Civil War - Accords

[Arrow1987]

During Captain America: Civil War were you for or against the Accords.

 

[TheVileOne]

For. Cap failed to take responsibility for the dead Wakandan civilians. That's on him. He failed to take responsibility for not telling Tony the truth.

If this were real life, you cannot let superheroes operate without oversight or regulation. He can't expect to operate unchecked in foreign territory where he has no jurisdiction.

Also, throughout comics history, the Avengers have had government funding and approval. They've had multiple government liaisons. Some that they've clashed with personally. They've also received payment and benefits from the federal government. In other words, pre-Civil War, there were already instances of the Avengers being a regulated and approved superhero team that had fairly strict regulation and oversight.

Cap's intentions were noble, but his belief that they could operate without UN guidance or approval was naive at best. Not to mention by leaking all that secret information he caused even further problems. It exposed Hydra, but it also exposed the Avengers as well.

Also, the comic version of Civil War was a poorly written piece of garbage storyline where everyone acts like an ******* and nothing makes sense.

In My Hero Academia, superheroes who want to operate in an official capacity have to receive a legally authorized license and have to work within the law and with police. If they operate without a license, they are branded vigilantes, which is illegal. Vigilantes exist in the My Hero Academia, and they are unlicensed heroes. However, All Might and Eraserhead usually look the other way regarding their activities.

 

[Binary10]

Against and still am

 

[metaphysician]

Against. Even in the best case, most good faith scenario, they would be an ineffective and ill-conceived solution to the problem of "The fundamental geopolitical and social assumptions on which most of the modern world have been built, are no longer valid". When your 'problem' is that the nation-state, which you always assumed would have a monopoly on strategic power, no longer has that monopoly? Then you can't fix that simply by insisting that the nation-state *must* have that monopoly. . . because the whole problem in the first place is that they *don't* have the power to actually make that so. And of course, pretty much from the moment that they made Thaddeus Ross the face of the Accords, it was clear and obvious that you were not dealing with the best case, good faith scenario. You were dealing with something between desperate panicked flailings and intentional malice.

Is it uncomfortable that the truth of the world is that the social order now only exists because the gods, metaphorical and literal, that stride upon the world voluntarily wish it so? Yes. Does this mean the world "owes" that social order its continued existence? No. Does this justify any arbitrary act of evil in order to restore said state of affairs? No. Does this make it a *really really stupid idea* to go out and do your best to antagonize those people most inclined to favor maintaining the general state of the world as it is? Yes, absolutely.

 

[TheVileOne]

Against. Even in the best case, most good faith scenario, they would be an ineffective and ill-conceived solution to the problem of "The fundamental geopolitical and social assumptions on which most of the modern world have been built, are no longer valid". When your 'problem' is that the nation-state, which you always assumed would have a monopoly on strategic power, no longer has that monopoly? Then you can't fix that simply by insisting that the nation-state *must* have that monopoly. . . because the whole problem in the first place is that they *don't* have the power to actually make that so. And of course, pretty much from the moment that they made Thaddeus Ross the face of the Accords, it was clear and obvious that you were not dealing with the best case, good faith scenario. You were dealing with something between desperate panicked flailings and intentional malice.

Is it uncomfortable that the truth of the world is that the social order now only exists because the gods, metaphorical and literal, that stride upon the world voluntarily wish it so? Yes. Does this mean the world "owes" that social order its continued existence? No. Does this justify any arbitrary act of evil in order to restore said state of affairs? No. Does this make it a *really really stupid idea* to go out and do your best to antagonize those people most inclined to favor maintaining the general state of the world as it is? Yes, absolutely.

If such individuals are allowed to operate unchecked then there is no general state of law and order anymore.

 

[Herofan]

Very divided. They're a pretty dumb idea but it is better to have them than not, than nothing, probably ...

That the UN is fallible doesn't mean there should be no authority or oversight but on the other hand I really don't like the idea of anyone with superhero powers basically being drafted.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I wonder how other heroes not involved in Civil War would respond to the Accords, most notably Thor and the Guardians. On one hand, Thor and the Guardians would likely adhere to the rules of the Earth as long as they are on Earth but on the other hand, the Accords are an Earthbound treaty, so the Accords would be unenforceable in Space and therefore, Thor and the Guardians can unleash all of their powers in space without the consequences Captain America's team went through. Hell, I am not even sure Peter Quill knows of the existence of the Accords. As for other heroes, Carol seems like she would oppose the Accords since she rebelled against the Kree. I think Banner would be pro-Accords if it meant retiring the Hulk forever. Based on her actions in WandaVision, Monica Rambeau would be Anti-Accords. Yelena, Melina and Alexei would be Anti-Accords as well. Although he's Earthbound, I am not sure what the reaction of Dr. Strange would be to the Accords. Same for Valkyrie. Now that New Asgard is on Earth and she's the King of New Asgard, does she sign the Accords? Based on what she said in Ant Man and the Wasp, Hope would be against the Accords.

 

[Flash525]

Fundamentally I think to answer this question, it boils down to another question; would you, or do you trust your government?

If you do, then great, you're probably with Team Stark, but if you don't, you're pretty much on Team Rogers.

 

[metaphysician]

If such individuals are allowed to operate unchecked then there is no general state of law and order anymore.

Yes, and? The fact that you *want* a state of law and order based on governmental monopoly on strategic power, does not mean you *have* such a state, nor that you can *get* such a state. And you know what is worse than "We don't actually have law and order, we have the facade of such because the gods with the power to decide such, decide they like things looking the same day to day"? That would be "We don't even have the functional day to day appearance of law and order, because it got blown up by governments trying and failing to maintain their monopoly on power".

Basically, there are only two options here: "the superheroes support the continued existence of contemporary society, voluntarily", or else "contemporary society and superheroes go to war, and eventually either the superheroes win or everyone loses". Because "contemporary society wins and maintains a government monopoly on power" was never on the table; if government had the power to plausibly achieve such, the whole issue wouldn't be in play in the first place.

( And this isn't even touching the *giant elephant in the room* that is "First contact with extraterrestrial civilizations for whom Earth is a podunk backwater, outside of its resident gods". . . )

 

[InCali]

As it was put forward.....against. I think there could be a way to do this correctly.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

You know...

There was a group in the United States that operated outside the law for an extended period of time. They were organized around what was to them, sacred ideals about morality and the proper functioning of society, again, under the concept of what they considered to be right and just, which was very representative of the feelings and values of many people in the U.S.

Despite operating under a popular conception of what it meant to be a proper and righteous American these citizens of the U.S. nonetheless found themselves up against forces within the society and government of America that required these patriots to operate in secret often with dramatic costuming to cover up members' identities when they held gatherings or went out in force in mass operations to fight the foes they had set themselves against. These foes required addressing both officially via laws and government but also via this secret organization that was fighting for the proper and righteous values and morality that they felt should be defended whether supported by those in government or not.

Sometimes this force would meet it's enemies on a field of battle that was the very streets of American towns and cities which may have left some collateral damage in lives and property but to this groups' mind, better to have that than allow immorality and corruption free reign in the nation.

This group wielded their power and influence over the country for some time due to their numbers and the sympathies of the wider populace that supported their world view of what was the right and proper way for the nation, even if this was in opposition to the druthers of those elected by the people or the laws of the land as had been decided by methods we have in a democratic republic. This group felt very strongly that they had to act as a law unto themselves to further their goals, which to them was them upholding the proper ways of justice and goodness and which they did not need a require official sanction for from local, state or federal law enforcement, although honestly there was a very cozy relationship between (alla Gordon andBatman/SHIELD and the Avengers ect.) this group and law enforcement from coast to coast.


Who were they?

Spoiler

So... Yeah, we HAD to break the backs of this vigilante group that would have liked nothing more than to continue to operate without any sanction by the representative government because a society probably can't operate with a unaccountable masses of armed individuals deciding when they will or will not use violence to further their aims, even if those aims spring forth from a supposed deeply held moral code, even if it is a morality that has popular support.

 

[metaphysician]

If your going to try to win by invoking Godwin's Law, you really should have the good form to at least make a plausible argument for why the relevant superheroes actually have the slightest bit of similar moral standing. *rollseyes*

Also, nothing of what you've said changes. . . *anything* that I wrote. The issue is not "Is it better to have a society where the government has a monopoly on strategic power". The issue is "Does the government, in fact, have a monopoly on strategic power". In the case of the MCU and other such settings, the fundamental factual situation is that the government *doesn't* have such a monopoly, and it *can't get it*. The existence of the Superhuman, whether involving explicit superpowers, impossible scientific genius, or 'merely' inhuman levels of skill, fundamentally breaks the assumption that a government can monopolize power. Do you find that prospect a terrifying outside context problem? Great! On an intellectual level you probably should! Does it justify opening up the death camps? Nope. . . and that is *exactly* the direction the logic of the Accords goes: that the threat to the existing societal status quo by superhumans is so great as to justify any imaginable measure against it. Ensuring the peace of rule-by-law society enforced by governmental monopoly on power is so precious and important, that you can't care how many men women and children you need to kill to preserve it. *ahem*

So, once, here are the actual viable branches for how society in general can respond to superhumans in the MCU:

1. "Convince a large enough number of superhumans that they want to maintain the general societal status quo". The power monopoly is still broken, and rule of law exists only because enough of those with the power to break it decide to protect it. However, the actual lives of people continue on more or less as before.

2. "Try to force the superheroes to kneel and obey, and rather than fight they largely retire and disappear". Congratulations, you've preserved the monopoly on power and the rule of. . . oh, wait, the world just got conquered or destroyed by one of the superpowered threats that they used to be defending against, but aren't anymore. And which you can't do anything about, because you don't have the power to do anything about it and never did. Oops.

3. "Try to force the superheroes to obey, they fight back, and they win". Because the whole reason this is happening in the first place is that the superhumans possess strategic power comparable with nations. Better hope whoever are leading the victors are in a good mood, because you've just introduced the world to government by god-kings. Don't blame them, you are the one who caused it by deliberately starting a war they didn't want in the first place.

4. "Try to force the superheroes to obey, start armageddon, civilization collapses". I mean, you *could* respond to all these superhumans by just launching nukes everywhere, but that doesn't mean you win. It means everyone loses. And also, the survivors who will be rebuilding and ruling in the wastes? Going to be pretty heavily biased towards superhumans, anyway, so this ultimately is a variant on Scenario 3, just uglier with more people dead. I hope you are proud. After all, you had to kill everyone in order to save them!

 

[TheVileOne]

I wonder how other heroes not involved in Civil War would respond to the Accords, most notably Thor and the Guardians. On one hand, Thor and the Guardians would likely adhere to the rules of the Earth as long as they are on Earth but on the other hand, the Accords are an Earthbound treaty, so the Accords would be unenforceable in Space and therefore, Thor and the Guardians can unleash all of their powers in space without the consequences Captain America's team went through. Hell, I am not even sure Peter Quill knows of the existence of the Accords. As for other heroes, Carol seems like she would oppose the Accords since she rebelled against the Kree. I think Banner would be pro-Accords if it meant retiring the Hulk forever. Based on her actions in WandaVision, Monica Rambeau would be Anti-Accords. Yelena, Melina and Alexei would be Anti-Accords as well. Although he's Earthbound, I am not sure what the reaction of Dr. Strange would be to the Accords. Same for Valkyrie. Now that New Asgard is on Earth and she's the King of New Asgard, does she sign the Accords? Based on what she said in Ant Man and the Wasp, Hope would be against the Accords.

Problematically, the Accords are seldom brought up ever again post-Civil War other than vague lip service in Agents of SHIELD.

 

[NHawk19]

Problematically, the Accords are seldom brought up ever again post-Civil War other than vague lip service in Agents of SHIELD.

Not in specific name no. However they are brought up in story beats, and backhanded comments. Black Panther may be the one to most egregiously ignore them seeing as he operates unsanctioned by a Super Hero body,in South Korea. Having said that though he is the ruler of Wakanda and it is unclear whether him operating will ever be a violation as he is backed by a single country. Having said that though:

• Black Widow sees her on the run from Ross and deals with the Accords
• SM:HC has a gym teacher reference Cap as a Potential War Criminal
  
• IFW starts with Cap and his team on the run with Wanda and Vision sneaking away, as a result of the accords. Even shows Ross calling the team criminals
• When Tony returns to Earth in End Game he references his falling out with Captain America over the Accords
• Ant Man2 Scott was locked up for helping Cap.
  
• Dr. Strange didn't really deal with them because well he was to new and probably not on anyone's radar yet.

It is unclear what happens in the 5 years between EG & IFW that sees Nat running the Avengers and what if any changes have been made to them. Remember Tony's quote in CW that it's a document and can be amended. I would assume after half of existence was wiped out a few things changed in terms of monitoring.

Shang Chi might reference them but I would expect either Cap 4, Hawkeye, or one of the Government backed heroes to be the next time we get a reference. Eternals could just as one of their observations but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[metaphysician]

My take is that, if the Accords are still in activity at all, they have been heavily revised in the wake of "Half the populace vanished, and all our pretensions to being in control were utterly obliterated". Subject to update based on future shows/movies, naturally, but so far all the post-Infinity War stuff has shown the various governmental bodies acting with some serious kid gloves, even relatively speaking in WandaVision. Combine that with the Avengers acting openly and publicly in Endgame, and its pretty clear that whether defacto or dejure, there isn't any effort to outlaw or conscript superheroes right now.

( As an aside, WandaVision and FatWS neatly demonstrate the problem with Plan "The government won't need superheroes if we just make our own!" Specifically, that you totally can attempt to do that. . . but if you succeed in making someone powerful enough to be useful, they are also powerful enough that your control is dubious. Obedience and Usefulness are pretty much opposite ends of a spectrum, the more you have of one the less you can guarantee of the other. )

 

[NHawk19]

I tend to agree with the heavily revised idea. There are Asguardians living on Earth as well introducing a whole other level of issues with super strength etc. Would assume there's some kind of liaison working with Nat and the Avengers even though they are still very clearly a private institution. Especially since we know SWORD was around at that time.

In the next few movies it will still even be a question of who is around to pose a threat and who they are affiliated with. IMHO the only real wild cards are Wanda and Dr. Strange. Rhodey, Sam, and Bucky will be government affiliated. Pete's identity is out there and he's going to want to lay low because of that. I'm still not even sure who "Fury" was working for in FFH. Monica is clearly working with SWORD. Smart Hulk is going to work for some government entity. Hawkeye will be watched. The Pym group will probably just continue on their exploration quest. Everyone else is off world where they don't apply or retired.

Also the focus for governments has shifted to dealing with people coming back as we saw in FatWS.

 

[TheVileOne]

Very divided. They're a pretty dumb idea but it is better to have them than not, than nothing, probably ...

That the UN is fallible doesn't mean there should be no authority or oversight but on the other hand I really don't like the idea of anyone with superhero powers basically being drafted.

Vigilantism is illegal. Superheroes technically violate the civil rights of criminals.

 

[Herofan]

• SM:HC has a gym teacher reference Cap as a Potential War Criminal

Who is nonetheless portrayed as a role model by school, I think government mandate

 

[metaphysician]

Vigilantism is illegal. Superheroes technically violate the civil rights of criminals.

Insofar as this is true, its also irrelevant to the bigger issue in play. Governments in the MCU weren't freaking out because superheroes were fighting crime without being part of a police organization, they were freaking out because superheroes were operating on a power level of nation-states on the global stage. The Avengers in particular were effectively an NGO with the power of a first world military, and nobody in the modern era really was comfortable about allowing a new power player to the table of geopolitics.

I would like to think that, post Infinity War, somebody in the legal profession dusted off some *really* old precedents and practices from about a thousand years ago, vis a vis the old knightly orders, on how to handle the legal interactions with what is effectively a nation ( and military! ) without a claimed territory. If only, perhaps, in a "Look, we either make nice and keep things informal enough, or we are going to *have* to go back to this. Do you *want* to formally grant Avengers members dual citizenship and diplomatic immunity?" sense.

 

[TheVileOne]

Insofar as this is true, its also irrelevant to the bigger issue in play. Governments in the MCU weren't freaking out because superheroes were fighting crime without being part of a police organization, they were freaking out because superheroes were operating on a power level of nation-states on the global stage. The Avengers in particular were effectively an NGO with the power of a first world military, and nobody in the modern era really was comfortable about allowing a new power player to the table of geopolitics.

They are right to feel that way.

I would like to think that, post Infinity War, somebody in the legal profession dusted off some *really* old precedents and practices from about a thousand years ago, vis a vis the old knightly orders, on how to handle the legal interactions with what is effectively a nation ( and military! ) without a claimed territory. If only, perhaps, in a "Look, we either make nice and keep things informal enough, or we are going to *have* to go back to this. Do you *want* to formally grant Avengers members dual citizenship and diplomatic immunity?" sense.

Cap failed to take proper responsibility for the death of the Wakandans. He is at fault for everything that happened in Civil War.

 

[metaphysician]

Responsibility is not the same thing as self-flagellation, nor is failure to achieve perfection synonymous with neglect. Any suggestion that Steve did wrong in Mogadishu requires an argument for what would constitute the appropriate "Standard of Care" for the situation, and how this standard would be both possible and result in better outcomes than actually happened. An argument of "Anything less than perfection is unacceptable" is an argument that you should stand by and just allow countless people to die, because its better that someone else loose weaponize Ebola than that you act and not save *everyone*. This is, needless to say, an absurd argument.