Civil War!

Yes after not posting for month upon month, making everyone think that I'd given up on this thing, I'm making two posts in one day.

Does this mean that I'm joining the world of regular posters?

Nyaaaaaa.

This thing will continue to be posted on the same old schedule. When I feel like it.

So, after my extreme overindulgance in 52, I've moved on to Civil War, which I got in TP form. (I'm slowly shifting most of my books to TP).

So far, all I've read is the main Civil War TP, and then the YA/Runaways one, and I'm just going to focus on the main story right now.

It wasn't honestly that bad, though a bit fast paced. Maybe once I get all the ancillary books read that thought will go away.

The main interesting thing to me is the moral and ethical dimensions to the primary storyline.

Who is right? Tony Stark or Captain America?

At least in my view, the answer is, at the same time, both and neither.

Ideally, Tony Stark is absolutely right. To steal the classic line, with great power comes great responsibility. Now, that's more than just the way Peter meant it, in terms of having to be able to live with yourself (as important as that is). It also means being accountable to the larger society for your actions. The ability of a hero to make a mess and just fly away has been one of the traditional pieces of "unreality" that's attached to comic books. The X-Men back in their heyday joked "you can always tell where the X-Men have been by the mess they make," and that really is the "old school." Heroes can make an enormous mess of any battlezone, destroye homes, cars, even lives, and the very next issue they're back to business as usual.

The series (quite obviously) has taken that unreality and tried to shape it to a more "realistic" way of doing things. In a very real way, what Tony Stark is asking is not in the least bit unusual or troublesome. If we live in a world where Taxi drivers can be regulated and held accountable, why not professional heros? Now, this field of law could get wondefully complex, but the essential idea isn't bad. By complex, I mean things like this: "A hero saves a small child from a rampaging supervillain, but in the process a 3rd party's car is destroyed. Who has accountability for the replacement of the car?"

So, I'm suddenly all in favor of Tony Stark? Not exactly, and I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, is that Stark played very much too "hard sell". He should have (from all perspectives) been more patient with the holdouts, let them see how the system was working before he started pushing enforcement of the law.

However, more important is another factor. Everything I just said about accountability and the like is the ideal, and for it to work, one essential assumption must be fulfilled. That assumption is that the authorities themselves must be trustworthy. The government in the MU has not proven itself to live up to that very basic, yet vital truth. There are (or have been) renegade groups around, such as SWORD, Onslaught's group, and any number of problems within SHIELD itself. That doesn't even begin to look at other problems within the Congress and Executive Branch.

Full liscensing and disclosure would open any number of catastrophic cans of worms. Not only would the government have all sorts of nifty opportunities to manipulate individual heros, but the power of the government over all society would be massively increased. In a world of superhumans, a superhuman monopoly would be a system without any meaningful checks and balances. It would be a system that would only be workable so long as the person who is at the top of the entire food chain is both highly ethical, and also determined to make sure that the rest of government does the right thing. As soon as either one of those preconditions slip, the avalanche begins.

In effect, what "unregistered" superhumans become is a "check and balance" upon the abuses of the government. However, that system only works so long as there are heros who are willing to "police their own", and take that role seriously. Of course, in the Marvel Universe, the best candidate for that job is the one they killed in all of this, Captain America. Now, by "police their own", I'm not saying vigilante justice, but that they'd make sure that any hero who went "over the line" ended up in court, even if they had to hunt them down and capture them.

If there are no heros who are willing to take that sort of leadership role in an unregulated hero society, you'd end up with the situation the DCU had in the opening of Kingdom Come.

So, who was right? Tony Stark or Captain America? Both and neither. That said, for either system not to be a trainwreck, you need the right person running it. Put in those terms, Registration with Tony Stark, or No registration with Steve Rogers?

No brainer.

I want Steve.