Tony's Real Motivation? [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

BeastieRunner

10-14-2006, 06:18 PM

I noticed that in ASM #35, when Peter was watching the news, what really disgusted him was the fact that Tony was becoming one of the richest people in the U.S. because of the war, along with several other companies.

Does anybody think that Tony's steadfast motivation may come from a little more than just moral conviction?

And on that note, how much of this whole thing is being pushed by corporations? Damage Control, the FF (well, now it would be the Fantastic One), Stark Industries, and a bunch of other companies are getting loaded off of this, and it seems with No-Bid contracts. Any theories that the whole issue could be motivated by greed? (Though I don't think that was Reed's motivation...)

I see where your coming from and I whole heartily agree. I believe Tony is starting to be blinded by greed instead of his original motivation of morals. I think a lot of the Marvel Universe corporations that are pro reg are churning a huge profit out of this as well. And when something makes buku bucks, corporations tend to keep pushing to get more (case in point: oil, steel, and automobiles to name a few). So yes I do think the MU corporate giants are pushing the war on in some form or another.

I do not think Reed Richards has that motivation. I still think he sees it as a scientific gold mine to register superheroes to help make the MU safer, smarter, and healthier. However, due to recent events, I believe he is starting to question if it's worth the cost and repercussions. Besides after Annihilation, I think Reed might start having a new problem to deal with out of the Negative Zone, whoever that might be.

Mothmonsterman

10-14-2006, 06:30 PM

Maybe I just missed it, but who exactly profits from heroes beating the crap out of each other?

Silver Nimbus

10-14-2006, 06:33 PM

I noticed that in ASM #35, when Peter was watching the news, what really disgusted him was the fact that Tony was becoming one of the richest people in the U.S. because of the war, along with several other companies.

Does anybody think that Tony's steadfast motivation may come from a little more than just moral conviction?

And on that note, how much of this whole thing is being pushed by corporations? Damage Control, the FF (well, now it would be the Fantastic One), Stark Industries, and a bunch of other companies are getting loaded off of this, and it seems with No-Bid contracts. Any theories that the whole issue could be motivated by greed? (Though I don't think that was Reed's motivation...)

You're totally off base. If Tony wanted money, he could make it hand over fist going back into weapon manufacturing alone. He doesn't need the SHRA contracts to line his pockets, and as shown on endless occassions whenever he contracts with the government he hardly charges over cost. The only exception was briefly during the Stark Solutions start up such that he could donate the majority of the profits to the Maria Stark Foundation to help the disadvantaged.

All JMS is doing is channeling the standard "progressive" anti-corporate bias, condeming anyone who dares make money into the whole "evil corporation" nonsense. It's just another cheap attempt to demonize the Pro-Registration cause becase JMS wouldn't know balanced presentation of competing ideologies if it bit him on the posterior. They're bad, so therefore they must be corporate. Please. :rolleyes:

gorthon616

10-14-2006, 06:37 PM

Mothmonsterman

10-14-2006, 06:52 PM

Omega Alpha

10-14-2006, 07:04 PM

sephirothskiller

10-14-2006, 08:17 PM

You're totally off base. If Tony wanted money, he could make it hand over fist going back into weapon manufacturing alone. He doesn't need the SHRA contracts to line his pockets, and as shown on endless occassions whenever he contracts with the government he hardly charges over cost. The only exception was briefly during the Stark Solutions start up such that he could donate the majority of the profits to the Maria Stark Foundation to help the disadvantaged.

All JMS is doing is channeling the standard "progressive" anti-corporate bias, condeming anyone who dares make money into the whole "evil corporation" nonsense. It's just another cheap attempt to demonize the Pro-Registration cause becase JMS wouldn't know balanced presentation of competing ideologies if it bit him on the posterior. They're bad, so therefore they must be corporate. Please. :rolleyes:

Except: A) Tony already is in weapon manufacturing making money hand over fist. Just because he doesn't charge over cost alot doesn't mean he never does, there is a reason he's filthy rich. In fact Stark Industries only became as successful as it did because it was the main contractor involved with SHIELD.
B) It seems to me that you're really just ignoring the fact that in this book, AND Wolverine we have seen the "money" card come into play, and say "no its not true because I don't like it written this way."
C) Imbalanced presentation? Evil Corporation bias? Money makes the world go round and people DO profit off of wars, how is not ignoring a universal truth about war (profiteering.)

And finally, the argument "People have nothing to gain out of the Civil War." is like arguing the earth is flat. Its been said over and over that alot of people are gaining. Its been stated that Damage Control is gaining from it, Stark industries is gaining from it, and Heroes for Hire is based partly on the concept that you can make money off of this. ("The Black Cat and Paladin are only in this for the money.") And despite what you wanna believe every war in the last century of our universe has caused massive economic benefits for certain parties.

Mothmonsterman

10-14-2006, 08:33 PM

And finally, the argument "People have nothing to gain out of the Civil War." is like arguing the earth is flat. Its been said over and over that alot of people are gaining. Its been stated that Damage Control is gaining from it, Stark industries is gaining from it, and Heroes for Hire is based partly on the concept that you can make money off of this. ("The Black Cat and Paladin are only in this for the money.") And despite what you wanna believe every war in the last century of our universe has caused massive economic benefits for certain parties.

Of course people profit from wars. You think bullets and everything else just appear from the void? When tens of thousands of soldiers need outfitted with weapons and ammunition, the military needs tanks and planes and bombs, and a thousand other necessities come into play, of course big corporations are going to be involved.

The Black Cat trying to make a quick buck out of a situation isn't even remotely comparable.

Seriously...Damage Control? Are you joking?

Subotai

10-14-2006, 09:05 PM

Mothmonsterman

10-14-2006, 09:23 PM

Of course, some corporations make more money than others...

Yes, good point.

I should acknowledge that hamburger corporations and places that make toothpaste don't profit as much as munitions manufacturers during wartime.

IamtheRock3

10-14-2006, 09:29 PM

think what he saying moth

Having Tony use the War to make money is not unheard of sense people do it in real life, and it not completly out of charcter for tony sense he has done it in comics with shield being a benefactor, and he has done shady deals before.

Plus JMS stuff still in contintuty. Still Out of charcter maybe..but then a LOT of people in the cival war been out of charcter

Doesnt change the fact Cap being a penis

Speedball being a lunatic

Reed being a doucbage

And Stark may be a greedy doucebag

xnef1025

10-14-2006, 09:36 PM

The problem isn't that Tony is making money from his contracts. That's not evil, it's capitalism. The problem is that the large sum of money being made by Tony and the other businesses that are working the angles of the SHRA may be lessening the chance of these influential business owners questioning whether the SHRA is being implemented fairly and justly.

Tony's true motivation is still to make the country safer, but the money that Stark is making could be adding to the blinders Tony is wearing in regards to what he is doing. The N-Zone prison is just like Superman's gulag in Kingdom Come. They were both built with the best of intentions, but fascism for a good cause is still fascism.

Joe Acro

10-14-2006, 09:51 PM

Tony may be making more money through the results of the Act being passed. However, it seems doubtful this was his "real motivation." Considering he was already pretty wealthy (despite having not been pretty recently), he wouldn't start a war just to get a whole lot more... unless he's acting out of character. And he had no idea the Act being passed would cause a war. He could've figured it would cause hostility, but not a full-fledged war.

And now I realized I said this only works if he's acting out of character, which he clearly is... Now I don't know what to think.

IamtheRock3

10-14-2006, 10:03 PM

may not be his begining motivation

But it can blind him during the war

Magneto Rocks

10-15-2006, 02:42 AM

John Doe Jnr

10-15-2006, 02:52 AM

He's been a rich playboy for over 25 years (if not more) and now money blinds him into this? Hard to believe that. Has to be another motive.

RedShark92

10-15-2006, 06:42 AM

nonsense. It's just another cheap attempt to demonize the Pro-Registration cause becase JMS wouldn't know balanced presentation of competing ideologies if it bit him on the posterior. They're bad, so therefore they must be corporate. Please. :rolleyes:

I think that's just a bit of an oversimplification.

The money issue wasn't the main point of the story, I saw it as more of a throwaway line, as that's something the news would be reporting. Which do you think was shown as having more weight in Pete's decision: the money or the other events of this issue (as well as Civil War 4?)?

I do agree that Marvel hasn't done a good job of showing the pro-reg side. I think they're having a hard time with it, because, registration as it was shown wasn't really that bad or unreasonable. It didn't involve a public outing or any heavy regulation. The way the set up the registration side, they needed to show the pro-reg folks taking extreme measures to enforce it, or else there wouldn't have been much need for a conflict.

If they'd showed a more clearly flawed piece of legislation from the beginning I could see this whole thing working better with the pro-reg folks agreeing with it in principle and hoping to change the bad parts and the anti-reg folks just wanting to scrap the whole thing.

Stoneson

10-15-2006, 08:54 AM

Seems to me that in the Spider-man issues leading up to Civil War, Tony was trying to stop registration from becoming a reality, but then 'Kaboom' 600 civilians dead, and public sentiment is so anti-Super that it would be impossible to stop it from becoming the law of the land.

I wonder if Tony's true motivation is more along the lines of 'If we don't do *this*, there are people who would do far worse.' Unfortunately, rather than looking sad about what's going on, Tony always looks angry, like he can't believe everyone doesn't see it the way he does. Maybe if we saw him out of the armor a bit more his emotions would seem a little more human. We're seeing more 'Iron' than 'Man' out of him it seems. By contrast, while Reed is making mistakes too, he doesn't seem quite as 'villified', maybe because his face is easier to read than Tony's face plate.

Someone else can probably point out times when government character A wanted hero B destroyed/killed. And that's probably the kind of example Tony and Reed should be using to justify their actions rather than 'It's the law'.

As for the greed issue, I agree that it probably doesn't enter into Tony's decisions to any significant extent. Peter Parker might find it hard to believe that a 2 billion dollar contract means nothing to Tony, but Tony really does have other things on his mind, and it probably isn't the first contract of that size his company has ever gotten, and it probably won't be the last. Tony deals with dollars on a different scale than Peter, or most of us.

Paul

Jmacq1

10-16-2006, 05:52 AM

I may be staunchly Anti-Reg, and believe that some (but not all) of the extremes Tony has gone to in Civil War were pushing the limits of what's "in character" for him (I'd still maintain that Tony's been much closer to "in character" than Cap has, though).

But when Tony said "Really? I hadn't noticed." in response to Peter's borderline-accusation that he was some evil money-grubbing corporate raider, I believed (and still do) that it was an honest response. Heck, aside from the "mandatory life sentence" bit, the way the Negative Zone prison was presented in ASM #535 wasn't too upsetting for me. Yeah, OK, Gladiatrix wants out...all that shows is that she's aware she's being imprisoned. It doesn't mean her imprisonment is inhumane. (Note I'm not addressing the legality or morality of the imprisonment, which is another matter entirely)

Tony's always had money. Having more isn't that big a deal for him. It's probably not playing into his motivations in the least. He went after the contracts because they continue to give him a measure of control over the implementation of the SHRA. And that's what it really boils down to.

Tony's been retconned into someone that's had a long-standing "vision" for how he thinks the superhero world should work (See "New Avengers: Illuminati"). He's been thinking that the heroes should be more centralized and organized since the Kree-Skrull War (and possibly earlier). Now, he's seen a way to bring that vision about, through the auspices of the SHRA.

That's his motivation, pure and simple. He believes he can make a better world by taking advantage of and making the best of a bad situation. If anything has blinded him, it's that. We already know Tony has an obsessive personality. In this case, he's become so obsessed with trying to bring the "50 States Initiative" about that he's lost sight of the fact that the ends don't always justify the means. And because of that he's taken some steps that are excessive and/or unnecessary in relation to enforcing the SHRA.

Calybos

10-16-2006, 06:28 AM

Tony's willingness to make and sell weapons for profit has always been a significant character flaw. (And yes, that IS inherently wrong and evil. Duh.)

It's no surprise that this behavior continues with his current drive toward fascism in America.

Shellhead

10-16-2006, 07:41 AM

Maybe I just missed it, but who exactly profits from heroes beating the crap out of each other?

Joe Quesada.

gorthon616

10-16-2006, 08:32 AM

I find it interesting that many of the people claiming Tony is doing this for profit (almost completely unsubstantiated in all of marvel history or in Civil War itself) are the same people claiming he is completely out of character in civil war.

Well of course he is if you're going to flat out make up things, go by tiny scraps and believe the worst about him!

Actually from my pov it seems like the opposite. The closest I've seen to your point is that since tony is acting ooc (or so people claim), it might be that he is profiteering (which agreedly is unsubstantiated even in Civil War).

mattspideyrocks!

10-16-2006, 09:13 AM

I would say there is no reason to even look into this. Seemed to me like it was more just a plot device to make the rift between Peter and Tony bigger. I doubt it was anything significant, especially since it was mentioned once for 2 pages.

NickThompson

10-16-2006, 02:15 PM

Magneto Rocks

10-16-2006, 03:39 PM

Actually from my pov it seems like the opposite. The closest I've seen to your point is that since tony is acting ooc (or so people claim), it might be that he is profiteering (which agreedly is unsubstantiated even in Civil War).

Well what I've generally seen is people claiming he's out of character and then citing this as an example! Then later they complain about this saying it makes things biased. (admittedly that's more on Newsarama than here. And folks there seem to, from what I've seen, believe that if Marvel fed kittens they'd have an evil ulterior motive.)

CapFan

10-16-2006, 03:53 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/johanzen/mov.jpg

sephirothskiller

10-16-2006, 04:28 PM

@Capfan:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!

@Everyone:

Please don't confuse my post as speculating that at the end of CW its gonna come out that: "OMG!! Tony did this all for money!" I don't think that's true, but I do think that he may have money as a factor. Everything affects people in some way, even if they don't want to admit it to themselves.

I find it hard to believe that Tony -a man who even when written in character, has often showed his love of money and women despite other philanthropic acts- would not be in the least bit affected by all the money he is making.

Tony_Clifton

10-16-2006, 05:26 PM

Regardless of whatever tony's motivations are he is involved in a conflict of interests.....he is a supporter...visible spokesperson of.......one of the main players in enforcement of the registration act AND every time one of those SHEILD carriers Tony sends out blows up filled with equipment he incidentally makes a pile of money.

If a politition was involved like this people would call for his head

kingmob

10-17-2006, 06:50 AM

about Tony's motivations for this all, I think it was in part one of Extremis that he says something like: the only way to build the future he wants is to pay for it, in part using military contracts. Of course, Stark was just awarded a 2 billion dollar no-bid contract. It is possible this is all a front so he can just make a lot of money and construct the future he wants. This as well as getting rid of all the dissidents and locking them up somewhere where they have no rights would reflect how things are going in america today.

sherlockbones

10-17-2006, 07:12 AM

But when Tony said "Really? I hadn't noticed." in response to Peter's borderline-accusation that he was some evil money-grubbing corporate raider, I believed (and still do) that it was an honest response.

you can also read that as sarcasm, which i did, for example.

sherlockbones

10-17-2006, 07:27 AM

Of course people profit from wars. You think bullets and everything else just appear from the void? When tens of thousands of soldiers need outfitted with weapons and ammunition, the military needs tanks and planes and bombs, and a thousand other necessities come into play, of course big corporations are going to be involved.

The Black Cat trying to make a quick buck out of a situation isn't even remotely comparable.

Seriously...Damage Control? Are you joking?

stark is a major supplier of weapons and supply goods. extend varies from writer to writer. but still anybody in this business would profit from a cw scenario (demand curve, stock market, etc)

damage control. i didn´t even know they were still around. nevertheless a smart move. because there are really companies that rebuild infrastructure(cities, oil fields, etc)

so your criticism is way over the top

Bobster777

10-17-2006, 07:47 AM

Is Tony making money out of this, of course. Capitalism is one of the hallmarks of the U.S. and what sets it apart from other countries. However, to say that this is Tony's main motivation would lead me to believe that you are just not reading the story. In the Iron Man book, Tony went through an ordeal that showed him how dangerous super powers can be. Thus, from that point, he had a new perspective on super powers. It makes sense why he would support a law like this so that super powers can be kept in check.

Furthermore, Tony tried his best to not have to get the law passed if you remember. So, the argument that he is using this situation just to make money falls short. If the law does not pass, then Tony does not make all this money.

Finally, Tony made it clear in the Illuminati special that he wanted to comply with the law in order to prevent exactly what is going on now. Therefore, I think his motivations are clear.

Magneto Rocks

10-17-2006, 03:39 PM

you can also read that as sarcasm, which i did, for example.

Honestly, not only did I NOT read it as sarcasm, I thought it was extremely clear that it wasn't. But that's just my perspective.

sherlockbones

10-17-2006, 04:34 PM

mister control freak superbrain not noticing something? now that is hard to believe imo

Vaal

10-17-2006, 09:38 PM

Yeah, Tony would be like the worst buisness man EVER if he didn't notice stuff like that.

Jmacq1

10-18-2006, 05:19 AM

Yeah, Tony would be like the worst buisness man EVER if he didn't notice stuff like that.

Or he'd just be a guy that has far more important things than money on his mind. He has a whole corporation of people to run his business while he's busy doing "superhero stuff". They probably only need him for critical "board of directors" votes and such.

As I said, Tony's always had money. It's a secondary, or even tertiary concern for him. He probably doesn't think about it much because with rare exceptions, he's never really had to worry about it. It's not like there's going to be much of a lifestyle change for him if he goes from mega filthy rich to even more mega filthy rich.

jaxcs

10-18-2006, 05:36 AM

you can also read that as sarcasm, which i did, for example.

I read it as a neutral response as in a distracted "ok". I'm sure he knew he was making money on the deal but hadn't known exactly how much.

NickThompson

10-18-2006, 06:22 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/johanzen/mov.jpg

That whole parody was good, but that bit cracked me up most :D

Magneto Rocks

10-18-2006, 09:50 AM

There were better bits of the parody, but that bit was alright.

Tony has a LOT to do- he was clearly extremely busy at work when Peter came and I'd bet that Tony Stark is up to his ears NORMALLY. What with having to arrest heroes, run all the new contracts, talk with the government, talk with SHIELD, ensure the Neg Zone work is going securely, approve other operations, etc, etc, I'd say he literally has zero free time. And as Peter said, he's rich enough to get it and not even notice.

Certainly I think the best he spared it was a passing glance.

XPac

10-18-2006, 10:12 AM

And as Peter said, he's rich enough to get it and not even notice.

Certainly I think the best he spared it was a passing glance.

Regardless of whether Tony was being sarcastic or not, I'm pretty sure Peter was. I think the idea was Peter didn't buy that he didn't notice, and Tonys tone with him was a pretty good indicator that Tony caught the underlying implication.

sherlockbones

10-18-2006, 10:20 AM

XPac

10-18-2006, 10:50 AM

i am more familiar with 80´s iron man. he was struggeling constantly against being bought. most of the times some iron man actions gave him such a bad pr that the stark enterprise dropped into almost nothing.
see, i don´t know if they made him über-rich during the last years, but the news reporter in asm 535 clearly say "making him on of the richest persons" not that he already is.

so this is totally contrary to your "i haven´t noticed" argument.
more money, more power.
stark knows, you better believe it

The whole reason the Avengers were disassembled in the first place was because of financial reasons. So prior to Civil War, Stark to a degree was hurting financially, or at least struggling to the point where he felt he couldn't support the team as it was.

When you're as rich as Tony, I suppose you can lose and regain your fortune pretty quickly but I don't buy that he was so rich that he didn't notice (and appreciate) the financial booms his company is getting. That's not to say that he's doing it for the money... but I'll wager he manipulated events so that there would be the financial gains he is experiencing now.

Vaal

10-18-2006, 02:21 PM

Or he'd just be a guy that has far more important things than money on his mind. He has a whole corporation of people to run his business while he's busy doing "superhero stuff". They probably only need him for critical "board of directors" votes and such.
You seriously beleive that he's not even aware of anything his company's doing? This was aperently one of thier biggest deals EVER and Tony had no idea it was going on?

CapFan

10-18-2006, 02:45 PM

http://superherohype.com/nextraimages/ironmandowney.jpg

Mer..Chan..Di..Sing.. :evilsmile

jrrl

10-18-2006, 03:03 PM

My thoughts on his real motivation go back to the 1998 Conspiracy miniseries. Like father, like son. And, what a coincidence, both use Reed as their pet scientist.

-John.

Jmacq1

10-18-2006, 03:10 PM

You seriously beleive that he's not even aware of anything his company's doing? This was aperently one of thier biggest deals EVER and Tony had no idea it was going on?

Let's see. Suppose you're a superhero that's been tasked with bringing in a large body of people, some of whom are literally as powerful as walking nuclear weapons. You're supposed to do this without killing them, and without causing death and destruction if it can at all be avoided. The fate of the world is literally in your hands. By your own viewpoints and those of your "inner circle", billions of lives are at stake in the long term if you fail.

Oh, and you also have a "day job" that happens to be very profitable.

Where are -your- priorities going to lie if you're actually a hero? Where are the vast majority of your thoughts going to be directed? Yeah, sorry...but the business is taking a very distant back seat.

Seriously, anyone trying to ascribe "greed" to Tony's motivations is just desperately reaching for more reasons to hate the character. It's unnecessary and quite frankly stupid to think Marvel would stoop that low. They've already given plenty of reasons to be against the Pro-Registration side (depending on one's personal views of things like cloning, privacy, imprisonment without trial, and lethal force in law enforcement). I'm as Anti-Reg as they come, but even I think it's idiotic to try to paint Tony as a deliberate "war profiteer." I'm sure he was -very- aware of the deal. But the point (as you'd know if you read my earlier post) isn't about the money. It's about control. If another company got the contract, Tony would have less of it, and that's not what he wants in this situation.

So the bottom line is that Tony's a control freak, not a greedy fat-cat corporate raider.

Vaal

10-18-2006, 03:22 PM

I'm not ascribing greed to him. I'm saying that there is no way that he didn't know about a buisness deal that made him the richest man in America.

Just admitting that he may be vaguely aware that his company still exists does not automatically admit that he's profiteering from a conflict that he's personally prolonging. (The trap in CW3. Seriously, there is no way he could have though that would have gone any other way).

To me, Tony's motivations are pretty much that he's been replaced by a very lifelike hand puppet operated by Millar. I've stopped bothering trying to justify the shoddy characterization.

Magneto Rocks

10-18-2006, 03:36 PM

May I jst say that it's great to actually be on the same side as Jmacq1 in an argument for once :P

Anyway, I'm not saying he didn't KNOW about the deal per se, I'm just saying he didn't think about it much, ascribed very little thought to it. Like a footnote.

But yeah, Jmacq basically summarised perfectly why Tony isn't war profiteering, which is what this thread is about, not whether he knew or not. Oh, except the bit Jmacq has about there being lots of reasons to be antireg. Everyone should just ignore that bit. ;)

Magneto Rocks

10-18-2006, 03:36 PM

Vaal

10-18-2006, 03:39 PM

Magneto Rocks

10-18-2006, 03:44 PM

No one over at Stark Enterprises bothered to trundle down to the phone and inform the boss that they were making a deal that would make him the richest man in America?

He had to have had some idea. Telling Peter that he had no idea was either sarcasm or hangover induced amnesia.

Then again, I guess cell reception sucks down in the clone/villain enslavement lab...

As I've said time and time again it's probably a case of someone informing him they have a deal to make him ONE OF the richest men in AMerica again and him distractedly saying "Yeah, yeah, sure, sign the papers up and I'll sign them." He is, you may recall, a LITTLE busy right now.

TheDrizzt

10-18-2006, 03:56 PM

Tony's willingness to make and sell weapons for profit has always been a significant character flaw.
Point of order: Tony actually gave up weapons manufacturing some time ago. For "moral" reasons, IIRC.

But, of course, he has no problem building suits of incredibly destructive armor that have a tendency to do more harm and less good than the weapons would. And that's before they go sentient.

(And yes, that IS inherently wrong and evil. Duh.)
If making them is wrong, then wielding them must be worse. So, let's throw all cops in the Negative Zone!

Heh. Where would we be without Captain Planet-level thinking?

(Though, if you believe in gun control, you'd have to be pro-registration. And not just to wear a mask, but to even have powers. But that's an old argument.)

Vaal

10-18-2006, 04:01 PM

This still means that he's aware that he just suddenly got a windfall, no?

Once again, his line to Peter that he didn't know was not one of 'honest ignorance'. Either it slipped his mind (amid his various plots and schemes and his apperent existing distrust of Peter at that point),

OR its meant to be taken as "Oh really, Pete? Clearly I'm so stupid that I was completely oblivious to the goings on in the giant corporation I OWN. I'm so very glad you came to inform me of that."

Vaal

10-18-2006, 04:04 PM

If making them is wrong, then wielding them must be worse. So, let's throw all cops in the Negative Zone!
May as well. We can't have people going around protecting the public.

Calybos

10-18-2006, 04:44 PM

If making them is wrong, then wielding them must be worse.

It often is, yes. But arguably, profiting from the murder of others is morally worse than actually doing the killing yourself--which could occur by accident, a fit of temper, or even in self-defense. Making and selling weapons is always done intentionally and in cold blood.

(Though, if you believe in gun control, you'd have to be pro-registration. And not just to wear a mask, but to even have powers. But that's an old argument.)
Incorrect. Guns are separate from people and are always obtained intentionally, whereas powers are not.

Vaal

10-18-2006, 05:14 PM

The gun control argument doesn't fly because not everyone's powers are offensive and some of those powers (IM's armor, the Staff of One, etc) aren't even the result of super humanity.

Finally, if Cap need to be registered, every finalist in the Mr. Universe contest does too. Or maybe Cap has to register for the shield the government GAVE TO HIM.

TheDrizzt

10-19-2006, 04:51 AM

The gun control argument doesn't fly because not everyone's powers are offensive and some of those powers (IM's armor, the Staff of One, etc) aren't even the result of super humanity.
If guns = bad, powered armor = reeeeeeeally bad.

Hrm. Now that I think about it, that could be why Stark's the villain of the piece. ;)

Though you do make a good point. Some guy with the ability to project colored dots on the wall probably wouldn't need to be registered. But such powers are a tiny minority in comicbookland, given the emphasis on action in comics stories.

TheDrizzt

10-19-2006, 05:04 AM

Incorrect. Guns are separate from people and are always obtained intentionally, whereas powers are not.
Completely irrelevant. It's the potential for harm that drives gun control; after all, most guns are purchased for solidly good reasons - self-protection, usually. Not trusting other people to act responsibly is the (occasionally justifiable) core motivation for it. Still applies with regard to powers.

Some random guy with the ability to read minds or X-ray vision is a much greater public menance than the average gun collector or responsible citizen with a conceal carry license. If you can't trust people with a pea-shooter, you sure can't trust them with the equivalent of a nuclear weapon - particularly if it just randomly gets dumped in their lap.

Sijo

10-19-2006, 09:17 AM

In my opinion, even if Reed and Tony are not being manipulated by someone else, their behavior is so off character that it would be easy, perhaps years after Civil War, to retcon that someone was indeed manipulating them.

Sorta like what happened with Hal Jordan.

Vaal

10-19-2006, 07:19 PM

If guns = bad, powered armor = reeeeeeeally bad.

Hrm. Now that I think about it, that could be why Stark's the villain of the piece. ;)
My theory has always been Tony being jealous of people with real powers as aopposed to relying on constructs.

Though you do make a good point. Some guy with the ability to project colored dots on the wall probably wouldn't need to be registered. But such powers are a tiny minority in comicbookland, given the emphasis on action in comics stories.
Just a few mainstream non-offensive powers (I'm not including potential 'security risks' like invis/teleportation):
Beast
Angel
Captain America (technically not even superhuman)
Daredevil
Wilson Fisk (not super, but damn strong and durable)

I'd also argue that sub 20 ton strength also isn't really that bad. Where is the cut off for being really strong, really fast, or really agile and being super-whatever?

Shouldn't they force anyone smart to register too because they have the *potential* to cobble together thier own IM style armor like Tony did back in the day?

It doesn't really seem like there's any real criteria or firm definition of 'super'

stillanerd

10-19-2006, 10:36 PM

Tony's always had money. Having more isn't that big a deal for him. It's probably not playing into his motivations in the least. He went after the contracts because they continue to give him a measure of control over the implementation of the SHRA. And that's what it really boils down to.

Tony's been retconned into someone that's had a long-standing "vision" for how he thinks the superhero world should work (See "New Avengers: Illuminati"). He's been thinking that the heroes should be more centralized and organized since the Kree-Skrull War (and possibly earlier). Now, he's seen a way to bring that vision about, through the auspices of the SHRA.

That's his motivation, pure and simple. He believes he can make a better world by taking advantage of and making the best of a bad situation. If anything has blinded him, it's that. We already know Tony has an obsessive personality. In this case, he's become so obsessed with trying to bring the "50 States Initiative" about that he's lost sight of the fact that the ends don't always justify the means. And because of that he's taken some steps that are excessive and/or unnecessary in relation to enforcing the SHRA.

That's pretty much my take on Iron Man to a tee (and I wouldn't say he's out of character but rather his characterization is overly exaggerated to the point that he HAS become a wannabe super-villain).

Everything Tony's been doing so far all goes back to the very first meeting the Illuminati had and that it's all about coming up with a large scale version of the Avengers essentially--which of course, being the control freak that he is (come on, this is a guy whose been attempting to overcome his own mortality and weakening body via technology for years) he has to be the one to run it.

Initially, he opposed the idea of Registration because it reflected the lack of trust the public had towards supers, not to mention it would ruin his plans for a superhero conglomerate if he wasn't in charge. This is why he supported it as Iron Man but not as Tony Stark (and also why he had Titanium Man attack Spidey and Washington D.C.) so he could gain enough public trust in heroes that the SHRA would get scraped and then he could impliment his own plan.

When Stamford happened, he adapted, this time by using SHRA in order to further his own agenda. Notice, in Civil War Files, Stark DOES NOT support the registration act as it currently stands, but DOES support the "50 State Initivite" because it's not only partly his idea but also because it's his large-scale conglomerate of super-heroes in action. Of course, as is the case with all control freaks, there are situations beyond our control and it looks like Iron Man is going to get burned really bad at the end of Civil War no matter who wins. After all, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Kirayoshi

10-20-2006, 02:23 AM

Noble as Tony's motives may be, it can't be denied that he has an addictive personality. That's why he goes to those weekly meetings where he stands up in front of a room of strangers and says, "Hi, my name is Tony and I'm an alcoholic."

The problem with Civil War is that, thanks to the SHRA, he has a new addiction; power. He always had a mild jones for personal power, which he sated with his business and with the Iron Man armor. But now, he's in control of a large faction of superhumans and has a government post. To quote Dennis Miller(back when he was non-partisan and funny), "Power is the most sought after, popular, abused and addictive drug in the world. Next to power, crack is Fruitopia!"

I'm reminded of the first Kurt Busiek Avengers arc just after Heroes Reborn. In the story, Morgan LeFey reshaped the world into a proto-Camelot scenario, with various Avengers cast in various roles in her script. Captain America and Hawkeye, due to ther close emotional bonds to the Avengers, were the first to break LeFey's hold, and tried to bring the rest of the team around. But Iron Man(who in this reality was a wealthy duke and the kindgom's highest ranking knight) refused to listen to Cap. Hawkeye commented, "Tony's basically a good guy but he's always had this 'lord of the manor' attitude. This fantasy scenario must really be hitting him where he lives."

That, in a nutshell, is Tony. He thinks he knows best, and while often he does, in this case his 'my way or the highway' stand is destined to backfire spectacularly. And I fear that by the time the dust clears, the government won't demand the registration of all metahumans so much as the outright death of all metahumans.

We're on the slippery slope to Days of Futures Past, and Tony's driving the snowmobile!

steve2275

10-20-2006, 02:56 AM

his real motive is to have as many heroes protect his ass when HULK returns:D

TheDrizzt

10-20-2006, 05:51 PM

Just a few mainstream non-offensive powers (I'm not including potential 'security risks' like invis/teleportation):
Beast
Superhuman strength and agility. Both combat powers.

Angel
Flight's a risk to commercial aviation. Plus, superhuman strength.

Captain America (technically not even superhuman)
Probably.

Daredevil
Superhuman senses are the equivalent of surveillance devices, which are generally pretty heavily regulated.

Wilson Fisk (not super, but damn strong and durable)
Not subject to registration, but can probably sue McDonald's for selling him food he didn't know would make him so fat. ;)

I'd also argue that sub 20 ton strength also isn't really that bad. Where is the cut off for being really strong, really fast, or really agile and being super-whatever?
Where ever those in power say it is, of course.

Shouldn't they force anyone smart to register too because they have the *potential* to cobble together thier own IM style armor like Tony did back in the day?
Good idea. :)

I'm being facetious, of course, but such would be the logical result of the desire to regulate anything and everything anyone might do that could harm someone else. After all, if guns are dangerous, it goes without saying that someone who can put a hole in your head with their pinky is infinitely more so.

Haunt

10-20-2006, 06:00 PM

My theory has always been Tony being jealous of people with real powers as aopposed to relying on constructs.

they should be jealous of someone who can build those constructs with ease. his natural intelligence is enough to put him in the big leagues. half of these heroes are nothing without their powers. Tony, without his armor, is still a supergenius. plus he's rich and handsome. "jealous?" i doubt it.

Shouldn't they force anyone smart to register too because they have the *potential* to cobble together thier own IM style armor like Tony did back in the day?

It doesn't really seem like there's any real criteria or firm definition of 'super'

sure there is. it takes into account people who dress in colorful spandex and go about trying to rescue people as a living. they need to be trained and registered. that really intelligent person you mentioned isn't a problem until she/he starts building weapons or a superhero suit.

Vaal

10-20-2006, 07:32 PM

Superhuman strength and agility. Both combat powers.
Responses listed because someone will be non-facetious about it:

They can be used in combat, yes, but so can a baseball bat. His strength and agility aren't much of a threat when you really think about it.

Flight's a risk to commercial aviation. Plus, superhuman strength.
Though there are no doubt comics that feature Angel flying comfortably at 30,000ft, winged flight isn't going to pose any more dangers than geese are.

Superhuman senses are the equivalent of surveillance devices, which are generally pretty heavily regulated.
Matt's specific senses aren't really all that above and beyond. I'm pretty sure the most mammals have a higher hearing range than him. He's just able to work the echolocation.

Not subject to registration, but can probably sue McDonald's for selling him food he didn't know would make him so fat. ;)
Kingpin is possibly stronger and more durable than Beast, who you've said *is* a risk. Remember; that's not fat.

Where ever those in power say it is, of course.
We can totally trust them to decide this too, right?

I'm being facetious, of course, but such would be the logical result of the desire to regulate anything and everything anyone might do that could harm someone else. After all, if guns are dangerous, it goes without saying that someone who can put a hole in your head with their pinky is infinitely more so.
All the problems with the line, where to draw it and so much stuff that people could *potentially* do is a major flaw in the concept.

they should be jealous of someone who can build those constructs with ease. his natural intelligence is enough to put him in the big leagues. half of these heroes are nothing without their powers. Tony, without his armor, is still a supergenius. plus he's rich and handsome. "jealous?" i doubt it.
Tony doesn't think like people though. And maybe jealous isn't the right word. Basically, he worked to build his armor and weapons while some annoying girl just wakes up with power over the fabric over reality without having to do a thing for it. That's enough to cheese anyone off.

sure there is. it takes into account people who dress in colorful spandex and go about trying to rescue people as a living. they need to be trained and registered. that really intelligent person you mentioned isn't a problem until she/he starts building weapons or a superhero suit.
It doesn't take costums into account at all. Their intention is to register all superhumans, regardless of what they intend to do with thier powers. That's why Cage caught a beating for sitting on his couch.

Plus, I'm far more worried about someone figuring out how to build another Ultimate nullifier and selling that schematic to Hydra than I am that some kid from New York can do anything a spider can and uses that to save lives.

CMBMOOL

10-20-2006, 08:34 PM

stillanerd

10-21-2006, 12:10 AM

We're on the slippery slope to Days of Futures Past, and Tony's driving the snowmobile!

And the award for the best quote goes to...

thirstyman

10-21-2006, 12:51 PM

The kingpin is definitely not as strong as the beast, just to point that out.

sherlockbones

10-22-2006, 03:21 PM

as it is not allowed to discuss in the "ask tom" thread, i´d like to hear your opinions wether current stark and richards are fitting the description of being toalitarians or not:

Tom Brevoort

And again, this is mostly accurate. Until such time as we get to a story in which somebody is put on actual trial for crimes committed while in violation of the Registration Act, the specific penalties levied by law remain a question. However, this is all being looked upon as a short-term solution, one of necessity. these are people who are walking weapons of mass destruction. You can't put them into general prison population without expecting that A) they're just going to break out, and take others with them, and B) that their lives will be in imminent jeopardy from the other inmates, many of whom are crminals placed behind those bars by these same heroes pre-Reg. hence, the use of the Negative Zone prison, at least for the duration. Nobody expect this to be a permanent solution to the situation, though.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's fair for the fans to ask any questions they want, and each reader is going to interpret the events presented in a way unique to them. However, if you ask me if the argument "Pro-Reg=Nazi" is intended, and I tell you that it isn't, then all the evidence you present me with from your point of view isn't going to change the intent behind the stories. If we were deliberately trying for "Pro-Reg=Nazi" it might be a different thing. But just because what you're getting out of the stories so far is "Pro-Reg=Nazi" doesn't mean that that's the intent of the authros and artists.

so how is a citizens potenial for mass destruction measured? if we compare it to the possibilty of normal people doing successful terror attacks in cities, doesn´t tony´s speech in asm535 or cw4 imply that he favours preemptive arrests against any high-risk-groups?
if he is ok with putting POTENTIAL risk groups into preemptive arrest, how do you think this would not end up in readers considering him a totalitarian?
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws.
this article from wikipedia is very close to the depiction of tony stark as a futurist. or to make it even stronger, reed richards calculations are exactly what karl popper expects of a totalitarian.

intended or not, both seem to fit popper´s definition very well

loraxxx j zynishter

10-26-2006, 06:03 PM

his real motive is to have as many heroes protect his ass when HULK returns:D

either that, or it's his way of fortifying the planet against THE ANNIHILATION WAVE... :confused:

Erik Lehnsherr

10-26-2006, 08:07 PM

Is there any word on why Tony is acting this "villianous" in the crossover? He almost seems obsessed with "following the law" and whatnot right now.

Jmacq1

10-27-2006, 05:16 AM

Is there any word on why Tony is acting this "villianous" in the crossover? He almost seems obsessed with "following the law" and whatnot right now.

Well, whether he's "villainous" or not is a matter of perspective. But basically it's a combination of two things:

A: He believes that following/supporting the SHRA is the only way to avoid an eventual war between humanity and superhumanity that would lead to the destruction of all life on Earth (basically). Or put another way, he believes the superhumans must be controlled and regulated somehow, for the safety of all involved. (This also seems to be Reed Richards' reason for supporting the SHRA). This is that "futurist vision" that many people bring up.

B: He's had a long-term plan for how he thinks the "superhero world" should work for a long time now (this was retconned into history with the "New Avengers: Illuminati" special). With the advent of the SHRA, he's seen a way to use the law to bring his personal "plan" into existence. By all indications, this is pretty much where the "50 States Initiative" and "File 42" come into play.

So basically, Tony's goals may be noble, but to many he appears to have gone completely overboard in his zeal to achieve those goals, to the point where he's doing things that many would consider "villainous". To me, it seems like his already-obsessive personality has kicked into overdrive with all this. And where Tony's concerned, that's rarely a good thing.

sherlockbones

10-27-2006, 06:22 AM

why bother with a superficial term like "villainous" when you can discuss wether tony and reed are totalitarians or not?
imho the term totally applies to them according to the definition by mr. popper:

While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws.

and dr. doom sure does not think of himself as evil. good and evil are labels in the eye of the beholder. but i am sure t&r are doing it for the cause. but they dropped their form lead motive:"don´t descend to the enemies levels/methods".
it is frank castle territory where the end justifies the means

Calybos

10-27-2006, 07:49 AM

For me, the question can come down to "Who do you trust more, the government or X?" (with X, in this case, being superheroes).

And the answer to that question is always a given for me--X.

Charagon

11-03-2006, 10:40 PM

I don't believe that Tony cares one iota about the billions his company is making. He didn't start this war. He tried everything in his power to prevent it. He may be profiting a bit, but at worst that's just him making the best out of the situation.

Really, who else is the government going to go to? Iron Man is heading up the SHRA act and he's in charge of one of the biggest tech companies in the world. It's convient to have your eggs all in one basket.

Remember, that's not billions in profit. That's money that will go to better tech for cape killers, maintance on 42, all those things that Tony's been hired to do.

Wade.

11-04-2006, 06:13 AM

Oh, come on! Tony's only doing it because he thinks it's the right thing. Yes, I am an Iron Man fan.

You'd know it if you read The Invincible Iron Man.

From the last issue (#12):

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/Panel1.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/Panel2.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/Panel3.jpg

Tony's the blond guy. To find out what happened to him, read Iron Man #7-#12 (Execute Program)

Alan2099

11-04-2006, 06:51 AM

it is frank castle territory where the end justifies the means
Frank only goes after the people he knows are threats. Tony goes after the people that might possibly one day do something bad by accident.

Yes. I AM saying Tony has crossed over to where he's less moral than the Punisher.

Or if you want to think about it this way, Tony has a plan for how he thinks the world needs to be ran and that he should be the person in charge of it and he'll take down anyone in his way. I can think of another character that has the same type of goal and he also wears armor. he just hapens to throw a green cloak and tunic over it.

Calybos

11-04-2006, 07:02 AM

That's a good point, Alan. For all that the Punisher is a lunatic on the overreaction-to-crime angle, at least the people he goes after truly HAVE done something wrong. He just appoints himself judge-jury-etc., which is crossing a line.

The line Tony has crossed is very different; he's made any deviation from his planned societal order an automatic crime, in and of itself. That's not Punisher-level overreaction, that's Dr. Doom-style megalomania.

Wade.

11-04-2006, 07:15 AM

CMBMOOL

11-04-2006, 09:04 AM

Okay, good point... but he started out doing the right thing. He just went way way overboard.

He is an arrogant idiot at times... but because he thinks he's doing the right thing. Like when he went around the backs of 98% of the superhero community to form the Illuminati.

Yeah but the members of the Illuminati makes of most of the Marvel U earth. :(

Frank only goes after the people he knows are threats. Tony goes after the people that might possibly one day do something bad by accident.

Yes. I AM saying Tony has crossed over to where he's less moral than the Punisher.

Or if you want to think about it this way, Tony has a plan for how he thinks the world needs to be ran and that he should be the person in charge of it and he'll take down anyone in his way. I can think of another character that has the same type of goal and he also wears armor. he just hapens to throw a green cloak and tunic over it.

Yeah, at least the Punisher is doing the world a favor and is elimating those who he sees evil and had done evil deeds, while Tony is holding those he deems a threat and is waiting for the day for them to change their way or waiting for them to lose control of their powers so he could take them out and it would make him look more heroic. :mad:

MegaRaptor Scribe

11-04-2006, 09:07 AM

I dunnow.

I always thought the whole "making money" thing was to add another question of "what's Tony up to?" to the people around him. He's in it for the moral conviction, but the way things are going make him out (to the people around him) suspicious.

Magneto Rocks

11-04-2006, 10:10 AM

Frank only goes after the people he knows are threats. Tony goes after the people that might possibly one day do something bad by accident.

Yes. I AM saying Tony has crossed over to where he's less moral than the Punisher.

Or if you want to think about it this way, Tony has a plan for how he thinks the world needs to be ran and that he should be the person in charge of it and he'll take down anyone in his way. I can think of another character that has the same type of goal and he also wears armor. he just hapens to throw a green cloak and tunic over it.

So by your logic, people who support gu ncontrol are less moral than the Punisher because they hunt people who might ONE DAY shoot someone.

You also left out a little detail.

Tony imprisons those he catches.

Frank brutally executes them.

Minor thing, I know... ;)

Serik

11-04-2006, 02:00 PM

That line in ASM is simply disingenuous writing - not some revelation about Tony's real motives. The "evil corporation that profits from terrible events" is so over-used in fiction that it’s almost expected. This is just JMS's cheap way of deepening the conflict between Peter and Tony.

And on an unrelated note, when hasn’t Tony been one of the richest people in America? I know writers interpret his wealth differently (Bill Gates or Donald Trump-type wealth?), but I don’t remember him facing any true financial hardships since the 1980s stories…

Edit: I haven't been following the IM comics so can someone explain to me why Tony has blonde hair in the above panels? Thanks :)

Magneto Rocks

11-04-2006, 02:27 PM

Tony spontaneously developed financial problems circ Avengers 500, a plot device so the Avengers could disassemble.

Alpow

11-04-2006, 02:27 PM

Edit: I haven't been following the IM comics so can someone explain to me why Tony has blonde hair in the above panels? Thanks :)

He was on the run from the law who thought he was too dangerous to be in the general population.

Did anybody else's irony meter just spike?

Wade.

11-04-2006, 02:46 PM

He was on the run from the law who thought he was too dangerous to be in the general population.

Did anybody else's irony meter just spike?

Actually, S.H.I.E.L.D concluded that Extremis had caused Tony to go nuts and start killing all those associated with Ho Yinsen's execution.

But it wasn't Extremis, Ho Yinsen actually worked for the Taliban, and Iron Man defeated the Sentry. Cool, eh? ;)

stillanerd

11-04-2006, 02:48 PM

Well, here's something from Wizard Magazine in which Paul Jenkis explains Iron Man (note it was in the context of Spider-Man's direction during and after Civil War):

“Here’s the guy who, on the face of it, seems to be an ‘I can do whatever I like’ billionaire,” says Jenkins of Iron Man. “He makes any decision he wants to. Every decision he makes has huge implications, and that applies to Reed Richards and other people as well.

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/002214252.cfm

Translation: Tony Stark is an arrogant, egotistical jerk. And people wonder why he's being seen as the bad guy in all this. Sounds to me like Marvel didn't learn from DC when they tried this same tactic with Batman and guess what? Not many readers liked Batman as an arrogant, egotistical jerk. So what makes Marvel think readers will like Tony Stark this way too? Oh, then there's this:

“It looks like what’s going on with the Registration side is so fascistic. They’re making really, really poor decisions. But you’ve got to keep reading,” says Jenkins. “We begin to hint at what’s really the driving force behind the Registration Act, and it will be a very big surprise to people.”

Looks like, Jenkis? LOOKS LIKE? The Registration side IS being fascistic, especially when your colleagues have comics portraying them as such and, in some cases, actually saying they are. And the real force behind registration? So much for the whole "There's no mastermind behind it all." (Considering how Jenkis himself hinted that he was going to use an element Mark Millar brought up in Marvel Knights Spider-Man #9, my guess is it will be the same "military industrial complex and cooperate conglomerates" that "created" the super-villains to distract the heroes being behind it, it wouldn't be a "very big surprise.")

jaxcs

11-04-2006, 02:50 PM

So by your logic, people who support gu ncontrol are less moral than the Punisher because they hunt people who might ONE DAY shoot someone.

You also left out a little detail.

Tony imprisons those he catches.

Frank brutally executes them.

Minor thing, I know... ;)

If you actually read the punisher max series, I think most people would likewise take the high justice on all their evil asses. He kills drug pushers, slavers, and most recently a guy who tosses babies off of mountain cliffs. These guys aren't your ordinary gambino leaning on a store keeper, these guys are outright monsters.

Alpow

11-04-2006, 02:58 PM

Actually, S.H.I.E.L.D concluded that Extremis had caused Tony to go nuts and start killing all those associated with Ho Yinsen's execution.

Yes, as I said he was hiding from the law who thought he was a threat (specifically ot the peace conference).

But it wasn't Extremis, Ho Yinsen actually worked for the Taliban, and Iron Man defeated the Sentry. Cool, eh? ;)

Well it was Extremis that made it possible since it linked Tony's brain to his suit and he didn't beat the Sentry he beat Reed Richards who apparently has a lot to learn about computer security(as was shown again in Hulk).

Wade.

11-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Yes, as I said he was hiding from the law who thought he was a threat (specifically ot the peace conference).

Well it was Extremis that made it possible since it linked Tony's brain to his suit and he didn't beat the Sentry he beat Reed Richards who apparently has a lot to learn about computer security(as was shown again in Hulk).

I meant to say Extremis didn't make him go nuts. And he did defeat the Sentry - hacking into CLOC and taking advantage of the Sentry's psychological problems was just how he did it. ;)

Alpow

11-04-2006, 03:47 PM

I meant to say Extremis didn't make him go nuts.

Well, it didn't cause him to go on murderous rampage but we don't know if it has caused heightened paranoia etc as the animal test indicate it should.

Calybos

11-04-2006, 06:11 PM

You also left out a little detail.

Tony imprisons those he catches.

Frank brutally executes them.

Minor thing, I know... ;)

You also left out a detail. The Punisher doesn't make up his own laws; the people he goes after have genuinely done something wrong.

The people Tony goes after have not.

Minor thing, I know....

sephirothskiller

11-04-2006, 08:14 PM

You also left out a detail. The Punisher doesn't make up his own laws; the people he goes after have genuinely done something wrong.

The people Tony goes after have not.

Minor thing, I know....

To be fair, the Punisher generally breaks the law alot, though he does only go after baddies.

Punisher: Vigilante in the truest sense of the word. Kills alot of people, not a great guy, but whatev.

IM: Clones dead friends, arrests friends, beats the shit out of people you KNOW he could take out any other number of ways. (He has level 100 strength!!) Disrespectful of women! (Ladies man.) Forget Iron Man, there's times I've read his comic and thought they should change his name to IMH. Iron Man-Whore.

Calybos

11-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Oh, I completely agree! The Punisher is not a great guy, and what he does is pretty much indefensible.

The point is, what Iron Man's doing is much, much worse.

bulbasteve

11-04-2006, 09:30 PM

Oh, I completely agree! The Punisher is not a great guy, and what he does is pretty much indefensible.

The point is, what Iron Man's doing is much, much worse.

Yikes, and you anti-reg guys calls us guys moral relativists for supporting the Thunderbolts program. I mean come on imprisoning is worse than murdering!?!

Alan2099

11-05-2006, 06:19 AM

Will.S

11-05-2006, 10:14 AM

You think imprissoning innocent people for life isn't as bad as murdering major fellons?

Your choices here are murdering a murderer or imprisoning a person and denying them all their basic rights just because they don't want to work for the government for the rest of their lives.I don't think so. While the approach is different, their goal is the same if it means taking potential threats out of public society. One is not given a choice about it (Punisher), while the other (Iron Man) gives several. Even villains like the new T-Bolts would rather go with the program than to go back to jail. Also Tom Brevoort had made it pretty clear on New Joe Fridays about the whole registration and draft aspect:

RQ: Bathawk - I've seen some confusion on what the Superhuman Registration act covers
Is it meant to train vigilantes to be "legitimate" crimefighters or is every housewife, college student and stockbroker who gains superspeed/the ability to fly/ x-ray vision going to be drafted into S.H.I.E.L.D. whether they want to fight crime or not?

JQ: With so many of these complex Civil War questions I always like to pass the buck to Tom Brevoort.

Toe Brevoort: There are, in essence, two components to the Superhuman Registration Act, which is I think what's confusing so many people. The most basic component is Registration: if a person possesses a superhuman ability, they need to register that ability, just as though they were in possession of a firearm. There's a basic training component that goes with this, in the same manner that you wouldn't give somebody a gun license if they didn't display proper responsibility in the handling of a firearm.
The second component of the Act is what I've been calling "licensing": there's no obligation for any person to use his or her power in a super-heroic capacity, but should somebody choose to follow such a path, then they need to be licensed.
I see this as analogous to getting a Private Investigator's license, and involves a greater degree of training, but also potentially gives certain benefits, including a salary if people want to work with S.H.I.E.L.D., tactical support from S.H.I.E.L.D., and so forth. But there's no obligation for anybody to use their powers as superheroes (though some people do fear the possibility of a "back-door draft" compelling all those who are registered into a conflict at some point in the future.)

As bad as the Negative Prison seems as a stop-gap solution all it really takes is for them to register as a super powered non-licenced individual if they choose not to go the superhero route.

Ironman is going to show up and that person better do everything he says or he's tossing hem into the negative zone.Which is again, better than instant death.

Calybos

11-05-2006, 10:47 AM

Yikes, and you anti-reg guys calls us guys moral relativists for supporting the Thunderbolts program. I mean come on imprisoning is worse than murdering!?!
Yes, imprisoning innocent citizens is worse than executing murderers. Next question?

bulbasteve

11-05-2006, 01:24 PM

Yes, imprisoning innocent citizens is worse than executing murderers. Next question?

No, no it isn't. An innocent person put in jail can bet let out again, an innocent person being murdered because their cousin runs with the local mob cannot and hell the person may not have even been given the death penalty if they went to an actual court. Your telling me that some hood who legally deserves 25 years in jail cause he cooks some books should just be outright killed by some vigilante?

You people are seriously using two far different standards for reality and your comic books. NOONE would say a Punisher type is better...hell even the anti-regs in the COMICS wouldn't.

Of course there is the fact that in New York state where he usually hangs there isn't even a death penalty anymore should give people another hint to how much worse the Punisher is.

Calybos

11-05-2006, 02:32 PM

The Punisher is wrong for going overboard and taking the law into his own hands... but he inflicts that harm on the guilty.

Iron Man/Dr. Doom is a tyrannical despot who enslaves and imprisons the innocent... and you're trying to make excuses for him by saying "Hey, at least he's not murdering felons"?

The innocent/guilty distinction really IS an important one, not to be glossed over in your horror at the added violence Frank uses when he considers himself above the law.

It's like comparing GW Bush to Osama bin Laden; sure, one's a fanatical murderous zealot, but the other has access to nukes. Who's the bigger threat to freedom?

CMBMOOL

11-05-2006, 05:27 PM

Yes, imprisoning innocent citizens is worse than executing murderers. Next question?

Don't forget how Luke Cage got started...:(

bulbasteve

11-05-2006, 06:13 PM

The Punisher is wrong for going overboard and taking the law into his own hands... but he inflicts that harm on the guilty.

How do you know that? The Punisher is a world class PSYCHO. And just because someone is guilty of any particular crime does not mean they deserve death, hell they couldn't even GET death in the legal system. I mean come on are you going to defend people who bomb abortion clinics because they THINK the doctors are guilty of murder? Of course not! Noone in their right mind would defend it, and noone should be defending someone murdering people regardless of it they think the person is guilty of something or not.

Iron Man/Dr. Doom is a tyrannical despot who enslaves and imprisons the innocent... and you're trying to make excuses for him by saying "Hey, at least he's not murdering felons"?

Iron Man is not enslaving anyone. And they are guilty of not signing the registration act, so calling someone "innocent" is a pretty big misnomer. All they need to do is sign it.

Alan2099

11-05-2006, 07:11 PM

And as soon as the sign it, they turn their lives over to SHIELD.

And just because someone is guilty of any particular crime does not mean they deserve death, hell they couldn't even GET death in the legal system. I mean come on are you going to defend people who bomb abortion clinics because they THINK the doctors are guilty of murder?
Don't even try to compare abortion doctors to the people Frank goes after. There's no gray area where he hits.

I'm sure you're not going to find many people that think professional assassins, mob bosses, and drug dealers are nice people that need a second chance. Frank does his homework.

Erik Lehnsherr

11-05-2006, 07:24 PM

Is there ANY chance that it's mind control or the like?

bulbasteve

11-05-2006, 07:36 PM

And as soon as the sign it, they turn their lives over to SHIELD.

Heroes can retire, they don't even have to join any agency and if they decide to it doesn't just have to be SHIELD. Come on, how many times do the books or Tom here have to say this stuff before you will stop making this point? It just ISN'T true.

Don't even try to compare abortion doctors to the people Frank goes after. There's no gray area where he hits.

I'm sure you're not going to find many people that think professional assassins, mob bosses, and drug dealers are nice people that need a second chance. Frank does his homework.

Drug dealers deserve the death? Christ, and you guys call US the fascists? I am just shocked anyone is defending him, are you guys just doing it because his is on your "side" or because he is a comic character or what? Would you really be defending him if he existed in real-life? It is just INSANE.

Davidai

11-05-2006, 08:14 PM

Maybe I just missed it, but who exactly profits from heroes beating the crap out of each other?

^ Marvel ^

Alan2099

11-05-2006, 08:24 PM

Heroes can retire, they don't even have to join any agency and if they decide to it doesn't just have to be SHIELD. Come on, how many times do the books or Tom here have to say this stuff before you will stop making this point? It just ISN'T true.
The problem with that is, it has been shown to be true quite a few times already. Tom can say whatever he wants. Until it apears in the books, it's not ture, and we've already had several cases of the proside going after heroes that had basically retired already.

Drug dealers deserve the death?
Yes.

Christ, and you guys call US the fascists? I am just shocked anyone is defending him, are you guys just doing it because his is on your "side" or because he is a comic character or what? Would you really be defending him if he existed in real-life? It is just INSANE.
Punisher kills mob bosses, murderers, rapists, drug dealer, and all around scum of the earth types. I'd defend that guy if he was real.

garin

11-05-2006, 09:19 PM

Punisher kills mob bosses, murderers, rapists, drug dealer, and all around scum of the earth types. I'd defend that guy if he was real.What can you say to that? Yay serial killers.

It sort of illustrates the ultimate futility of these arguments. We disagree on the most fundamental premises.

Will.S

11-05-2006, 09:50 PM

And as soon as the sign it, they turn their lives over to SHIELD.No they don't. That is merely an option should they choose to join S.H.I.E.L.D.

She-Hulk, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Two Gun Kid, Hellcat, The X-Men and the Thunderbolts operate independently without S.H.I.E.L.D. interference and even the Office of National Emergency has loosened their grip on the mutants ever since General Lazer was killed.

jaxcs

11-05-2006, 10:54 PM

Heroes can retire, they don't even have to join any agency and if they decide to it doesn't just have to be SHIELD. Come on, how many times do the books or Tom here have to say this stuff before you will stop making this point? It just ISN'T true.

I respect the editor's statements but can you cite one example where a hero was registered and was allowed to retire?

Drug dealers deserve the death? Christ, and you guys call US the fascists? I am just shocked anyone is defending him, are you guys just doing it because his is on your "side" or because he is a comic character or what? Would you really be defending him if he existed in real-life? It is just INSANE.

The problem with this constant stepping from comic land to reality is that confusion emerges. When should we argue from a comic perspective, when should we draw more heavily from what we actually know to be true in reality.

In comic land, I can cheer the punisher and his murdering ways because there is no uncertainty as to the guilt of those he kills. Not only does he kill drug pushers, he kills drug pushers to children. He also kills slavers and is currently on route to kill a Russian general who tosses babies off of mountain cliffs. There is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of these villains because we actually get to see them do their evil deeds. We get to see that they are unrepentant and even seem to enjoy what they do. Under these circumstances, who can be sympathetic to these monsters? In reality, absolute certainly is denied to me, so I am far more sympathetic and forgiving and would never want someone like the punisher to get away with what he is doing.

With this in mind, I ask why are you so forgiving of IM and his excesses? Why defend him with such loyalty? Is it because he is your guy and he is on your side?

Will.S

11-05-2006, 11:23 PM

I respect the editor's statements but can you cite one example where a hero was registered and was allowed to retire?
They haven't shown a registered retired superhero yet.

Thing, Firestar, and Jessica Jones have either quit or moved out of the country but all the superheroes who've registered don't seem to want to retire. At the same time, that doesn't neccessarily mean that it isn't possible.

stillanerd

11-05-2006, 11:27 PM

Will.S

11-05-2006, 11:35 PM

That's a pretty awesome image.

bulbasteve

11-05-2006, 11:38 PM

They haven't shown a registered retired superhero yet.

Thing, Firestar, and Jessica Jones have either quit or moved out of the country but all the superheroes who've registered don't seem to want to retire. At the same time, that doesn't neccessarily mean that it isn't possible.

Thing is registered, and did actually say to everyone he was moving to France, he didn't sneak into the night like Jessica or possibly Firestar did. So he is the best example of a registered hero being able to retire after they have already signed up to do the hero thing.

I guess the other example isn't so much retiring but that we haven't seen any new heroes suddenly popping up who used to be regular civilians before.

Wade.

11-06-2006, 12:08 AM

Here's something that could also explain why Tony is doing what he's doing. (mind you, I found this on another message board so I'm not sure how legit it is that this could be something post-Civil War)

Oh yeah - remember why Tony formed the Illuminati? But he didn't get exactly what he wanted. So now, he thinks he can finally achieve his dream! (of the "unified superhero delegation/army" thing) :eek:

Wade.

11-06-2006, 12:41 AM

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/illupanel0.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/illupanel1.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/illupanel2.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/Pakistan9/illupanel3.jpg

Of course, Tony had to settle for the Illuminati, and not what he really wanted. But now, he's working to get it...

And in Civil War #1 Director's Cut, there was a mention of S.E.C.U.R.I.T.Y, an organization which would be more powerful and would oversee S.H.I.E.L.D And S.W.O.R.D and all superhuman affairs. I think it'll be formed in Civil War #6.

I think it's highly possible Tony becomes something like the head of S.E.C.U.R.I.T.Y...

Alpow

11-06-2006, 02:37 AM

Jessica Jones have either quit or moved out of the country

The problem here is that Jessica Jones left the country because she couldn't stay retired, she asked Ironman straight up and he could give her no assurances.

jaxcs

11-06-2006, 05:26 AM

Here's something that could also explain why Tony is doing what he's doing. (mind you, I found this on another message board so I'm not sure how legit it is that this could be something post-Civil War)

I'm sure he's not angling to get the job, it's just a consequence of his interests. I do like the cover though. Reminds me a little of the old Nick Fury covers.

If he gets the job, what's gonna happen to Maria Hill? I think they should keep her around. She could be like Henry Gyrich. Super hero monitor.

Calybos

11-06-2006, 06:57 AM

Steve no one is defending the Punisher. No one's saying what he does is right.

They're just acknowledging that what Iron Man's doing is even worse. It's like comparing Dr. Doom to Stilt-Man; they're both evildoers, but one's a heckuva lot more dangerous.

garin

11-06-2006, 07:12 AM

Steve no one is defending the Punisher. No one's saying what he does is right.Do you have Alan on ignore or something?

Magneto Rocks

11-06-2006, 09:42 AM

And in Civil War #1 Director's Cut, there was a mention of S.E.C.U.R.I.T.Y, an organization which would be more powerful and would oversee S.H.I.E.L.D And S.W.O.R.D and all superhuman affairs. I think it'll be formed in Civil War #6.

I think it's highly possible Tony becomes something like the head of S.E.C.U.R.I.T.Y...

Actually, I BELIEVE, though I can't be certain, they said they were going to form this then decided it was pointless and dropped it. So I don't think it will appear at all.

The problem here is that Jessica Jones left the country because she couldn't stay retired, she asked Ironman straight up and he could give her no assurances.

In the middle of a crisis/war, where getting the details hammered out is impossible at best, Iron Man told her he couldn't absoloutely guarantee that she would not be called up. He was honest, he didn't give false assurances which he didn't know yet and frankly I don't think they can be blamed. Tom Brevoort's answer to the question of if heroes can retire- "Yes." No "Maybe" or "oOmetimes." Just "Yes." But given that he also stated factually that they were getting trials etc, I'm sure the anti-reggers want to ignore him and say they've ALWAYS ignored the editors' statements ;)

Alan2099

11-06-2006, 09:46 AM

Tom Brevoort's answer to the question of if heroes can retire- "Yes." No "Maybe" or "oOmetimes." Just "Yes." But given that he also stated factually that they were getting trials etc, I'm sure the anti-reggers want to ignore him and say they've ALWAYS ignored the editors' statements
he can say anything he wants.

It's not true until it gets into the comics and so far th exact opposite has been shown. Heroes haven't been able to retire and Ironman straight up told Peter than nobody got a trial.

So far there's only been two exceptions and those were both special cases, Speeball and Thing.

In fact, they have specifically went after heroes that have retired already.

Jmacq1

11-06-2006, 09:53 AM

Yeah, quite frankly Tom Brevoort's statements sound more and more like "This is what I need to say to make sure that any sane person remains in the Pro-Registration camp" and have yet to be reflected in the actual comics themselves in virtually ANY WAY. Which isn't to say it won't be, but it strikes me as blatant backpedalling on Marvel's part because fan reaction has generally been so vehemently Anti-Reg (I believe even more so than they expected, despite comments to the contrary).

Now Joey Q and Tom both keep hinting that there's going to be some huge revelation in the later issues that will make everything the Pro-Registration side has done perfectly OK and make all the Anti-Reg folks (reader-wise) go: "Ooooh, so we were all wrong all along!" Like they're all going to be magically exonerated for their excesses because "it'll all turn out OK in the end!"

I'm thinking the delays were less McNiven and more Millar re-writing the back half after Marvel realized they were going to completely screw over the entire Pro-Reg side from a fan's viewpoint if they kept it as-written.

So now they'll by default end up screwing over the Anti-Reg instead. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Quite frankly, I don't see any way that this crossover can end without a large chunk of characters either looking oppressive and borderline evil (If Pro-Reg continues on its current track) or like a bunch of brainless, selfish thugs (If Anti-Reg is proven "wrong" and defeated).

Neither makes for a palatable Marvel Universe once all is said and done. Or at least I don't think highly enough of Millar as a writer to be able to pull off that level of reconciliation.

Magneto Rocks

11-06-2006, 10:01 AM

he can say anything he wants.

It's not true until it gets into the comics and so far th exact opposite has been shown. Heroes haven't been able to retire and Ironman straight up told Peter than nobody got a trial.

So far there's only been two exceptions and those were both special cases, Speeball and Thing.

In fact, they have specifically went after heroes that have retired already.

*coughfirebirdcough*

...Three exceptions. And we've seen nobody locked up for LIFE yet, nor have we seen anybody directly told they could not have a trial.

Frankly, if I'm asked whether JMS or Tom Brevoort knows more about CW, I'm gonna go with Brevoort.

Jmacq1

11-06-2006, 10:05 AM

*coughfirebirdcough*

...Three exceptions. And we've seen nobody locked up for LIFE yet, nor have we seen anybody directly told they could not have a trial.

Frankly, if I'm asked whether JMS or Tom Brevoort knows more about CW, I'm gonna go with Brevoort.

Maybe, Brevoort does know more. But then clearly he's doing a very poor job of being an editor if he's allowing these all-but-critical tie-ins to spread such blatant misinformation.

You'd think for an event this important, they'd pay a little more attention to making sure what they're saying and what they're portraying actually line up. So far, it really hasn't, and the character most guilty of spreading the misinformation is the Pro-Registration "poster boy" himself: Iron Man.

Jessica Jones: "What about me? I don't plan on being a superhero anymore, and haven't been doing it for years."

(By Tom's comments) Iron Man: "It's not a problem Jessica. You still need to register, but you won't be expected to go back to the superhero game unless you choose to. By registering, if the situation comes up that you're somehow forced to use your powers in a public capacity again, you'll be protected."

(What we got) Iron Man: "Erm, uh....well, I don't really know. I don't think it'll matter, but I can't promise anything. But at the very least I'll try to make sure you're not called up for active duty before your daughter is a little more grown up!"

If the "mouthpiece" character of the Pro-Reg side doesn't even know the law he's supporting, then he's an idiot. If he can't give clear answers when pressed about the details, he's an idiot. So either Tony Stark is an idiot, or Marvel is backpedalling/doing a horrible job of editing. It's that simple.

Tony Stark is not Reed Richards: He doesn't have trouble dealing with normal people. If everything Tom were saying is true, then why the hell isn't Iron Man just SAYING IT?!?

The way Tom describes the SHRA makes it sound like there isn't a single flaw in it, and he throws out hints that the problems that we've seen in its' implementation are going to magically "go away" too. So now the argument becomes this: Is Marvel too biased towards the Pro-Reg now to give a fair accounting of the Anti-Reg?

Alan2099

11-06-2006, 10:28 AM

And we've seen nobody locked up for LIFE yet, nor have we seen anybody directly told they could not have a trial.
Of course we haven't seen anybody lockd up for life yet. The series hasn't been going that long. We haven't reached the end of anybdoy's natural lifespan yet.

Notice I say natural. We've already had one person kill themselves in the negative Zone prison and they didn't even bother cleaning the blood up.

And you're right. They haven't been told they aren't getting a trial. In fact, some of them don't even understand why they were locked up in the first place.

Of course that doesn't seem to matter much, because Tony Stark explained to Spider-man that in the Negative Zone, the laws can't reach them and he also said that this was a direct federal matter. ANy trials that would have taken place would have to go directly to the top and Tony seems sure that the people at the top aren't going to allow that.

So while we haven't technically had anybody in their for their natural life, and they haven't directly told anybody they don't get a trial, the guy that's running the place has came out and said that's the way it's going to work.

Did you read the issue where Spider-man visits the Negative Zone prison?

Psyco panda

11-06-2006, 10:34 AM

Is there ANY chance that it's mind control or the like?

Not yet. Wait till the retcons come.

bulbasteve

11-06-2006, 10:49 AM

Notice I say natural. We've already had one person kill themselves in the negative Zone prison and they didn't even bother cleaning the blood up.

Oh brother, here is another comment by Tom that I'm sure will be ignored! "Also, given his powers and his state of being, I wouldn't worry too much about him--I doubt that blowing his own head off would have been enough to kill him, so it's not unlikely that what he really did was cleverly escape, by making it seem like he was dead."

And you're right. They haven't been told they aren't getting a trial. In fact, some of them don't even understand why they were locked up in the first place.

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" Not a quote by Tom, but wise none the less. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. They can't be bothered to turn on CNN and watch She-Hulk talking about the registration act, I think they deserve what they get.

Of course that doesn't seem to matter much, because Tony Stark explained to Spider-man that in the Negative Zone, the laws can't reach them and he also said that this was a direct federal matter. ANy trials that would have taken place would have to go directly to the top and Tony seems sure that the people at the top aren't going to allow that.

How could they "not allow it"? The courts are independent, they can't do a damn thing to stop them, no matter what Stark or anyone else might personally think. Noone has ever claimed Stark was perfect and knew everything or even always told the truth.

Alan2099

11-06-2006, 11:02 AM

You acuse me of ignoring what Tom says.

I accuse you of ignoring what the comics say.

Frankly, I think I've got better ground to stand on here.

bulbasteve

11-06-2006, 11:56 AM

You acuse me of ignoring what Tom says.

I accuse you of ignoring what the comics say.

Frankly, I think I've got better ground to stand on here.

When have you accused me of that? It all fits in. Your the one who ignored The Thing retiring and said noone was able to. And ignored Deadpool being an agent of the C.S.A, Bishop being part of O*N*E and Two Gun-Kid working for New York State and insisted they all signed their lives over to SHIELD.

THAT is ignoring what is shown in the comics. Nothing directly says Digitek is totally for sure dead, and his powers tell you he DID NOT die. What if Wolverine blows up at the end of an issue. Do we all cry cause the book totally just showed him DIE? He will NEVER EVER be back and totally not in the next issue, cause we can't use anything "meta" like an editor or the fact he has a next issue? It can ONLY come from the book itself.

Eallison

11-06-2006, 03:09 PM

When have you accused me of that? It all fits in. Your the one who ignored The Thing retiring and said noone was able to. And ignored Deadpool being an agent of the C.S.A, Bishop being part of O*N*E and Two Gun-Kid working for New York State and insisted they all signed their lives over to SHIELD.

THAT is ignoring what is shown in the comics. Nothing directly says Digitek is totally for sure dead, and his powers tell you he DID NOT die. What if Wolverine blows up at the end of an issue. Do we all cry cause the book totally just showed him DIE? He will NEVER EVER be back and totally not in the next issue, cause we can't use anything "meta" like an editor or the fact he has a next issue? It can ONLY come from the book itself.

Fine, let's take your unsupportable claim;

Ergo, I can trust NOTHING, not the comics (because it might be retconned later), and not the editors, since they either;

A. Cannot edit. I have been trying so desperately NOT to say this, but I'm sorry, Mr Brevoort can say whatever he likes -- until and unless it is supported in the comics, and not outright CONTRADICTED in them, I'm going with the actual comics. If Tony was deliberately meant to mislead or lie -- why? For a shocking big "reveal" later, or because the editor missed this?

B. Are simply going to change everything "later." Yeah, like the fair and balanced argument for each side presented in the books ... and we all see not only that, to date, that has NOT been the case, but that Marvel is now making claims that directly contradict earlier ones ... like "oh, we EXPECTED a lot of fans to go with the Anti-SRA movement." Not what I recall Marvel trumpeting before, anyway. And hey, this works great in the comics. Just change everything.

No, nothing says Digitek is dead -- aside from the rather blatant implication that he is, and the tone of the book that supports it. Sure, he can be retconned back into life, or the writers can claim he was never really dead, but that doesn't change how it was presented at the time.

Was Jean Grey really "not dead" after the classic UXM #137? No, she was dead until the idea of "X-Factor" came along. Jason Todd? Dead until Superboy "punched reality" (and how stupid is that?). Bucky Barnes, dead until the Winter Soldier arc. Sue Dibny and Tora Olafdotter are still dead, so far. So to argue that Digitek "might not be dead" is pretty much saying NOTHING is a given in comics.

In that case, we may as well close up shop and go home. If the only defense to this is "well, it MIGHT be changed" in a serial entertainment form like comics, why read at all?

Look, if you want to take Mr Brevoort's claims to heart, that's fine. But until and unless they are actually in the comics, they don't mean anything, and IMHO have no place in the debate as they have (as yet) nothing to do with the story Marvel has presented to date. It may sound harsh, and doubtless you will start in again on how being an editor he clearly knows more than we do, but then again, I'm basing my comments (as are others here) on what was ACTUALLY IN THE BOOKS. When and if Mr Brevoort's clarifications appear, they too will be canon.

Until then, they are simply an interesting comment, no more, no less.

As for your Wolverine example, yes. If it were shown in such a way that he SHOULD be dead, I would have a problem with it unless the writing could support the story saying he ISN'T dead. In fact, that's a problem with the series at current, Wolverine surviving something that would have killed him before (remember the classic DoFP storyline? A Sentinel killed him pretty much the same way Nitro should have). Sure, we're being handed the "wait and see, it'll make sense" line -- we shall see.

Take it and run.

Ruthless_Pryde

11-06-2006, 03:51 PM

[QUOTE=Jmacq1]Let's see. Suppose you're a superhero that's been tasked with bringing in a large body of people, some of whom are literally as powerful as walking nuclear weapons. You're supposed to do this without killing them, and without causing death and destruction if it can at all be avoided. The fate of the world is literally in your hands. By your own viewpoints and those of your "inner circle", billions of lives are at stake in the long term if you fail.

Oh, and you also have a "day job" that happens to be very profitable.

Where are -your- priorities going to lie if you're actually a hero? Where are the vast majority of your thoughts going to be directed? Yeah, sorry...but the business is taking a very distant back seat.

In the Tower of Babel from the JLA, Batman took down the entire Justice League in under 24 hrs flat.

Bat's is a hero that runs a multi- billiondaollar international conglomerate comapny durning the day and terrorizes the Gotham underworld at night and still managed to find time to game paln how to take out every member of the Justice League.....

So, Yeah I think it is possible to do both.

Will.S

11-06-2006, 04:48 PM

Thing is registered, and did actually say to everyone he was moving to France, he didn't sneak into the night like Jessica or possibly Firestar did. So he is the best example of a registered hero being able to retire after they have already signed up to do the hero thing.

I guess the other example isn't so much retiring but that we haven't seen any new heroes suddenly popping up who used to be regular civilians before. I guess that would be a good example. They wrote it so that they avoid having Thing stay in the country and continue to be registered though but the rest of the heroes leave him alone well enough.

The problem here is that Jessica Jones left the country because she couldn't stay retired, she asked Ironman straight up and he could give her no assurances. By that same token, she never even gave it a chance so how would she know if they were going to force her into battle after she registered?

Chris Thomas

11-06-2006, 05:13 PM

I'm a marvel man from the late 70's and early 80's and followed tony stark in simpler times. I have made it a point to read every civil war comic out there and I strongly feel that this tony stark is evil.

and yes--I know there is another side to this--he is sympathizing with the families that lost kids. and he is trying to make the usa a place where superheros take responsibilty for their actions. and he is trying to offer a 'reasonable' alternative to being locked up.

but his actions are taking this way over the line. my point:

1. he using intimidation to acheive his goals---for example his interactions with peter in the last ASM. just way over-the-top tactics to bring peter in line.

2. he is ignoring any compromise on his plan. in fact, he seems to have unilaterally come up with THE PLAN with virtually no compromise or negotiations or conversation with anyone else.

how else could the antireg side act? they never had ANY INPUT into how this thing would go down? it is not hard to think of other plans--i mean the heros who have been captured have good intentions--did they get an options of maintaining their secret ID and freedom but getting some mandatory training with the avengers?

Nah. they got "sign here or get locked up."

3. he is using clearly illegal (he explains them as not illegal when asked.---i.e. the negative zone is not in the United states. clearly a guantanamo bay refference.) tactics. think negative zone imprisonment and, in my opinion, torture with very little legal recourse. and also thing 'clone major super hero and kill people with him/it'

bottom line for me: this tony stark is evil. and I deeply suspect he is being manipulated.

Alpow

11-06-2006, 05:15 PM

By that same token, she never even gave it a chance so how would she know if they were going to force her into battle after she registered?

She knows because Tony (who is not an idiot and is quite well versed in getting people to buy what he is selling) told her so, he only had to say she wasn't going to pressed into service and he couldn't do that.

Therefore registration does contain within it the ability to press somebody into service against their will, even those who have retired.

For all those pointing to Tom's word

When asked

"I'm kind of confused. In one response you say the registration could be used as a "Backdoor draft" yet you're saying it can't force someone to operate as a super hero.

If Jessica Jones registers, isn't she signing a backdoor draft that allows SHIELD to suit up if SHIELD requires her to?"

He responded

"Potentially, yes. But being called upon to work with SHIELD isn't the same thing as operating as a super hero."

Of course two months later he said

"But nobody is forced to be a super hero or a SHIELD operative."

So maybe the idea that Marvels view have altered over time has some merit.

Then we have this quote

"There's no actual Super Hero draft, but the Registration Act could potentially be used as a "back door draft", as it requires all those possessing superhuman abilities to register with SHIELD and the government, and to be licensed in theri activities. In the same way that Army Reservists have found themselves serving interminable, undefined stints of active duty in Iraq due to the specific way the Reserve is set up, so too may certain heroes find themselves in similar situations in CIVIL WAR."

Which seems pretty clear that Heroes can't retire in the same way that an Army reservist can't decide to retire."

On the question of it being more an issue of blackmail rather than an actual draft, since those in the neg zone don't get a trial (please those of you who put out of universe talk above canon) it would be quite easy to find them guilty of a breech and chuck them in the zone (as Stark threatened to do with Peter's family and the Shield agents threatened to do to Prowlers wife), which makes it a draft in function if not by the letter of the law.

Silver Knight

11-06-2006, 05:19 PM

Steve no one is defending the Punisher. No one's saying what he does is right.

Actually I am/will I have always stood behind what the punisher is/does. Albiet he may be a touch on the fence where sanity is concered but still he provides a vital service. If he hadnt have been giving Kingpin so may problems then maybe he wouldnt have been distracted and maybe Daredevil wouldnt hav ehad the chance to take him down.

Will.S

11-06-2006, 05:41 PM

She knows because Tony (who is not an idiot and is quite well versed in getting people to buy what he is selling) told her so, he only had to say she wasn't going to pressed into service and he couldn't do that.
He did give her assurance that since she had a newborn baby to take care of that she wouldn't be sent to fight a Dr. Doom. Iron Man's mention of the baby does sort of makes it a special case since Jessica Jones position (if she registered) would most likely be along the lines of maternity leave but there's still an area of vagueness there after that.

Therefore registration does contain within it the ability to press somebody into service against their will, even those who have retired.
Even so, they've yet to show this happen to a retired registered hero just yet.

bulbasteve

11-06-2006, 06:31 PM

If Tony was deliberately meant to mislead or lie -- why? For a shocking big "reveal" later, or because the editor missed this?

Mislead, lie, simply don't know or have a different opinion. These characters are supposed to be HUMAN. See unlike Tom, Tony Stark is a character inside the story and not exactly the word of god as it were. And frankly isn't it kinda ironic the same people who are calling Tony evil and a Nazi somehow also think he doesn't lie?

No, nothing says Digitek is dead -- aside from the rather blatant implication that he is, and the tone of the book that supports it. Sure, he can be retconned back into life, or the writers can claim he was never really dead, but that doesn't change how it was presented at the time.

This is a person that can rearrange their body and turn into PURE ENERGY. This is EXACTLY like my Wolverine analogy. It is not anything "meta", but the very nature of their powers that lead you to the conclusion. And let's not forget it was Speedball who was narrating, those caption boxes were a character talking from what he knew as a prisoner not as our handy dandy omniscient narrator.

Look, if you want to take Mr Brevoort's claims to heart, that's fine. But until and unless they are actually in the comics, they don't mean anything, and IMHO have no place in the debate as they have (as yet) nothing to do with the story Marvel has presented to date. It may sound harsh, and doubtless you will start in again on how being an editor he clearly knows more than we do, but then again, I'm basing my comments (as are others here) on what was ACTUALLY IN THE BOOKS. When and if Mr Brevoort's clarifications appear, they too will be canon.

Dude, Marvel decides what is canon, not the fans. Heck Marvel INVENTED the no-prize, it is all about explaining gaffs in the stories creatively. So really just think of the editor in this case as just the most authoritative no-prizer there is. And consider this forum our own little letters page. I mean geez, the guy takes time out of his day to help contextualize the story and you say the whole thing is totally pointless? No wonder people hate these "fictional universes".

2. he is ignoring any compromise on his plan. in fact, he seems to have unilaterally come up with THE PLAN with virtually no compromise or negotiations or conversation with anyone else.

In ASM he and Pete appeared before Congress. Any law is all about compromise and negotiations, remember when he was appearing before them he was anti-reg, so just image how much worse the act would have been if Stark was not there to give the super-hero side of the issue

She knows because Tony (who is not an idiot and is quite well versed in getting people to buy what he is selling) told her so, he only had to say she wasn't going to pressed into service and he couldn't do that.

You want him to make promises he can't keep? She could have asked the same question pre-registration and got the same answer, SHIELD can get anyone to do whatever the heck they want as evidenced by stuff like Secret War.

Which seems pretty clear that Heroes can't retire in the same way that an Army reservist can't decide to retire."

First there was no flip flopping on their part, his second post just did not deal with the issue of a backdoor draft and was only talking about the letter of the law. That being said, it is the POTENTIAL that it could happen. And as we have seen with Wonder Man this potential is not written into the law itself and has to be taken extra-legally. They did not just say "join the mission or be thrown in jail" it was "join this mission or we will prosecute you for a previous crime", and like Tom said Wonder Man and be extention anyone else could have just decided to have their day in court. And hell he could have whistle blown about any backdoor drafting, again as he said they are allowed to speak out in public.

Alpow

11-07-2006, 02:20 AM

You want him to make promises he can't keep? She could have asked the same question pre-registration and got the same answer, SHIELD can get anyone to do whatever the heck they want as evidenced by stuff like Secret War.

Then all he has to say is that that the act doesn't change things in that regard and won't change her retired status but again he didn't.

Since he does say she will be given dispensation because of her child either he is lying (in which case he should just go all out) or he has some say over who gets drafted or not in which case he could give her a guarantee.

First there was no flip flopping on their part, his second post just did not deal with the issue of a backdoor draft and was only talking about the letter of the law. That being said, it is the POTENTIAL that it could happen.

Blackmail constitutes cohesion, people aren't forced to join the army by a draft either they just get bad things happening to them if they don't.

It also doesn't constitute a back door draft really (if that is all that is involved) since SHIELD already knows the names of most people, Jessica Jones and Simon are both public figures.

And as we have seen with Wonder Man this potential is not written into the law itself and has to be taken extra-legally. They did not just say "join the mission or be thrown in jail" it was "join this mission or we will prosecute you for a previous crime", and like Tom said Wonder Man and be extention anyone else could have just decided to have their day in court. And hell he could have whistle blown about any backdoor drafting, again as he said they are allowed to speak out in public.

I already spoke to this but it only works for those how hold the comics to be the higher source.

Alpow

11-07-2006, 03:21 AM

He did give her assurance that since she had a newborn baby to take care of that she wouldn't be sent to fight a Dr. Doom. Iron Man's mention of the baby does sort of makes it a special case since Jessica Jones position (if she registered) would most likely be along the lines of maternity leave but there's still an area of vagueness there after that.

How many retired people need maternity leave?

The very fact that he offers her maternity leave (or diminished duties due to her situation) means she isn't staying retired.

Even so, they've yet to show this happen to a retired registered hero just yet.

Quite true but the evidence we have points in the direction that retirement isn't something people can ensure they get.

Eallison

11-07-2006, 04:02 AM

Mislead, lie, simply don't know or have a different opinion. These characters are supposed to be HUMAN. See unlike Tom, Tony Stark is a character inside the story and not exactly the word of god as it were. And frankly isn't it kinda ironic the same people who are calling Tony evil and a Nazi somehow also think he doesn't lie?

Except, you know, I HAVEN'T called Tony a Nazi -- but that's a great way to attempt to derail the debate without actually addressing it. And again, hey, I ALREADY addressed this, too. Either Tony;

1. IS outright lying about things -- and I have no idea why he would when, if the law worked the way Mr Brevoort says it does, he could just SAY it and actually help de-fang some of the critics of the SRA in one fell swoop, or

2. Is an idiot who doesn't know WHAT the law allows for. Again, as the major enforcer of the SRA, wouldn't it behoove Tony to know WHAT HE WAS ENFORCING? I mean, I can allow that he's fallible and doesn't know, but that simply underscores the poor structure of the SRA and how it has been presented to the omniscient reader, who STILL doesn't know the details.

You also missed my point, again. There is nothing, NOTHING, in the story to imply that we should walk away from the story thinking Tony is fallible on the points of the SRA. It's a bad argument to imply otherwise. Yes, characters in the story are indeed fallible, but if the story plays them as straight (as in "honest") and competant, there is no reason to jump to that assumption (that they are mistaken) until and unless the story contradicts them -- not an Editor who has made claims so far unsupported by the text.

This is a person that can rearrange their body and turn into PURE ENERGY. This is EXACTLY like my Wolverine analogy. It is not anything "meta", but the very nature of their powers that lead you to the conclusion. And let's not forget it was Speedball who was narrating, those caption boxes were a character talking from what he knew as a prisoner not as our handy dandy omniscient narrator.

And how many people reading the story know that? Again, you're jumping to a conclusion not actually supported by the text. Reread the story again, was there any reason to assume that Digitek WASN'T dead, at that time? Can Marvel change it, or claim they meant for him to be alive all along? Sure they can, but that's not the impression the story gives, now is it?

And unless Speedball is SHOWN to be unreliable at that specific item, you can claim it, but that is simply opinion. Again, until the actual story claims otherwise, I believe it's pretty clear, at the time the story was written, Digitek was to be dead.

Dude, Marvel decides what is canon, not the fans. Heck Marvel INVENTED the no-prize, it is all about explaining gaffs in the stories creatively. So really just think of the editor in this case as just the most authoritative no-prizer there is. And consider this forum our own little letters page. I mean geez, the guy takes time out of his day to help contextualize the story and you say the whole thing is totally pointless? No wonder people hate these "fictional universes".

Um, no, Marvel AND the fans decide. Sure, Marvel eventually pulled the Spider-clone story, but why did they do it? Oh, right, the huge backlash.

And thanks for doing exactly what I expected, and turning my comments into an attack on Mr Brevoort. I stated, time and again, that I had all due respect for the man, but that his opinion, after something sees print, is just that, his OPINION. I don't mind that he answers in this thread, or any other, merely that, once the story sees print, he becomes an observer like anyone else. He might have more insight, but after that book is printed, until and unless it is contradicted later in another book, IT is the canon. Let me repeat it, because maybe it's been too subtle for you;

Until and unless the facts Mr Brevoort state come out in the books, they are not what actually happened. It might well be what Mr Brevoort INTENDED the reader to get, but it isn't what is on the page. And to argue otherwise means exactly the absurd example I used in another post;

If the movie director says Spider-Man's costume was supposed to be purple, despite it being red-and-blue on the screen, it doesn't make it purple. He (the imaginary director) can say it is, but it doesn't change what is on the screen.

And that ignores another problem. What % of comic readers check those boards, do you suppose? 10%, maybe 20%? So where is the majority view coming from? You guessed it, the comic.

While the editor can TRY to explain those gaffes, they aren't canon. What is canon is ultimately what is on the comic pages. That's why we have so many RETCONS, or retroactive continuity incidents. Another writer wants to use a character an earlier writer killed off, or wants to alter events, so they change the past (the entity the X-Men fought was a Doombot instead of Doom, Jean Grey was merely duplicated on the molecular level by a cosmic entity, Bucky Barnes was revived to become the Winter Soldier).

Now THAT is something that can be verified by reading the books, indeed, that is WHY the comics exist, to tell a story. Now, Civil War isn't finished, so Mr Brevoort's comments may well come to pass, in which case, they will become canon. Until they do, though, where they contradict what the comics have said to date, they really have no weight aside from an interesting window into the creative process and the alleged intent of Marvel.

Finally, while I understand your interest in the comments, I am getting really tired of being misrepresented. I don't hate fictional universes. I simply would like to see more care in how they are handled. I've read the explanations, and I don't really care for them -- there is, IMHO, no reason (for example) for two different writers to portray the SAME event within Civil War differently (the look of the Negative Zone Prison, Susan Richards' departure).

Yes, some of it has been neatly explained, but IMHO, for Marvel's big, heavily advertised, world-changing event, there should be a tighter editorial yoke on things. There should be an overall viewpoint, an agreed-upon direction for the story, and IMHO, that's not coming through to date, for WHATEVER reason (writers with their own agenda, lack of Editorial power and authority, lack of will to USE said power, whatever).

There is a difference. I can (and do) enjoy shared fictional universes, but I also have expectations within them. If character X behaves in a decent fashion for decades, and then one day merrily slits his best friend's throat (an example, not specifically indicative of CW), I reserve the right to call "foul."

Take it and run.

bulbasteve

11-07-2006, 11:21 AM

Then all he has to say is that that the act doesn't change things in that regard and won't change her retired status but again he didn't.

She was actually around for Secret War remember, she saw Cage in a hospital because of Fury being able to get people to do whatever he wants. He doesn't NEED to tell her, she knows. You don't just want him talking in exposition do you?

Since he does say she will be given dispensation because of her child either he is lying (in which case he should just go all out) or he has some say over who gets drafted or not in which case he could give her a guarantee.

What heck, how are THOSE the only two choices? He either is lying about what treatment she will get or he makes policy? What if he is telling the truth and doesn't make policy? Don't go setting up false dilemmas which for someone who seems to care so much about what is stated in the book isn't stated ANYWHERE. Nowhere is it stated that someone with child would have to "fight Dr. Doom" nor is it stated anywhere he has any control over SHIELD policy.

Blackmail constitutes cohesion, people aren't forced to join the army by a draft either they just get bad things happening to them if they don't.

It also doesn't constitute a back door draft really (if that is all that is involved) since SHIELD already knows the names of most people, Jessica Jones and Simon are both public figures.

When someone in the Army or the National guard refuse to go to Iraq they do not say "well if you don't we have this unpaid speeding ticket here that we will use against you!". No they say "this is what you signed, join us or go to jail, it's the law". With Wonder Man they used the first example, something that is OUTSIDE the law. To compare it in all but the most basic of ways to the army is just wrong. Wonder Man could have spoken out to the Press or just went to Trial with their charge, it's as simple as that.

Except, you know, I HAVEN'T called Tony a Nazi -- but that's a great way to attempt to derail the debate without actually addressing it. And again, hey, I ALREADY addressed this, too. Either Tony; blah blah blah

Again another person using false dilemmas. Hell if everything was as simple as you make it out to be why do we even have an court system? Oh yes, because people have different IDEAS about what a law means. When a liberal reads the Geneva Convention they have a different idea of how it applies than someone from the Bush administration. That doesn't mean that Bush is lying when he is saying that he believes the forms of torture he wants is allowed under it, he just has a different opinion of what the law is. Tony doesn't THINK the Courts have jurisdiciton, he could be lying yes, he could be mis-informed yes, but he could ALSO just honestly think it does and believe that while others have a different opinion.

You also missed my point, again. There is nothing, NOTHING, in the story to imply that we should walk away from the story thinking Tony is fallible on the points of the SRA. It's a bad argument to imply otherwise. Yes, characters in the story are indeed fallible, but if the story plays them as straight (as in "honest") and competant, there is no reason to jump to that assumption (that they are mistaken) until and unless the story contradicts them -- not an Editor who has made claims so far unsupported by the text.

For someone who wants to talk about a fictional universe as if it were real and nothing outside it can effect it how can there be a "story" to contradict it? They are characters living in the moment, there is no reason to think they are not fallible unless you....GASP...do not want to follow canon and start talking about these outside concepts like "stories" and not that it is a "fictional universe".

And how many people reading the story know that? Again, you're jumping to a conclusion not actually supported by the text. Reread the story again, was there any reason to assume that Digitek WASN'T dead, at that time? Can Marvel change it, or claim they meant for him to be alive all along? Sure they can, but that's not the impression the story gives, now is it?

Is this just your excuse for not knowing what his powers are? That is the very NATURE of his powers. If Speedball did not know Wolverine had a healing factor and saw him blow his head off and felt bad that he killed himself, would you suddenly believe it? No, the very nature of his powers contradict it and YOU know more than the narrator of the story does.

And thanks for doing exactly what I expected, and turning my comments into an attack on Mr Brevoort. I stated, time and again, that I had all due respect for the man, but that his opinion, after something sees print, is just that, his OPINION. I don't mind that he answers in this thread, or any other, merely that, once the story sees print, he becomes an observer like anyone else. He might have more insight, but after that book is printed, until and unless it is contradicted later in another book, IT is the canon. Let me repeat it, because maybe it's been too subtle for you;

How is that too subtle? You are still saying the thread is pointless. Again remember exactly the idea of a No-Prize, it says nothing printed in the book is wrong, much like you. It simply explains WHY these things which don't seem to jell are right. Like any piece of literature not everyone will read it the same, he is just better explaining what the actual intention was. While you might THINK to read it one way, guess what, your wrong. If you think CW1 shows that Cap didn't have to follow Hills orders you just plain read it wrong, the text is still there, it's still the same "canon", you just didn't interpret it correctly. He KNOWS what is meant by what is written, you are just guessing.

That is why Stan had to send you a No-Prize, he was the gatekeeper between a crack pot explinations and ones that are true. Sure you can be involved in shaping the continuity, but if the editor says "no, that is wrong, here is what actually happened" how can you say he is wrong and you are right?

His JOB is to be the keeper of continuity between the titles, he is able to No-Prize away the freedom of different writers to be free to give different interpretations of events. We can try and give our best guesses but what he says is TRUE and it seems people who don't want to believe it is just because it goes against what they believe. I've never seen a pro-reg poster just refuse to believe something he says just because it is "against" their view, but we STILL have anti-reggers (not you per se) that STILL insist on things which he has says is the wrong interpretation over and over. That isn't "working together" that is saying that Marvel doesn't know what they are talking about and the readers are the only ones to decide what is true or not.

Alpow

11-07-2006, 12:31 PM

She was actually around for Secret War remember, she saw Cage in a hospital because of Fury being able to get people to do whatever he wants.

We don't know he forced Luke Cage to do the secret war, the secret war files imply that he just used Cage's sense of patriotism to get him to go along with it.

In fact I can't remember anything from the secret war which indicated he had coerced them rather than just asked them (I know he just asked Cap And Wolverine is always up for killing people, Spiderman he called in a favour).

He doesn't NEED to tell her, she knows. You don't just want him talking in exposition do you?

I don't mind exposition to be honest but all he has to say is "nothing will change with your status" if that is what he means.

What heck, how are THOSE the only two choices? He either is lying about what treatment she will get or he makes policy? What if he is telling the truth and doesn't make policy? Don't go setting up false dilemmas which for someone who seems to care so much about what is stated in the book isn't stated ANYWHERE. Nowhere is it stated that someone with child would have to "fight Dr. Doom" nor is it stated anywhere he has any control over SHIELD policy.

Oh I see so he just knows SHIELDS policy on maternity leave which apparently includes "no fighting Dr Doom", those human resources guys at SHIELD sure are thorough. :D

When someone in the Army or the National guard refuse to go to Iraq they do not say "well if you don't we have this unpaid speeding ticket here that we will use against you!". No they say "this is what you signed, join us or go to jail, it's the law". With Wonder Man they used the first example, something that is OUTSIDE the law.

And a person who is guilty of draft dodging gets to have a trial as well at the end of the day both systems involve a penalty for those who don't comply.

To compare it in all but the most basic of ways to the army is just wrong. Wonder Man could have spoken out to the Press or just went to Trial with their charge, it's as simple as that.

And yet Tom did exactly that.

Alan2099

11-07-2006, 02:18 PM

Oh I see so he just knows SHIELDS policy on maternity leave which apparently includes "no fighting Dr Doom", those human resources guys at SHIELD sure are thorough.
However if Mandarin or the Red Skull attacks, shes going out there. The policy only covers Doom. :p

When someone in the Army or the National guard refuse to go to Iraq they do not say "well if you don't we have this unpaid speeding ticket here that we will use against you!". No they say "this is what you signed, join us or go to jail, it's the law". With Wonder Man they used the first example, something that is OUTSIDE the law.
The difference is, people join the Army or the national Guard by choice. I was a part of both.

Unlike Wonderman, nobody ever forced me to join them, and once I signed up, nobody blackmailed me to do any extra assignments.

bulbasteve

11-07-2006, 02:46 PM

Unlike Wonderman, nobody ever forced me to join them, and once I signed up, nobody blackmailed me to do any extra assignments.

It wasn't an extra assignment, he was not an Agent of SHIELD until he was "blackmailed". Again he could go to court for the crimes they were accusing him of or went to the press and said what SHIELD was doing.

This is not an anti-reg vs pro-reg argument, it is simply what SHIELD is doing. It is nothing different than what SHIELD could have done before and has nothing to do with registration itself. Nothing in the law forces you to join SHIELD or take any assignment, they had to go OUTSIDE the law in order to do it.

And hey if Tony does maybe get a position in SHIELD than he can change it, but this issue has nothing to do with him or registration.

In fact I can't remember anything from the secret war which indicated he had coerced them rather than just asked them (I know he just asked Cap And Wolverine is always up for killing people, Spiderman he called in a favour).

I meant more the fact that they can and did wipe his mind. She knows full well what SHIELD is capable of and doesn't need Tony to tell her (plus didn't she have a boyfriend in SHIELD and was offered a position in it to work with the Avengers before?)

I don't mind exposition to be honest but all he has to say is "nothing will change with your status" if that is what he means.

How can he know though? He doesn't know what Hill would do if she signs up for SHIELD. And again noone is claiming he has been doing a bang up job on a one to one basis with people, he is great at board meetings but that doesn't mean he is great convincing individuals. He is an engineer after all :p

Oh I see so he just knows SHIELDS policy on maternity leave which apparently includes "no fighting Dr Doom", those human resources guys at SHIELD sure are thorough. :D

It's not like he was surprised to know she had a kid, he could have just...looked up their maternity policy or used common sense.

And a person who is guilty of draft dodging gets to have a trial as well at the end of the day both systems involve a penalty for those who don't comply.

If the charges were trumpted up and he was not found guilty there isn't a penalty, if he goes to the press and says they are trying to draft him there would be no penalty.

And yet Tom did exactly that.

He said "...and to be licensed in theri activities. In the same way that Army Reservists have found themselves serving interminable, undefined stints of active duty in Iraq due to the specific way the Reserve is set up, so too may certain heroes find themselves in similar situations in CIVIL WAR."

He was talking about those heroes who were licenced, as in working for an agency as a hero. Not a civilian like Wonder Man. In the case he is talking about the analogy works, in Wonder Man's case the analogy does not work since he was blackmailed into joining SHIELD, not getting a particular mission

Eallison

11-07-2006, 03:24 PM

Again another person using false dilemmas. Hell if everything was as simple as you make it out to be why do we even have an court system? Oh yes, because people have different IDEAS about what a law means. When a liberal reads the Geneva Convention they have a different idea of how it applies than someone from the Bush administration. That doesn't mean that Bush is lying when he is saying that he believes the forms of torture he wants is allowed under it, he just has a different opinion of what the law is. Tony doesn't THINK the Courts have jurisdiciton, he could be lying yes, he could be mis-informed yes, but he could ALSO just honestly think it does and believe that while others have a different opinion.

Yes, except that you are basing your theory of Tony on something not shown, implied, or hinted at in the story.

By this "argument," I guess there is no proof that the entire Civil War issue in Marvel exists. In fact, I'm going to put forth that the entire thing was an alternate universe created by Impossible Man.

Now, disprove it. Oh, that's right, by your comments above, you CAN'T. You're basically saying that while we can take things at face value, they shouldn't be used as standards of proof.

Great way to read a story. Heck, every time I look away from the comics, I bet the print rearranges itself into Spanish, too :rolleyes:

No one is using false dilemmas but you. Here it is, one more time, then I'm done. I'm not going to waste time with someone who is willfully obtuse.

There is NOTHING in the story to indicate Tony is misinformed or lying as of this writing. The only place you get this is from Mr Brevoort's statements. Now, if you want to lend them more weight, that is fine -- however, it is also not yet canon. If the story vindicates Mr Brevoort's view, then the whole thing changes (which I noticed you never bothered addressing).

For someone who wants to talk about a fictional universe as if it were real and nothing outside it can effect it how can there be a "story" to contradict it? They are characters living in the moment, there is no reason to think they are not fallible unless you....GASP...do not want to follow canon and start talking about these outside concepts like "stories" and not that it is a "fictional universe".

Say hello to the strawman! I hope you and it are having fun!

So, we should, according to you, disbelieve everything any character says, since anyone can be fallible? That IS what you are saying, in essence. My Impossible Man scenario is looking better and better.

Is this just your excuse for not knowing what his powers are? That is the very NATURE of his powers. If Speedball did not know Wolverine had a healing factor and saw him blow his head off and felt bad that he killed himself, would you suddenly believe it? No, the very nature of his powers contradict it and YOU know more than the narrator of the story does.

No, but apparently it is an excuse for you to accept anything placed in front of you in the story, only to have it changed, and be totally okay with it.

Did the STORY tell us his powers? No. Did the story give ANY reason to think Digitek wasn't dead? Any at all? Answer: no. Can Marvel change the story? Yes, but that doesn't change what they presented at the time, does it?

My "excuse" is that I'm not doing the work of the writer, editor, or planner myself. What you are basically saying is, it's perfectly acceptable to insert a new character in the last two pages of a murder mystery and make them the murderer.

Me? I like to be able to use the story. When I cannot tell what is an error, what is a red herring, and what is a legitimate clue, the story falls apart -- and this is pretty much what I said about Identity Crisis, too.

How is that too subtle? You are still saying the thread is pointless. Again remember exactly the idea of a No-Prize, it says nothing printed in the book is wrong, much like you. It simply explains WHY these things which don't seem to jell are right. Like any piece of literature not everyone will read it the same, he is just better explaining what the actual intention was. While you might THINK to read it one way, guess what, your wrong. If you think CW1 shows that Cap didn't have to follow Hills orders you just plain read it wrong, the text is still there, it's still the same "canon", you just didn't interpret it correctly. He KNOWS what is meant by what is written, you are just guessing.

No, the thread isn't pointless. It's a great insight. It's just NOT canon until it appears in the story. And I notice you didn't even try to argue on Spider-Man's costume being purple when it, you know, wasn't.

And let me stress this, again. NO, if the majority of people walked away with, as you claim, the "wrong" interpretation, that's the fault of the writer/editor/whomever, not the reader. If the story isn't clear, that's a problem of craft -- in other words, it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Funny, also, how I read things wrong when they benefit you, and when they might harm you (backdoor draft, which is being backpedalled on already), you ignore them.

That is why Stan had to send you a No-Prize, he was the gatekeeper between a crack pot explinations and ones that are true. Sure you can be involved in shaping the continuity, but if the editor says "no, that is wrong, here is what actually happened" how can you say he is wrong and you are right?

I really don't see why you're having so much problem with this. Let me make it clearer.

If a comic shows Spider-Man throwing a bank vault, and the editor posts in an online column that no, the bank vault wasn't thrown by Spidey, but by Hulk, it doesn't magically change the panels of the story.

If, issues later, the scene is shown to us again, and we see that it was indeed the Hulk, with, say, a Spider-Man image inducer, NOW the out-of-story claim is valid. Hell, even if Spidey muses about Hulk's illusion, that's something.

I refuse to believe you cannot grasp that distinction.

His JOB is to be the keeper of continuity between the titles, he is able to No-Prize away the freedom of different writers to be free to give different interpretations of events. We can try and give our best guesses but what he says is TRUE and it seems people who don't want to believe it is just because it goes against what they believe. I've never seen a pro-reg poster just refuse to believe something he says just because it is "against" their view, but we STILL have anti-reggers (not you per se) that STILL insist on things which he has says is the wrong interpretation over and over. That isn't "working together" that is saying that Marvel doesn't know what they are talking about and the readers are the only ones to decide what is true or not.

Physician, heal thyself. You have blinders on, too, and are frantically relying on out-of-story claims to bolster a view so far unsupported in the books.

And I've seen you and Magneto Rocks do that PLENTY of times, get called on it, and either ignore it outright, or handwave it away.

And again, if that is Editorial's job (to be the keeper of continuity), they should be working harder at it. There is no good, in-story reason to have two different views of the Negative Zone Prison, or two versions of Sue's breakup, and the like.

That is NOT to say I think Editorial is laying down on the job. My grievances with the story aside, I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to do bad work. That doesn't mean it can't be done a LOT better, though. Instead of making the clarifications here, they should be being made in the books, where they will impact the stories.

Now, as I said, I'm done with this. I went through it in Identity Crisis, I'm not doing it again. It's the same arguments with the same points about basically doing the story's work for it.

Take it, for the last time, and run.

bulbasteve

11-07-2006, 04:04 PM

Now, disprove it. Oh, that's right, by your comments above, you CAN'T. You're basically saying that while we can take things at face value, they shouldn't be used as standards of proof.

No. I am saying when something is vague enough that someone posts it on a Q and A thread and the editor SAYS what it means then you believe it. These are issues where entire threads are made about them and we are talking abou them much later, this is nothing about taking things at fact value.

There is NOTHING in the story to indicate Tony is misinformed or lying as of this writing. The only place you get this is from Mr Brevoort's statements. Now, if you want to lend them more weight, that is fine -- however, it is also not yet canon. If the story vindicates Mr Brevoort's view, then the whole thing changes (which I noticed you never bothered addressing).

Even a PASSING knowledge of the U.S. legal system will tell you that Tony is either misinformed, lying OR has a different opinion (which you STILL ignore and set up a false dilemma of only those two choices). We KNOW that a U.S. court could rule on it even though it is not American soil. We know from what Civil War Files says that Speedball is getting a trial, and we have what Tom said. So we have what the legal system says, what is said in comics AND the editors comments. What more do you want, Jesus to come down to earth and say it so it is REALLY canon?

No, but apparently it is an excuse for you to accept anything placed in front of you in the story, only to have it changed, and be totally okay with it.

Did the STORY tell us his powers? No. Did the story give ANY reason to think Digitek wasn't dead? Any at all? Answer: no. Can Marvel change the story? Yes, but that doesn't change what they presented at the time, does it?

...

...yes it did. It said he rearranged the molecules of his body and made a shotgun on his arm and shot himself.... so....any more excuses for not knowing his powers? Like I said it is literally the same as Wolverine dying and someone who didn't know his powers saying he was dead. You just keep avoiding the fact you did not know his powers even though it is stated in the book and by the editor. Now I don't know if you are just going to quit posting because you are wrong about some particular point, cause that actually DOES seem to happen a lot on your side.

Funny, also, how I read things wrong when they benefit you, and when they might harm you (backdoor draft, which is being backpedalled on already), you ignore them.

When has any pro-reg poster disagree with something the editor says? Noone is claiming Wonder Man wasn't blackmailed by SHIELD or anything. Noone is ignoring it, hell I'm talking about in this topic right now. You guys willfully ignore what the editor says if it doesn't suit you. We try to UNDERSTAND it and work with it, you guys (and again maybe not you per se)just kneejerk react and say "I don't care what anyone says, Cap didn't have to follow Hills orders EVER".

If a comic shows Spider-Man throwing a bank vault, and the editor posts in an online column that no, the bank vault wasn't thrown by Spidey, but by Hulk, it doesn't magically change the panels of the story.

If, issues later, the scene is shown to us again, and we see that it was indeed the Hulk, with, say, a Spider-Man image inducer, NOW the out-of-story claim is valid. Hell, even if Spidey muses about Hulk's illusion, that's something.

Perhaps you would like your strawman back? He is explaining the CONTEXT of an event. He is not saying something that did happen didn't happen. He is EXPLAINING what happened and what the letter of the law says. not what any particular character may believe or any agency may act againt the law.

And I've seen you and Magneto Rocks do that PLENTY of times, get called on it, and either ignore it outright, or handwave it away.

Example?

Alpow

11-07-2006, 05:07 PM

I meant more the fact that they can and did wipe his mind. She knows full well what SHIELD is capable of and doesn't need Tony to tell her (plus didn't she have a boyfriend in SHIELD and was offered a position in it to work with the Avengers before?)

Both true.

However Jessica seemed quite concerned that the act would mean she was forced from retirement, since she knows what Shield is capable of and she thinks this alters her status in some manner obviously blackmail isn't her concern.

Tony didn't address this and didn't allay this concern which was obviously particular to the SHRA and not SHIELD (since nothing was altering with SHIELD ability to blackmail Jessica, unless you count the entire imprisonment without trial which you don't).

How can he know though? He doesn't know what Hill would do if she signs up for SHIELD. And again noone is claiming he has been doing a bang up job on a one to one basis with people, he is great at board meetings but that doesn't mean he is great convincing individuals. He is an engineer after all :p

He seems to have no trouble getting the ladies to buy into a Stark heavy portfolio.

On the issue of Hill, this takes us back round to the question of how he can give her a guarantee she won't be sent to take on Doom if he isn't in charge.

It's not like he was surprised to know she had a kid, he could have just...looked up their maternity policy or used common sense.

Well as you point out above Shield is not above any action so why are we to believe they are above sending a (somewhat) new mother out to do their bidding if they find it necessary.

How can Tony give such a guarantee, either he can't (i.e. he is lying) or he has some control over who Shield grabs and drafts (in which case he could have given her proper assurances).

If the charges were trumpted up and he was not found guilty there isn't a penalty, if he goes to the press and says they are trying to draft him there would be no penalty.

There would be the expense of his defence and the damage to his reputation.

That all ignores the fact that he may be guilty in which case there is a clear penalty, unless you believe that him being guilty means that he should be forced to do what Shield says.

He was talking about those heroes who were licenced, as in working for an agency as a hero. Not a civilian like Wonder Man. In the case he is talking about the analogy works, in Wonder Man's case the analogy does not work since he was blackmailed into joining SHIELD, not getting a particular mission

Everybody who uses their powers is licensed.

Tom:
"The second component of the Act is what I've been calling "licensing": there's no obligation for any person to use his or her power in a super-heroic capacity, but should somebody choose to follow such a path, then they need to be licensed."

Wonderman is just like all the others who are licensed, the fact that you consider these people to no longer be civilians and subject to call up on demand is sort of my point.

bulbasteve

11-07-2006, 05:24 PM

However Jessica seemed quite concerned that the act would mean she was forced from retirement, since she knows what Shield is capable of and she thinks this alters her status in some manner obviously blackmail isn't her concern.

Heh, I don't know did you read Alias? I think they have a pretty thick file on her :p

On the issue of Hill, this takes us back round to the question of how he can give her a guarantee she won't be sent to take on Doom if he isn't in charge.

He is a real nice guy and would make sure she doesn't?

Well as you point out above Shield is not above any action so why are we to believe they are above sending a (somewhat) new mother out to do their bidding if they find it necessary.

Sure, but that doesn't have much to do with Tony and his motivations, he hates SHIELD as much as the next guy.

There would be the expense of his defence and the damage to his reputation.

Not really, he just needs to tell Tony or the C.S.A in secret if he is worried about this reputation. Remember the government and Stark are not the biggest fans of SHIELD. If they do nothing, then he could have went to the press, and yeah it will hurt his reputation a bit if it actually is trumped up, but hey if you got Iron Man standing by you I don't think it will be that big of a deal...afterall they love these guys and every other tuesday they are mind controlled by someone.

Everybody who uses their powers is licensed.

Tom:
"The second component of the Act is what I've been calling "licensing": there's no obligation for any person to use his or her power in a super-heroic capacity, but should somebody choose to follow such a path, then they need to be licensed."

At the time of Frontline he said he didn't want to get involved in super-heroics and focusing on his movies and stuff, didn't he? He wasn't part of SHIELD or anyone else before this. So he was not "licensed" at the time. The backdoor draft IS interesting and a big deal, but Wonder Man isn't a good example of this, it was an illegal SHIELD action. And again not something Tony would particularly support, which is the point of this topic. (yeah..I'm one to talk about on-topic.. :p)

Will.S

11-07-2006, 06:20 PM

He is a real nice guy and would make sure she doesn't?
That seems to be the main gist of what Tony was offering. If one notices, Cage mentions how registered superheroes will eventually become a "gov't yes men" but Iron Man response to that was that it was exactly what he wanted to prevent.

JMS's Spider-Man: Road to Civil War issues and Bendis's Illuminati special seem to really point out this aspect of Tony as far as trying to change or beat the system from the inside and giving more leeway where it should belong which is maybe why he might end up as the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. if it comes to pass.

jpk

11-07-2006, 06:22 PM

Tony's true motivation is and always will be this: to bang hot chicks.

This Civil War thing is just a distraction until the next billionaire pool party. :D

jaxcs

11-08-2006, 01:23 AM

It wasn't an extra assignment, he was not an Agent of SHIELD until he was "blackmailed". Again he could go to court for the crimes they were accusing him of or went to the press and said what SHIELD was doing.

This is not an anti-reg vs pro-reg argument, it is simply what SHIELD is doing. It is nothing different than what SHIELD could have done before and has nothing to do with registration itself. Nothing in the law forces you to join SHIELD or take any assignment, they had to go OUTSIDE the law in order to do it.

And hey if Tony does maybe get a position in SHIELD than he can change it, but this issue has nothing to do with him or registration.

I think you are missing the point. Yes, the back door draft is not concerned directly with the SHRA and Tony, but it is a possible corrupt usage of the SHRA and, serves as a mark against shield. Since sheild knows your id, they are in a position to apply pressure to force you to do their bidding. The easy reply is that this represents a structural defect and not an ideological one, that safe guards could be put in place that would prevent such bad behavior; I say that the concentration of names is dangerous to the heroes and too much of a temptation for illicit use, wonder man being the first of many such possible black mailings. why didn't wm come forward and make this scheme publicly known? Maybe he thought that shield would not stop delving into his past and possibly putting friends and family into danger until he complied?

BTW, wasn't there a mini series a few years back where a bunch of villains were being blackmailed to retrieve a cube of some kind containing the identities of heroes, world wide. It turned out that the vulture had a daughter in shield or something like that? what happened to that cube and if they have it why do they need registration in the first place!?

Alpow

11-08-2006, 03:03 AM

Heh, I don't know did you read Alias? I think they have a pretty thick file on her :p

But they already had that file on her, registering makes no difference on that score.

Clearly that isn't what she is worried about.

He is a real nice guy and would make sure she doesn't?

Which means he has some control over who gets sent and who doesn't, so what not just give her a guarantee that she won't get forced form retirement at all.

Sure, but that doesn't have much to do with Tony and his motivations, he hates SHIELD as much as the next guy.

But you have said he couldn't give her a guanrentee that she could stay retired because Shield could blackmail her (although as I have pointed out this is irrelevant) so again how can he give a guarantee that Shield will give her maternity leave.

Not really, he just needs to tell Tony or the C.S.A in secret if he is worried about this reputation.

Yeah the CSA which sent the Thunderbolts after the New Avengers, hardly a trustworthy group themselves.

What can they do anyway, are they going to pull strings to ensure he avoids a trial and ensure that the media doesn't print any rumours?

I don't think you will like the idea that they can and will do such a thing.

You also failed to address this

"That all ignores the fact that he may be guilty in which case there is a clear penalty, unless you believe that him being guilty means that he should be forced to do what Shield says."

At the time of Frontline he said he didn't want to get involved in super-heroics and focusing on his movies and stuff, didn't he?

I just skimmed through front-line 5 and I don't see him saying that anywhere, I do see him flying around in costume though and acting as a poster boy for licensed heroics on camera.

He wasn't part of SHIELD or anyone else before this. So he was not "licensed" at the time.

The second sentence doesn't follow from the first.

Whilst SHIELD is in charge of licensing and registration according to Tom (since this is debate point about what he was saying) people can be autonomous and licensed since he says they can be Licensed and not have a salary.

The backdoor draft IS interesting and a big deal, but Wonder Man isn't a good example of this, it was an illegal SHIELD action. And again not something Tony would particularly support, which is the point of this topic. (yeah..I'm one to talk about on-topic.. :p)

Wouldn't he support it?

He didn't seem to blink at breaking people out a federal prison why would he have a problem with a little black mail (that is what the negative zone essentially is, a means of applying pressure to those who won't sign so that they do sign), he turned around and essentially sent veiled threats Peter's way.

ADamiani

11-10-2006, 07:54 AM

Everybody who uses their powers is licensed.

Tom:
"The second component of the Act is what I've been calling "licensing": there's no obligation for any person to use his or her power in a super-heroic capacity, but should somebody choose to follow such a path, then they need to be licensed."

Wonderman is just like all the others who are licensed, the fact that you consider these people to no longer be civilians and subject to call up on demand is sort of my point.

See, that's not my reading of Tom's statement.
The way I read this, it's only being a superhero that is licensed, not being superhuman. So Iron Man, Ant Man or Hawkeye-- who have no real powers-- still have to register. If I read this right, it's placing restrictions on the ability to run around, fighting villains in the streets of major American cities, acting as a surrogate law-enforcement officer. The act immunizes you from good samaritan laws (no legal obligation for unregisterred supers to use their proportional-strength-of-a-spider to stop Doc Ock), but also forbids you to get in a protracted melee that levels eight city blocks, the next time Doctor Doom comes to town.
It's not about placing restrictions on your unnatural power to conjure omlettes out of thin air. It's not mutant registration redux. Which is why they had to blackmail Simon into registerring; he had no legal obligation to, otherwise.

samdemeo

11-16-2006, 01:15 AM

At this stage in the game, I'm sure there isn't an undiscussed Civil War theory somewhere on the net, but I haven't seen this one:

Tony has stated repeatedly that even before Stamford, public opinion was leaning strongly towards the SHRA. In "The Road to Civil War," Tony is against the bill, but once it becomes law, he feverently supports it. Perhaps the reason is that he is trying to enforce the law in as draconian a way as possible is to sway public opinion back and diffuse the law into something either rarely enforced or minimally punished.

While there is is no proof about this, it at least explains the following:
- Tony's and Reed's apparent out of character behavior, as they're only pretending to mean whay they're saying.
- Tony's need to keep Reed busy, both to help keep Reed's emotions buried and because he knows Sue would figure out what was really going on if Reed was able to have a real conversation with her, especially after Goliath's unplanned death
- Tony wanting to keep Peter safe, but not trusting him to be able to keep the truth from MJ, May, or the other heroes, so he makes him pledge his loyalty to him in advance, and later threatens him and his family
- The importance of the reporters in Frontlines, as they're going to be the ones to let the public know about the Thunderbolts, clones, negative zone prison, no trials, possible back door draft, etc.
- Reed's ridiculous story about his uncle that he can tell Peter but not his own family
- Reed's equally ridiculous explanation to Ben Urich about predicting the future, when he's fought the Mad Thinker enough times to know how accuratelky that works (although the interview itself is a nice set up for Ben Urich to be in a place to find out what they want leaked)

This explanation also gives a way to end Civil War (the comic) in a way other than with Caps team either losing or on the run, or without even a minor resolution.

I know I haven't read a lot of the tie-in issues and haven't picked up CW#5 yet, so there are probably a million flaws in my theory, but at the moment it's the only one that makes any amount of sense to me. On the other hand, until I read Avengers 503, I was also expecting Disassembled to make sense, so what do I know?

--Sam