New Avengers are very Dark Champions

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

People don't like to have their paradigms shifted and tend to lash out against quick shifts.

That grinding sound you hear is a paradigm shifting without a clutch.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Pretty much. It was a beautifully drawn and horribly written mess, and the law they finally decided on was indefensible. The "lesson" that good people sometimes choose the wrong side would be better served by having the act be something other than a totalitarian wet dream.

 

Though, oddly enough, the decline of Marvel America into totalitarianism may be the one piece of Civil War that fits established Marvel continuity; it has been part of the X-books theme since Claremont.

 

It's often been a part of Captain America's book, too, depending on the attitudes of the current writer and who's occupying the White House at any given moment. Just how many times have we seen the Red Skull running the Marvel-verse US govt. over the last twenty years, anyway?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Just how many times have we seen the Red Skull running the Marvel-verse US govt. over the last twenty years' date=' anyway?[/quote']

That's easy to answer... how many times has he shown up in a Marvel comic in the last 20 years?

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

It's often been a part of Captain America's book' date=' too, depending on the attitudes of the current writer and who's occupying the White House at any given moment. Just how many times have we seen the Red Skull running the Marvel-verse US govt. over the last twenty years, anyway?[/quote']

 

Yup.

 

I used to complain about Marvel having two universes that didn't fit together; the Avengers / Fantastic Four / Defenders Marvel full of cool stories about Superheroes protecting the innocent and having funky adventures and the annoying, whiny X-Men Marvel, where the average citizen is an enthusiastic card carrying member of the KKK and where political leaders and some of our "heroes" are worse. Looks like the two have finally been reconciled, by getting rid of the actual fun side.

[Spidey88]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Bravo, sir. I agree wholeheartedly. After all my years reading Spidey comics, I've always looked over at X-Men and seen a much darker world (with some exceptions that I've grumbled over heavily).

 

Even Spidey's angst issues often have a backdrop of sunniness!

[input.jack]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

You were around in the Silver Age? Okay' date=' you have a few years on me. One thing you said struck me as unusual though. You are depicting the current comics as the Rust age, the next step after Iron. To me they actually feel like a return the Bronze age in a lot of ways. I don't see them being as grim and gritty as what went on in the 90's. Different interpretations I guess.[/quote']

 

The difference is that in the Bronze Age, heroism was still admired and valued. Authorities in comic universes were willing to work with known super-heroes (in this case defined as people in costumes who try not to kill people), and regardless of legality they were not pursued as "vigilantes".

 

It is also important to note that the structure of the law in DC and Marvel is likely to be radically different than in our world. Supers having been around for so long, their influence on the development of law and precedent would have been felt. If, for example, in the 1920s and 30s, the government decided it needed the help of the masked mystery men to thwart the Mafia and its bootlegging, turf wars, and so on, they might well have defined "vigilante" very differently than we do.

 

The current age is, to me, indistinguishable from the "Iron Age". I see nothing in Civil War or Identity Crisis to convice me that the same writers from the 90s arent inflicting their oh-so-hip, oh-so-jaded view of the world on us still. I -do- see comics being as grim and "gritty" as they were in the 90s, just with better art.

 

The fact that it is now accepted that in -all- supers battles, innocents will be killed by collateral damage in the Ultimate and 616 continuity is appalling to me. In the Bronze Age, there was a certain amount of both common sense and luck (or Fate) that helped keep the good guys from causing more harm than good. By that I mean that, usually, superheroes actively -tried- to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. They didnt go "all outa", or launch only "killing damage" attacks, like they seem to now. Heck, thats the reason HERO has Normal and Killing damage; it was a comic book trope that a blast of fiery heat from Human Torch would knock a thug out, but not inflict permanent, horrible burns on him!

 

Its like the 616 "heroes" have all forgotten that they have the option for restraint.

 

Likewise, if a large-scale battle -was- to occur, civilians in the area would scram, fast! Watching the DCAU "Superman" animated series, its amazing how alert and quick-footed the average Metropolis citizen is!

 

Now, civilians just wait around for the inevitable end. They dont run for cover, and even if they did, the heroes are so busy destroying everything in sight and lobbing around lethal damage that it wouldnt matter if they did.

 

Bad writing.

 

Also, in the Bronze Age, there was a kind of "heroes luck"; an unspoken, unseen force in the universe that meant that if your intentions were good, things would usually work out for the best. You might accidentally be knocked back into a buliding and weaken it, but its supports would hold long enough for you and your team mates to get everyone out (and the villain to get away). The cars the villains picked up didnt have anyone in them. When The Hulk rampaged, there was horrific property damage, and many people were injured, but theyd -recover-.

 

Seems unlikely? Impossible? Not to me. Not for a world where beings like Destiny and Fate are manifest in physical form.

 

But apparently that force, whatever it was, is gone now.

 

I also dislike the way comics writers seem to equate "gritty" and "realistic" with "everyone is a selfish jerk, especially anyone you ever looked up to", and "nothing you do ever helps; youre lucky if you dont end up making things worse".

 

No, as far as I can tell, we are still in the Iron Age. "Rust Age" may be right; if anything with storylines like Civil War and Spoiler's murder, its the Iron Age covered in more and more blood.

[Clonus]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

a blast of fiery heat from Human Torch would knock a thug out, but not inflict permanent, horrible burns on him!

 

I don't recall the Human Torch directly blasting any mundane thugs. He'd disarm them or encircle them with a wall of flame that strangely didn't seem to heat up the area inside.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

That's easy to answer... how many times has he shown up in a Marvel comic in the last 20 years?

 

It's sad because it's true. You'd think that someone would eventually notice the German accent, the tendency to poison subordinates, the hideous ravaged skull-face and wonder, "Why isn't this man working in Hollywood?"

 

Then again, why doesn't Cap simply tell SHIELD or the FBI or whoever (like Mossad?) that, "Hey, you've got an immortal Nazi war-criminal manipulating the US goverment, maybe you should, I dunno, DO something about it?!"

[input.jack]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

He'd disarm them or encircle them with a wall of flame that strangely didn't seem to heat up the area inside.

 

My point exactly. Now theyd write it as dehydrating the thugs, or melted gunmetal crippling the guy, or some such nonsense

[Hunter]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

On a related note' date=' is it mutilation to remove Dr. Octopus' arms to prevent him from causing damage with them? Assuming he survives the process and is otherwise normal? (as normal as he could be...)[/quote']

 

This was done at least once that I recall. Ock was able to get them back because he could remotely control them at a distance.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Dr Strange is thrown in for balance-

 

I believe this must be the first time in history this thought has ever been expressed.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

This was done at least once that I recall. Ock was able to get them back because he could remotely control them at a distance.

For the record, it's been done several times, and it backfires badly: Every time they get removed Doc goes and upgrades them! There was a great story many years ago where Doc was in prison and managed to get control of his newest arms, the adamantium arms, at a distance. Iron man tried to stop the arms, but without the weak point of very human Doc there, he simply couldn't mount an effective offense. The arms actually won--after ripping Iron Man's chestplate off. I remember the final picture of IM laying in the rubble, chest exposed, as the arms stalked off into the distance heading toward the prison.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

For the record' date=' it's been done several times, and it backfires badly: Every time they get removed Doc goes and upgrades them! There was a great story many years ago where Doc was in prison and managed to get control of his newest arms, the [i']adamantium [/i]arms, at a distance. Iron man tried to stop the arms, but without the weak point of very human Doc there, he simply couldn't mount an effective offense. The arms actually won--after ripping Iron Man's chestplate off. I remember the final picture of IM laying in the rubble, chest exposed, as the arms stalked off into the distance heading toward the prison.

 

Yup. The arms aren't Doc Ock's power; the brain that designed them is.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

If the arms are destroyed and he doesn't have the means to create new arms (e.g. locked away in a nice, deep, padded cell), then it isn't an issue. If you just lock them up like a trophy or let him have access to materials he could use to make new arms, then that's the fault of whoever made those mistakes. If you're worried about him having a spare set, then keep him sedated so he can't control them.

 

Now if you're talking about Ultimate Doc Ock (control over metal), then you run into a different problem. Sedation and incarceration become the more viable solutions. I don't know if he has any distance restrictions on his power, but he should be kept as far away from metals as possible.

 

For either, you're talking about a person who has murdered multiple times and remains a danger to others every minute he is awake. The death penalty would be an option for someone like him.

 

All of these are realistically viable, but not necessarily viable for the comics. You're talking about a major villain and, barring a very rare occurrence, major villains get to escape and do Bad Things at least once every 2-3 years. No system designed can defeat the writer. I don't know if it necessarily should, either.

 

Since we're talking comics, why not have a powerful telepath go to work on him so he can't create a new set of arms. Use fear, hate, guilt, or some other powerful emotion to ensure he doesn't want to. Erase memories to ensure he doesn't know exactly how to. Break or reroute the mental linkages that allow him to put those thoughts together (i.e. thoughts of arms or tentacles go anywhere but to the idea of his "arms"). This puts him out of commission, gives us a few storylines to work with (e.g. ethics of mind-alteration, how far is SHIELD willing to go, etc.), and gives the writer methods to bring the villain back (e.g. conditioning wears down over time, another telepath "fixes" him, etc.).

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

The question isn't "Does the government have the right to imprison violent criminals." The question is "Is it moral to imprison or mutilate an individual because he happens to be born with a given genetic trait."

 

On 9/11, nineteen Saudi Arabians managed to kill roughly 3000 Americans. Only a moral idiot would claim that this justifies criminalizing being of Saudi Arabian decent, ordering all Saudi Arabians and other Middle Easterners in the USA to register, drafting them en-mass, and then imprisoning all who refuse to register or serve. Swap in "metahuman" or "mutant" for "Middle Easterner" or "Saudi Arabian", and you have the terms of the Registration Act in the MU. The word in a comic book world for a costumed character with superpowers who supports that is "Villain".

 

As to the separate issue of brainwashing criminals to make them afraid to act, it's no more "moral' to do that with a fictional tool (Telepathy) than with drugs, surgery or torture.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

And your definition of mutilate appears to differ significantly from my own, as we discussed above. Removal of powers is not, to me, mutilation. In the case of intelligence-based villains no form of mutilation is necessary. Keep them thoroughly sedated and away from anything more complicated than a Fisher-Price workbench and you've solved the problem. We do that with plenty of criminals (and non-criminals) now.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

And your definition of mutilate appears to differ significantly from my own' date=' as we discussed above. Removal of powers is not, to me, mutilation.[/quote']

 

Tell that to Warren Worthington the next time a splash pannel features government agents chopping off his wings.

 

In the case of intelligence-based villains no form of mutilation is necessary. Keep them thoroughly sedated and away from anything more complicated than a Fisher-Price workbench and you've solved the problem. We do that with plenty of criminals (and non-criminals) now.

 

And if we were discussing criminals as opossed to citizens who have committed no crime past being born, supporters of the act might have a moral leg to stand on. As it is, the act remains the same metaphor for bigotry and race hatred these acts have always been in Marvel, with the added bonus of taking one-time-Heroes and putting them on the painfully obvious wrong side.

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Is it a crime to act in violation of the SHRA? If I were to throw on a mask and start beating up or shooting criminals today, I would violate a host of laws. This isn't much different. I don't get to play soldier or policeman without going throught he proper channels, why should the superheroes get to?

 

... registrants to the act have to reveal their identities to the government (but not the public) and they have to undergo some basic testing and/or training and satisfy certain (as yet unspecified) standards before they gain legal authorisation to continue to use their abilities to fight crime. Government employment is not mandatory, though it is available to those who wish to take it.

 

Assuming you have powers and don't run around the streets in spandex fighting people, then you aren't going to be found and you aren't going to have trouble. The super-intelligent doctor who devotes his time to curing diseases or working in a hospital isn't going to have trouble. Nobody will likely even notice the doctor is superhumanly intelligent - the doctor might not even know. Only those who take it upon themselves to be super-police (or super-criminals) have problems under the SHRA.

 

Warren already has a public ID, so he's already past the first hurdle of the SHRA. His powers are pretty well known, which covers another. We can also throw him in a cell, which makes his powers useless, so we don't need to bother with cutting off his wings. Plus, if it really came down to removal, they could always hit him with the Neutralizer.

 

You're taking the examples to illogical and unnecessary extremes. If we do ever see a panel where SHIELD agents are hacking off Warren's wings with machetes or lobotomizing super-intelligent villains, then I'll change my views appropriately. Until then, it just doesn't seem plausible, given the other options available.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

Is it a crime to act in violation of the SHRA? If I were to throw on a mask and start beating up or shooting criminals today' date=' I would violate a host of laws. This isn't much different. I don't get to play soldier or policeman without going throught he proper channels, why should the superheroes get to?[/quote']

 

If the act were only about people who put on costumes and fought crime I might agree. Read further on the same page you just quoted from, if you got the quote from Wikipedia. The actual terms of the act make no mention of putting on a costume and fighting or committing crimes:

 

As depicted in the Civil War crossover and series' date=' the public outcry that follows this event leads the government (with the support of Iron Man and other Illuminati such as Reed Richards) to quickly enact the Superhuman Registration Act (SHRA), 6 U.S.C. S. 558, which required registration of those with naturally-occurring superhuman abilities, super abilties acquired through science or magic (including extraterrestrials and gods), and even non-super powered humans using exotic technology, such as Iron Man[/quote']

 

Your Super Intelligent doctor is in violation of the act if he does not register. As Avengers: The Initiative points out, those who register are automatically drafted, with no fixed term of service, and imprisonment or removal of powers if they refuse. Your 300 IQ doctor just got an effective lobotomy down to 120 or so if he refused service.

 

Warren already has a public ID, so he's already past the first hurdle of the SHRA. His powers are pretty well known, which covers another. We can also throw him in a cell,

 

Only a moral idiot could claim that throwing a man who has committed no crime, other than being born with an exceptional ability, into a cell for life is justified.

 

which makes his powers useless, so we don't need to bother with cutting off his wings. Plus, if it really came down to removal, they could always hit him with the Neutralizer.

 

How exactly is cutting off functional limbs using a fictional procedure morally justified if using surgery would not be?

 

You're taking the examples to illogical and unnecessary extremes.

 

I am pointing out the actual terms of the act, and the parallels with race hatred and post-9/11 panic clearly intended by the writers.

If we do ever see a panel where SHIELD agents are hacking off Warren's wings with machetes or lobotomizing super-intelligent villains, then I'll change my views appropriately.

 

The act and story line are what they are; Your views are immaterial.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

It's not just the "racist"-type thinking here.

 

People are having sanctions and penalties imposed on them because of what they might do, because they happen to have been born with a certain trait... something over which they have no control.

 

They are being penalized in advance of any crime, or decision to commit a crime.

 

I happen to have a problem with that. And I'd like to think that the principles behind the laws of the the United States do, too... but apparently Marvel writers and editors (and some posters on this forum) seem to think otherwise.

[OddHat]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

It's not just the "racist"-type thinking here.

 

People are having sanctions and penalties imposed on them because of what they might do, because they happen to have been born with a certain trait... something over which they have no control.

 

They are being penalized in advance of any crime, or decision to commit a crime.

 

I happen to have a problem with that. And I'd like to think that the principles behind the laws of the the United States do, too... but apparently Marvel writers and editors (and some posters on this forum) seem to think otherwise.

 

Exactly so.

[JmOz]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

On an aside, did anyone notice the "Get rid of the act" clause in New Avengers (I think)?

 

Basicaly it centers around Danny Rand, if the supreme court says unconstitutianal, well I would hate to be Iron Man...

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

On an aside, did anyone notice the "Get rid of the act" clause in New Avengers (I think)?

 

Basicaly it centers around Danny Rand, if the supreme court says unconstitutianal, well I would hate to be Iron Man...

God that would be so sweet. Maybe they're actually leading up to that? Of course, Tony and Reed are still murderers...

[Checkmate]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

God that would be so sweet. Maybe they're actually leading up to that? Of course' date=' Tony and Reed are still murderers...[/quote']

I don't read comics any more, so I'm asking this out of pure ignorance: Who have they killed?

[bwdemon]

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

 

If the act were only about people who put on costumes and fought crime I might agree. Read further on the same page you just quoted from' date=' if you got the quote from Wikipedia. The actual terms of the act make no mention of putting on a costume and fighting or committing crimes:[/quote']

 

You can keep going through the Wiki-stuff on this, but you'll find that none of it is actually defined. The only evidence of how it actually works comes from the editor of the Civil War line, which is where the quote was from. Considering he's the editor, I'll take his word for how it works.