Sinfully Good

Civil War: My Final Thoughts

(Thu 04/05/2007 12:41am)

Comments (6)

Now that Civil War is over and The Initiative has begun, I thought I might address a couple of things and summarize things more clearly for myself.

Item#1: Stamford

The thing that gets me the most about this, is that, like Captain America's surrender, this seemed so insincere. Countless buildings and structures have taken so much damage over the years from these epic fights that having Stamford be the match that lights the flame be a little ridiculous. I have to imagine that the death toll was higher in other stories. If Marvel really wanted this to ring a little more true, there should have been an accidental action taken y a hero (with no villain involved) that set off the chain of events in Civil War. For example, Namorita throws a car at Niotro, who dodges it, and then the car hits a gas trailer. As it stands, I didn't see anyone calling for tougher penalty laws on super-villains.

Item #2: The Super Human Registration Act

At its core, this idea is a perfectly rational one. However, as it currently stands, the law is unconstitutional and binding.

Anyone who has powers, be they mutation, scientific mutation, technological, or magical, is required to register their name and abilities with an orginization set-up for the purpose of monitoring said individuals. Those who wish to do so,may enlist under SHIELD where they will be eligible for benefits and pay.

The first problem with this is technological. For the most part, anyone whose powers are technological in nature may, at anytime, discard of them and be normal. They are no longer responsible for registering.

The second, is mutants. Essentially, anyone born with powers (a natural part of their genetic make-up) is a criminal at birth until they are registered. This is hardly constitutional, nor should any society approve of this.

Scientific mutation falls into two categories: accidental and deliberate. Most of the people with scientific powers did not ask for them. These things were forced on them through means outside of their control. Could you imagine if the government wanted to keep an eye on specific individuals? All they would have to do would be find a way to give them powers and then they have to register or be declared illegals.

Magical, for the most part,is a learned ability. Usually with someone being taught by another. For them the SHRA makes sense.

This law fails to address "divine" ability. Not to start anymore fires, but can you imagine if Jesus did return? Would Iron Man be first in line telling him that healing cripples is using unauthorized abilities? WWJD indeed?

The law, as it should have been enacted, should be to license and register those who wish to engage in super-hero activities, regardless of power levels and type. Anyone who engages in super-hero activity after this would then be a criminal. That is, after all, vigilantism.

This also brings up other questions. Given the assembled genius available (Reed Richards, Tony Stark, T'Challa, Forge, and Bruce Banner (well, somedays)), is it not conceivable to come up with "cures" or inhibitors to suppress or eliminate powers and abilities? That way, some who are born or changed with powers would have an alternative to registering. On the flipside, if a being is using those abilities illegally, could you then remove the powers by force? Or would this be akin to taking a man's hand for stealing?

The SHRA is a good idea taken in the wrong direction. I think Marvel should change the law so that it is more Constitutional and less discriminatory.

Item #3: Tony Stark

Much has already been said on this subject, so I'll keep this a little briefer.

Regardless of how any of us might feel about him, the man is a hero to the Marvel Universe. He did all the wrong things while trying to do what he felt was the right thing. In the end, even though I hate to admit it, Tony Stark remained a hero to the people. I would like to see, however, how the people in the MU would react if they ever learned the truth that Sally Floyd and Ben Urich uncovered. Such a thing would truly be a good story.

Item #4: Clor and the Thunderbolts

Um, cloning is illegal. Using sociopathic killers as law enforcement is not only unethical, but truly terrifying.

Item #5: Captain America

I imagine he'll be back before the year is out. His surrender was totally uncharacteristic and his assassination (while well written), was totally pointless in the context of anything that was going on.

I could see if Rogers ordered a retreat, and then had a summit with Stark to discuss his "moment of clarity" and to see what could be salvaged, but not surrender.

I'll finish by saying I enjoyed Civil War. I had problems with things that were happening, but I enjoyed every single second of it. I think, inthe end, its best to view the story from the perspective of the average Marvel citizen and what that really means. We read about the heroes, but we don't live there.

Tags: civil war, iron man, captain america, the initiaitive, clor

Comments/Responses

Merin • Apr 05, 2007, 12:10pm •

George W. Bush and Rudy Guillani were "heroes" to many people right after 9/11 - doesn't mean either of them deserved that description, but scared people fell behinid an authority figure who only shouted "no more" and backed a bunch of unconstitutional actions and stripping of freedoms. I feel no sympathy for any who saw those men as heroes, and no empathy with the average citizen of the Marvel U for their ignorance (whether that ignorance is their fault or not.)

The SHRA is not a good law, or even a good idea, anymore than the Patriot Act is.
The law was pushed through by people in power who had long wanted the kinds of rules, restrictions, and powers it created - the Stamford incident was an excuse, not a cause. Just like 9/11 for the Patriot Act.
Neither addressed the real problems.

Vigilantism is a red-herring. Just like, for Iraq and the Patriot Act, terrorism is a red-herring.

Tony Stark is NOT a hero, despite what people may think of him. His actions were selfishly motivated, and he did whatever it took to get the results HE KNEW were needed, regardless of anything else that happened.

I did NOT enjoy Civil War, save a few "kick-ass" moments, like Cap taking down Punisher or Spider-Man beating the snot out of Reed.

Civil War has caused me to stop buying most Marvel books I was buying. I find myself even questioning if I can say that I like the Marvel U, overal, better than the DCU anymore. I buy ALOT of DC books, and almost only Whedon titles from Marvel now.

Good to see you getting your views across. I agree wholeheartedly with several of your points, but none so much more than the whole thing felt insincere.

I'm not apologizing for me disgareeing with others, but I think Civil War was a BAD move for Marvel and comics in general, and I see it as desperate last grasps for readership. Civil War may have increased sales (what crossover doesn't) but I think the longer lasting ramifications are going to drive away a good number of long time Marvel fans. I can't speak about whether they will be gaining more due to changes, but if the crowd who enjoys 24, American Idol, Toby Keith music starts grabbing Marvel comics . . . well, its only a further sign that I belong over at DC and with Indies.

SinisterPryde • Apr 05, 2007, 03:55pm •

I never saw Bush as a hero and never agreed with a single event post-9/11. As an allegory, Civil War leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As a story, I enjoyed it.

Iron Man remains despicable and decidedly unheroic in my view. In the end, however, heroism is purely defined by those that see him as such.

One last point, Kurt suggests that Marvel could only rely on suspension of disbelief for so long and that the SHRA was what was needed. Ironically, we now have to suspend disbelief that the country would allow such a flagrantly unconstitutional law. The Patriot Act is more subtle than this thing.

Merin • Apr 05, 2007, 04:36pm •

I dunno if you managed to absorb much from my A Reply to "Means and Ends" but I address the fact that Kurt's point about the SHRA being needed to address a long ignored conceit is false.

Laws about super-human activities have been addressed in comics since almost day 1. Go back and double check my Heroism section - it's the last point I make there. Marvel already tried a Superhero Registration act in the 90's - one that the FF argued against and Reed successfully stopped.

Hold on.

In the 90's - Reed argued AGAINST- basically by himself - and had it STOPPED.

This tells us 3 things -
1 - Reed is against the concept UNTIL Bendis comes along
2 - the government had considered this already and was swayed largely by one superhuman's testimony
3 - Marvel has ALREADY addressed this issue before.

The whole argument for the Civil War and the SHRA is fallacious. It's constructed, poorly, with no sense of the history of the Marvel U - Bendis CREATED new history to support it (the Illuminati) and the writing / editing team manufactured the event (Stamford) to be a flash point.

All stories are created, yes, so all fiction is manufactured - but I use the word manufactured here to mean needlessly artificial, specifically created to cause a desired end result.

Or, in another way of looking at it, this was NOT inevitable. The writers could have had ANYTHING happen - like, say, an alien invasion that could only be stopped by superhuman activities, working in individual disconnected cells - or they could have had someone like a Gyrich or a Trask, with a hatred of superhumans, use the new registration act to abuse, manipulate, and kill heroes. They are the creators and controllers and could choose anything - nothing's inevitable in FICTION, because FICTION is created by people and not by uncontrollable forces.

If you can accept that a man can fly or that, despite all the multiple advanced technologies in the Marvel U that cancer and other diseases aren't cured yet, you can surely accept that the public of the Marvel U will accept superheroes running around as long as they are supervillains whom the government cannot stop.

SinisterPryde • Apr 06, 2007, 01:46am •

Yeah, I see your point about conceit.

The truth is, this law wasn't needed. The Avengers have, at times, been sanctioned by th U.N. to operate as they do. The X-Men recently (in the last few years) became a sanctioned police force. Not only that, but ultimately it was pointless in that Daredevil was arrested for breaking laws. Post-CW, he still would be. Those who are authorized will continue will, and those who aren't will as well. Just as it was before. The X-Men were always branded outlaws because what they did as a group was illegal activity. Being sacntioned meant they were responsible and accountable, so the SHRA is, in effect, redundant.

Also, does this mean more grounded fight scenes? Are we no longer going to see heroes cutting loose in an epic battle in midtown?

Merin • Apr 06, 2007, 10:39am •

This is the same thing as making drugs or alcohol illegal (both substances I do not partake of nor condone) - there's no point to it. Existing laws that punish murder, theft, assault, etc., are all you need to convict people who are "under the influence" IMO - arrest people for harm they do to others, not themselves, and for actual harm they attempt or actually inflict, but do NOT punish people because they have the capability of causing harm.

I agree the law wasn't needed. I went into detail to show that in the DCU the Keen Act grants superheroes the right to fight crime with masks on; that in Marvel almost all superheroes are sanctioned, called on for help, deputized at the scene, or government agents ANYWAY. Anyone who was ever an Avenger or X-Man or New Mutant or Fantastic Four member were all trained extensively in controlling their abilities.

Remember, though, the main point of my blog - that vigilantism is a red-herring. It is NOT the issue.

The issue is Stark's ego. Follow it through. Illuminati, the Iron Man / Spider-Man issues leading to the passage of the law, all the Civil War and Front Line stories - Tony Stark wanted all the super-heroes united under one banner controlled by one guy (himself, obviously) and when he couldn't get widespread support for his ideas over the years, he finally took matters in his own hands.
The issue is Tony Stark manipulating heroes, civilians, super-villains, corporations and the government. The issue is him orchestrating terrorist acts to cause widespread fear that would create an environment for his "noble idea" to be more palatable to others.

I think - here's some speculation - I think he DIDN'T want the law passed at first, that he wanted Captain America and the others to unite with him BEFORE the law passed to make his little unified superhuman group and therefore make Congress and the public at ease because he had taken charge and now all heroes would be accountable, etc.
When the heroes wouldn't completely back him, he backed the law to use it as an enforcement tool to get what he wanted - control of all superhumans, in his mind for everyone's greater good (maybe.)

It was a power play by a man who thought he alone knew what the world needed.

It was the essence of Dr. Doom. It was exactly like Magneto. This is the kind of action that Lex Luthor would engage in. Or Dick Cheney.

It is all there. Anyone who puts the pieces together sees how horrible Tony Stark is and how much of a tragedy this whole event continues to grow into.

The only redemption that Marvel could have is Tony getting his just desserts, and the people and government of the USA in the Marvel U losing both the security and the liberty they sought to gain by tossing away their conscious, their critical thinking, and their loyalty.

I will not feel sorry for one person whom Hulk smashes.

How does this make me better than a Punisher fan?

It doesn't. Never claimed to be. I get the feeling the need for vegeance as well as anyone - but I'll know the Hulk is justified in his actions more than the Punisher because he was King of a World, and that world was destroyed by Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Dr. Strange, Black Bolt and Nick Fury (was it Nick or a LMD?)

SinisterPryde • Apr 06, 2007, 12:57pm •

In discussing Tony's motivations, we have to really get behind the man and look at Marvel's motivations.

Quesada and Millar bot thought this was not only an inevitable idea, but a needed one. As I've stated before, I don't have a problem with licensed heroes. Just that the law as it stands is Unconstitutional. What I really have the problem with is why these two men, along with the others at the summit,( Jenkins, Whedon, etc.) thought that Tony was being a hero in all of this. They justify this by stating in a real world scenario, you would want this law. While I have my own thoughts on that, it gets back to ends justifying the means, not to mention discrepancies.

Looking at their logic, they state that becasue of the events of The Secret War, Avengers Dissassembled, and House of M, that the public has become untrusting of its heroes again. First off, the public doesn't know about the Secret War, hence the title. Second, Disassembled was focused on the Avengers and, if I recall, had only hero casualties. House of M is not remembered by anyone other than for the fact that most mutants became depowered (which should have pleased the ignorant masses to no end). So, how is the public more untrusting because of events of which they have little to no knowledge?

One other point I failed to bring up, but I feel needs to be addressed, is Marvel's insistence that in a real world setting, I would want this law. We need to stop looking at Marvel as any kind of real world, no matter how close it may resemble ours. People fly, gods walk the earth, and cosmic entities are constantly threatening all of existence. In such a chaotic world, it would be better to have unregistered heroes causing the occasional collateral damage than having them locked up for breaking an unconstitutional law.

Mania is the premiere online destination for fans of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime entertainment. It is the largest community offering profiles, video, science fiction movies, sci fi TV, art, sci fi comics, photos, cheats, blogs, science fiction books, forums and feedback. Mania offers insider entertainment industry info and original content for science fiction, fantasy, and horror entertainment genres including: video games, comics, gadgets, movies, television, toys, music, books, DVDs and more.