Why haven't any villains taken advantage of Civil War?

The Question said:
But really, all of this begs a much more important question: Even if Doom could win, the war would ravage most of the world and end with the deaths of countless millions. Do you really think Doom would be willing to start WWII and risk the lives of his subjects over his obsession with Reed?
Doom doesn't give a damn about his subjects, only about himself.

But, yes, it's a question of scale, and even his hatred of Reed probably wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Anyway, excluding America's superhumans from the equation is silly, because they have an army of superhumans: Iron Man's Superhuman Task Force. And an attack on one of Iron Man's principle lieutenants would involve them.
 
Actually Doom has gone to great lengths to make sure his "citizens" are well cared for. He's a bit of a nut but he knows what he's doing.
 
Well, chances are, most of the world would become very abrasive, and unwilling to align with Doom, which would of course lead to yet another war.

Doom is smarter than that.
 
Doom takes care of his people with advanced technology instead of taxes and they are better off than they otherwise would be under any other circumstanced. They are deathly afraid of him but do not want him removed either. Doom does not care about the people but takes care of them because it is practical for him to have his own reasonably prosperous country as a power base. It is also fairly easy for him to do.
 
The Question said:
The pre reg side is the entire federal government, plus some U.N. peacekeeping forces. Not easy to distract. Seriously, any foreign head of state, especially Doom, taking advantage of Civil War for anything but a full on military assault, which most nations would have no hopes of surviving anyway, would be a tactical nightmare.



Well, Count Nefaria usually plays things like an old school Mafia don. He certainly could build up an impressive criminal empire while the feds are concentraiting almost entirely on vigiulante activity. And not only has the Mad Thinker taken advantage of the situation, some readers theorise that he masterminded Civil War in the first place.

Are Nefaria and Thinker actually doing those things or is this just speculation on your part? I want feats, not speculation.
 
Vanguard07 said:
Please they're all no doubt working for Stark Industries by now. They're too busy being lesser evils to do anything worth noting.

Those guys would never work for Stark. What did stark have the balls of every major villain on earth removed before the start of this crossover, because the villains are acting like wimps.
 
Villians haven't taken advantage of CW, at least so far, because Marvel believes villians are outdated. They believe that the modern fan believes that corporations, CEO's, politicians, police, the military, and "patriotic" Americans are far more evil than any "common criminal". They believe that there are no such "objective" things like heroes and villians, and that it is only the times and environment that make a hero or a villian. George Washington and Osama Bin Laden are exactly the same, you see, it's just perspective and times that make some look good or bad. :rolleyes: Or at least that is what a lot of Extremist Liberals (not Moderates or even general Liberals) like to believe. After all, you'll see endless protests when some thug gets a lethal injection, or when a cop shoots someone (regardless of evidence), but when an innocent is slain by a crook, or a dictator snuffs the dissenters, or a terrorist blows up women & children at a wedding, suddenly voices get numb. It becomes "business as usual", a silent omission...and permission. So Marvel, leaning Left as all comics are, taps into these feelings for Civil War, which is argueably why it has sold so well. That is the real reason why villians are left in the dust. Who has time for Electro when they believe that fans want to see the dark side of Stark, or SHIELD, or so on? It's a chicken-or-the-egg syndrome; would Marvel promote these assumptions and feelings if they didn't exist in society? Or is their repeating it helping to make it remain in their audience?

In terms of story, the reasons are:

1). SHIELD and the U.S. are recruiting villians left and right with their nanobot chips to become Thunderbolt stormtroopers.

2). Those who refuse are left in jail. Kingpin, the Enforcers, Electro, etc.

3). Some are dead. Hammerhead just bit it, again, for instance. Nitro may wish he was dead.

4). A very few are stirring things up, but not taking cohesive advantage. Mad Thinker & Puppeteer tried to capitilize and remain uncaught, but all they did was kill an innocent Yancy Streeter and convince Thing to leave the U.S. (perhaps a victory in itself, one less hero around). Red Skull is floating around Cap's book, waiting for the CW tie in's to end so Brubaker can go back to his own story. Dr. Doom went to grab Thor's hammer and has been content to sit on his throne since. Loki's still dead with the rest of Asgardians. The cosmic villians are busy with ANNIHILATION (a story not afraid to admit that heroes and villians exist that aren't governments, CEO's, police, the army, or rich people).

5). Those not dead, in jail, Thunderbolts or taking advantage are quietly in limbo. SHIELD cape killers are too busy fighting superheroes to deal with them. Stiltman is there to run a rampage until Punisher stops him, but Luke Cage can't take a whizz without 700 agents ready for him. Cripes, if they were this accurate years ago, superheroes would be out of a job.

Comics tend to tap into what society is feeling. In WW2, they went after Axis powers, and during the Cold War, the Commies. But since about 2002, it has become politically incorrect to protray our current national enemies, extreme Islamics, as anything but cuddly, misunderstood teddy bears. Our country has taken that anger and rage after 9/11 and focused it inward upon itself, the President, it's history, WASPS in power, and so on. So Marvel, which has always tapped into what was politically and socially proper in the present, is reflecting this attitude. The audience believes that evil comes from the government, not some caped maniac. So that is what they're showing. The audience believes the worst evil acts come from good people being ill trained, misunderstanding the situation, reacting poorly, etc, NOT because someone caused those good people to have to act in the first place. After 2002, 9/11 no longer was the fault of terrorists, but the fault of an America that was not prepared, that somehow provoked it or earned it. Hey, I'm not making these statements up. Watch enough political rallies and editorials and news shows, and you feel this essence in the air. We're a self-loathing nation right now. It's good to hate America now, especially if you are in it. That, somehow, shows true patriotism.

The irony is, of course, is that there are villians there, and much like in CW, once they convince the masses that they don't exist, and their actions are par for the course, not worth yelling about, then they win. If you don't believe real villians exist, then you cannot believe real heroes exist, either. And that is not only inaccurate, but sad.
 
Dread said:
After 2002, 9/11 no longer was the fault of terrorists, but the fault of an America that was not prepared, that somehow provoked it or earned it.
This isn't a politics board, but recognizing that American foreign policy during the Cold War created many of the conditions that led to the terrorist attack is not the same thing as suggesting the terrorists are any less evil in their actions. They're cruel, remorseless monsters. But to suggest that America can muck around in the Middle East for half a century (and other imperial powers for a half-century prior), being utterly mercenary to protect its own interests, and not have some responsibility when groups emerge from this that are willing to kill Americans, is foolish, and utterly self-serving.

You're correct, though, that comics are attaching themselves to the idea of the war at home (Captain America tried to do a "Cap fights the terrorists" story back in 2002, but it was woefully bad on a number of levels). Look back to Englehart's "Secret Empire" storyline, which was all about Watergate.
 
CaptainCanada said:
This isn't a politics board, but recognizing that American foreign policy during the Cold War created many of the conditions that led to the terrorist attack is not the same thing as suggesting the terrorists are any less evil in their actions.
Yeah, I brought political garbage up again (stupid, stupid!). But I just never see the same FEROCITY in society anymore when, say, a kid is shot by a gang banger than when a black man is killed by a cop, or an anti-Bush rally versus, well, anyone rallying towards what happens in the Middle East. We're appalled when atrocities happen within and react accordingly, but when atrocities happen due to others we treat it as mundane. Cop kills pedestrian? Good lord, an outrage! Mugger kills victim? Eh, average for a Tuesday. It wears down on society, it permits bad things to happen.

Imagine if crime ridden areas held rallies every time somone was mugged vs. every time a cop dared to show up and reveal a gun. Maybe something positive may happen.

CW is what it is because it's on the pulse of the nation now and sometimes seperating politics from the story is to deny the heart of the story. It's not as bad as Ultimates 2, thank god, because there is a legit story here.

So, fine. Villians aren't capitlizing because they're either all Thunderbolts, in Jail, Dead, or in Convient Limbo (or in space).
 
Dread said:
Yeah, I brought political garbage up again (stupid, stupid!). But I just never see the same FEROCITY in society anymore when, say, a kid is shot by a gang banger than when a black man is killed by a cop, or an anti-Bush rally versus, well, anyone rallying towards what happens in the Middle East. We're appalled when atrocities happen within and react accordingly, but when atrocities happen due to others we treat it as mundane. Cop kills pedestrian? Good lord, an outrage! Mugger kills victim? Eh, average for a Tuesday. It wears down on society, it permits bad things to happen.
The cop v. mugger thing is attributable to a couple of things; first, as you say, "wearing down"; murders are common, but cops killing people are not, and so they're more worth noting. I remember when four Mounties were killed last year in an incident (the single-largest number of fatalities since the 1880s), it provoked a Canada-wide outpouring of support, and a massive funeral in a stadium attended by the Governor General, Prime Minister, Premier of Alberta, etc.

As well, for all the cynicism in society, most people generally look up to cops, and expect them to be positive forces.

The anti-Bush v. anti-Middle East stuff in some ways can relate to control; the average American can't do a whole lot about the Middle East (which is far away), but the President is different, much closer. Again, it's a matter of wearing down; people are used to Middle East atrocities, they're a part of life (do you ever consider the news of more dead Israelis or Palestinians really notable? I don't anymore; it's just endless).

There is absolutely some hypocrisy in political circles on the left. The Canadian New Democratic Party (social democrats) are all about leaving Afghanistan, and allowing the collapse of whatever progress has been made there for women, children, ordinary people; despite being the most radical advocates for those groups within Canada.

General (now Senator) Romeo Dallaire wrote that a visiting US State Department official once told him that the incitements to genocide (and actual killings) that were happening in Rwanda in 1994 weren't notable, because it was just something that those people did every now and again. I mention this because I think it's valuable in understanding the contradictions of many liberals; the West is a liberal society, constantly advancing, whereas places like Afghanistan and Rwanda have, in a sense, always been like they are now, so it's harder to get outraged.
 
CaptainCanada said:
The cop v. mugger thing is attributable to a couple of things; first, as you say, "wearing down"; murders are common, but cops killing people are not, and so they're more worth noting. I remember when four Mounties were killed last year in an incident (the single-largest number of fatalities since the 1880s), it provoked a Canada-wide outpouring of support, and a massive funeral in a stadium attended by the Governor General, Prime Minister, Premier of Alberta, etc.

As well, for all the cynicism in society, most people generally look up to cops, and expect them to be positive forces.

The anti-Bush v. anti-Middle East stuff in some ways can relate to control; the average American can't do a whole lot about the Middle East (which is far away), but the President is different, much closer. Again, it's a matter of wearing down; people are used to Middle East atrocities, they're a part of life (do you ever consider the news of more dead Israelis or Palestinians really notable? I don't anymore; it's just endless).

And THAT, my friend, is when evil wins. When victims become nameless, soulless soundbites that don't even elicit a shrug anymore. That is my issue, that is what annoys me. I'm not disagreeing with your other points at all. This is just my beef. Every one is a tragedy. But when people just decide to save themselves grief not by doing something positive or something, but by SHUTTING DOWN, is when terrible things become the status quo. Or at least that is what helps it along, IMO.

Maybe my problem is I expect too much of people, because I hold certain values too strongly than others, what keeps me a sucker. :p

Yeah, Dread gets extra cynical around New Years, FYI.
 
Dread said:
And THAT, my friend, is when evil wins. When victims become nameless, soulless soundbites that don't even elicit a shrug anymore. That is my issue, that is what annoys me. I'm not disagreeing with your other points at all. This is just my beef. Every one is a tragedy. But when people just decide to save themselves grief not by doing something positive or something, but by SHUTTING DOWN, is when terrible things become the status quo. Or at least that is what helps it along, IMO.

Maybe my problem is I expect too much of people, because I hold certain values too strongly than others, what keeps me a sucker. :p

Yeah, Dread gets extra cynical around New Years, FYI.

Unfortunately, I agree.

The state of the human condition around the world is alarming to me. Most call me cold and uncaring, yet really don't seem to care too much, even when the American "Amber Alert" goes out. The lack of the world's care allows for decay.
 
Dread said:
And THAT, my friend, is when evil wins. When victims become nameless, soulless soundbites that don't even elicit a shrug anymore. That is my issue, that is what annoys me. I'm not disagreeing with your other points at all. This is just my beef. Every one is a tragedy. But when people just decide to save themselves grief not by doing something positive or something, but by SHUTTING DOWN, is when terrible things become the status quo. Or at least that is what helps it along, IMO.
I don't like it either. But I simply can't can't continually muster outrage at everyday events; after a while, you start to hate the stupidity of everyone involved, who never learn anything from the cycle; and then, it's just a fact; you want to do something about it, all the same, but it can't incite the same outrage.

On another level, I'm not sure keeping onself constantly outraged really helps, either. Dispassionate analysis of a situation is useful (if the people actually in the situation had more of it, it would be immeasurably beneficial).
 
CaptainCanada said:
I don't like it either. But I simply can't can't continually muster outrage at everyday events; after a while, you start to hate the stupidity of everyone involved, who never learn anything from the cycle; and then, it's just a fact; you want to do something about it, all the same, but it can't incite the same outrage.

On another level, I'm not sure keeping onself constantly outraged really helps, either. Dispassionate analysis of a situation is useful (if the people actually in the situation had more of it, it would be immeasurably beneficial).
That's true, unfortunately it usually takes more outrage than cool analysis to spark change. It was loud protests that brought the beginning of the Civil Rights movements. Child protection laws never happened because they made logical sense, but because moms & others rallied. Just when people become too complient to some stuff, it is allowed to go on.

Man, I really killed this topic. :(

Marvel villians are either Thunderbolts, In Jail, Dead, Scheming, In Space or In Convient Limbo. DC'S INFINITE CRISIS didn't do everything right but at least they had the villians really mobilize.
 
The Overlord said:
Are Nefaria and Thinker actually doing those things or is this just speculation on your part? I want feats, not speculation.

Ooookaaayyy. :dry:


Yes, the thing with Nefaria and The Tinker masterminding CW was speculation. I even said that.

Dread said:
After all, you'll see endless protests when some thug gets a lethal injection, or when a cop shoots someone (regardless of evidence), but when an innocent is slain by a crook, or a dictator snuffs the dissenters, or a terrorist blows up women & children at a wedding, suddenly voices get numb. It becomes "business as usual", a silent omission...and permission.



Well, to be fair, you can't protest the actions of a criminal or foeign power. It wouldn't do anything.
 
The Question said:
Ooookaaayyy. :dry:


Yes, the thing with Nefaria and The Tinker masterminding CW was speculation. I even said that.
.

That's not what the topic's about, the topic is what have villains done to take advanatage of Civil War, not what you speculate they have done to advantage of the Civil war.

Seriously if the best the Thinker can do is: "they did was kill an innocent Yancy Streeter and convince Thing to leave the U.S." That's pretty lame and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Thing abandoning his family in a time of need? WTF?)
 
Dread said:
5). Those not dead, in jail, Thunderbolts or taking advantage are quietly in limbo. SHIELD cape killers are too busy fighting superheroes to deal with them. Stiltman is there to run a rampage until Punisher stops him, but Luke Cage can't take a whizz without 700 agents ready for him. Cripes, if they were this accurate years ago, superheroes would be out of a job.

Actually, it was recently shown that SHIELD agents were being used to stem the tide of supervillain crime and that crime rate was down (like The Question mentioned). We've also seen, most notably in Heroes for Hire, that villains are getting the hell outta dodge. They're asking for fake ID's so they can get out of the country or making up a new villain persona and moving to another state. We've also seen how the rebels are fighting crime while at the same time having to dodge the Registration side. The main focus of the series is on the struggle between the two "camps" but there's still crime fighting going on, readers have just lost sight of it, IMO.

In regards to the Doom thing, why would he get involved? Why give them a common enemy that can more than likely unite the splintered factions to "save the day"? What's more, I doubt that Doom would want a tainted victory against Reed. Reed's not at the top of his game at the moment plus there are other factors that are leading to his downfall that had nothing to do with Doom. I've always seen Doom as wanting to make sure HE was the sole perpetrator of Reed's defeat, not him and a bunch of other people.
 
Tropico said:
Actually, it was recently shown that SHIELD agents were being used to stem the tide of supervillain crime and that crime rate was down (like The Question mentioned). We've also seen, most notably in Heroes for Hire, that villains are getting the hell outta dodge. They're asking for fake ID's so they can get out of the country or making up a new villain persona and moving to another state. We've also seen how the rebels are fighting crime while at the same time having to dodge the Registration side. The main focus of the series is on the struggle between the two "camps" but there's still crime fighting going on, readers have just lost sight of it, IMO.

So what, the super hero community when divided and spending all their time fighting eachother, can now easily kick the @sses of the super villains they used to have trouble with and them into b!tches? What did Cap and Iron Man go around and remove the balls of every villain in the MU? Seriously the super villain community in MU has become a joke if they can't take advantage of this. How are the villains supposed to be threatening in the future if they can't score some victories while the heroes are divided and fighting eachother? I hope in the future Marvel super villains get their balls back, because here they look like total wimps.
 
The Overlord said:
That's not what the topic's about, the topic is what have villains done to take advanatage of Civil War, not what you speculate they have done to advantage of the Civil war.

Seriously if the best the Thinker can do is: "they did was kill an innocent Yancy Streeter and convince Thing to leave the U.S." That's pretty lame and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Thing abandoning his family in a time of need? WTF?)

Quick Q. Your best friend was just killed, and now you're stuck with the decision of killing your brother, or your sister. Choose.
 
slapajap.jpg


Imagine them doing this now, only with Captain America and Islams. They were bold back then. :cwink:
 
The Overlord said:
So what, the super hero community when divided and spending all their time fighting eachother, can now easily kick the @sses of the super villains they used to have trouble with and them into b!tches? What did Cap and Iron Man go around and remove the balls of every villain in the MU? Seriously the super villain community in MU has become a joke if they can't take advantage of this. How are the villains supposed to be threatening in the future if they can't score some victories while the heroes are divided and fighting eachother? I hope in the future Marvel super villains get their balls back, because here they look like total wimps.

Not really. I've explained this in another thread. They're far more organized now. Where you had a mass majority of heros generally working in chaotic patterns, you can easily replace that with an organized grid of lesser numbers, and more support.

Besides, if the French military decided to crack down on everybody who even playfully designed plans of weapons, I'd probably stop. (Not really, they'd never take me alive.)
 
The Overlord said:
So what, the super hero community when divided and spending all their time fighting eachother, can now easily kick the @sses of the super villains they used to have trouble with and them into b!tches? What did Cap and Iron Man go around and remove the balls of every villain in the MU? Seriously the super villain community in MU has become a joke if they can't take advantage of this. How are the villains supposed to be threatening in the future if they can't score some victories while the heroes are divided and fighting eachother? I hope in the future Marvel super villains get their balls back, because here they look like total wimps.

Overlord, it's obvious you only want to see your view point no matter what other people tell you has been happening in the comics. We've given you more than enough canon reasons why the villains are afraid and why it's hard for them to organize.

A) The Punisher is back in town and taking out, as in killing, super villains.

B) If you get caught there are 2 choices be inducted into the Thunderbolt program or be sent to the Negative Zone. Realize that if you become a Thunderbolt you'll later have to face the stigma of your villainous peers that you turned on them. You also get chipped so that your behavior can be controlled. The Negative Zone prison is not the same as other prisons. One person already committed suicide because the nature of the Zone is to take away your will to live.

C)The heroes aren't constantly fighting each other, they're still fighting crime. This goes for both "camps". The Pro side has the advantage that they have SHIELD operatives as backup and partners.

D) Even heroes are dying. What are you gonna think about the Pro side if what you hear is that they killed one of the good guys because he wasn't willing to register? Are you gonna think they're wimps or are you gonna be crapping your pants thinking if they did that to HEROES what will they do to villains?

Seriously, read some books since it's painfully obvious you're either not reading the main series or buying it and not bothering to see what the content is.

BTW, I just remembered...

Creepy.jpg


For all those people *****ing about Doom.
 
Mistress Gluon said:
Quick Q. Your best friend was just killed, and now you're stuck with the decision of killing your brother, or your sister. Choose.

Why does he have to do either, does the SHRA say heroes have fight for the government if they register?
 
Tropico said:
Actually, it was recently shown that SHIELD agents were being used to stem the tide of supervillain crime and that crime rate was down (like The Question mentioned). We've also seen, most notably in Heroes for Hire, that villains are getting the hell outta dodge. They're asking for fake ID's so they can get out of the country or making up a new villain persona and moving to another state. We've also seen how the rebels are fighting crime while at the same time having to dodge the Registration side. The main focus of the series is on the struggle between the two "camps" but there's still crime fighting going on, readers have just lost sight of it, IMO.

In regards to the Doom thing, why would he get involved? Why give them a common enemy that can more than likely unite the splintered factions to "save the day"? What's more, I doubt that Doom would want a tainted victory against Reed. Reed's not at the top of his game at the moment plus there are other factors that are leading to his downfall that had nothing to do with Doom. I've always seen Doom as wanting to make sure HE was the sole perpetrator of Reed's defeat, not him and a bunch of other people.
So, essentially, critical questions about the villian status quo are answered in, of all places, HEROES FOR HIRE, which utterly no one reads. Perfect. That is always the downside to "events"; some of the crossovers and tie-ins will be essential, and some will be utterly worthless. But both will be advertised the same, so you have to either be a sucker and buy them all, or risk picking and choosing the wrong one. Oy.

And yes, both sides are still technically "fighting crime". The Secret Avengers are still fighting criminals (the main book noted takedowns of the Vulture, Grim Reaper, and yet another incarnation of the Sinister Six that included Doc Ock and Lizard), and Iron Man & SHIELD just recently busted Hammerhead's attempt to organize an army of villians (mostly bottom feeders like Answer, Kangaroo, Clown, an undead Spot, but also Electro, one of Spidey's A-Listers) in CW: WAR CRIMES, even though Kingpin set them up expecting Capt. America. It just doesn't get as much attention because the focus of the story is on the heroes, and the main antagonists of CIVIL WAR are the heroes themselves.

If you want a "villian with balls", then you're reading ANNIHILATION, which has Annihilus hitting the big leagues and Thanos running about. That series, unlike CW, is unafraid of and unashamed of good ol' fashioned heroes vs. villians, which is probably why I am enjoying it so much (that, and it's well written and drawn, and has Nova stepping up dramatically).

Your "villians would be afraid of the pro-SHRA that is willing off heroes like Goliath" has some water, but it still makes the villians seem spineless. Frankly, they should have escaped NY long ago if they wanted to be successful. They could have divided the entire U.S. between NY and CA into their own empires by now. I mean who's to stop 'em, the GLA & Brother Voodoo? Maybe Ghost Rider? Pssh.

The Punisher? He's been killing criminals since the 70's. Why would supervillians be any more afraid of him? Besides, he's one guy. He's not an organization like Scourge was, and even that's been dismantled for a decade.

Again, INFINITE CRISIS was flawed, but what I did like was how the villians, and not just the mafia grunts or the bottom feeders, but the A-LISTERS like Luthor, Deathstroke, Black Adam, Talia Al Ghul, etc. all organized into a massive army to take down the heroes while they were divided. Even Despero showed up to pick at a heavilly divided (and infighting) JLA. The Marvel supervillian response has been limited to Thinker & Puppeteer attempting a Midtown bombing with only Thing's retirement to claim as a victory.

But as I stated above, that is because Marvel believes, with some accuracy, that their audience believes government cabals, CEO's, capitalism, and conspiracies are more dangerous than any supervillian. They also believe that "moral character" is a psychotic delusion and that it is the times and circumstances that make a hero or a villian; Iron Man can be a villian and Green Goblin a hero depending on the sitch, they believe. So the villians are the odd people out here. Even worse, at best they're only pawns operating under the order of a master manipulator, who is either a gov't figure, a CEO, or both.

The irony, of course, is the same writers that bemoan the evils of corporate greed have no biases about taking sweet 6 figure gigs from Hollywood at a moment's notice even if it may mean some late books. It's all relative I guess.
 
Plus for once a true hero like Nova (Whom was never taken seriously) is looking down on the heroes of Earth because of what's going on.

I really wish Annihilation was getting more support by TPTB.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
200,767
Messages
21,805,337
Members
45,625
Latest member
papapasmurfsmur
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"