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

[Powersurge]

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.)

No. That' not what I'm saying. It's always best to let a person speak for themselves rather than putting words into their mouth. If you are unclear about what someone is saying, one might be inclined to ask for clarification.

Now, what I'm saying is that model 1 is good. And while model 2 is significantly less than ideal we can effect changes in the law via the avenues democracy leaves open to us. The term Civil Disobedience springs to mind. I hardly mean that one single person can magically vote it out of existence or force it into a more acceptable form.

There is nothing magical about it. It's not easy. Was Martin Luther King Jr's path easy? Hardly. But he did what he needed to do to effect change. He devoted his life to his cause, he died for his cause, and even when imprisoned he continued his work from behind bars... working the system.

I don't know where folks, folks who have grown up in democracies and therefore should know something of the history of democracies, get this "easy" and "magical" stuff from. It takes work. It doesn't happen over night. And it's never about what one group, or one person wants.

As for overthrowing the government; if it really is filled to the brim with corrupt officials, if the system is really so ineffectual, then there really is no other answer... save learning to live with rampent corruption and ineptitude.

Sure, there are other measures one could take to effect change, but what you and yours are saying is that it would have been pointless, not worth trying, and a complete waste of time, so lets have a war... but not overthrow the government(?!?!). Thats messed up logic, that adds to the problem.

It's also messed up morality, when these heroe have been upholding the system and forcing others to be beholdent to it all along.

And NO ONE has a right to operate without strings or with complete anonymity. THAT leaves the door wide open to abuse. The very type of abuse which, despite the fact that the SRA had the backing of the people, the anti-regs are accusing the pro-regs of.

Cloud 9, about 16 (?) is flying. Nothing more. Just flying.

So, I suppose anyone who is able to pilot an aircraft, like a small single engine aircraft, should have the right to just take off and fly wherever they want, whenever they want? You make it sound so innocent, and likely there is ill-intent, but it still sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Which is why protocols and regulations exist regardng flying.

Not because there's one law they don't support, but because the whole damn system is out of line!

Which was the point I was trying to make. If they feel the entire system is out of whack, then by all means take off the gloves. If the entire system is not out of whack, and it is just one law, than a true and responsible person is OBLIGED to WORK THE SYSTEM. King did it. A black man. A pacifist. Without super-powers, and entirely lacking the resources of the superhero community. He's life kinda makes the anti-regs look like a buncha crybaby chumps.

[Dfense75]

ROFL she wasnt flying a plane. She was flying on self generated clouds.

[Le Messor]

If you are unclear about what someone is saying, one might be inclined to ask for clarification.

I was unclear... That's actually what I was trying to do. I should have put a question mark on the end or something. Instead, I just enforced the word 'seem'.

Now, what I'm saying is that model 1 is good. And while model 2 is significantly less than ideal we can effect changes in the law via the avenues democracy leaves open to us.

Fair enough.

The term Civil Disobedience springs to mind.

I'd say that's exactly what's going on. And that's what you seem to be opposing? question mark, clarify your position?

I don't know where folks, folks who have grown up in democracies and therefore should know something of the history of democracies, get this "easy" and "magical" stuff from.

In this case, from:

If a Yank doesn't like Bush and his foreign policies, it is a simple matter to vote him and his party out at the next election;

As for overthrowing the government; if it really is filled to the brim with corrupt officials, if the system is really so ineffectual, then there really is no other answer... save learning to live with rampent corruption and ineptitude.

And I'm saying that the heroes are facing one single law that's bad, and that it affects them directly. To leap from that to 'the government is filled to the brim with corrupt officials' and must be overthrown is a bit of a stretch.
Of course, we've all been learning to live with rampant corruption and ineptitude for quite some time.

Sure, there are other measures one could take to effect change, but what you and yours are saying is that it would have been pointless, not worth trying, and a complete waste of time, so lets have a war... but not overthrow the government(?!?!).

I'm saying the SHRA as implemented (model 2) is bad. Nothing more. I'm not saying anything about the anti-regs and their activities.
I support their disobedience to the law--just as I support every person who hid jews in Nazi Germany (also a democracy, btw.)

It's also messed up morality, when these heroe have been upholding the system and forcing others to be beholdent to it all along.

I've already answered that. The system they've been upholding and the one they're now disobeying are not the same system.
They largely came from a similar source (the US government), but they're not the same system.

Have the heroes ever upheld the law? We're talking vigilantes here.
I'd say they've always been more interested in justice than law. In which case, they're being consistent.

And NO ONE has a right to operate without strings or with complete anonymity. THAT leaves the door wide open to abuse.

I agree, and that's why I support model 1.

Cloud 9, about 16 (?) is flying. Nothing more. Just flying.

So, I suppose anyone who is able to pilot an aircraft, like a small single engine aircraft, should have the right to just take off and fly wherever they want, whenever they want?

Flying without a lodged flight plan in regulated airspace is certainly the excuse IM's stormtroopers used for capturing her.
However, when a pilot does so, what's the penalty? A warning? A fine? Loss of license (I doubt that on a first offence, but I really don't know).
Her punishment was to be immediately taken away and locked in bondage to the army. I don't know what they do to pilots, but it ain't that.

You make it sound so innocent, and likely there is ill-intent, but it still sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

It was innocent. She was doing nothing more than taking joy in her ability to fly. Wouldn't you?

Which was the point I was trying to make. If they feel the entire system is out of whack, then by all means take off the gloves.

And my point is, the entire system isn't out of whack. There's one bad law. Iron Man is out of whack. SHIELD is out of whack.
That doesn't mean the entire US government is. Not for that, anyway.

If the entire system is not out of whack, and it is just one law, than a true and responsible person is OBLIGED to WORK THE SYSTEM. King did it.

King was a follower of somebody who worked against the system. Somebody who made all the officials at the time very angry. Until they finally gave him the worst form of capital punishment their Great Nation had, a form so bad no citizen of that empire was made to undergo it.
Robin Hood worked outside the law. Not to overthrow the King, for he was loyal to Richard Lionheart, but against a single corrupt official with too much power.
Rosa Parks refused to obey a racist law, and sat at the front of the bus.
Oscar Schindler disobeyed the 'turn in all jews' law in his democratic country.

The anti-regs aren't doing anything much different to the above. They're not robbing anybody, but they're disobeying an unjust law.

- Le Messor
"I have come not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it."
- Jesus Christ

[Powersurge]

Sorry for not quoting here Le Messor, but it's taxing on one's time.

Regarding civil disobedience; the anti-reg's were NOT engaging in civil disobedience... the operative word in the phrase being *civil*. That means you actively oppose a law through disobedience to it, but you remain civil in your actions, ie. do not resort to violence.

Afterall, are we to resort to violence every time we are faced with a unjust law and the system seems rigged against us? Should pot smokers for instance, put down their pipes long enough to organize an underground and take up arms against the government? More poignantly, what about anti-abortionists? According to their values, the state is sanctioning murder. The murder of children! And some of their ilk have engaged in violence as a result, but what has that done for their cause? Nothing but bad.

As for Schindler, we've touched on this in this debate over on the Classic Marvel rpg site. Schindler didn't engage in visible opposition to the Nazi regime... which was ushered in in a democracy, but wasn't a democracy in and of itself. When I voiced the issue of being part of the "loyal opposition" and/or working against the SRA from the inside, I was accused of being everything from a fascist to gutter trash. Apparently, if you're not flipping the establishment the bird and firing bullets at them, you are one of them.

As for flying; I would certainly want to be free to fly, but I would also recognize the potential hazard that could cause. I certainly would not want to be drafted into the military as a result... unless of course I desired to use my powers in a public capacity, specifically to fight crime, as the majority of the anti-regs (but admittedly not Cloud9) wanted to.

That would be one of my beefs with the implementation of the SRA. Forcing people with no inclination for it into service. However, forcing those who are clearly inclined, and to the point that you can say they've made a career of it, is another matter all together.

While I realize the position Cap was virtually forced into (unlike the majority of anti-regs who simply "fell into line"), I can only imagine the change he of all the heroes could have brought about if he hadda been a part of a "loyal opposition"... organizing the community, raising consciousness, calling in favours, gathering intelligence, networking with reporters, drawing upon all of his vast resources and exercising his enormous influence.

I tend to think that this is why the powers that be dealt with Cap, aboard the SHIELD helicarrier, the way they did.

In the end, I'd would rather "fall into line" myself and work this thing from the inside, with all of the privelege that brings with it, rather than shut myself out and start a fight. And like I said before, if push came to shove, and all civil lines of disobedience were exhausted, the oppurtunity (and justification) for violence would still be there.

The option of violence is always there. No need to rush to embrace it.

[Le Messor]

Sorry for not quoting here Le Messor, but it's taxing on one's time.

Cool. And understood.

Regarding civil disobedience; the anti-reg's were NOT engaging in civil disobedience... the operative word in the phrase being *civil*. That means you actively oppose a law through disobedience to it, but you remain civil in your actions, ie. do not resort to violence.

I don't think either side wanted the war. I think both ended up pushed into it by the actions of both sides.
The stage they're at now is what I'd call the Civil Disobedience stage; not the war itself.

Afterall, are we to resort to violence every time we are faced with a unjust law and the system seems rigged against us?

I'll keep that suggestion in mind for next time.

More poignantly, what about anti-abortionists?

A good example.
However, my point has always been 'The SHRA is bad'; not 'The Civil War is good'. When I agree with what the anti-regs are doing, it's now, post CW, not during.

working against the SRA from the inside,

I'm not sure if I've ever known the 'work against the' (insert evil here) 'from the inside' to work. It seems to turn the workers evil instead; they have to make more and more compromises to stay on the inside, until they're the problem.
(Of course, I don't actually know any real life examples.)

If it works, it's one technique. Another is disobeying an unjust law.

I was accused of being everything from a fascist to gutter trash.

Sorry to hear that. Bad debating there.

unless of course I desired to use my powers in a public capacity, specifically to fight crime, as the majority of the anti-regs (but admittedly not Cloud9) wanted to.

To be fair to you, you've made me realise we don't actually *know* her motives for flying. She seemed to only want to fly, but we don't know that's what she was doing.
OTOH, neither does Stark. Whatever her motives, he drafted her into military service (when she's below voting age) simply for flying in the wrong place.

However, forcing those who are clearly inclined, and to the point that you can say they've made a career of it, is another matter all together.

And we've always more or less agreed about that side.

I tend to think that this is why the powers that be dealt with Cap, aboard the SHIELD helicarrier, the way they did.

And what does that tell you about them?

In the end, I'd would rather "fall into line" myself and work this thing from the inside, with all of the privelege that brings with it, rather than shut myself out and start a fight.

That's your style, and your welcome to it. I'd use violence as a last resort, too, but I would like to think I wouldn't obey an unjust law.
When I imagine myself in the MU, as a superhero, trying to figure out what side I'm on, I always imagine myself siding with IM. I wouldn't betray my brothers in arms, but I'd side with him.
Right up until Luke Cage's arrest.
At that point, I'm at Cap's door, signing on with his side.

(Then, in the comics, things got out of hand, and they ended up with a war, which wasn't anybody's intent.)

- LM
"Don't say, "They're just words," because words are all we have."
- Sally Maud Robertson

[Powersurge]

An example of some working from the inside would be Schindler to name one. Admittedly, his falling inline was merely a facade, but it was precisely that facade, the presumption that he was an "insider", and thus afforded all of the priveleges of a priveleged insider, that enabled him to save all the people he saved.

Other examples include King Jr., those who opposed slavery within the Commonwealth, the various champions of women's rights, etc.

Anyway, whenever I imagine myself as a Marvel superhero, I imagine myself as my namesake here, Powersurge. And I don't necessarily side with IM, or even so much the SRA, as I do with the system... and more importantly, with the people.

On the Marvel rpg site I was asked what Powersurge would do if he found himself in a situation similar to Cap's at the outset of CW. Now, Cap is not Powersurge. And Powersurge has the ability to detonate on the scale of the largest of cenventional bombs. So, in reply I said that I would first try to bluff Hill... "we ARE going to be reasonable here Ms.Hill. You know as well as I that it's in your best interest. You want me on side, I'm on side. I implore you to keep me there."

Of course, as Powersurge was a former member of the former U.N Project: Protectors, it may be that Hill would be privy to his psyche analysis, et al. and so would realize that Powersurge wouldn't nuke the Helicarrier, no matter what, or would be otherwise prepared to deal with him.

That being the case, Powersurge would submit himself to arrest. Sucks to be me.

Of course, Powersurge is not Cap and so probably wouldn't find himself in that specific situation. He'd probably end up as your typical pro-reg. Somethings he wouldn't tolerate, such as the use of the slang "Cape-killers". That crap would have to be stowed in short order.

But what Powersurge would focus on is, yes, enforcing the law, meeting former friends and peers in honourable combat if need be, and then using his own contacts and influence, with various heroes and officials, to conduct a secret investigation of the power/s behind the SRA, and openly challenge those elements that were clearly immoral.

If Powersurge were somehow forced into the anti-reg camp, he would not get all fanatical like Cap. He would want to leave room for the middlegrounders to interact, cooperate, and work their magic. none of this, "you're changing sides?!?! Pfft, you don't have a clue as to freedom!!"

Of course, Powersurge was at the center of his very own "Stamford Incident" long before there even was a Stamford Incident; having nuked several blocks of his home city the night his powers first manifested. Thus, he has alot on his conscience, and is probably even more open to the idea of a specifically Mutant Registrtation than your typical mutant. Afterall, if only... if only someone had have known what he was capable of. If only something was in place to help people like him control their powers. If only... <sob>

[Dfense75]

Captain America and Powersurge is no comparison. Not as a person and not as a hero. Cap was not acting "fanatical" he was acting as a patriot. Because he wears the mantle "Captain America" doesnt mean he is a mindless drone that does what his government tells him. He has realized in the pass and realized during Civil War that the actions being taken where by a corrupt government. THAT is why was he led the rebellion. The SHRA is inherently un-American. In the past he has rebelled against his own government because they where corrupt and or wrong and he did it again. Again you havent read all the material so you dont know the all the facts. Nick Fury quit SHIELD and went underground to prepair for all this because he realized what was about to happen. In New Aengers prior to Civil War the team realized there was something "rotten in Denmark" going on in the government. They new if they registered they would be forced into acting as their puppets for their purposes. When all this was first discovered they where investigating into the manner not initiating conflict toward SHIELD or the Amereican government. As they got closer and closer to the truth BAM!! Civil War happened. SHIELD had their excuse to go after the ones that where gonna expose them and discover the TRUTH. Captain America believes in American ideals. He would not and did not lay down and sell out because a corrupt organization told him to. He new the consequences of their actions. He didnt like it but he new what he had to do was the right thing to do. If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

[Powersurge]

If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

If you're telling me that someone that devoted their life to defending people, and risked his life to safeguard the planet on more than one occassion is no hero at all, then you obviously don't have a clue what a hero is.

And it is precisely opinions like that, regarding people like that, that mark Cap and many an anti-reg as a fanatic. Cheers!

[Damien]

If you think this thread is long:
http://herochat.com/forum/index.php/topic,119410.0.html

[cmdrkoenig67]

If your telling me that Powersurge would join up with a corrupt goverment and become their puppet for their purposes. Than hes no hero at all.

If you're telling me that someone that devoted their life to defending people, and risked his life to safeguard the planet on more than one occassion is no hero at all, then you obviously don't have a clue what a hero is.

And it is precisely opinions like that, regarding people like that, that mark Cap and many an anti-reg as a fanatic. Cheers!

Wrong...And that's not what he said, Pow. He's saying a hero would not sell out just to follow the law, especially one that is being used to oppress and harm people. Whatever a hero did in the past or continues to do, means nothing if that "hero" sells out and becomes a thug/grunt/good little soldier for the federal government...It taints everything he is and was.

Dana

[Powersurge]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Dfense75]

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.

ROFL thats twice DelBubs. Between the pointer dog and that you have me rolling

[Powersurge]

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.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Nobody has stated it's all black and white, Pow.

Dana