Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
Goblin

In Reply To
Halo82

Subj: Re: A post CW Marvel and the SHRA is still a flaming pile of crap and Tony is an idiot.
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:16:12 am CDT
Reply Subj: A post CW Marvel and the SHRA is still a flaming pile of crap and Tony is an idiot.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:47:42 pm CDT

Previous Post

I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.

Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.

The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.

I'm sure I'll think of more later but I gots to go.

> The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

There were also signs in the courthouse scene calling Captain America a traitor. So it was a mixed crowd. And you can be for the SHRA but not necessarily approve of the idea of Captain America going to jail. I would have preferred him just getting amnesty and the whole Civil War mess being put to a rest if I were a citizen in the MU.

Figures have been given during and after Civil War about the percentages of people for and against the SHRA. Yeah, obviously it's not the literal "will of the people" because there's no such thing. No entire populace will ever agree on anything. Best they can ever do is try polling the voters and people likely to become voters next election.

During Civil War after Bill Foster's death, the public opinion polls showed that 65% approved of the SHRA and 35% were against. This is apparently a drop in approval for the SHRA as it was before Foster's death. So... the percentage against was roughly equivalent to the real world figure of those who approve of Bush's job performance.

Now that the war has ended with Iron Man's side the victor, the approval rating for the SHRA has apparently risen to 84%.

> Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

I don't really see the problem. Ms. Marvel was just showing some consideration for the impact the fight could have. She wasn't at all implying that they should give the monsters a chance to run rampant to spare property damage. More like there's no reason they have to go punching the things through buildings. They're supposed to be the best, so they shouldn't have to turn every encounter into a warzone. Getting the job done with as little destruction and harm as possible should be the ideal goal for every hero.

> Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.

Well... did anyone think Iron Man became ruler of the world? He became the Director of SHIELD. That means he directs SHIELD in the activities its meant to take. He doesn't get to ignore the things SHIELD is expected to do. So no, he doesn't have complete control. But the thinking that if you can't do everything then you should do nothing is a useless mindset to have. Tony can't control everything, but he can influence a lot.

So yeah, if he doesn't bring in the New Avengers, others will. His best option is to do so himself with the Avengers. If not the Avengers, he'll have to delegate it to a SHIELD unit who could possibly use some harsher tactics or get those agents hurt(I'd have some concern for the safety of those I sent up against Wolverine, Echo and whoever Ronin is). If not that and the New Avengers keep going, eventually responsibility for apprehending unregistered superhumans will pass completely over to the CSA and they'll send the Thunderbolts.


Posted with Netscape Navigator 7.2 on Windows XP
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