the New Avengers started Tony said then that he didn't have the money to back the Avengers, but now they are making it look like he is going to make a killing off of Civil War. Which would make people think that one of his reason for being pro is money.

But if they have any common sense, they'll see hie's using that money for his SRA-related projects, not to live the good life.

[trickster]

What's Tony supposed to do, run at a loss? Refuse the no-bid contract and force the government to go elsewhere, or pressure them to open up a years-long bidding and approval process meaning that the war will be over by the time the insanity fortress comes on-line? Or build the facility at cost, and just hope like hell that no extra R&D costs come up or he'll end up having to lay off hundreds or thousands of people to make ends meet?

Remember - Tony went to Washington prior to Stamford to stop this from happening. He compromised himself, arranged a fake supervillain attack, to stop this from happening. He only changed his mind when 600 people got blown to bits and he had to look into a mother's face at her son's funeral. If he was in it for the profit, he's got a darned circuitous way of going about it.

Oh yeah, poor Tony. Somebody had to get those no-bid contracts and make all that money, might as well be him. When you're making LOTS of money from something you say you're supporting for moral reasons, then allow me to doubt you rectitude.
Instead of being thrown in jail for standing up to registration, he's making lots of money and staying free. Yeah, that's a good deal, who cares if he's screwing other superheroes in the process.



off hundreds or thousands of people to make ends meet


How about cutting down on those fat paychecks the executives are getting instead?




He only changed his mind when 600 people

HE changed his mind? He can't do shit. He's just a very practical guy. He knows that he'd end up in jail next to Steve Rogers if he didn't support registration. With or without him the Registration would have been implemented. Besides, nobody was forcing him to take the side of Registration openly, not unless the government knew he was Iron Man.

[Kefky]

plz tell what an appropriate sum for scifi-tech research is

I don't know, but I imagine bulding and mantaining things that aren't normally used in the MU must be pretty damn expensive.



for 2 billion you can buy 200 state-of-the-art warplanes

SHIELD uses a lot of warplanes. :)

[Jerry Kraut]

I highly doubt it was their intention but, they certainly are making a profit from the SRA.

Particular Stark, and everyone with Stark Industries stock.

[Niro]

Profiting isn't the same as profiteering - you want a war industry to be doing well, because that means it'll be around for as long as you need it, and have the capital and shareholder confidence to expand production and/or fund new R&D if the conflict requires more and better hardware.

Profiteering is making an excessive profit out of those in need, and that's a tricky thing to define. $2 billion may sound like a lot, but when you consider the costs involved in developing, building, and operating a prison in the negative zone and pioneering a super-human cloning program... Heck a single stealth fighter costs $45 million, and that's just the cost of knocking another one off a production line that already knows exactly how to make 'em.

oh i didnt know there was a difference lol, thanks.

Maybe Tony didnt intend for his company to get that much money, and maybe he doesn't care now that he's found that out. But im pretty certain that the big kats who have invested in Tony Stark Industries' stock would have probably helped bring this war about as it would mean big big profits for them, and they'd probably want it going on as long as possible, so then that would make them profiteers

[trickster]

Oh there is. Miss Kitty sounds just like a politician there.