[B5JMS] Why saying there is no right or wrong side in Civil War is a lie

[b5jms at mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: barnett at shentel.net
Date: 21 Feb 2006 20:20:03 -0800
Lines: 84

The New York Times article puts the key point of Marvel's Civil War as
"Would you give up your civil liberties to feel safer in the world?"

If that's even close to the way it is presented by Marvel then there
can be no question which side is right, despite the writers claims.
Because no one who puts safety first would phrase the question that
way.

And the heroes illustrated on the preview cover can only prove that
point.

Captain America's prominence would be to mislead people that he'd be on
the gov't side, but he's told the gov't where they could go on more
than a few occasions.  And the group he's with don't suggest people who
would give up civil liberties.

Captain America is the moral compass of the MU.  So much so it's weird
when people legitimately claim to be better than him.  When Cable was
listing how he'd done more than Cap in his own time and listed his jobs
I immediately thought to how we'd had people who'd been essentially
heads of state, soldiers and religious leaders all at once.  It tended
to lead to bad things like Crusades and Inquisitions.  But the key
point there is I immediately took mental steps to return Cap to his
proper place.

Wolverine is a Canadian who could theoretically get away from the Civil
War crap.  That means his staying away will be a sign of loyalty.  He's
also (obviously) not the type to take people butting into his life.

Cyclops may not be the most popular character, but he's know to make
both the hard and correct decisions.  He'd recognizre that any sort of
superhuman registration would affect mutants greatly.

And the Human Torch is the rebel of the FF.

On the other side we have Iron Man, Spiderman, Colossus, Sentry and
someone you have to figure is the second Giantman, Bill Foster.  I
really don't know much about him so I can't say anything about his
motivations.

Sentry seems obvious.  A silver age throwback and a Superman analogue
he'd certainly side with the government.  But he's also a man with a
split personality.  The Void is one of the most dangerous beings in the
MU.  Would  Sentry risk something that could expose this to the public.
 Plus there was a point where Rob Reynolds didn't even trust himself to
know he was a superhero.

Colossus grew up in Soviet Russia.  You might expect him to support
extreme government intrusion in his life.  But Piotr Rasputin had
plenty of reason to distrust the old Soviet gov't.  Such as the coverup
of his brother's supposed death.  In addition he'd probably trust the
judgement of the majority of his fellow X-men, if he didn't have doubts
himself.  And that's a big if.  He joined Magneto's Acolytes in the
aftermath of a traumatic event, he knows the easy apparent solution
isn't always best.

Spiderman used to be his own man, as much as someone with a strong
family background can be.  His powers were given as the result of an
accident.  His gadgets were self-invented.  He had friendships but
wasn't a joiner so he wasn't on any teams.  But if he wanted to upgrade
it's certain Reed Richards would have been willing to work with him to
come up with something.  Nowdays he's beholden to both a Spidergod for
his powers and Tony Stark for an armor upgrade.  And that armor seems
to be the only reason he's working with TOney, considering how he's
always protected his identity.

Iron Man seems to have become the MU's neocon ever since someone
pointed out he's a weapon's designer.  The horror.  In reality I think
he's be a moderate conservative, not the standard stereotype neocon.
He's a mostly self-made man,(the Stark family fortune was lost during
his battle with alcohol) and fights his own battles.  He certainly
doesn't trust the government explicityly, though he does to a degree..
During the Armor Wars he took down gov't employees as well as
supervillains with Stark tech in their armor, but he also designs LMD's
for S.H.I.E.L.D.  He's protective of his secret to the point he's
erased people's memory of the fact he's Iron Man, and at other times
claimed he's passed the suit on.

So basically everyone against registration is being true to themselves,
while everyone else is either behaving out of character or being simply
a stereotype of their character, to fit them on the appropriate sides.

JLB


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com
Date: 21 Feb 2006 20:34:49 -0800
Lines: 57


barn... at shentel.net wrote:
> The New York Times article puts the key point of Marvel's Civil War as
> "Would you give up your civil liberties to feel safer in the world?"
>
> If that's even close to the way it is presented by Marvel then there
> can be no question which side is right, despite the writers claims.
> Because no one who puts safety first would phrase the question that
> way.
>
> So basically everyone against registration is being true to themselves,
> while everyone else is either behaving out of character or being simply
> a stereotype of their character, to fit them on the appropriate sides.
>

Actually...no.

This was one of the points I raised with Marvel when the idea first
came across the pond from Mark Millar...those who take sides on this
issue must, on balance (there are always folks on any side of an
argument who take that position for purposes of convenience) do so
because they actually *believe* that they are right.

Which is why, in the first Spidey issue of mine that actually deals
straight-on with the topic, I went to considerable pains to spell out
exactly why the senators and others involved with this genuinely
believe they're right in doing so...and some of their points even Peter
can't argue with.  Doctors belong to the AMA and drugs are administered
through the FDA so that if there's a mistake, there's accountability.
If the doctor on your block should be held accountable and be find-able
in the event of a mishap, shouldn't a hero also be liable, find-able
and accountable if he should wipe out a city block in a mishap?  And if
not, then is he really a hero?

There are likely some heroes out there who are tired of working on the
periphery, tired of fighting the police and the bad guys, who wouldn't
mind the idea of being endorsed and acknolwedged and brought in, in
exchange for legitimacy and the ability to focus on just the bad guys.
CIA agents are covert, work under a variety of aliases...but the
government knows their real names.  Shouldn't that apply to heroes as
well?

So in sum, I don't think it's really a paper tiger or as much a
strawman argument as you might suggest.  (In some of our knock-downs at
the retreat, Mark took the position that hell yeah, most heroes would
go for it, just as most americans would go for it...but then he's
Scottish, and therefore of suspicious morality.)*

(And to your first notation...there have been any number of Gallup
polls and others that ask straight up, "Would you be willing to
sacrifice some of your liberties in exchange for better national
security?" and the majority of those polls have, sadly in my view, come
back in the positive.)

jms
(and that was just a joke, for any scots in the group)