SHRA : Good or Bad ? (Omega Flight #2 Spoilers)

[cmdrkoenig67]

No, not wrong. A hero doesn't become a villain because someone, including another hero, disagrees with his/her choices. Nor does service to a recognizable authority make one a villain or a thug.

Um...In this particular case...Yes, it does. your character would be joining a group who is attempting to coerce others to sign/join something they believe is wrong...Trying to force others to conform and do something against their will...Sounds wrong to me. This was the majority of the heroes too (against the Reg Act), you know?

Villifying the oppostion on the other hand, because you happen to disagree with their choices, or their employer, or thier willingness to operate within the circle of accountability, thats another matter altogether.

Likewise, chosing violence as the first option, and attempting to rationalize how it is the "only" viable course of action, without even having the courage to try to pursue other options, that also is another matter.

Pow...The Anti-Reg group were on the run...And sought as criminals...How are they supposed to react? Let themselves be arrested and put into the Negative Zone prison with no trial? What are their other options again?

It might be nice if we lived in a world of absolutes. Fortunately, we don't. And it is entirely possible for equally good and heroic people to exist on either side of a conflict. Sorry. It's not all "angels" and "devils". And those who try to colour every disagreement that way are generally revealed for what they are by the time all is said and done.

As I said above...Nobody has said that everything is black and white.

Dana

[Powersurge]

How were they supposed to react? Ummm, like heroes maybe? Not everyone of them were in Cap's position, or Luke Cage's. And there are plenty of options for those with both the personal integrity and moral courage to at least make the attempt.

And like I (also) said before, there is a huge difference between supporting or not supporting one single piece of legilsation, in a vast body of legislation, and not supporting the system and the people. Or do you break out the guns every time you disagree with a law or a policy?

In the end, I side with the folks that don't have their blinders on, who allow for dissent and who don't colour the heroic oppsition as villains just because they can't appreciate any pov other than their own.

If the SRA doesn't last in MU, it clearly won't be because of the existence of an underground outlaw resistence whose biggest beef is that they, like EVERYONE else, have no right to anonymity, and can't do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. It will be because of loyal opposition.

Oh, and law enforcement is rarely about individual consent. And it is very often precisely about forcing people to do what they don't want to do, ie. obey the laws of the land. Should the law thus be done away with? If so, then alot of people should get really comfortable with being forced to do what they don't want to. They should get really, REALLY, used to it.

[Barnacle13]

And like I (also) said before, there is a huge difference between supporting or not supporting one single piece of legilsation, in a vast body of legislation, and not supporting the system and the people. Or do you break out the guns every time you disagree with a law or a policy?

Seems Iron Man and his cronies are the ones breaking out the guns. The problem is there is really no middle ground to stand on. You either register or protest and invite a fight. Where do you draw the line between hero and superhero? Say I create a robotic suit that allows me to save folks from burning buildings, should I have to register because I choose to do good works with my creation? I can currently call Crime Stoppers or the Police anonymously to help solve a crime, so what's the difference? Superheroes just stick their neck out a little further than the normal citizen and put their lives on the line. And sure innocents may be endangered, but they cuyrrently are when the police do the job also. Many people are killed during high speed chases every year. I guess the argument is a police officer can't knock down a building, but they can't hold one up either!

It would be interesting to see what China is doing while the US is forming an army of superheroes. Hopefully Marvel will show more than just what is going on in the US and Canada.

[Powersurge]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest. In doing so you send the message that you do support society, you don't place yourself above the people or the law, but that certain articles and/or the implementation of a specific law is unjust. And you get heard and taken seriously.

As for having to register just to do good works; if you want to serve the public then yes, you have to register. Or should we trust any ol'Joe who wants to peform surgery on us, investigate the murder of a loved one or a break-and-enter, or shuttle people about on a plane they are driving, and a home made plane at that?

If you place yourself within a position of public trust, then you must be accountable... and to a far greater degree, not lesser, than your average citizen. And just to be fair, you really should be educated in proper situational protocol, what to do and what not to do in various situations, to protect both yourself and the public. This is something that would have greatly benefitted the New Warriors, not to mention the people of Stamford, immensely.

And sure, police officer can't either knock down a building or hold one up, but he/she can be held accoutantable for the mistakes he/she makes in or out of the line of duty. They're also not all that likely to engage in shootouts with each other in densely packed urban centres.

And just for the record, there is no line between hero and superhero. A hero is a hero is a hero. The lack or addition of superpowers don't hero make or break a hero, anymore than job title does.

[Transmetropolitan]

And just for the record, there is no line between hero and superhero. A hero is a hero is a hero. The lack or addition of superpowers don't hero make or break a hero, anymore than job title does.

Ah, but according to the SHRA, there IS a difference.

[cmdrkoenig67]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest. In doing so you send the message that you do support society, you don't place yourself above the people or the law, but that certain articles and/or the implementation of a specific law is unjust. And you get heard and taken seriously.

What comic does this "middle ground" action appear in? So far, all I've seen is that all the reg'd heroes get pressed into service/drafted into the government's super-army. Those who don't join end up being treated in pretty much the same fashion as the anti-reg'd heroes. Arachne ended up signing, but was shipped to Canada. Several heroes that could be considered veterans of many battles have been shipped to the Stamford concentration/training camp along with many newbies to be "trained" (apparently "killed off one-by-one" is a more apt description of what's happening there).

Dana

[DelBubs]

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

And of course, everyone on the Pro-Reg side is a carbon copy of Iron Man, right? You know, Iron Man not being the pro-reg hero in question and all.

Who leads the Pro-Reg side and who supported him, "I was only obeying orders" went out as a defense during the Nuremburg Trials if memory serves.

Government for the people by the people is part of the constitution iirc. It is the duty of every person to question the decision of their government, by allowing, you agree. As soon as one persons rights are stamped on for the greater good (?????) then the people who allow it are just as guilty.

"There is a saying... which many of us have heard since we were school children... "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied -- chains us all, irrevocably."" (J L Picard 'The Drumhead')

I've used this comment before to make a point, but I think it also applies here as well.

[Barnacle13]

Also, if you take this blind acceptance path, then the USA never exists in the first place. It remains a colony of Great Britain, Spain, France, and others. If the American colonists had not revolted in the face of "tyranny and unfair legislation" it would be a much different world today. So, pay the Stamp Tax, but ***** about it and eventually Great Britain will hear. Quarter the soldiers of the government that it treating your unfairly, but complain and the problem will fix itself. Pay for the Tea even though it's being taxed without any chance for you to refute it, things will be OK once you write a letter of formal complaint. I know the argument sounds absurd, and the comparison might be a bit over the top, but it's not that great of a stretch. Our country went to war with Great Britain to right those wrongs many years ago, so why is wrong now to oppose the government? If the law if unjust oppose it. Does it have to be violent opposition? Absolutely not! But when a heavy handed government gives you little choice revolution is imminent. Ask King George III, pissed off Americans tend to revolt against oppression.

[Powersurge]

I really think that it should be glaringly obvious by now that I'm not advocating blind acceptence.

And while the writers of CW didn't give much attention to the middle ground, it clearly existed on the side of the pro-regs. To reiterate, the voice of dissent was clearly alive and well in the pro-reg camp... in the VERY HEART of the pro-reg camp. And She-Hulk publically opposed the SRA as a registered hero, without being shipped off to any kind of camp.

And yet the anti-reg supporters are so disillusioned, one might even say so morally lazy, that because such things didn't produce immediate results, and posed many obstacles and challenges to success, that they felt that that path wasn't even worth the effort.

And speaking of the "first link being forged"; it was Cap that attempted to censor and all to willingly alienated those that didn't see things specifically his way.

[SephirothsKiller]

There is a middle ground. You register, and then you organize and protest.

Nope.

Registered superheroes work for SHIELD, a military organization. It is illegal to protest or oppose any military organization which one is a part of. This path would lead to court marshaling and a trip to the N-Zone. One can divulge dissent in the military only when given permission to speak freely otherwise they just follow orders.

[DelBubs]

And speaking of the "first link being forged"; it was Cap that attempted to censor and all to willingly alienated those that didn't see things specifically his way.

Did Cap take this course before or after the introduction of the SHRA? Before, you have a case, After, he was using whatever means at his disposal to counter an act he disagreed with. Part of the protesting you've been advocating?

[Powersurge]

Needless to say perhaps, it was following the implementation of the SRA.

Cap more-or-less screamed at his fellow heroes, heroes sympathetic to his cause, but less than convinced that following his path was the right way to go about things, that they didn't have a clue to freedom; despite the fact that they were exercising their own judgment, according to their own conscience, ie. clearly knew what freedom is. This as opposed to slavishly "following the leader" and falling in line with his "cult of personality".

That kind of attitude doesn't further one's cause, it dimishes it. That along with having no battle plan whatsoever, and relying on personal charisma alone to keep the "troops" in line.

You've gotta watch those charismatic leaders.

Incidently, it was also following the implementation of the SRA that pro-reg "inner-circle" heroes were OPENLY questioning the SRA, publically opposing it via civil avenues, and at least on one occassion blatantly defying SHIELD attempts at apprehending offenders. And all without the reprecussions anti-reg supporters keep saying were unavoidable.

And thats not speculation about what should, would or could happen. That is a well precedented fact of the story. In other words, it happened... frequently and continuously.

In the end, as we all know, Cap's plan led to significant property damage and the loss of civilian life, such that he was tackled and apprehended by numerous "normal folk" (who undoubtedly admired Cap as much as anyone does), and ultimately ordered his own forces to surrender. His plan only proved how much something LIKE the SRA is needed.

And like I said before, if the SRA is ultimately overturned or ammended, it is going to be accomplshed by loyal opposition, and not maverick, violence prone vigilantes who don't seem to know the difference between the right to privacy and desire for anonymity.

And it is going to be achieved by people working together, as opposed to alienating and villifying each other due to subtle differences in ideology.

[Powersurge]

To add a bit regarding Canada and it's own SRA...

It wasn't just in vol.2 that that Canadian government and it's superheroes were abducting, brainwashing, enforcing obligatory service, et al. It has been since the very first appearance of Alpha Flight and any of it's members. Weapon Alpha's first mission involved illegally entering the U.S.A. and forcibly abducting Wolverine (who is a story unto himself) in order to force him to serve. Since day one.

For all of that, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Alpha Flight is or was a villainous superteam.

Also, none of the schism that have sprung into being in the past between Alpha and the Canadian government have ever resulted in a civil war. And it clearly isn't because the Canadian government has been playing nice all along.

So, the difference is clearly to be found in how the *heroes* in question chose to react. Cap chose war.

Department S, anyone?

[Le Messor]

doesn't even begin to acknowledge points that run contrary to the stated beliefs... such as the granting of amnesty to hordes of anti-reg'ers following the final battle.

"hordes," a word which here means roughly a dozen.

She is being a complete hypocrit.

How can she be a complete hypocrite without that 'e'?

In the beginning,

In regards to the SRA; I support the spirit of the Act, and even moreso the lands and institutions of the West, which allow for the freedom of speech and the ability to challenge, ammend, and if need be overturn laws.
I don't support folks who exercise power over others in order to force those others to obey a system that they are themselves excessively reluctant, even fearful, to bow down to. Nor do I support folks that turn a blind eye to the faults in the system until those faults show up at their own doorstep. I can hear the implicit slogan even as I write this, "Save an Avenger, Kill a mutant".
If the government and the West way of life is so evil and corrupt, it should be overthrown and replaced with something better; although the last time I checked the nations of the West, the U.S.A. included, represent the best in the world... WORTS and all.

Every time we speak of overturning those laws, you tell us we have only one choice: overthrow the government.
I question, then, where in your worldview there is room for the moderation you speak of? You keep going from one extreme to the other.

Western democracy may (or may not) be the best government system ever; that doesn't mean it's very good. It means the human race doesn't do good government systems.
That said; overthrow it? And replace it with... what, exactly? A dictatorship?
Concordantly, I can't come up with anything better. Ergo, it would be irresponsible to overthrow it. Vis a vis, if it starts doing all the things that the 'evil' governments do that make them 'evil', it's suddenly no better.
That doesn't mean overthrow it; it means do what you can to undermine that particular law.
This doesn't mean I support Cap starting a civil war.
It means I support the new New Warriors subverting the cause, flaunting the law, etc... And the New Avengers, while we're at it.
Which gets them a lot closer to the middle ground than it is possible to be, and remain within the bounds of the SHRA. The SHRA's boundaries are too far away from the middle ground.

Concordantly! Ergo! Vis a vis!:

While of course, imprisoning someone without trial in another dimension and then using what is obviously a traumatic period for them (fluctuating powers, great pain when using powers and inflicting pain on themselves) to get them to work alongside psychopaths and multiple murderers is acceptable cos it's for the greater good. Of course any self respecting Iron Man would have had Robbie Baldwin psych tested, commited for his own safety and on the long road to recovery, you know? Being a hero and all.

And of course, everyone on the Pro-Reg side is a carbon copy of Iron Man, right? You know, Iron Man not being the pro-reg hero in question and all.

I've gone back and forth on this, but I know have definitive results: Cloud 9 has said that she only wanted to fly.
For that crime, she was taken from her home. She formed an attachment to somebody, and quickly watched him die. Somebody shoved a gun in her hands and got her to kill.
She is not, I believe, old enough to vote.
See under 'Uganda' and 'LRA'.

This is not the SHRA I supported when I supported it:

Super Human Registration Act model 1:
"If people want to fight crime, they must be trained and licenced."
Super Human Registration Act model 2:
"We will round up everybody with superpowers to put them in the SHIELD superhuman army."
Super Human Registration Act model 3:


model 1 is the law Stark offered the Marvel Universe.
model 2 is the law Stark gave them.
model 3 is Jude Law, who could probably play Stark in a movie, if Robert Downey Jr. didn't have the role.

Pow, I think you and me both agree with and fully support model 1.

Where we differ is model 2. You seem to be saying: 'model 1 is good, therefore the SHRA is good, therefore any variation on it is good. Therefore, model 2 is good. Because that's what we've got, and it's law!' (Speak the last in whispered tones of reverence.)

Problem is, you can't 'work within' that law without doing all those things Del accused Stark of (above). That's how the law works.
If you obey the law, then yes, you become a clone of Stark.

- Le Messor
"What's so civil about war anyway?"
- Guns 'n' Roses

[Dfense75]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Le Messor!! Every time my friend and I talked about Civil War he would start to sing the Guns and Roses song. I had it out of my head for almost 2 months until your post. DAMN YOU!!