Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
I mean, I'm not convinced you can have the Avengers not be putting themselves above the law without making them an agency of the democratic state. Vigilanteism is a crime for a reason. I mean, right there -- the Avengers pick their own targets? On what basis do they operate? By what set of standards will they operate to protect the rights of suspects? How can there be an effective chain of custody for evidence? How can they make sure that charges against suspects hold up in court? Who gets to tell the Avengers when they've gone too far, or when they can't do something?
Except your trying to equate a film government based on a (when you stop and really think about it) fucked up comic book government.
Seriously we're talking about the Marvel U.S. govt which gets infiltrated by terrorists practical all the time including one time even when they flat out knew who the guy was, what he did, and still did it, that not engages in programs of drone warfare against their own citizens many who haven't committed a crime but does so in an over the top way that probably causes massive property damage, and likely deaths and injuries to bystanders, seems to always be 5 minutes from starting the Mutant holocaust, is totally fine when an entire nation's population is exterminated by said genocidal drones, was fine with imprisoning people in another dimension without trial, and can't operate a freaking prison to save their lives.
Not exactly people I would trust with super powers.
And no the MCU isn't any better considering
- The vice president, a cabinet official, two senators, and the advisor to the president on superhumans are or were criminals
- The organization the US came up with to replace SHIELD was 1) thought up by one of the afore mentioned criminals, 2) deals with superhumans by at best storing them in boxes for god knows how long, or at worst gunning them down in the street whether they have committed any crimes or not, 3) Is really a front for a terrorist organization, 4) as a front is really experimenting with them to build an army to take over the world with.
Again not exactly feeling they won't screw this up.
Would you trust the police not to be part of the democratic state?
Re: Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors,
Well, as someone who is on Cap's side, I can't wait to see Tony getting some punishment. Tony is a great character, but he can be a really stupid smart guy (see: Ultron), and he's on the wrong side. Cap's been wanting to punch him since the first movie, anyway . That scene of Cap/Bucky vs Stark was great. I'm super excited for this movie. I love the comic its loosely based on, and even if its only really taking the premise (and modifiying a lot), this could potentially be my favorite Marvel movie, or at least the second favorite after the first Avengers movie. Regardless, I'm sure I'll love it, since I've liked every movie Marvel has put out so far.
Re: Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors,
Well we don't really know for sure what the sides are going to be. The government is doing something to bring superheroes under control, but I imagine it's going to be more than just registering in a database. It is hard to see Cap being on the wrong side of things but it's not going to be exactly like the comic.
I don't see Cap going to war over being able to answer to no one.The catalyst has to be what the powers that be are demanding of him.
Quick thoughts in response to the trailer and teaser art:
Black Widow on Tony's side and Hawkeye on Steve's? I don't buy it; I'd see them as on opposites. Clint is a very meat-and-potatoes kind of guy; I see him as someone who would favor government regulation of superheroes. Natasha made her lack of regard for governance and accountability fairly clear in The Avengers: "Regimes fall all the time. I'm Russian, I don't tend to weep for that." I definitely see these guys as being more plausibly on opposite sides of the fight
Black Widow is a pragmatist. She sounds like she sympathizes with Cap in the trailer but maybe she just doesn't believe this something worth losing everything over. Maybe she doesn't see Cap and co. being able to say no to the US/World Governments PLUS Iron Man, War Machine, Black Panther etc.
So I suspect that we're going to find out that there's something about he Sokovia Accords that is particularly onerous, that in some way violates the rights of superpowered individuals, rather than just him objecting in principle to the idea that he and the Avengers should not get to be self-appointed police and soldiers.
For example insisting that all superpowered individuals register themselves with the government and have their movements constantly tracked? Also legalizing the extra-judicial imprisonment and killing of superpowered people?
ETA: About Tasha. Let's keep in mind also she has a history of working for some pretty shitty governments. Brainwashed, yes, but then she went along no problem with Fury's plan and SHIELD. Just because she doesn't have faith in governments doesn't mean she won't work for them.
So I suspect that we're going to find out that there's something about he Sokovia Accords that is particularly onerous, that in some way violates the rights of superpowered individuals, rather than just him objecting in principle to the idea that he and the Avengers should not get to be self-appointed police and soldiers.
For example insisting that all superpowered individuals register themselves with the government and have their movements constantly tracked? Also legalizing the extra-judicial imprisonment and killing of superpowered people?
ETA: About Tasha. Let's keep in mind also she has a history of working for some pretty shitty governments. Brainwashed, yes, but then she went along no problem with Fury's plan and SHIELD. Just because she doesn't have faith in governments doesn't mean she won't work for them.
Wasn't there something in the original comic book story that heroes didn't have to just register and disclose personal details to the government, but that they in fact agreed to be government operatives and work on government orders when requested?
Re: Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors,
I never actually read the whole sprawling mess, just got the gist by reading about it.
But I seem to recall there was a bit of conflicting information - in some cases it seemed be be "don't use your powers at all or you have to be a government operative," but in others it was "it doesn't matter if you'll never use your powers, you still have to agree to be government agents." I think that second one cropped up in particular in a Jessica Jones/Luke Cage story? Not entirely sure.
But either way registration and personal information was mandatory for any people with powers - and I think this was to be public knowledge?
Well, as someone who is on Cap's side, I can't wait to see Tony getting some punishment. Tony is a great character, but he can be a really stupid smart guy (see: Ultron), and he's on the wrong side. Cap's been wanting to punch him since the first movie, anyway . That scene of Cap/Bucky vs Stark was great. I'm super excited for this movie. I love the comic its loosely based on, and even if its only really taking the premise (and modifiying a lot), this could potentially be my favorite Marvel movie, or at least the second favorite after the first Avengers movie. Regardless, I'm sure I'll love it, since I've liked every movie Marvel has put out so far.
Well, as someone who is on Cap's side, I can't wait to see Tony getting some punishment. Tony is a great character, but he can be a really stupid smart guy (see: Ultron), and he's on the wrong side. Cap's been wanting to punch him since the first movie, anyway . That scene of Cap/Bucky vs Stark was great. I'm super excited for this movie. I love the comic its loosely based on, and even if its only really taking the premise (and modifiying a lot), this could potentially be my favorite Marvel movie, or at least the second favorite after the first Avengers movie. Regardless, I'm sure I'll love it, since I've liked every movie Marvel has put out so far.
My love for the Marvel movies knows no bounds. I even like Iron Man 2/3, Age of Ultron and the Thor movies a lot, even though a lot of people consider them the weaker Marvel movies. If its Marvel (made by Marvel), and on the big screen, I'm basically guaranteed to at least like it, if not love it, and I generally love it.
Re: Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors,
I'd probably be more excited by this trailer if it wasn't the third time we've seen superhero infighting in an MCU flick. Like BvS, this conflict probably would've resonated more as a later Phase movie so that there's much more history and more heroes to do battle. Also would've worked better as two-parter movie to fully explore the issue.
Still, TWS was a solid film, so I'll hold out hope the film isn't as "meh" as the trailer was.
I never actually read the whole sprawling mess, just got the gist by reading about it.
But I seem to recall there was a bit of conflicting information - in some cases it seemed be be "don't use your powers at all or you have to be a government operative," but in others it was "it doesn't matter if you'll never use your powers, you still have to agree to be government agents." I think that second one cropped up in particular in a Jessica Jones/Luke Cage story? Not entirely sure.
But either way registration and personal information was mandatory for any people with powers - and I think this was to be public knowledge?
Well, right there are various good reasons for Cap to fight against registration. The very idea of registering citizens resonates directly with Nazi Germany and the very war he fought in. Furthermore, coercing people into becoming agents is a direct violation of their rights.
Well we don't really know for sure what the sides are going to be. The government is doing something to bring superheroes under control, but I imagine it's going to be more than just registering in a database.
The trailer shows Ross sliding a document titled the Sokovia Accords to Rogers; presumably it came about from the Avengers nearly leveling Sokovia and it's some sort of international agreement to exert oversight over superheroes.
I mean, I'm not convinced you can have the Avengers not be putting themselves above the law without making them an agency of the democratic state. Vigilanteism is a crime for a reason. I mean, right there -- the Avengers pick their own targets? On what basis do they operate? By what set of standards will they operate to protect the rights of suspects? How can there be an effective chain of custody for evidence? How can they make sure that charges against suspects hold up in court? Who gets to tell the Avengers when they've gone too far, or when they can't do something?
To put it another way:
Would you trust the police not to be part of the democratic state?
This is where we differ, I'd say. I'd don't see the Avengers as analogous to the police at all. Their job isn't to go hunt down suspects and witnesses and logic out whodunnit so that they can provide evidence to the court system. If the Avengers are involved, that means there's huge, dangerous, ongoing evil afoot, usually in plain view. Their job is to stop the evil plots as quickly and safely as possible. And they can do their best in terms of preserving evidence, etc, but in this sense I see them much more as the Fire Dept.: yes, the firemen want to save your house, but safe handling of the fire comes first. Yes, the avengers want to provide decent evidence (when that's even necessary, since most of their enemies leave a huge trail of witnesses), but saving the world takes precedence.
And seeing them like that, I say, yes, I do trust the Fire Dept. to exist outside of the democratic state. Because I know when there's a fire, they'll put it out, because that's what they do. (Obviously, in the real world there are financial pitfalls that have played havoc with actual historic examples of private fire depts., but those pitfalls really don't apply to the avengers.)
Here's the thing: Steve does sometimes rebel when he thinks he knows what's right and the institutions he is serving are in the wrong. He violated Colonel Phillips's orders to rescue Bucky and the other 400 POWs from Hydra in CA:TFA. He went on the run from SHIELD and then tore it down to prevent Hydra from launching Project Insight in CA:TWS.
But Steve also always made sure he was answerable for his actions afterwards. In CA:TFA, as soon as he returned to the Allied base, he reported to Phillips and said that he would like to submit himself for discipline. In TWS, he made sure to release all the information he had on Hydra and SHIELD to the public; Natasha testified before Congress about why they made the decisions they did, and I presume Steve did as well, since he wasn't exactly in hiding as of A:AoU.
So, yeah, sometimes Steve rebels against the morally illegitimate exercise of power by authority figures. But he also has a history of then making sure that he is held accountable for his own rebellions, of submitting to legitimate authority so they can determine if his rebellions were morally justified.
You're basically describing exactly what I'm talking about. If something goes wrong, the public can hold them accountable. Summon them to court - they answer. They're not some closed off corporate mercenary army willing to do anything to escape blame. Charge and convict them with a crime and they will willingly go to jail, because they do respect the people.
It's a bit of a risky proposition, I understand - you'd have to trust them upfront and only hold them accountable after the fact. But if anyone has earned that kind of trust in the MCU, it's the Avengers (and certainly not the govt.).
And really, what would be the major difference in accountability if they were 'part' of the govt.? That they would have to write reports and some guy might be able to decide that x hero should be grounded for a while if he thinks they're off balance? The Avengers can do the same check on each other, and in the end, they would have to anyway, because if one of them snaps, they're the only ones powerful enough to deal with it.
That's my basic problem with the idea that Steve would even want the Avengers not to be answerable to anyone: He may be suspicious of powerful institutions, but I also think he doesn't see himself as being above the law or having an inherent right to break the law just because he thinks what governments are doing is wrong. Steve requires a fairly extraordinary set of circumstances to drive him to rebel -- and I am not convinced that what to me sounds like a sensible idea in a democracy ("nobody should be able to exercise executive power without answering to the people through the legitimate democratic state; those who are powerful should have checks and balances on them") is inherently something that would drive Steve to rebel.
So I suspect that we're going to find out that there's something about he Sokovia Accords that is particularly onerous, that in some way violates the rights of superpowered individuals, rather than just him objecting in principle to the idea that he and the Avengers should not get to be self-appointed police and soldiers.
I agree that's what we're going to see. Tony is already confirmed as being a sort of bad guy in the movie, so it's likely that the registration side will be going way too far, if for no other reason than to make it crystal clear to the audience that Cap is the good guy.
I think at the end of the day it's going to come down to this: when Captain America sees innocent people in trouble, he's going to save them. Whether the govt. approves or not, even if there's a possibility that something could go wrong, he can't NOT be a hero. It's just who he is. And that's automatically going to bring him into at least some kind of conflict with just about any regulation you can imagine, unless he was the one making the decisions about what's allowed.
Well, that's a pretty damn ominous line of thought. "Unless he's the one making the decisions." Doesn't sound very in keeping with the values of liberal democracy Steve believes in.
That's not really how I meant it. Obviously, if he was the one making the decisions, then he would always agree with the decisions. If someone else is looking at incidents of people in trouble and telling him 'you can save these people but you can't save those people' then that is inevitably going to bring him into conflict with the system. It wouldn't necessarily lead to rebellion - a smart govt. would work with him, respect his principles, be willing to negotiate, etc. But if that system refused to work with him, he would go out and save those people anyway. And then, like you said, he would turn himself in for the consequences. And six months later, when there are more people the govt. says can't be saved, he would break out of jail and save them, and then turn himself in again.
But then again if they get their hands on the Time Stone they can drop him right back in the 40's after it's all done, let him whine in his own time if he misses it so much.
The only appropriate use of the Time Stone by the MCU writers would be to time travel Peggy Carter to the present day so that we can have an awesome Cap-and-Peggy-in-love-and-fight-the-bad-guys movie.
I mean, I'm not convinced you can have the Avengers not be putting themselves above the law without making them an agency of the democratic state. Vigilanteism is a crime for a reason. I mean, right there -- the Avengers pick their own targets? On what basis do they operate? By what set of standards will they operate to protect the rights of suspects? How can there be an effective chain of custody for evidence? How can they make sure that charges against suspects hold up in court? Who gets to tell the Avengers when they've gone too far, or when they can't do something?
Well, more specifically, I'm trying to apply universal political principles -- such as the idea that nobody should be able to exercise executive power without being accountable to the people through the structures of the democratic state -- to the MCU.
And no the MCU isn't any better considering
- The vice president, a cabinet official, two senators, and the advisor to the president on superhumans are or were criminals
- The organization the US came up with to replace SHIELD was 1) thought up by one of the afore mentioned criminals, 2) deals with superhumans by at best storing them in boxes for god knows how long, or at worst gunning them down in the street whether they have committed any crimes or not, 3) Is really a front for a terrorist organization, 4) as a front is really experimenting with them to build an army to take over the world with.
Again not exactly feeling they won't screw this up.
I mean, I think that's an excellent argument for the FBI to do a better job of rooting out Hydra followers from the halls of power, but not a good argument for saying that the Avengers shouldn't have to answer to anyone else.
Would you trust the police not to be part of the democratic state?
Pffft. Police don't need to be members of Hydra to murder you in broad daylight. Just ask Eric Garner. And the only thing keeping those police in any sort of check is the (very flawed, very imperfect) system of accountability they have as part of the democratic state.
Well we don't really know for sure what the sides are going to be. The government is doing something to bring superheroes under control, but I imagine it's going to be more than just registering in a database. It is hard to see Cap being on the wrong side of things but it's not going to be exactly like the comic.
I don't see Cap going to war over being able to answer to no one.The catalyst has to be what the powers that be are demanding of him.
Quick thoughts in response to the trailer and teaser art:
Black Widow on Tony's side and Hawkeye on Steve's? I don't buy it; I'd see them as on opposites. Clint is a very meat-and-potatoes kind of guy; I see him as someone who would favor government regulation of superheroes. Natasha made her lack of regard for governance and accountability fairly clear in The Avengers: "Regimes fall all the time. I'm Russian, I don't tend to weep for that." I definitely see these guys as being more plausibly on opposite sides of the fight
Black Widow is a pragmatist. She sounds like she sympathizes with Cap in the trailer but maybe she just doesn't believe this something worth losing everything over. Maybe she doesn't see Cap and co. being able to say no to the US/World Governments PLUS Iron Man, War Machine, Black Panther etc.
A fair point. But my interpretation is that she's been "radicalized," so to speak, by her experiences in CA:TWS. I think that not only is she willing to fight governmental structures she views as oppressive even in the face of overwhelming odds -- but, more specifically, I think she's come to trust Steve more than almost anyone else she's ever met. (To my mind, the only man she could trust more than Steve is Bruce, and that's why she found herself falling in love for the first time in A:AoU.) If Steve called her, she would follow.
So I suspect that we're going to find out that there's something about he Sokovia Accords that is particularly onerous, that in some way violates the rights of superpowered individuals, rather than just him objecting in principle to the idea that he and the Avengers should not get to be self-appointed police and soldiers.
For example insisting that all superpowered individuals register themselves with the government and have their movements constantly tracked? Also legalizing the extra-judicial imprisonment and killing of superpowered people?
Yeah, I think Cap would legitimately rebel against the Accords system if that were to be part of the package.
ETA: About Tasha. Let's keep in mind also she has a history of working for some pretty shitty governments. Brainwashed, yes, but then she went along no problem with Fury's plan and SHIELD. Just because she doesn't have faith in governments doesn't mean she won't work for them.
I don't quite agree with that. I think she was a pragmatist, before CA:TWS. More specifically -- I think that she came to work for SHIELD because she believed that SHIELD was doing more good than harm in the world, even if SHIELD itself was sometimes abusive. Because to her, that was the best way to get the red out of her ledger. But after seeing how corrupted SHIELD had become, I think Natasha is someone who is now more of an idealist than she was.
So I suspect that we're going to find out that there's something about he Sokovia Accords that is particularly onerous, that in some way violates the rights of superpowered individuals, rather than just him objecting in principle to the idea that he and the Avengers should not get to be self-appointed police and soldiers.
For example insisting that all superpowered individuals register themselves with the government and have their movements constantly tracked? Also legalizing the extra-judicial imprisonment and killing of superpowered people?
Wasn't there something in the original comic book story that heroes didn't have to just register and disclose personal details to the government, but that they in fact agreed to be government operatives and work on government orders when requested?
I never actually read the whole sprawling mess, just got the gist by reading about it.
But I seem to recall there was a bit of conflicting information - in some cases it seemed be be "don't use your powers at all or you have to be a government operative," but in others it was "it doesn't matter if you'll never use your powers, you still have to agree to be government agents." I think that second one cropped up in particular in a Jessica Jones/Luke Cage story? Not entirely sure.
But either way registration and personal information was mandatory for any people with powers - and I think this was to be public knowledge?
The original Civil War comic was trying to be an allegory for the rise of authoritarian measures in the post-9/11 U.S., such as the USA PATRIOT Act. But it was really hamfisted and not well-written, and the particulars of the real-world situation did not match up closely enough with those of the Marvel Universe for them to work. (Prime example: Maria Hill ordering SHIELD agents to kill Captain America for refusing to head up SHIELD's registration enforcement division, even before the Registration Act had become law and even before Cap had actually rebelled; refusing to take a job is not a capital offense!)
I'd probably be more excited by this trailer if it wasn't the third time we've seen superhero infighting in an MCU flick. Like BvS, this conflict probably would've resonated more as a later Phase movie so that there's much more history and more heroes to do battle. Also would've worked better as two-parter movie to fully explore the issue.
I mean, the other times we've seen MCU heroes fight, it was only A) a brief scene following a misunderstanding (which is traditional in superhero team-up stories), and B) when Hulk was mind-mojoed. This is the first time we've seen superheroes become truly divided. And given that this is the 13th Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, I'm not sure how much longer they should have waited to give it more resonance.
I never actually read the whole sprawling mess, just got the gist by reading about it.
But I seem to recall there was a bit of conflicting information - in some cases it seemed be be "don't use your powers at all or you have to be a government operative," but in others it was "it doesn't matter if you'll never use your powers, you still have to agree to be government agents." I think that second one cropped up in particular in a Jessica Jones/Luke Cage story? Not entirely sure.
But either way registration and personal information was mandatory for any people with powers - and I think this was to be public knowledge?
Well, right there are various good reasons for Cap to fight against registration. The very idea of registering citizens resonates directly with Nazi Germany and the very war he fought in. Furthermore, coercing people into becoming agents is a direct violation of their rights.
Yeah, these are stronger anti-Accords arguments than what the trailer makes it out to be. The trailer doesn't actually lay out Cap's reasons for rebelling against the Accords, only the world's governments' nominal reasons for instituting the Accords -- motivations that are on their face, quite reasonable. The trailer makes it sound like Steve just doesn't want to have a boss (in which case he should retire from super-heroing and open up a book shop or something). So I'm sure we'll find out that the Accords are more sinister than what Tony and Secretary Ross make them sound like in the trailer.
Well we don't really know for sure what the sides are going to be. The government is doing something to bring superheroes under control, but I imagine it's going to be more than just registering in a database.
The trailer shows Ross sliding a document titled the Sokovia Accords to Rogers; presumably it came about from the Avengers nearly leveling Sokovia and it's some sort of international agreement to exert oversight over superheroes.
Just to be a bit of a pedant: The Avengers did not level Novi Grad, Ultron did. But, of course, Ultron was created by the Avengers -- and probably would not have been created if Tony had had to answer to anybody else.
I mean, I'm not convinced you can have the Avengers not be putting themselves above the law without making them an agency of the democratic state. Vigilanteism is a crime for a reason. I mean, right there -- the Avengers pick their own targets? On what basis do they operate? By what set of standards will they operate to protect the rights of suspects? How can there be an effective chain of custody for evidence? How can they make sure that charges against suspects hold up in court? Who gets to tell the Avengers when they've gone too far, or when they can't do something?
To put it another way:
Would you trust the police not to be part of the democratic state?
This is where we differ, I'd say. I'd don't see the Avengers as analogous to the police at all. Their job isn't to go hunt down suspects and witnesses and logic out whodunnit so that they can provide evidence to the court system. If the Avengers are involved, that means there's huge, dangerous, ongoing evil afoot, usually in plain view.
Then why were they engaging in law enforcement activity at the start of A:AoU? The Avengers weren't reacting to an imminent threat; they located the whereabouts of suspected criminals, defended themselves from attempted murder, rounded up the members of a criminal syndicate, and then delivered them to judicial authorities.
Their job is to stop the evil plots as quickly and safely as possible. And they can do their best in terms of preserving evidence, etc, but in this sense I see them much more as the Fire Dept.: yes, the firemen want to save your house, but safe handling of the fire comes first. Yes, the avengers want to provide decent evidence (when that's even necessary, since most of their enemies leave a huge trail of witnesses), but saving the world takes precedence.
And seeing them like that, I say, yes, I do trust the Fire Dept. to exist outside of the democratic state. Because I know when there's a fire, they'll put it out, because that's what they do. (Obviously, in the real world there are financial pitfalls that have played havoc with actual historic examples of private fire depts., but those pitfalls really don't apply to the avengers.)
Private fire departments also had a nasty habit of letting the fires burn unabated if you were not one of their customers, only intervening to stop them from spreading to the dwellings of their customers. Should the Avengers have the legal authority to refuse service to some people? To decide they'll save this city but not that city?
What if a supervillain is threatening Moscow -- should the Avengers be able to choose not to intervene because they think Russian aggression in Ukraine warrants staying out of it? Or, for that matter, should the Avengers be able to attack and topple the Russian government in retaliation for Russian aggression in Ukraine? Should the Avengers be able to intervene against drug cartels in Mexico? Against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories? Against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? If they had been around in 2003, against the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Against the Iranian government for executing LGBT Iranians? Against U.S. state governments that try to prevent women from exercising their right to an abortion? Against U.S. police forces that engage in murder and brutality against black people?
Some of those things, maybe they should intervene. Some, maybe not. There's a whole litany of sins the Avengers could intervene to stop. But there comes a point where, even doing so in the name of saving lives and protecting freedom, might well become pretty damn authoritarian themselves, or might produce blowback that's counter-productive to their intended efforts.
One of the reasons it makes sense to establish an international body to regulate the Avengers is that doing so would then impose a legal obligation on the Avengers to intervene when the situation warrants it -- and to not intervene when doing so would interfere with the normal conduct of affairs by sovereign nations. And it removes the element of the subjective judgment of people who are not accountable to the peoples of the world, and replaces it with the judgment of people from a wide variety of nations who are all accountable to their own governments (and, one hopes, to their own nations' peoples through those governments).
This appears to be similar to how SHIELD operated in the past -- "0-8-4" established that SHILED would, for instance, intervene if a sovereign state acquired sole control of fantastical technologies, but would not intervene in conventional political matters. So when the government of the Republic of Peru attempted to acquire leftover Hydra technology, SHIELD stopped them -- but SHIELD did not stop the civil war going on between the Peruvian government and rebel forces.
Here's the thing: Steve does sometimes rebel when he thinks he knows what's right and the institutions he is serving are in the wrong. He violated Colonel Phillips's orders to rescue Bucky and the other 400 POWs from Hydra in CA:TFA. He went on the run from SHIELD and then tore it down to prevent Hydra from launching Project Insight in CA:TWS.
But Steve also always made sure he was answerable for his actions afterwards. In CA:TFA, as soon as he returned to the Allied base, he reported to Phillips and said that he would like to submit himself for discipline. In TWS, he made sure to release all the information he had on Hydra and SHIELD to the public; Natasha testified before Congress about why they made the decisions they did, and I presume Steve did as well, since he wasn't exactly in hiding as of A:AoU.
So, yeah, sometimes Steve rebels against the morally illegitimate exercise of power by authority figures. But he also has a history of then making sure that he is held accountable for his own rebellions, of submitting to legitimate authority so they can determine if his rebellions were morally justified.
No -- I'm describing the moral paradigm by which Steve operated in extraordinary situations. You're arguing that that paradigm should become the norm for how he operates.
If something goes wrong, the public can hold them accountable. Summon them to court - they answer. They're not some closed off corporate mercenary army willing to do anything to escape blame. Charge and convict them with a crime and they will willingly go to jail, because they do respect the people.
Do they? I mean, they already went on the run after the Hulk tore apart downtown Johannesburg rather than turn Bruce over to the South African Police Service. Then they go and let Wanda into the Avengers, when she's the person who actually set the Hulk loose on Johannesburg -- where, exactly, was the legal accountability there?
Or let's talk about Ultron. Exactly how liable for the deaths and damages caused by Ultron are the Avengers?
It's a bit of a risky proposition, I understand - you'd have to trust them upfront and only hold them accountable after the fact.
This is an incredibly dangerous and vaguely fascistic argument. "You must trust me up front because I have good intentions." Democracy is based on checks and balances, not automatic acquiescence.
But if anyone has earned that kind of trust in the MCU, it's the Avengers (and certainly not the govt.).
Have they? I mean, they went and created an incredibly dangerous life-form that tried to destroy the world, and they evaded the legitimate authorities of the world after one of their own went on the rampage in a major city. Add to this the fact that there is no evidence that they sought, for instance, the assistance of the South Korean government during their attempt to thwart Ultron in Seoul -- nor even alerted the South Korean government to their (arguably illegal) presence in their country -- that resulted in the destruction of a major portion of the Seoul subway system and God knows how many civilian casualties....
Certainly, the Avengers earned a great deal of trust after the Battle of New York. But I think their actions in A:AoU probably soured a lot of that good will.
And really, what would be the major difference in accountability if they were 'part' of the govt.?
That they would have to write reports and some guy might be able to decide that x hero should be grounded for a while if he thinks they're off balance? The Avengers can do the same check on each other,
This relies on the assumption that they can be trusted to do so.
Isn't that just the same logic you hear when police go, "Hey, we investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!" after there's a police shooting?
and in the end, they would have to anyway, because if one of them snaps, they're the only ones powerful enough to deal with it.
This is another reason a system of international regulation is a good idea: Create multiple teams that answer to the same international body, as a check on the other team if they or one of their own snaps. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I think at the end of the day it's going to come down to this: when Captain America sees innocent people in trouble, he's going to save them. Whether the govt. approves or not, even if there's a possibility that something could go wrong, he can't NOT be a hero. It's just who he is. And that's automatically going to bring him into at least some kind of conflict with just about any regulation you can imagine, unless he was the one making the decisions about what's allowed.
Well, that's a pretty damn ominous line of thought. "Unless he's the one making the decisions." Doesn't sound very in keeping with the values of liberal democracy Steve believes in.
I know -- but that's the practical consequence of what you are describing. "Give me unaccountable power and trust in my good intentions" is just not the sort of thing anyone should argue for.
Re: Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors,
Regarding Tasha's role in the civil war...let's keep in mind that she's a spy first and foremost...that's her skill set. If she seems to be on Tony's team, there's a good chance that she'll be working on the inside to help Steve.
Also, on the occasional topic of how strong Cap is in the MCU...damned if stopping a helicopter from taking off isn't superhuman strength.
Then why were they engaging in law enforcement activity at the start of A:AoU? The Avengers weren't reacting to an imminent threat; they located the whereabouts of suspected criminals, defended themselves from attempted murder, rounded up the members of a criminal syndicate, and then delivered them to judicial authorities.
There are blurry lines, it's not a perfect description, as I've said, but they weren't actually hunting down Hydra. The Govt. was doing that (and SHIELD, though secretly). The Avengers were hunting Loki's scepter which they were uniquely qualified to find and which they felt responsible for if it were used to create another NY type situation (because they handed the sceptre to the wrong people).
Private fire departments also had a nasty habit of letting the fires burn unabated if you were not one of their customers, only intervening to stop them from spreading to the dwellings of their customers. Should the Avengers have the legal authority to refuse service to some people? To decide they'll save this city but not that city?
Those are the financial pitfalls I already mentioned. Private fire depts. resorted to terrible things to convince people to pay for their services, because without money the firemen starved. The Avengers don't have those pitfalls. Even if Stark Industries folded tomorrow, the Avengers are celebrities doing possibly the most eye-catching charity work in the world - they can always find funding, at least enough to keep themselves going.
And also, yeah. The Avengers don't have a responsibility to save everyone on the planet. They choose to do that. If they decided to take a vacation and aren't around when something bad happens, then that's just bad luck. Just like if you wound up getting in an accident in an area where there's only one doctor and he's on vacation. Whoever is there will do their best, and that's just the luck you have.
What if a supervillain is threatening Moscow -- should the Avengers be able to choose not to intervene because they think Russian aggression in Ukraine warrants staying out of it? Or, for that matter, should the Avengers be able to attack and topple the Russian government in retaliation for Russian aggression in Ukraine? Should the Avengers be able to intervene against drug cartels in Mexico? Against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories? Against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? If they had been around in 2003, against the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Against the Iranian government for executing LGBT Iranians? Against U.S. state governments that try to prevent women from exercising their right to an abortion? Against U.S. police forces that engage in murder and brutality against black people?
If the Avengers started intervening against any of those things (well, except the last one, assuming you mean people being beaten while the avengers are there, and not just summarily punishing police forces that have a history of brutality), then that would be a much stronger argument that they should be part of the govt. because they would be making obviously political decisions for large groups of people who never elected them. Saving people from an army of alien invaders isn't a political decision.
No -- I'm describing the moral paradigm by which Steve operated in extraordinary situations. You're arguing that that paradigm should become the norm for how he operates.
I'm arguing that it could become the norm, not that it should. And I'm arguing that in the hyper-Hydrafied reality of the MCU, it's not necessarily any worse than the alternative.
Do they? I mean, they already went on the run after the Hulk tore apart downtown Johannesburg rather than turn Bruce over to the South African Police Service. Then they go and let Wanda into the Avengers, when she's the person who actually set the Hulk loose on Johannesburg -- where, exactly, was the legal accountability there?
They went on the run to stop Ultron, just like Steve went on the run to stop Hydra in TWS and to save Bucky in TFA. Once Ultron was gone, they didn't seem to be hiding at all anymore. We just didn't see exactly what the events were surrounding their accountability, presumably because those events will be shown in Civil War.
I do agree about Wanda. She's the biggest chink in their armor, and I'm very curious to see what the world knows about her past and where they are going to go with that. Right now, though, we really know essentially nothing about what actions they've taken regarding her accountability except that they've personally forgiven her.
Or let's talk about Ultron. Exactly how liable for the deaths and damages caused by Ultron are the Avengers?
Partially (although, really only Stark, Banner and Wanda). But, of course, Ultron was the result of Stark trying to control the whole playing field, just like registration...
This is an incredibly dangerous and vaguely fascistic argument. "You must trust me up front because I have good intentions." Democracy is based on checks and balances, not automatic acquiescence.
It can be dangerous if someone doesn't actually have good intentions or if their intentions change. It's certainly not a principle to base a blanket rule one, but the paradigm governing the Avengers doesn't have to be a blanket rule. There's only a handful of them - the system can take their actual trustworthiness into account. As long as they continue to respect the summons of a court, they are still accountable. If they stop respecting that, then the govt. can always go after them anyway.
Have they? I mean, they went and created an incredibly dangerous life-form that tried to destroy the world, and they evaded the legitimate authorities of the world after one of their own went on the rampage in a major city. Add to this the fact that there is no evidence that they sought, for instance, the assistance of the South Korean government during their attempt to thwart Ultron in Seoul -- nor even alerted the South Korean government to their (arguably illegal) presence in their country -- that resulted in the destruction of a major portion of the Seoul subway system and God knows how many civilian casualties....
Certainly, the Avengers earned a great deal of trust after the Battle of New York. But I think their actions in A:AoU probably soured a lot of that good will.
To an extent. But their record is still far better than anyone elses.
This relies on the assumption that they can be trusted to do so.
Isn't that just the same logic you hear when police go, "Hey, we investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!" after there's a police shooting?
Not really. The police can be investigated and stopped by anyone with authority and a gun. If Thor goes nuts, you really have no choice but to call the other Avengers. No one else is capable.
This is another reason a system of international regulation is a good idea: Create multiple teams that answer to the same international body, as a check on the other team if they or one of their own snaps. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
. That scene of Cap/Bucky vs Stark was great. I'm super excited for this movie. I love the comic its loosely based on, and even if its only really taking the premise (and modifiying a lot), this could potentially be my favorite Marvel movie, or at least the second favorite after the first Avengers movie. Regardless, I'm sure I'll love it, since I've liked every movie Marvel has put out so far.
My love for the Marvel movies knows no bounds. I even like Iron Man 2/3, Age of Ultron and the Thor movies a lot, even though a lot of people consider them the weaker Marvel movies. If its Marvel (made by Marvel), and on the big screen, I'm basically guaranteed to at least like it, if not love it, and I generally love it.
