Is Iron Man portrayed as a terrorist?

[mikekerr3]

A terrorist is commonly defined as a person who commits acts of violence for the purpose of inciting terror in a population to achieve political ends.

The acts commited againstthe Atlantean ambassador could fall into this catagory.

[XPac]

Frontline did establish that the intent of both of his attacks on the Atlanteans were to scare the public and heroes into throwing support for the registration. So yeah, I think by definition you can say he's a terrorist.

[Harlock]

No, he is not.

[Omega Alpha]

In the Jenkinsverse, yes. But this is the universe in which you're a loser and isn't worth a thing if you don't have MySpace.

[XPac]

In the Jenkinsverse, yes. But this is the universe in which you're a loser and isn't worth a thing if you don't have MySpace.

That only works on the assumption that we're suppossed to actually believe Sally Floyd is right.

I think the more accurate descriptioin is that youre' a loser and aren't worth a thing if you're name is Sally Flody.

[Alan2099]

No, he is not.

Yes he is + infinity.

I win! :D

[Omega Alpha]

That only works on the assumption that we're suppossed to actually believe Sally Floyd is right.


But in the Jenkinsverse, Sally Floyd is always right.

[XPac]

But in the Jenkinsverse, Sally Floyd is always right.

That's interesting... after reading the Jenkinserve, I came to the exact opposite conclusion you did.

[bulbasteve]

Yet the only way we hear about these things are from the reporters who are always wrong. That and Namor never once mentioned the embassador in his series, you would think that would be pretty important to him, huh?

Tony just does in that series what Tony always does and never answers peoples accusations for whatever reason, but that doesn't make the accusations correct. He was probably mad and sobbing about how bad of reporters they are :p (that or he planted the information himself to throw them off the real trial, you never know with that Tony)

[Hulkamaniac]

I can't understand this new defense of Tony by bashing only Jenkins works on the subject. There is a lot of examples of Tony being "controversial" (to put it lightly, very lightly) in other books that Jenkins does not write. This idea that Tony is a saint in all other books not written by Jenkins is just plain retarded.

[Mark_S]

I think we can call him only a part time terrorist. He only resorts to terrorism when he thinks it is the easiest or only way to shift the world. If a few people get hurt or killed the process... well Tony's willing to pay that price. But he would prefer that everyone be smart enough to realize how right he is all of the time and just go along with what he says.

Mark_S

[Alan2099]

There's no such thing as a part time terrorist. That's like being a part time mass murderer.

"Well, sure he's killed a lot of people, but he only does that some of the time." That doesn't fly as an excuse.

[Hulkamaniac]

I think the connection is the ideological point of view. Tony's ideology boils down to "the end justifies the means", that is the same rationale that terrorists use. Trampling over one's rights, whether it's civil rights or the right to simply live, if you justify the actions by suggesting that it will create an environment for what you think is better than it's ok. Tony tries to defend his actions by suggesting he is a "futurist", what tyrant hasn't suggested the very same thing to justify their power?

[Omega Alpha]

I can't understand this new defense of Tony by bashing only Jenkins works on the subject. There is a lot of examples of Tony being "controversial" (to put it lightly, very lightly) in other books that Jenkins does not write. This idea that Tony is a saint in all other books not written by Jenkins is just plain retarded.

I'm not a saint, but that doesn't make me a terrorist. And I hope most people here can say the same (because no one can claim to be the former).

Tony tries to defend his actions by suggesting he is a "futurist", what tyrant hasn't suggested the very same thing to justify their power?

Again, this is what futurist means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist). And another definition (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=futurist&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname) and a third one (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/futurist). By your post, we should assume that Stephen Hawking is the next Adolf Hitler.

[bulbasteve]

I think the connection is the ideological point of view. Tony's ideology boils down to "the end justifies the means", that is the same rationale that terrorists use. Trampling over one's rights, whether it's civil rights or the right to simply live, if you justify the actions by suggesting that it will create an environment for what you think is better than it's ok. Tony tries to defend his actions by suggesting he is a "futurist", what tyrant hasn't suggested the very same thing to justify their power?

Actually Tony doesn't defend his actions in that way, the futurism is the "secret honor" of Reed/Tony/Hank as Future-Doom said. Heck we have actually seen Stark record PSAs, and none of em were "oooga booga I can tell the future, do what I say!" or other types of scar mongering. Power? Heck he hates the Thunderbolts and can't do anything and knows almost nothing about what is going on in Camp Hammond, my god he had his powers just taken away and temporarily kicked out of SHIELD command cause he was acting a bit nutty...he hardly has any power.

Now give me an example of one government or heck one PERSON (barring a hippy :p) who don't beleive in the ends justify the means in one form or another. I mean geez the whole CONCEPT of being a superhuman vigilante is "the ends of bringing criminals to justice justifies the means of doing it illegally".

Of course Tony didn't trample on anyones rights anyway as Howard the Duck showed people (and ducks) get trials on registration issues.

[Tobias Drake]

How many Stark-bashing threads do we really need? Is every anti-Reg going to start one? Should all of us pro-Regs start making "Isn't Tony Stark awesome?" threads?

[TotalWorldDomination]

Actually Tony doesn't defend his actions in that way, the futurism is the "secret honor" of Reed/Tony/Hank as Future-Doom said. Heck we have actually seen Stark record PSAs, and none of em were "oooga booga I can tell the future, do what I say!" or other types of scar mongering. Power? Heck he hates the Thunderbolts and can't do anything and knows almost nothing about what is going on in Camp Hammond, my god he had his powers just taken away and temporarily kicked out of SHIELD command cause he was acting a bit nutty...he hardly has any power.

Now give me an example of one government or heck one PERSON (barring a hippy :p) who don't beleive in the ends justify the means in one form or another. I mean geez the whole CONCEPT of being a superhuman vigilante is "the ends of bringing criminals to justice justifies the means of doing it illegally".

Of course Tony didn't trample on anyones rights anyway as Howard the Duck showed people (and ducks) get trials on registration issues.

Tony being given a manditory leave of absence because of his own personal issues has to be one of my favorite moments of Post-Civil War plot ever. When samonson quoted the regulation that he was using to ground tony (reminding him that he was the one who wrote it) and then used Stark-tech to block his Extremis... well that's just the system in action.

Even smelly unwashed hippies belive that the ends justify the means. Not shaving or showering is saving so much water! even if it means they have to smell offensive to everyone to save that water, damn it all they are going to do it! :D

[TotalWorldDomination]

How many Stark-bashing threads do we really need? Is every anti-Reg going to start one? Should all of us pro-Regs start making "Isn't Tony Stark awesome?" threads?

I'm calling the thread title "Tony Stark is a Love God who everyone Loves to Love" now. you guys can fight over the rest.

[Alan2099]

A terrorist is somebody that uses fear (or terror) as a way to acheive political means.

He hired the Titanium man to attack Congress. That alone marks him as a terrorist. That's not even getting into his Atalantian stunt that he used to gain public suport.

You may think terrorist is an ugly word, but it fits him.

[Mark_S]

Actually Tony doesn't defend his actions in that way, the futurism is the "secret honor" of Reed/Tony/Hank as Future-Doom said. Heck we have actually seen Stark record PSAs, and none of em were "oooga booga I can tell the future, do what I say!" or other types of scar mongering. Power? Heck he hates the Thunderbolts and can't do anything and knows almost nothing about what is going on in Camp Hammond, my god he had his powers just taken away and temporarily kicked out of SHIELD command cause he was acting a bit nutty...he hardly has any power.

Now give me an example of one government or heck one PERSON (barring a hippy :p) who don't beleive in the ends justify the means in one form or another. I mean geez the whole CONCEPT of being a superhuman vigilante is "the ends of bringing criminals to justice justifies the means of doing it illegally".

Of course Tony didn't trample on anyones rights anyway as Howard the Duck showed people (and ducks) get trials on registration issues.


Funny, the Prowler didn't have a trial. Nor did Bill Foster.

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

Funny, the Prowler didn't have a trial. Nor did Bill Foster.

Mark_S

Bill Foster was killed in combat while violently resisting arrest. No different from a criminal shooting at a police officer killed by the officer shooting back.

[Alan2099]

Please don't tell me you're still trying to defend the mentally unstable Thor clone that never should have been created in the first place. There is absoltuley nothing justifiable done either by that character or in his creation.

[Tobias Drake]

Please don't tell me you're still trying to defend the mentally unstable Thor clone that never should have been created in the first place. There is absoltuley nothing justifiable done either by that character or in his creation.

I'm not defending Clor. I'm defending the idea that Bill Foster's death was his own fault, and not the fault of law-enforcement officials trying to arrest him. When you violently resist arrest, you take the responsibility for what happens to you.

[mikekerr3]

Of course Tony didn't trample on anyones rights anyway as Howard the Duck showed people (and ducks) get trials on registration issues.

People have a right to representation, bail , lawyers. 42 was an abomination under the constitution.

He used violence to register superhumans and the registration of superhuman is a register of peoples state of being. Superheros could be registered without constitutional difficuty.

And before someboy brings up the idiotic "guns are registered" guns are inanimate objects not people a go has no rights. To use this analogy is to place the value of people at the value of hunks of metal,

As far as this being only in Jenkins stories, Tony admitted to Reed that he was the traitor. Also in last new warriord his response was "it didn't get that far" even carol din't believe him.

[TotalWorldDomination]

People have a right to representation, bail , lawyers. 42 was an abomination under the constitution.

He used violence to register superhumans and the registration of superhuman is a register of peoples state of being. Superheros could be registered without constitutional difficuty.

And before someboy brings up the idiotic "guns are registered" guns are inanimate objects not people a go has no rights. To use this analogy is to place the value of people at the value of hunks of metal.

How do you know? Tony says on more the one occasion that 42 is a temporary measure and the detentions for heroes would end when the war did... and shockingly that's what happened. 42 is now used for people who have been processed normally. you have a right to a SPEEDY trial. not an immediate one. They had to set up a system to process dozens of superhumans while maintaining security. All while fighting against a force using guerrilla tactics to undermine the law.

And lets point out the Guns are registered in combination with there owners because the owners must be accountable for actions taken with there guns. Just like superheroes are registered by power, because they have to be accountable for what they do with them.

[mikekerr3]

How do you know? Tony says on more the one occasion that 42 is a temporary measure and the detentions for heroes would end when the war did... and shockingly that's what happened. 42 is now used for people who have been processed normally. you have a right to a SPEEDY trial. not an immediate one. They had to set up a system to process dozens of superhumans while maintaining security. All while fighting against a force using guerrilla tactics to undermine the law.

And lets point out the Guns are registered in combination with there owners because the owners must be accountable for actions taken with there guns. Just like superheroes are registered by power, because they have to be accountable for what they do with them.

Tony told Spiderman that the prisoners were there until they submitted. He said that they did not have access to courts. Bail hearings are required in 72 Hours. Right to a lawyer is immediate. Congress has no power , except through amendment of the Constittuoion, to change that.

I have said that registration of superheros could be constitutional by not superhumans. The ability of a corrupt and genocidal foreign organization to call them to service at whim is unconstitutional.

And it is really funny that pro-regs use "Howard the duck" as justification. Howard is made to register powers he doesn't have by a obviously insane judge.

What Tony says is not proof of anything the man lies whenever it is usefull ask the Hulk.

[Mark_S]

How many Stark-bashing threads do we really need? Is every anti-Reg going to start one? Should all of us pro-Regs start making "Isn't Tony Stark awesome?" threads?

You should see the marvel boards. If anyone at marvel reads the Iron Man or Avengers sections they must know what a monster they have created in the eyes of many fans. But I promiss here as I promiss there if you label a thread as a Tony's a Great Guy thread I won't look at it. You call can discuss/worship him there to your hearts content.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

I'm not defending Clor. I'm defending the idea that Bill Foster's death was his own fault, and not the fault of law-enforcement officials trying to arrest him. When you violently resist arrest, you take the responsibility for what happens to you.

Interesting point here. Did Tony or anyone else on the pro-reg side ever shout "You are under arrest."? As I recall Tony only said "Hey, I had to shoot your teleporters so that we could talk" or something like that. Wouldn't an attempted arrest have to be started with "We are law enforcement officers and you are under arrest"? Unless the entire pro-reg side became officers of the law under the sra as far as the anti-sra side was concerned this was just another Tony trap. Then again since the sra suspended all rights for superhumans until cw was over (speculating here, but when they can lock you up for life I'm guessing those other rights are tossed out too) the pro-sra side had no need to shout anything, it was just time to hit and hit again. I'm sure some of them even cheered when Clor took out Goliath, and I'm equally sure that Maria Hill and the SHIELD boys did. But it wasn't shown so that is my opinion only.

Mark_S

[Bryson the Red]

How many Stark-bashing threads do we really need? Is every anti-Reg going to start one? Should all of us pro-Regs start making "Isn't Tony Stark awesome?" threads?

I agree, someone should just make a "I hate Ironman" thread and then anytime a new thread is made for it it just gets lock, because they all end up being the same freaking "discussion" over and over.

[Tobias Drake]

I have said that registration of superheros could be constitutional by not superhumans. The ability of a corrupt and genocidal foreign organization to call them to service at whim is unconstitutional.

Hey, now, let's keep our wild allegations straight here. It's the U.S. government that y'all are calling genocidal. Wideawake wasn't S.H.I.E.L.D.

Interesting point here. Did Tony or anyone else on the pro-reg side ever shout "You are under arrest."? As I recall Tony only said "Hey, I had to shoot your teleporters so that we could talk" or something like that. Wouldn't an attempted arrest have to be started with "We are law enforcement officers and you are under arrest"? Unless the entire pro-reg side became officers of the law under the sra as far as the anti-sra side was concerned this was just another Tony trap. Then again since the sra suspended all rights for superhumans until cw was over (speculating here, but when they can lock you up for life I'm guessing those other rights are tossed out too) the pro-sra side had no need to shout anything, it was just time to hit and hit again. I'm sure some of them even cheered when Clor took out Goliath, and I'm equally sure that Maria Hill and the SHIELD boys did. But it wasn't shown so that is my opinion only.

Mark_S

You know, you have a point. Bill Foster was killed in the crossfire of a guerilla militant group violently assaulting a group of law enforcement officers in the midst of an attempted peace negotiation. That's so much better.

[XPac]

I'm not a saint, but that doesn't make him a terrorist. And I hope most people here can say the same (because no one can claim to be the former).



True... but hopefully most people here can say they haven't masterminded bombings on US soil to coerce the public into going along with their political beliefs.

I think the issue with comparing Tony to a terrorist has less to do with him not being a saint and more to do with him doing things like that.

[Mark_S]

You know, you have a point. Bill Foster was killed in the crossfire of a guerilla militant group violently assaulting a group of law enforcement officers in the midst of an attempted peace negotiation. That's so much better.

Yea, in a way it is. Better that than his tombstone should read "Here Lies Bill Foster. Goliath. Died as a result of a technical error with a new weapon. Don't worry, we'll get it right next time."

And again, were any of the pro-sra side duputized? I know Tony was because at that point his grand plan had put him in charge of the pro-sra's, but were any of the others? Some badges might have helped.

And to tell you the truth about that whole sequence I'm amazed that more poeple from both sides weren't killed after Clor killed Goliath. If I were anti-sra and I realized that the pro-sra side suddenly had done away with the unspoken no killing rule I would have done the same. And after the attack if I had gotten away I would have marched straight up to Cap, said thanks but no thanks, if they start killing then I'm leaving the country. Let the US burn, it's not worth it. I can only wonder why more of them didn't.

On the pro-sra side Tony could get away with anything.

Mark_S

[XPac]

How do you know? Tony says on more the one occasion that 42 is a temporary measure and the detentions for heroes would end when the war did... and shockingly that's what happened. 42 is now used for people who have been processed normally. you have a right to a SPEEDY trial. not an immediate one. They had to set up a system to process dozens of superhumans while maintaining security. All while fighting against a force using guerrilla tactics to undermine the law.

And lets point out the Guns are registered in combination with there owners because the owners must be accountable for actions taken with there guns. Just like superheroes are registered by power, because they have to be accountable for what they do with them.

Even now in New Avengers, we're seeing Hill tell Wrecker that he doesn't have a right to a lawyer.

One can argue that Wrecker deserves worse than the unregistered heroes... but the fact is that EVERYONE deserves proper due process. If SHIELD is deciding not to give it to people, then they are violating people's rights.

[Tobias Drake]

Yea, in a way it is. Better that than his tombstone should read "Here Lies Bill Foster. Goliath. Died as a result of a technical error with a new weapon. Don't worry, we'll get it right next time."

And again, were any of the pro-sra side duputized? I know Tony was because at that point his grand plan had put him in charge of the pro-sra's, but were any of the others? Some badges might have helped.

Ms. Marvel was particularly fond of her badge. We saw her flash it around plenty in her title.

And to tell you the truth about that whole sequence I'm amazed that more poeple from both sides weren't killed after Clor killed Goliath. If I were anti-sra and I realized that the pro-sra side suddenly had done away with the unspoken no killing rule I would have done the same. And after the attack if I had gotten away I would have marched straight up to Cap, said thanks but no thanks, if they start killing then I'm leaving the country. Let the US burn, it's not worth it. I can only wonder why more of them didn't.

On the pro-sra side Tony could get away with anything.

Mark_S

Lethal force is approved against someone driving a tank and firing off the cannons in the middle of a city. We've seen superheroes top that; Hulk bats around tanks like they're playdolls. We passed the "lethal force" point a long time ago.

[Tobias Drake]

Even now in New Avengers, we're seeing Hill tell Wrecker that he doesn't have a right to a lawyer.

One can argue that Wrecker deserves worse than the unregistered heroes... but the fact is that EVERYONE deserves proper due process. If SHIELD is deciding not to give it to people, then they are violating people's rights.

I feel I should note that as S.H.I.E.L.D. does not represent the United States government, it does not necessarily have to abide by United States standards.

[XPac]

I feel I should note that as S.H.I.E.L.D. does not represent the United States government, it does not necessarily have to abide by United States standards.

If they're capturing US citizens on US soil, then they sure as hell better be abiding by US laws. The fact that SHIELD feels they don't need to is exactly the problem.

[Mark_S]

I feel I should note that as S.H.I.E.L.D. does not represent the United States government, it does not necessarily have to abide by United States standards.

Wich is a bit like the US eating a big chocolate cake and not gaining any pounds.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

Lethal force is approved against someone driving a tank and firing off the cannons in the middle of a city. We've seen superheroes top that; Hulk bats around tanks like they're playdolls. We passed the "lethal force" point a long time ago.

Really? So who did the anti-sra side kill before Clor?

Mark_S

[Bryson the Red]

Yea, in a way it is. Better that than his tombstone should read "Here Lies Bill Foster. Goliath. Died breaking the law."

yeah yeah yeah. fixed.

[Mark_S]

yeah yeah yeah. fixed.

I didn't write that. If you are going to quote me don't change the quote.

Mark_S

[mikekerr3]

If they're capturing US citizens on US soil, then they sure as hell better be abiding by US laws. The fact that SHIELD feels they don't need to is exactly the problem.

They are enforcing US laws thus are acting as agents of the US goverment. All constitutional provisions would apply.

[Hulkamaniac]

I'm not a saint, but that doesn't make me a terrorist. And I hope most people here can say the same (because no one can claim to be the former).



Again, this is what futurist means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist). And another definition (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=futurist&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname) and a third one (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/futurist). By your post, we should assume that Stephen Hawking is the next Adolf Hitler.

I myself never used the term terrorist for Tony, so lets get that straight.
But I don't understand how you can quote my Jenkins comment and follow up with that dribble. I made a statement that people have no basis on blaming only Jenkins as the only source of Tony's flaws. There are alot of other titles written by other writers that do not put Tony in a good light when it comes to his more recent actions. your statement doesn't address my statement at all.

As for your second quote, I see your point but I don't think you see mine. I did not compare Tony to Hitler or any other particular futurist. But this does not relinquish the fact that tyrants are futurists in their own way. They sense or predict or see the future in their own ways and try to mold the present to fit that future, to make that future a reality. In that way a futurist and a tyrant are similar, but they are not the same. Also you conveniently failed to quote my entire rational which would enlighten my point more, thanks.

[Hulkamaniac]

Of course Tony didn't trample on anyones rights anyway as Howard the Duck showed people (and ducks) get trials on registration issues.

Thanks for the hardy laugh, I needed that ;) .

By the way, I hate it when people suggest things are either black or white, these issues and stories are neither. The reason why we all get heated is because these stories reflect something in our reality, much like many topics of fiction. I rather get annoyed when people automatically push the "Nazi button" or feel compelled to win their point over by using Hitler as a building block for their points of view. Let's simply stick to the comics. I'll no longer conjecture when it comes to Tony it seems to hurt some people, darned if I know why but there you have it.

[mikekerr3]

Hey, now, let's keep our wild allegations straight here. It's the U.S. government that y'all are calling genocidal. Wideawake wasn't S.H.I.E.L.D.



Shield actively participated in the attempt to destroy the Inhuman population.

[Alan2099]

Lethal force is approved against someone driving a tank and firing off the cannons in the middle of a city. We've seen superheroes top that; Hulk bats around tanks like they're playdolls. We passed the "lethal force" point a long time ago.
Any one involved in law enforcement is required to use the bare minimal force required for any situation. Just because somebody is driving a tank, you don't get the right to kill them right away if you vcan do something else to stop them. The clone went rigth for the killing moves. When the la3w enforcement officer is better armored and more protected than the criminal and insists on using lethal force right off the bat, there's not a jury in the world that would support them.

... well, maybe in the marvel world, but then again, these are people that think Venom is a better hero than Captain America. I wouldn't put too much faith in their opinions.

[Drdmx]

Lethal force is approved against someone driving a tank and firing off the cannons in the middle of a city. We've seen superheroes top that; Hulk bats around tanks like they're playdolls. We passed the "lethal force" point a long time ago.

Actually, you have to prove that Goliath either intended, or has a history of lethal action in order to justify his death legally.

You used the analogy earlier that Goliath attacking Clor was akin to a burglar shooting at police officers. This argument is invalid. It would be valid if Goliath were in fact attacking a normal human who felt threatened for their life. I'd even humor the analogy if Clor wasnt an ARTIFICIAL being with no feeling whatsoever, thus can not feel fear, and therefore could not be in fear of his artificial life.

No, at best under the law, you MIGHT be able to swing that Goliath was resisting arrest, in which you could make an analogy of a criminal fleeing a police officer or even assaulting one. Even in these instances, Police are not allowed to utilize lethal force unless they feel that their (read:REAL) life is in danger. At that point, either physical RESTRAINT or the use of other means such as mace or taser charges are acceptable. Not to mention that in the event of a suspects death, there is all KINDS of investigation, accountability, and follow up put into the case which verifies whether or not lethal force was absolutely necessary.

Given the artificial Thor's power level, Goliaths history, and the situation at hand, I would pretty much gaurantee that lethal force was not mandated.

[TotalWorldDomination]

No, at best under the law, you MIGHT be able to swing that Goliath was resisting arrest, in which you could make an analogy of a criminal fleeing a police officer or even assaulting one. Even in these instances, Police are not allowed to utilize lethal force unless they feel that their (read:REAL) life is in danger. At that point, either physical RESTRAINT or the use of other means such as mace or taser charges are acceptable. Not to mention that in the event of a suspects death, there is all KINDS of investigation, accountability, and follow up put into the case which verifies whether or not lethal force was absolutely necessary.

Given the artificial Thor's power level, Goliaths history, and the situation at hand, I would pretty much gaurantee that lethal force was not mandated.

1) how are you so sure there was not an investigation? in recent issues of Iron Man we've seen formal CSA hearings into Gaget's death, it's reasonable that such an investigation took place where Thor was cleared of all charges. Then again Clor was killed by Herc, so who would you punish?

2) Might be able to swing that be was resisting arrest? What else was he doing if not resisting arrest? having a tea party?

3) I don't have the issue on me, but did'nt he pick up a truck to hit clor with? That's assault with a deadly weapon- the exact kind of provocation that leads cops to engage in deadly force.

[bulbasteve]

Actually, you have to prove that Goliath either intended, or has a history of lethal action in order to justify his death legally.

You mean like how the moment before Thor zapped him (it's literally on the same page!) how he threw a semi truck at SHIELD agents? You guys are making this too darn easy :D

[Alan2099]

Do you think it was possible for the clone Thor to stop Black Goliath without killing him?

If so, then he wasn't justified in using lethal force.

[Drdmx]

1) how are you so sure there was not an investigation? in recent issues of Iron Man we've seen formal CSA hearings into Gaget's death, it's reasonable that such an investigation took place where Thor was cleared of all charges. Then again Clor was killed by Herc, so who would you punish?.

Can only go by what's in canon. Unfortunately, I was addressing the person whom I quoted points, not what I think really did or didnt happen.

2) Might be able to swing that be was resisting arrest? What else was he doing if not resisting arrest? having a tea party?.
It was my point. restrain, detain, whatever. Somehow I dont think that if a burglar is running from a police officer, "blow a hole through his chest" is in the training manual. Very clever with the tea party comment, I'll hold onto that one for myself.

3) I don't have the issue on me, but did'nt he pick up a truck to hit clor with? That's assault with a deadly weapon- the exact kind of provocation that leads cops to engage in deadly force.

Because the power level of the Thor Clone was so low he was definitely in imminent danger. You cant pick one sentence out of the message and apply it to the entire argument. What Alan2099 said above stands. Unless the clone was in imminent fear for his life (which isnt possible for something without life right???) then lethal force is not to be taken.

[Drdmx]

double post.

[Drdmx]

You guys are making this too darn easy :D

How does the world make it day to day without you in a commanding position of power?

"Is my sarcasm working yet?"...ridiculous.

One of you do actually have a response that applies potential logic to my post dont you? Or should we stick with the typical tit-for-tat attempts at 3rd grade sarcasm?

Disclaimer: Sorry if this sounds snappy, but I felt my initial post was sincere and straight-forward, and didnt really warrant sarcasm.

[TotalWorldDomination]

It was my point. restrain, detain, whatever. Somehow I dont think that if a burglar is running from a police officer, "blow a hole through his chest" is in the training manual. Very clever with the tea party comment, I'll hold onto that one for myself.

Feel free. I've got others if you want them, including a wonderful comment on a duck, the New York Stock Exchange and the Pope... but it's too long a quip for internet use and it's really all in the delivery. ;)

Because the power level of the Thor Clone was so low he was definitely in imminent danger. You cant pick one sentence out of the message and apply it to the entire argument. What Alan2099 said above stands. Unless the clone was in imminent fear for his life (which isnt possible for something without life right???) then lethal force is not to be taken.

I dispute your claims that Clor was a totally artificial being with no ability to fear for it's artificial life. It had human/asgardian biology and electronic implants to give it super-powers. I'd wager it had some form of emotions and self-awareness, heck all advanced AI in fiction has a basic desire to preserve its own existence, and since Herc was able to kill clor with a few punches (not only kill him, but smash him to paste), I'd say he was acting in self-defense. Let's also remember that he had never fought besides or against Bill Foster or the rest of the anti-reg forces, so he had no pre-knowledge of how they would react during normal situations, let alone during the Civil War were everyone was doing fairly extreme things.

The bill foster death was, clearly, not something that was planned or pre-meditated. you had a battle situation where potentially lethal force was being employed by both sides. At worst you can argue that a rookie member of the pro-registration forces overreacted to a 60-foot tall man and used the weapon at his disposal in too direct a manner.


How does the world make it day to day without you in a commanding position of power?

"Is my sarcasm working yet?"...ridiculous.

One of you do actually have a response that applies potential logic to my post dont you? Or should we stick with the typical tit-for-tat attempts at 3rd grade sarcasm?

Disclaimer: Sorry if this sounds snappy, but I felt my initial post was sincere and straight-forward, and didnt really warrant sarcasm.

Don't worry about it. We Pro-Reggers have been called Nazis, Morons, racists, Jingoistic fools... you name it we've been insulted by it in this and the other Anti-Tony threads up now. The only way to avoid being dragged into base name calling (a pre-K thru second grade activity) and still respond is a healthy dose of sarcasm (a third thru ninth grade activity). Consider yourself unfortunate collateral damage in this sad little flame war.

[vitruvian]

Shield actively participated in the attempt to destroy the Inhuman population.

Not to mention the enslavement of Savage Land tribesfolk to mine vibranium, in a setup very reminiscent of the Belgian Congo, in that early arc of New Avengers.

Did Tony ever follow up on that once he became director? 'Cause now it occurs to me that James Buchanan Barnes might not be the only guy coming after Stark with a big 'ol knife sometime soon. And living where he does, Ka-Zar could probably get a Bowie made out of anti-metal...

[vitruvian]

1) how are you so sure there was not an investigation? in recent issues of Iron Man we've seen formal CSA hearings into Gaget's death, it's reasonable that such an investigation took place where Thor was cleared of all charges. Then again Clor was killed by Herc, so who would you punish?

Where then are the CSA hearings into MVP's death? Oh, wait, there are none... anyway, if it's not shown in the comics, we can't really assume that it happened. It doesn't seem likely, given how inept Stark's handling of the situation seemed to be and how pissed Tom Foster continued to be. I mean, really - burying a giant black man in a huge tarp and *chains*? Nobody thought that image might push some buttons? And Pym couldn't shrink him down? Really?

3) I don't have the issue on me, but did'nt he pick up a truck to hit clor with? That's assault with a deadly weapon- the exact kind of provocation that leads cops to engage in deadly force.

Not a weapon that could really be considered deadly against somebody with anything approaching Thor's power levels.

The point that seems to be missed here, is that all these characters on both sides (Punisher not having joined with Cap yet) are coming from a background of working as superheroes who make every effort not to kill anybody, even the worst of villains, and especially not when fighting each other over some misunderstanding as they are wont to do. Even when two superheroes throw down, they've generally been expected to pull their punches to fit the perceived durability of their opponents. Witness Spider-Man, with rather massive strength, honestly, who constantly mixes it up with normal thugs yet never, so far as we have seen, actually lands them in the hospital, let alone kills them. Never mind that they're firing guns that could conceivably kill him, he just does not kill deliberately. Witness Reed Richards, who was not only not willing to kill Galactus, but wasn't even willing to let him die.

Therefore, for the pro-reg side to suddenly up the ante by having Clor *immediately* use lethal force against a foe who honestly wasn't much of a threat to him would have come as something of a shock - to all the other pro-reggers there, as well. We've seen Pym kind of heart sick about it, but not really much reaction from Reed "poster boy for absolute codes vs. killing" Richards, which seems kind of strange.

[TotalWorldDomination]

Not to mention the enslavement of Savage Land tribesfolk to mine vibranium, in a setup very reminiscent of the Belgian Congo, in that early arc of New Avengers.

Did Tony ever follow up on that once he became director? 'Cause now it occurs to me that James Buchanan Barnes might not be the only guy coming after Stark with a big 'ol knife sometime soon. And living where he does, Ka-Zar could probably get a Bowie made out of anti-metal...

Have you been following the lead up to Secret Invasion? Not to ruin it for you, but that was Skrulls. Evil evil skrulls...

[XPac]

Not to mention the enslavement of Savage Land tribesfolk to mine vibranium, in a setup very reminiscent of the Belgian Congo, in that early arc of New Avengers.

Did Tony ever follow up on that once he became director? 'Cause now it occurs to me that James Buchanan Barnes might not be the only guy coming after Stark with a big 'ol knife sometime soon. And living where he does, Ka-Zar could probably get a Bowie made out of anti-metal...

He didn't, until Spiderwoman showed up at his door with Electra's corpse.

I'm sure Stark wanted to, but realistically he was pulled in a million directions at once post Civil War. I wonder if that wasn't part of the plan on the Skrulls part. They knew the NA were starting to investigate them, so they get the SHRA and the Initiative to distract them.

[bulbasteve]

How does the world make it day to day without you in a commanding position of power?

"Is my sarcasm working yet?"...ridiculous.

One of you do actually have a response that applies potential logic to my post dont you? Or should we stick with the typical tit-for-tat attempts at 3rd grade sarcasm?

Disclaimer: Sorry if this sounds snappy, but I felt my initial post was sincere and straight-forward, and didnt really warrant sarcasm.

I find it interesting you didn't quote my full post, you know the part that applied the simple logic of saying "hey if you just looked up from the panel where Clor killed him you would find exactly what you were asking for".

So, do you now think his death was justified legally? We saw Goliath literally 10 seconds before taking a lethal action against SHIELD agents. Afterall, it is not just if the person who is shooting could be hurt by them. Because if that were the case why would we put snipers on top of buildings for example? Or of course any of the times when someone fires at another person, you don't even need to be pointing a gun at a cop for them to be allowed to kill you. Afterall you said and I quote: "It would be valid if Goliath were in fact attacking a normal human who felt threatened for their life."

[Mark_S]

I find it interesting you didn't quote my full post, you know the part that applied the simple logic of saying "hey if you just looked up from the panel where Clor killed him you would find exactly what you were asking for".

So, do you now think his death was justified legally? We saw Goliath literally 10 seconds before taking a lethal action against SHIELD agents. Afterall, it is not just if the person who is shooting could be hurt by them. Because if that were the case why would we put snipers on top of buildings for example? Or of course any of the times when someone fires at another person, you don't even need to be pointing a gun at a cop for them to be allowed to kill you. Afterall you said and I quote: "It would be valid if Goliath were in fact attacking a normal human who felt threatened for their life."


Which leads to the question of why Goliath-who has never killed before-about to try and kill SHIELD agents? I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out and had a SHIELD psy-corps hidden somewhere upping everyones emotions and dropping thier rational control factors.


Mark_S

[Alan2099]

Which leads to the question of why Goliath-who has never killed before-about to try and kill SHIELD agents? I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out and had a SHIELD psy-corps hidden somewhere upping everyones emotions and dropping thier rational control factors.


Mark_S

That would certainly explain Captain America's characterization.

[Tobias Drake]

Which leads to the question of why Goliath-who has never killed before-about to try and kill SHIELD agents? I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out and had a SHIELD psy-corps hidden somewhere upping everyones emotions and dropping thier rational control factors.


Mark_S

"I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out."

I keep hearing this. It amazes me how many anti-Stark arguments end in this.

EDIT: Some of these are really starting to sound like conspiracy theories, like "We staged the moon landing" or "We staged the Kennedy shooting" or "Greedo shot first". It really surprises me.

[Mark_S]

"I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out."

I keep hearing this. It amazes me how many anti-Stark arguments end in this.

Well cw was based on paranoia. "Who's side are you one?" "Who do you trust?"

Why do you think that paranoia should stop-especially with the extreme short term character memory most marvel writers have-just because the series stops? You can't incite anger, hatred and paranoia and then just shut it off. I'm always amazed that marvel has a hard time understanding that.

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

Well cw was based on paranoia. "Who's side are you one?" "Who do you trust?"

Why do you think that paranoia should stop-especially with the extreme short term character memory most marvel writers have-just because the series stops? You can't incite anger, hatred and paranoia and then just shut it off. I'm always amazed that marvel has a hard time understanding that.

Mark_S

Civil War was based on division of politics. Secret Invasion is based on paranoia. It's an important difference.

Pro-regs were very clearly pro-Regs in Civil War. Both sides were very clearly defined.

[Alan2099]

Pro-regs were very clearly pro-Regs in Civil War. Both sides were very clearly defined.
Except when they inflitrated each others sides.

Not to mention the constat trap laying and ambushes the pro-side did.

[XPac]

"I sometimes wonder if Tony didn't plan the whole thing out."

I keep hearing this. It amazes me how many anti-Stark arguments end in this.

EDIT: Some of these are really starting to sound like conspiracy theories, like "We staged the moon landing" or "We staged the Kennedy shooting" or "Greedo shot first". It really surprises me.

When you consider that Tony or Reed could have shut Clor down at any time, yet basically stood around and did nothing while he continued to try and kill the anti's even after Bill Foster, one does almost have to wonder whether Stark and Reed did have this planned. Not that I think they did, but when they are basically standing there like a couple morons while Clor is on the verge of killing their friends while they are in retreat, you kind of have to wonder.

[Mark_S]

Except when they inflitrated each others sides.

Not to mention the constat trap laying and ambushes the pro-side did.

Also there was Tony standing up in a press conference stating that he had deduced the secret identities of 179 (or so, not sure of the number) of superheroes and that he would help to hunt them down. Considering the trust he had earned and the heroes he had worked with Tony generated a lot of fear at that point.

Paranoia was a large part of civil war. Fear was the greatest part, fear of betrayal, fear of torture in the negative zone, fear of your life being shredded by a friend, but paranoia was there as well.

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

Another thing I keep hearing is the word "friend" thrown around when discussing the division between the sides. Someone once said, "A colleague will help you move your furniture. A friend will help you move a body." I suppose there are those who agree with this; that friendship transcends the law, morals, and the very foundations of society itself.

I say nay. That they were friends once should hold no meaning when they start violating the law, recklessly endangering innocent civilians, and participating in rebel uprisings. That Tony Stark was willing to look past their past friendships to do what is right as he sees it makes me see him, perhaps not as a "tower of friendship", but as a responsible man who knows what has to be done for the sake of the greater good. That, to me, makes him the greater kind of hero than one who would watch an entire city burn to save a loved one.

[bulbasteve]

Well cw was based on paranoia. "Who's side are you one?" "Who do you trust?"

Why do you think that paranoia should stop-especially with the extreme short term character memory most marvel writers have-just because the series stops? You can't incite anger, hatred and paranoia and then just shut it off. I'm always amazed that marvel has a hard time understanding that.

Mark_S

But CW is loooooong over. You thinking that there were secretly psychics manipulating them might have worked when the issue first came out, but it's pretty damn late for it now. And geez if we can just make stuff up why can't I use your same argument and say emma frost was manipulating Tony in every issue of frontline? :D

Heck Millar famously said there would be no Hate Monger type cop outs so your hairbrained idea wouldn't have even worked then :p

[XPac]

That, to me, makes him the greater kind of hero than one who would watch an entire city burn to save a loved one.

It's not that any of Starks friends would watch a city burn to saved a loved one either. They'd find a way to save their loved on and the city. Tell them it's impossible, and they'll STILL find a way. That's what they do.

Stark lost faith that he could do both. But people like Spider-Man and Cap will never give up trying, and because of that they pretty much almost always end up suceeding. It's a different kind of hero than Stark... they're more idealist.

[Tobias Drake]

It's not that any of Starks friends would watch a city burn to saved a loved one either. They'd find a way to save their loved on and the city. Tell them it's impossible, and they'll STILL find a way. That's what they do.

Stark lost faith that he could do both. But people like Spider-Man and Cap will never give up trying, and because of that they pretty much almost always end up suceeding. It's a different kind of hero than Stark... they're more idealist.

It is my experience that idealists ultimately fail eventually, and a lot of people suffer for it. I am a cynic, I will give you that. Stark is the hero for the cynic, who believes the idealists of the world need to be protected by people willing to go where the idealist never would.

[Mark_S]

But CW is loooooong over. You thinking that there were secretly psychics manipulating them might have worked when the issue first came out, but it's pretty damn late for it now. And geez if we can just make stuff up why can't I use your same argument and say emma frost was manipulating Tony in every issue of frontline? :D

Heck Millar famously said there would be no Hate Monger type cop outs so your hairbrained idea wouldn't have even worked then :p

It was idle speculation, tinged with perhaps a hint of wistful longing for a reason beyond "The LAW" that Tony would do what he did. After all he could have been manipulated too. But if marvel sticks to its guns and Tony did all that without any mental manipulation then marvel is stuck with Tony hate for a very long time. And cw wasn't that long ago in the mu. A few months?

Mark_S

[Zacharius]

That they were friends once should hold no meaning when they start violating the law

AGENT 13: The rule of law is what this country is founded on.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: No ... it was founded on breaking the law. Because the law was wrong.

AGENT 13: That's semantics, Steve. You know what I mean.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: It's not semantics, Sharon. It's the heart of this issue. The Registration Act is another step toward government control. And, while I love my country, I don't trust many politicians. Not when they're having their strings pulled by corporate donors. And not when they're willing to trade freedom for security.

AGENT 13: Now you're going to quote Ben Franklin at me? Give me a break.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: How about Thomas Paine? "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it." ...

AGENT 13: The Registration Act is law. If Captain America doesn't follow the law, then who does?

CAPTAIN AMERICA: That's why I can't.

recklessly endangering innocent civilians

Who no longer exist in Marvel Universe USA, among adults at least.

and participating in rebel uprisings.

Just like Revolutionary War or what ?

a responsible man who knows what has to be done for the sake of the greater good.

Only in the sense of having more supporters, not being morally right.

That, to me, makes him the greater kind of hero than one who would watch an entire city burn to save a loved one.

Well, if population of that city deserve their fate...

Best solution for Tony would have been join Anti-Regs, find a way to stop Wideawake and then Anti-Regs would have overthrown US government.

Since government is corrupt and they would have never changed their minds, it is better to dispose of the entire government.

If public disapproves, then it is vae victis.

Main reason that heroes ever were in the side of law was Comics Code.

Since Marvel got rid of Comics Code, heroes should act as a sort of super-government, with the authority and means of dismantling governments.

[Mark_S]

It is my experience that idealists ultimately fail eventually, and a lot of people suffer for it. I am a cynic, I will give you that. Stark is the hero for the cynic, who believes the idealists of the world need to be protected by people willing to go where the idealist never would.

Without the idealist in history the cynic would have nothing but dust. Cynics would never in a moment believed that slavery could be done away with, that racial equality could be achieved (more or less, but the progress made over the last 50 years can not be denied) ever, much less in three to four generations.

Tony is a hero for the cynic? No such thing. Heroes live in optimism. A cynic has no optimism.

Mark_S

[mlcm]

Tony is a hero for the realist and the futurist. That may be a better description. If it's not, then sue me.

[Tobias Drake]

Without the idealist in history the cynic would have nothing but dust. Cynics would never in a moment believed that slavery could be done away with, that racial equality could be achieved (more or less, but the progress made over the last 50 years can not be denied) ever, much less in three to four generations.

Tony is a hero for the cynic? No such thing. Heroes live in optimism. A cynic has no optimism.

Mark_S

And without the people willing to walk into the battle and kill people for the sake of their cause, people willing to gut their enemies, put bullets through skulls, beat and crush their way through the opposition, those ideals would never have mattered. For every idealist who dreams, there must be people willing to kill for that dream to stay afloat.

Idealists see a possibility of a better world. Cynics live in this one. The idealists can strive for that world, but it is on the cynics, the Wolverines and Punishers and Starks, ultimately, who have to do the dirty work to keep the idealist's dream alive. And it is on them to make the choices that idealists never could, nor should they, have to make.

The idealist should never have to choose between a loved one and a city. It is on the cynics to make sure, by any means necessary, that such an event never comes to pass.

[mikekerr3]

But CW is loooooong over. You thinking that there were secretly psychics manipulating them might have worked when the issue first came out, but it's pretty damn late for it now. And geez if we can just make stuff up why can't I use your same argument and say emma frost was manipulating Tony in every issue of frontline? :D

Heck Millar famously said there would be no Hate Monger type cop outs so your hairbrained idea wouldn't have even worked then :p

i think he meant that Marvels writers were promating the Hate and paranoia.

I believe the intentional trying to anger some of the fans, they suceed too well. Some of my favorite character fill me with disgust. I do not think they realy intended to push these characteres so far into the grey.

We now have many fans, usually Tony's fans, talking about Capt. America as a villan.

The conversation rapidly moved into the jurisdiction of Godwin's laws, I think marvel intended this. Too many of the Actions could be seen as following that history if you were at all anti-authoritarian.

It may have some backlash as i would not be able to enjoy the movies for the same reason I would not enjoy a movie about a young Hannibal Lector as a hard working intern. When you know what the character becomes you kind of hope he loses. I don't want to spend money on a movie where I hope the hero dies.

The "I don't know why the fans think tony is a Villian" Shtick is just marketing BS, a lie to sell comics. If it is not Marvel is in hire the handicaped mode and has been for a while. I don't really believe they are idiots but it looks like they believe we are.

[Alan2099]

Tobias, I belive you where the one that said you would rather be suprised when they did a good thing thing than disapointed when you expected a good thing and they couldn't do it.

Well, if that's true, Tony Stark is your hero alright and I don't see why you're arguing he's being treated poorly.

Ironman's the character you asked for. You can't expect him to do anything good, but every once in a while he might suprise you. Just don't count on it.

[Mark_S]

And without the people willing to walk into the battle and kill people for the sake of their cause, people willing to gut their enemies, put bullets through skulls, beat and crush their way through the opposition, those ideals would never have mattered. For every idealist who dreams, there must be people willing to kill for that dream to stay afloat.

Idealists see a possibility of a better world. Cynics live in this one. The idealists can strive for that world, but it is on the cynics, the Wolverines and Punishers and Starks, ultimately, who have to do the dirty work to keep the idealist's dream alive. And it is on them to make the choices that idealists never could, nor should they, have to make.

The idealist should never have to choose between a loved one and a city. It is on the cynics to make sure, by any means necessary, that such an event never comes to pass.

And what of Cap who charged into firefight after firefight across decades? Just because you are an idealist doesn't mean you can't fight. Or are you saying that the only way a world of light can exist is if it is built on a foundation of pain, fire and death in the shadows?


Mark_S

[Zacharius]

Idealists see a possibility of a better world. Cynics live in this one. The idealists can strive for that world, but it is on the cynics, the Wolverines and Punishers and Starks, ultimately, who have to do the dirty work to keep the idealist's dream alive. And it is on them to make the choices that idealists never could, nor should they, have to make.

Which apparently requires appeasing US government.Never mind that superhumans have successfully fought more powerful societies like Kree and Skrulls.

[Tobias Drake]

And what of Cap who charged into firefight after firefight across decades? Just because you are an idealist doesn't mean you can't fight. Or are you saying that the only way a world of light can exist is if it is built on a foundation of pain, fire and death in the shadows?


Mark_S

Those who throw down their weapons and swear to never fight again are exterminated by those that don't. It's the law of nature.

[Alan2099]

Those who throw down their weapons and swear to never fight again are exterminated by those that don't. It's the law of nature.

And that says nothing about the idealists who will fight for what they believe in. Despite what you might think, there are a lot of them. Most cops who join the force do so in order to make the world a better place. A good deal of soldiers feel they do what they do in order to preserve their nations rights/dreams/whatever.

Meanwhile there are plenty of cynics that don't ever see the point in trying to fight. Why bother? It will only lead to pain and hardship and you could very well die.

[Tobias Drake]

And that says nothing about the idealists who will fight for what they believe in. Despite what you might think, there are a lot of them. Most cops who join the force do so in order to make the world a better place. A good deal of soldiers feel they do what they do in order to preserve their nations rights/dreams/whatever.

Meanwhile there are plenty of cynics that don't ever see the point in trying to fight. Why bother? It will only lead to pain and hardship and you could very well die.

As a cynic myself, I can honestly tell you that is not the case with cynics. Idealists will never understand cynics, just as cynics will never understand idealists. The world, however, needs a healthy dash of both. Any government military needs its black ops to do things its true believers can't.

[Mark_S]

As a cynic myself, I can honestly tell you that is not the case with cynics. Idealists will never understand cynics, just as cynics will never understand idealists. The world, however, needs a healthy dash of both. Any government military needs its black ops to do things its true believers can't.

So you are saying that black opps, rape, robbery, murder, are as necessary to safeguard a country as honor and wisdom?

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

So you are saying that black opps, rape, robbery, murder, are as necessary to safeguard liberty as honor and compassion?

Mark_S

Who said anything about rape?

Assassination of a dictator oppressing and murdering even his own people? Yes. Destruction of an enemy camp using civilians as human shields while building nuclear devices? Yes. Are these things that an idealist could do, someone who believes that there's always a better solution? No. But they're something that need to be done. Someone has to bear the guilt and make those hard decisions, so that the idealists don't have to.

Cletus Kasady should have received a bullet between his eyes a long time ago. How many people died in the MU because it was left to idealists to handle him?

[Mark_S]

Who said anything about rape?

Assassination of a dictator oppressing and murdering even his own people? Yes. Destruction of an enemy camp using civilians as human shields while building nuclear devices? Yes. Are these things that an idealist could do, someone who believes that there's always a better solution? No. But they're something that need to be done. Someone has to bear the guilt and make those hard decisions, so that the idealists don't have to.

Cletus Kasady should have received a bullet between his eyes a long time ago. How many people died in the MU because it was left to idealists to handle him?

Sorry, I don't know who Cletus Kasady is.

Assassination? Well if you are going to kill a dictator do it out in the open and list the reasons. Then take the heat when the world reacts one way or the praise when the world reacts another way.
Or better yet fuel his opposition. Doing it in the dark just means another dictator will show up. Or you could try to isolate him economically. Also assassination isn't needed, if you can assassinate him you can kidnap him and put him on trial. There is almost always another way, or another way will show up if you are patient enough. Just being an idealist does not mean you stop being a realist, just as being a cynic does not automatically make you wrong. But it is knowing when to move and how that is the key. While an idealist can be trapped into imobility by his own ideal a cynic could lead a nation to doom by moving too quickly on his own.
"Things that need to be done." is a lot like "I had no choice." Both can usually be found to be wrong in retrospect but both can be justified in the first person.
In my opinion the cynic takes the easy quick solution, the kind that would depose an unfreindly dictator in favor of a freindly one and put off solving the actual problem-a country oppressed by an unfair ruling class-to another day. The cynics road is the easier one, it is the road most traveled in history. That doesn't make it the right road.
The problem of course being that in a world made of cynics the idealist must at the very least be considered subversive or at most insane.

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

Sorry, I don't know who Cletus Kasady is.

Carnage. Psychotic mass murderer with alien symbiote. Massive body count every time he's gotten free, completely impossible to unbind him from his symbiote unless it chooses to of its own volition, but since it's as crazy and homocidal as he is, that's not necessarily a good call then either. Spider-Man went so far as to stop Firestar from killing him during Maximum Carnage, because "there has to be a better way". He continued to massacre people until Sentry finally killed him at the start of New Avengers, something that should have been done a long, long time ago.

Assassination? Well if you are going to kill a dictator do it out in the open and list the reasons. Then take the heat when the world reacts one way or the praise when the world reacts another way.
Or better yet fuel his opposition. Doing it in the dark just means another dictator will show up. Or you could try to isolate him economically. Also assassination isn't needed, if you can assassinate him you can kidnap him and put him on trial. There is almost always another way, or another way will show up if you are patient enough. Just being an idealist does not mean you stop being a realist, just as being a cynic does not automatically make you wrong. But it is knowing when to move and how that is the key. While an idealist can be trapped into imobility by his own ideal a cynic could lead a nation to doom by moving too quickly on his own.

A sniper rifle from a rooftop is a lot easier to come by than getting past all his security to kidnap him. It removes the immediate, which then makes it easier for the idealists to come in and initiate a change in policy, and for the nation to support the idealists' change. But it's not possible until the man in power is first removed.

Supporting an insurrection is more time-consuming and costs considerably more lives than a shot in the dark. Good, honest people have to die in an endless bloodbath for years before anything gets anywhere, and even then, there's always the possibility of failure.

"Things that need to be done." is a lot like "I had no choice." Both can usually be found to be wrong in retrospect but both can be justified in the first person.
In my opinion the cynic takes the easy quick solution, the kind that would depose an unfreindly dictator in favor of a freindly one and put off solving the actual problem-a country oppressed by an unfair ruling class-to another day. The cynics road is the easier one, it is the road most traveled in history. That doesn't make it the right road.
The problem of course being that in a world made of cynics the idealist must at the very least be considered subversive or at most insane.

Mark_S

It isn't on the cynic to effect world change. It is on the idealist. It is the cynic, however, who must pave the road that makes that possible.

[Mark_S]

A sniper rifle from a rooftop is a lot easier to come by than getting past all his security to kidnap him. It removes the immediate, which then makes it easier for the idealists to come in and initiate a change in policy, and for the nation to support the idealists' change. But it's not possible until the man in power is first removed.

Supporting an insurrection is more time-consuming and costs considerably more lives than a shot in the dark. Good, honest people have to die in an endless bloodbath for years before anything gets anywhere, and even then, there's always the possibility of failure.



So the easy quick way is the cynics way? Good honest people dying to gain freedom is the way freedom is gained. It's the way it has always been gained. And removing the dictator doesn't mean the idealist have a way it, it means that a new dictator is on the way. Of course I could be wrong. How many assassinations have paved the way for free countries being born?



It isn't on the cynic to effect world change. It is on the idealist. It is the cynic, however, who must pave the road that makes that possible.
[/quote]


I believe that the main difference between a cynic and an idealist is that a world of idealist could survive, a world of cynics wouldn't.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

Carnage. Psychotic mass murderer with alien symbiote. Massive body count every time he's gotten free, completely impossible to unbind him from his symbiote unless it chooses to of its own volition, but since it's as crazy and homocidal as he is, that's not necessarily a good call then either. Spider-Man went so far as to stop Firestar from killing him during Maximum Carnage, because "there has to be a better way". He continued to massacre people until Sentry finally killed him at the start of New Avengers, something that should have been done a long, long time ago.

And yet if Spiderman had killed him, or allowed Firestar to kill him, wouldn't they be guilty of the same out of control, I am the law, vigilante activity that you so scorn and that supposedly made the sra so neccassary?

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

So the easy quick way is the cynics way? Good honest people dying to gain freedom is the way freedom is gained. It's the way it has always been gained. And removing the dictator doesn't mean the idealist have a way it, it means that a new dictator is on the way. Of course I could be wrong. How many assassinations have paved the way for free countries being born?

Only if you stop at removing the dictator. It destabilizes the region, making it easier to create a new form of stability. If you let it happen naturally, anarchy will always turn to dictatorship. Always. That's why idealists are needed to effect the needed change, but that will never happen until the dictator is removed. That can be done in a long, arduous, and expensive campaign that may very easily turn to endless war, or it can be done in a moment, with a single shot.

Dictatorship never turns instantly to democracy. There is always a period of strife and chaos. An anarchist period. The hard part is bringing democracy through the anarchy, before another dictatorship rises in its place.

I believe that the main difference between a cynic and an idealist is that a world of idealist could survive, a world of cynics wouldn't.

Mark_S

In a world where all men lay down their weapons and swear to never fight again, the first man to pick a weapon back up would be king. A world of idealists would be as wonderful as it is short.

[Tobias Drake]

And yet if Spiderman had killed him, or allowed Firestar to kill him, wouldn't they be guilty of the same out of control, I am the law, vigilante activity that you so scorn and that supposedly made the sra so neccassary?

Mark_S

Is he not already? He's not being any less a vigilante by not allowing a mass-murdering psychopath to live. He's just being less effective at it.

[Mark_S]

Is he not already? He's not being any less a vigilante by not allowing a mass-murdering psychopath to live. He's just being less effective at it.

Or he realizes that as a citizen there are limits to the amount of power he can take upon himself. He is swinging by and sees a mugger about to murder a victim. He stops the mugger, webs him up for the police. Is that being a vigilante or a responsible citizen? Should he have kept going and maybe given the police a call on the cellphone and then watched as the mugging and murder took place? He stops the mugger and kills him. Does that make him more effective or does it make him a murderer. Which does the police and/or the victim appreciate more?

And what of the law that can't seem to keep Carnage in prison? Are they faultless in all of that? Why was it so easy for Tony and Reed to create a negative zone hell prison to keep the heroes in yet so hard all those years for them to come up with the idea of a good solid prison to hold supervillains? Why was it so much easier to contemplate sealing their freinds into hell then it was to find an effective way to lock up supervillains?

Mark_S

[XPac]

Is he not already? He's not being any less a vigilante by not allowing a mass-murdering psychopath to live. He's just being less effective at it.

There's a difference between a killer and a vigilante.

When heroes take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioners is when the public will have a genuine reason to fear and mistrust them.

[Tobias Drake]

Or he realizes that as a citizen there are limits to the amount of power he can take upon himself. He is swinging by and sees a mugger about to murder a victim. He stops the mugger, webs him up for the police. Is that being a vigilante or a responsible citizen? Should he have kept going and maybe given the police a call on the cellphone and then watched as the mugging and murder took place? He stops the mugger and kills him. Does that make him more effective or does it make him a murderer. Which does the police and/or the victim appreciate more?

There is a very, very important distinction between a mugger and a psychopathic mass murderer who's sole motivation is to kill people and who has a body count numbering in the hundreds. Every time Carnage was jailed, he would eventually get out. And every time he got out, a lot of people would die. And nobody was willing to put a permanent end to the situation, because they're all superheroes, and superheroes don't kill, no matter how many people have to die because of it.

And what of the law that can't seem to keep Carnage in prison? Are they faultless in all of that? Why was it so easy for Tony and Reed to create a negative zone hell prison to keep the heroes in yet so hard all those years for them to come up with the idea of a good solid prison to hold supervillains? Why was it so much easier to contemplate sealing their freinds into hell then it was to find an effective way to lock up supervillains?

Mark_S

Because sometimes a metahuman simply cannot be contained by standard methods. And before Tony and Reed, the idea of a prison like 42 wasn't on the table; who'd have thought of using the Negative Zone as a prison before Reed did?

There's a difference between a killer and a vigilante.

When heroes take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioners is when the public will have a genuine reason to fear and mistrust them.

vigilante n. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

[Mark_S]

There is a very, very important distinction between a mugger and a psychopathic mass murderer who's sole motivation is to kill people and who has a body count numbering in the hundreds. Every time Carnage was jailed, he would eventually get out. And every time he got out, a lot of people would die. And nobody was willing to put a permanent end to the situation, because they're all superheroes, and superheroes don't kill, no matter how many people have to die because of it.


And the law didn't put Carnage to death because...?

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

And the law didn't put Carnage to death because...?

Mark_S

Because prison can't hold him long enough for beaurocracy to happen. It may be surprising to learn, but beaurocracy can be a slow process.

Seriously. He broke out of the S.H.I.E.L.D. heavily secured transport vehicle carrying him TO prison. This is a monster that needed to die, and that wouldn't wait for it to happen slowly over the course of decisions and trials.

[Alan2099]

Carnage was typically kept at a high security psychiatric institute for supervillains, not a prison. He may not have been considered sane enough to stand trial.

[Mark_S]

Because prison can't hold him long enough for beaurocracy to happen. It may be surprising to learn, but beaurocracy can be a slow process.

Seriously. He broke out of the S.H.I.E.L.D. heavily secured transport vehicle carrying him TO prison. This is a monster that needed to die, and that wouldn't wait for it to happen slowly over the course of decisions and trials.

But in your ends justifies the means cynical world why didn't SHIELD simply kill him? Why wait for a trial? The results could be covered up easily enough given SHIELD amoral nature. Why does it have to be Peter that kills him, why not SHIELD? Certainly you can't tell me that SHIELD agents have any moral structure holding them back?

I believe that if we go by your rules here the heroes in the MU are caught in the middle. They can't be crime fighters without being vigilantes, but if they go full out and become vigilantes and decide life and death issues they become the very menaces that the sra was designed to contain. But if they sign with the sra they are signing away their lives and any rights they have to an agency that has no moral structure and lets the worst of humanity instruct superbeings in how to take orders and be killers.
To be a superhuman in the mu right now is to be cursed. Truthfully I'm amazed more of them just don't end it. In the current sra climate no one has any chance for happiness or honor. Just expediency and devolvement into government killers.

Mark_S

[XPac]

vigilante n. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

As I said, there's a difference between a vigilate and a killer.

It's not the heroes decision to decide who lives or dies. We have courts and due process for that. Are there flaws in such a system? Sure. But it's better than the alternative, where these mask vigilante's go around deciding who deserves to live or die.

Again, it's when heroes decide to that they are allowed to play judge, jury, and executioner that the public will be justified in fearing and mistrusting them.

[Tobias Drake]

Carnage was typically kept at a high security psychiatric institute for supervillains, not a prison. He may not have been considered sane enough to stand trial.

There is that, too. There's also the fact that any time he so much as bled, Carnage would kill everyone in the psychiatric institute, be they doctor, guard, or inmate. Bleeding = Carnage; how can you safeguard well enough that the man will never bleed?

And he filed down a tooth to bite his own tongue open. Even if you could restrain him so efficiently he never bleeds, that kills it. The man needed to die. There was no other way.

But in your ends justifies the means cynical world why didn't SHIELD simply kill him? Why wait for a trial? The results could be covered up easily enough given SHIELD amoral nature. Why does it have to be Peter that kills him, why not SHIELD? Certainly you can't tell me that SHIELD agents have any moral structure holding them back?

I honestly can't speak for the state of S.H.I.E.L.D. back when it was under Nick Fury. I don't know enough about it back then to do so.

I believe that if we go by your rules here the heroes in the MU are caught in the middle. They can't be crime fighters without being vigilantes, but if they go full out and become vigilantes and decide life and death issues they become the very menaces that the sra was designed to contain. But if they sign with the sra they are signing away their lives and any rights they have to an agency that has no moral structure and lets the worst of humanity instruct superbeings in how to take orders and be killers.
To be a superhuman in the mu right now is to be cursed. Truthfully I'm amazed more of them just don't end it. In the current sra climate no one has any chance for happiness or honor. Just expediency and devolvement into government killers.

Mark_S

I believe monsters like Carnage, high-class threats that no law enforcement can handle, are reasons why superheroes are needed. But to that end, they need a measure of willingness and authority to go above and beyond "beat him up and then let the cops take him", in such extreme situations. Superheroes unwilling to do anything but let the police handle it, might as well BE police themselves, which is what the Initiative is all about, honestly. Extreme situations such as Carnage, however, require more; people don't like Maximum Carnage but I believe it established the greatest flaw of superheroism rather efficiently. What does it so when everyone is so wrapped up in their moral qualms that it takes Venom, VENOM of all people, to actually END the conflict and STOP the 13-issue crossover massacre?

[Mark_S]

Have to confess I never read Maximum Carnage.

Mark_S

[Tobias Drake]

Have to confess I never read Maximum Carnage.

Mark_S

You're not missing much. Thirteen issues of Carnage forming a sick family of murder and cutting a bloody path through New York while some of Marvel's best (including Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Fist, and Deathlok) try to control the damage while inefficiently failing to stop him.

[XPac]

You're not missing much. Thirteen issues of Carnage forming a sick family of murder and cutting a bloody path through New York while some of Marvel's best (including Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Fist, and Deathlok) try to control the damage while inefficiently failing to stop him.

The heroes did largely stop the problem, it's just that Carnage himself slipped away before being tracked down by Venom and Spidey. It wasn't a slam dunk for the heroes, but they weren't ineffective either.

[Tobias Drake]

The heroes did largely stop the problem, it's just that Carnage himself slipped away before being tracked down by Venom and Spidey. It wasn't a slam dunk for the heroes, but they weren't ineffective either.

Except that it could have been ended halfway through, if Spider-Man hadn't stopped Firestar from killing Carnage.

That brings up an interesting question: does that, therefore, make Spider-Man responsible for every life that Carnage has taken since the midpoint of Maximum Carnage? It could have been ended there, but he stopped it. Are all the deaths since then on his head?

This ties directly to Maria Hill's speech to Tony Stark that got him to meet with the Illuminati about exiling the Hulk. Is Spider-Man responsible for allowing Carnage to live, knowing that many people would die for that choice?

[Mark_S]

But does this also mean that Maria Hill and SHIELD are now responsible for any deaths that the Wrecker and his crew cause since she let him walk right out of SHIELD custody instead of killing him?

Mark_S

[XPac]

Except that it could have been ended halfway through, if Spider-Man hadn't stopped Firestar from killing Carnage.

That brings up an interesting question: does that, therefore, make Spider-Man responsible for every life that Carnage has taken since the midpoint of Maximum Carnage? It could have been ended there, but he stopped it. Are all the deaths since then on his head?

This ties directly to Maria Hill's speech to Tony Stark that got him to meet with the Illuminati about exiling the Hulk. Is Spider-Man responsible for allowing Carnage to live, knowing that many people would die for that choice?

Short answer, no... Spiderman is not responsible for anything Carnage goes. Spidey like most heroes (or police man for that matter) use the minimum force necessary. In extreme situations that can necessitate lethal force, but if you're able to end the situation and subdue the person without using lethal force that's what you're suppossed to do.

Maria Hill clearly believes otherwise... but a idiot like her would think that. As head of SHIELD, she could choose to kill the captured prisoners if she wants to. But she doesn't... it's not her job. Yet the hypocritical idiot will knock heroes like Spider for doing the same thing.

[mikekerr3]

It is my experience that idealists ultimately fail eventually, and a lot of people suffer for it. I am a cynic, I will give you that. Stark is the hero for the cynic, who believes the idealists of the world need to be protected by people willing to go where the idealist never would.

The place it the US where you will find the most Idealists is in the Military. People don't join for the Fancy paycheck that is for sure. People Join for Ideals and fight for the guy beside them. They are true idealists America is an Idea and an Ideal. If they were Cynics they could take over in a day. A cynic would not have run across Omaha Beachm or Jumped off a helicopters to Same a pilot in Somolia.

Read about the early beginnings of US Black ops community you will find a lot of Ivy league idealists. Wild Bill Donovan was an Idealist holding the American drean and people high. He was pragmatic but thought he was supporting their Ideals.

Abraham Lincoln was an Idealist and lead this nation into the bloodiest war in our history.

Cynics are just people who are afraid to strive for thier ideals they help nothing. Emotional cripples sitting in the dark who don't believe in candles. There mostly harmless though as they don't have anything they are willing to die for.

[Mark_S]

Cynics are just people who are afraid to strive for thier ideals they help nothing. Emotional cripples sitting in the dark who don't believe in candles. There mostly harmless though as they don't have anything they are willing to die for.

I'm not sure about that. A cynic can die for a cause just as anyone else, but he may not believe it in the same way. William Holden in Stalage 17 ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046359/ ) is an example of a cynic who still fought for a cause. In the end his motives may have been in question, but he didn't turn traitor when doing so could have gotten him to Switzerland. And at the end of the movie you had to wonder if he was truly only out for number one or if he was just smarter than everyone else at the camp.

Mark_S

[mikekerr3]

I'm not sure about that. A cynic can die for a cause just as anyone else, but he may not believe it in the same way. William Holden in Stalage 17 ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046359/ ) is an example of a cynic who still fought for a cause. In the end his motives may have been in question, but he didn't turn traitor when doing so could have gotten him to Switzerland. And at the end of the movie you had to wonder if he was truly only out for number one or if he was just smarter than everyone else at the camp.

Mark_S
Was he still a cynic when he made that chiose. I think that he finally figured that there were some things more important than number one. Outwadr cynism is sometimes a mask for someone who cares. That was a great movie,