Iron Man Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To
The Mandarin

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,211
Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 03:27:12 pm EST (Viewed 215 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Invincible Iron Man (2016-) #594
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 at 06:41:41 pm EST (Viewed 239 times)

    She overthrew a dictatorship. That's quite noble in a comicbook.

Read Secret War. This exact scenario was addressed in that series and, guess what? The guy who orchestrated the entire thing, Nick Fury, became a war criminal because of it.

Further, it wasn't a dictatorship. Believe it or not, von Bardas was elected to her position as Prime Minister. So, the story was wrong in that Riri didn't start the first elections in Latveria (do your research, Bendis) and, second, she overthrew a democratically elected ruler of a foreign nation.

By my book, that's a war crime.

    Heroes should threaten villains when those villains have possibly kidnapped or murdered someone, no matter what the odds are. That's called courage, and courage is not laughable.

This isn't courage. It's hubris. Not even Tony Stark challenged Doctor Doom without an army behind him. Yet, this little girl with no experience whatsoever think she can?

That's one of the problems with this entire storyline. Riri is a Marysue with no sense of modesty. As written, she clearly thinks she's better than everyone else. When she meets Sharon Carter, for example, she insults Carter. Even in this issue, when AI Tony Stark mentions that real Tony Stark may be smarter than she, she gives a disparaging sound.

    The armor doesn't belong to the company either. It's a privately owned by Stark. Stark powers the company with his lesser patents. They don't own the armor and their claims have no legal basis. Most likely, they are hoping to reverse engineer it before they get called on claiming something that is part of Stark's private estate.

I will concede this point to a certain extent. While the armor has been the property of SE at certain points (i.e., during the Jim Rhodes period), there have been times when it is not. There is no definitive answer at to the present armor.

However, if the present armor was built on SE property with SE materials using SE equipment, then there is a strong argument that it actually is SE property. As we do not know how the present armor was built, I'll withhold judgment.

    The company is in the wrong for trying to claim Stark's private property. Which is probably why they won't push the assault charges: they can't prosecute her without also testifying that they tried to steal private property.

What private property? Other than the armor discussed above, everything else is SE property. Irrespective of what the board was doing, she still attacked a person with a guitar. If I were their attorney, I'd recommend pressing charges. You don't have a right to attack someone just because you don't like what they're doing.

    Again, the company does not own the armor. That is Stark's private property.

Again, there is no evidence one way or another here.

That being said, where did this armor come from? Who authorized Riri to wear it? Whomever that person is, he/she is assuming massive liability to allow a 15-year old girl to fly around with, as another poster pointed out, a fighter jet.

This actually illustrates the larger problem with this comic. There are no explanations or consequences for anything. The reader is just expected to accept what happened.

Like in Fraction's run, it feels like someone didn't do any research into the character's past and just wrote a story based on the movie.

Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software