Can Captain America even admit that even HE has a dark side/flaw to him ?

[capandkirby]

Not the strongest rebuttal. What Steve says he is and how the narrative treats him are two different things.

No, they have a great point. The superheroes did not create their villains and the Avengers didn't create fascism. In fact, one of them (Cap) was directly created to fight it. The 'narrative' of Secret Empire doesn't refute that as real!Steve had no actual agency in that storyline.

And Steve, himself, real!Steve, has often protested anyone placing their absolute trust in superheroes to do their thinking for them. He doesn't WANT anyone blindly trusting superheroes without question. May I remind everyone of Waid's Cap vol. 3...

CaptainAmericaWaid.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-1.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-2.jpg

[Agent Z]

No, they have a great point. The superheroes did not create their villains and the Avengers didn't create fascism. In fact, one of them (Cap) was directly created to fight it. The 'narrative' of Secret Empire doesn't refute that as real!Steve had no actual agency in that storyline.

And Steve, himself, real!Steve, has often protested anyone placing their absolute trust in superheroes to do their thinking for them. He doesn't WANT anyone blindly trusting superheroes without question. May I remind everyone of Waid's Cap vol. 3...

CaptainAmericaWaid.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-1.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-2.jpg

To be clear I was responding to the "just a kid from Brooklyn" image Revolutionary Jack posted in response to this comment from responsabre.

Also, again, if we're asking whether or not superheroes are fascist, I don't think the fact that ubermensch Steve Rogers is a defacto leader of the entire military just because he's a superhero helps show that he isn't fascist-y.

And while it's nice that Waid had Steve warn people not to place their absolute trust in superheroes, this is very much not the norm attitude for superhero comics were superheroes are treated as more trustworthy than everyone else.

[capandkirby]

To be clear I was responding to the "just a kid from Brooklyn" image Revolutionary Jack posted in response to this comment from responsabre.



And while it's nice that Waid had Steve warn people not to place their absolute trust in superheroes, this is very much not the norm attitude for superhero comics were superheroes are treated as more trustworthy than everyone else.

Eh, can't speak for DC, I don't really read it, but I would argue that, at least right now, Marvel is doing the opposite in that no one trusts superheroes. Steve is being framed for a crime he didn't commit to ruin the hope provided by the mantle of Captain America. The public isn't trusting of superheroes in general. And the superheroes are all fighting each other, re: The Avengers vs. The Squadron Supreme vs. The Russian Avengers (or whatever they're calling themselves) vs. Namor's Defenders of the Deep. Same could be said of Civil War, actually, the public turned on the superheroes. "The public" is fickle. So it all largely depends on who is writing what and what the current storyline is.

[responsarbre]

No, they have a great point. The superheroes did not create their villains and the Avengers didn't create fascism. In fact, one of them (Cap) was directly created to fight it. The 'narrative' of Secret Empire doesn't refute that as real!Steve had no actual agency in that storyline.

And Steve, himself, real!Steve, has often protested anyone placing their absolute trust in superheroes to do their thinking for them. He doesn't WANT anyone blindly trusting superheroes without question. May I remind everyone of Waid's Cap vol. 3...

CaptainAmericaWaid.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-1.jpg
CaptainAmericaWaid-2.jpg

See, I would say that scene from Waid's run, while not showing that Cap himself has that flaw, does speak directly to the fascism-adjacent problems with superheroes. And so does Secret Empire, in a very similar way. Superheroes are lifted as examples of absolute virtue, especially Steve Rogers who is basically the moral compass of the entire Marvel Universe. And that's fishy because they got to be like that because they're good at punching things.

Again, like I said originally, it's hard to go around calling any of these characters fascist because they obviously don't subscribe to the entire set of fascist ideals. I wouldn't even bring it up as a problem for Steve in particular. But it's like a problem with superheroes in general, which is why you have all these stories about superheroes leading to fascism.

[MichaelC]

See, I would say that scene from Waid's run, while not showing that Cap himself has that flaw, does speak directly to the fascism-adjacent problems with superheroes. And so does Secret Empire, in a very similar way. Superheroes are lifted as examples of absolute virtue, especially Steve Rogers who is basically the moral compass of the entire Marvel Universe. And that's fishy because they got to be like that because they're good at punching things.

Again, like I said originally, it's hard to go around calling any of these characters fascist because they obviously don't subscribe to the entire set of fascist ideals. I wouldn't even bring it up as a problem for Steve in particular. But it's like a problem with superheroes in general, which is why you have all these stories about superheroes leading to fascism.

Yeah, fascist specifically doesn't fit. Fascism is very specific, detailed subset of authoritarian that is often falsely used in place of simply saying "authoritarian". It would be more accurate to say that superheroes are authoritarian because they are bound up in the Jesus-trope, and the Jesus-trope is authoritarian. Superheroes are Jesus-stand-ins, and Jesus doesn't respect Democracy. The point of a Jesus story is, that Jesus is right about everything, so anyone who disagrees with him, including the voting public, is by definition evil. The Jesus-trope is completely incompatible with democracy. It fits in better with monarchism, specifically the divine right of kings, the notion that divine power has gifted certain individuals with inherent nobility, wisdom, and power, and we should all obey them without question.

That's why Kings like T'Challa are treated as the noblest of the noble, whereas elected politicians are generally corrupt. The Jesus-trope is far more comfortable with The Rightful King than it could ever be with the servant of the mob. Indeed, villainous kings in comics are generally usurpers like Killmonger.

[capandkirby]

The problem some of you in this thread have is you're applying real-world politics to a fictional universe where threats we do not face exist. You're hating on superheroes for their goodness and their righteousness, and applying them to real-world politics, but neglecting to mention the context for why they were created, what type of story they follow in literature (classic heroes circle - see below), and the universe in which THEY live, not the one in which WE live.

heros_journey4_8462.png

Here's the thing, we don't have to obey superheroes without question, because they don't exist. And, correspondingly, we don't exist in a world with murderous Deviants, invading aliens that can mirror the appearance of people, cosmic cubes that can change reality on a whim, whatever Nightshade's "science" is supposed to be, super villains, Ultron (although that one may actually be coming sooner or later), super powers in general, magic, vampires, zombies, gods, werewolves and Hulks. *If* I were to exist in a world where all of these extraordinary things such as the aforementioned aliens/Ultron/Red Skull/and cosmic cubes were out to get me, damn right I'd want a team like the Avengers on it. The ONLY qualifications I care about as I'm dodging the debris of a Celestial host, would be that these guys could save my butt. Their moral purity is a bonus and an asset, but survival itself is more paramount. For every offense there needs to be a defense. And applying real-world structures of hierarchy are a bit beyond the point. The classic heroes journey features the journey of a HERO, this should go without saying. And there is nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with a hero or "Jesus"-type. The only reason people have a problem with a character like Steve Rogers is that their own character of choice has probably been pitted against him at various points and a lot of people here can't seem to register the fact that a) so what, it's one story, get over it, Steve is a popular character and he is here to stay, accept that or you're only going to cause yourself grief about it and b) one story does not a bad character make. Each character in the MU has been written by DOZENS of writers. No one writer has the same take, one story is not the end all and be all of a character nor the end all and be all of their relationship with other characters. For every moment of antagonism there could be one of friendship and partnership. Resenting a fictional character because they once argued with another character is completely batshit, especially in serial storytelling. Moreover, it's extremely selfish. Because tastes vary and though you may resent a character, other people adore them, and your right to bash does not supersede another's right to enjoy a character in relative peace.

And frankly, you find the heroes journey in everything, from the Odyssey to Beowulf to Harry freakin' Potter. In fact, the only thing wrong with having a morally good hero, is more real-life people should aspire to do good because it's the right thing to do. Maybe it wouldn't seem like such a foreign concept then. We need more damn Fred Rogers in the world. Be that as it may, it's ridiculous to sit here and criticize fictional characters for being exactly what they were created to be: wish fulfillment. The desire to have morally pure beings around to protect humanity from evil. It's a tale as old as freakin time, so acting like Marvel should be somehow above this form of storytelling.... I mean, that's the genre of superheroes! That's it. Break Marvel down to its barest and most remedial components and it's good against evil. Protesting that theme in this genre, out of all genres is, frankly, bizarre.

If you don't like how the Avengers are pitted against the X-Men then blame the writers, tell them (nicely, because sending death threats to a creator or sending a posse after them to fill their inbox with hate is NOT COOL) that you don't care for that type of story, do not hold a fictional character with no agency whom existed before the X-Men were a gleam in anyone's eye at fault. It's completely and utterly ridiculous to do so.

[Agent Z]

The problem some of you in this thread have is you're applying real-world politics to a fictional universe where threats we do not face exist. You're hating on superheroes for their goodness and their righteousness, and applying them to real-world politics, but neglecting to mention the context for why they were created, what type of story they follow in literature (classic heroes circle - see below), and the universe in which THEY live, not the one in which WE live.

heros_journey4_8462.png

Here's the thing, we don't have to obey superheroes without question, because they don't exist. And, correspondingly, we don't exist in a world with murderous Deviants, invading aliens that can mirror the appearance of people, cosmic cubes that can change reality on a whim, whatever Nightshade's "science" is supposed to be, super villains, Ultron (although that one may actually be coming sooner or later), super powers in general, magic, vampires, zombies, gods, werewolves and Hulks. *If* I were to exist in a world where all of these extraordinary things such as the aforementioned aliens/Ultron/Red Skull/and cosmic cubes were out to get me, damn right I'd want a team like the Avengers on it. The ONLY qualifications I care about as I'm dodging the debris of a Celestial host, would be that these guys could save my butt. Their moral purity is a bonus and an asset, but survival itself is more paramount. For every offense there needs to be a defense. And applying real-world structures of hierarchy are a bit beyond the point. The classic heroes journey features the journey of a HERO, this should go without saying. And there is nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with a hero or "Jesus"-type. The only reason people have a problem with a character like Steve Rogers is that their own character of choice has probably been pitted against him at various points and a lot of people here can't seem to register the fact that a) so what, it's one story, get over it, Steve is a popular character and he is here to stay, accept that or you're only going to cause yourself grief about it and b) one story does not a bad character make. Each character in the MU has been written by DOZENS of writers. No one writer has the same take, one story is not the end all and be all of a character nor the end all and be all of their relationship with other characters. For every moment of antagonism there could be one of friendship and partnership. Resenting a fictional character because they once argued with another character is completely batshit, especially in serial storytelling. Moreover, it's extremely selfish. Because tastes vary and though you may resent a character, other people adore them, and your right to bash does not supersede another's right to enjoy a character in relative peace.

And frankly, you find the heroes journey in everything, from the Odyssey to Beowulf to Harry freakin' Potter. In fact, the only thing wrong with having a morally good hero, is more real-life people should aspire to do good because it's the right thing to do. Maybe it wouldn't seem like such a foreign concept then. We need more damn Fred Rogers in the world. Be that as it may, it's ridiculous to sit here and criticize fictional characters for being exactly what they were created to be: wish fulfillment. The desire to have morally pure beings around to protect humanity from evil. It's a tale as old as freakin time, so acting like Marvel should be somehow above this form of storytelling.... I mean, that's the genre of superheroes! That's it. Break Marvel down to its barest and most remedial components and it's good against evil. Protesting that theme in this genre, out of all genres is, frankly, bizarre.

If you don't like how the Avengers are pitted against the X-Men then blame the writers, tell them (nicely, because sending death threats to a creator or sending a posse after them to fill their inbox with hate is NOT COOL) that you don't care for that type of story, do not hold a fictional character with no agency whom existed before the X-Men were a gleam in anyone's eye at fault. It's completely and utterly ridiculous to do so.

You cannot claim that real world politics should not be applied to superheroes when real world politics have influenced them since their creation. Hell, you cite real world politics as the reason for Captain America's existence yourself.

[XPac]

the costumed heroes created the environment that allowed for Hydra rule during Secret Empire. the populace is used to not having any say and quickly falling behind whoever is able to hit the hardest. that's not because of Kang the Conqueror or the Masters of Evil.

It's not so much people falling in line behind people who hit the hardest, but rather falling in line behind the people who save the world every 3 months.

I won't say that saving the world over and over and over again justifies complete and utter blind loyalty, but at a certain point I do think it's easy to justifies giving them the benefit of the doubt to the degree they get. Especially when you're in the middle of an invasion by hostile aliens. If these people are literally necessarily for the survival of the earth on a regular basis, then a degree of latitude probably isn't a bad idea 9 times out of 10.

[Michael Watkins]

Yeah, fascist specifically doesn't fit. Fascism is very specific, detailed subset of authoritarian that is often falsely used in place of simply saying "authoritarian". It would be more accurate to say that superheroes are authoritarian

i can agree to that. but i think one can be just as dangerous as the other; when there are no checks and balances.

[Michael Watkins]

It's not so much people falling in line behind people who hit the hardest, but rather falling in line behind the people who save the world every 3 months.

I won't say that saving the world over and over and over again justifies complete and utter blind loyalty, but at a certain point I do think it's easy to justifies giving them the benefit of the doubt to the degree they get. Especially when you're in the middle of an invasion by hostile aliens. If these people are literally necessarily for the survival of the earth on a regular basis, then a degree of latitude probably isn't a bad idea 9 times out of 10.

the Hydr-Avengers first act was to kill a monster that showed up to eat people. Osborn's Dark Avengers fought off the Atlanteans. Norman, himself, shot Queen Veranke in the head. and the populace reacted as they've been conditioned to. it doesn't help that the Avengers and SHIELD often recruit or become villains. regular comic book humans don't know the heroes like we readers do. they are really just placeholders for the next ambitious barbarian.

[Alan2099]

the Hydr-Avengers first act was to kill a monster that showed up to eat people. Osborn's Dark Avengers fought off the Atlanteans. Norman, himself, shot Queen Veranke in the head. and the populace reacted as they've been conditioned to. it doesn't help that the Avengers and SHIELD often recruit or become villains. regular comic book humans don't know the heroes like we readers do. they are really just placeholders for the next ambitious barbarian.

I feel like you switched topics halfway through the paragraph.

You start off talking about how the heroes SAVE people's lives... and somehow that makes them bad and people shouldn't trust them. I'm not sure where yo're trying to go with that but it's not working.

[Michael Watkins]

I feel like you switched topics halfway through the paragraph.

it might feel that way. but it's not what happened.

You start off talking about how the heroes SAVE people's lives... and somehow that makes them bad and people shouldn't trust them. I'm not sure where yo're trying to go with that but it's not working.

i started by showing how villains (norman osborn and hydra) had saved lives and how the line between hero and villain had become blurred. is Sandman a bad guy? is Taskmaster? is Captain America a good guy? is Henry Pym?

[capandkirby]

You cannot claim that real world politics should not be applied to superheroes when real world politics have influenced them since their creation. Hell, you cite real world politics as the reason for Captain America's existence yourself.

That's not what I said at all. You misinterpreted my words. I said...

The problem some of you in this thread have is you're applying real-world politics to a fictional universe where threats we do not face exist. You're hating on superheroes for their goodness and their righteousness, and applying them to real-world politics, but neglecting to mention the context for why they were created, what type of story they follow in literature (classic heroes circle - see below), and the universe in which THEY live, not the one in which WE live.

There was a "BUT" in there and a lot of words after it. Context. I'm a Cap fan, of course I expect politics in my comics. BUT our world is different from their world. WE don't have alien invasions on the daily, we don't have transdimensional beasts attacking us on the weekend. We don't have a cosmic cube that decides to change reality on a whim, just in time for summer holidays. We don't have Nightshade trying to turn people into werewolves and/or change male heroes into females to ring in the New Year. We don't have Ultron. We don't have Kang (mores the pity), we don't have Thanos (thank god for that), we don't have Red Skull (although some real-humans come awfully close), we don' t have Celestials (that we know of...). My point? In that world, with all of those things, a group of superpowered heroes existing to fight all of these things is entirely reasonable. That these heroes would have the leeway to fight these threats in their world, also reasonable. And necessary to the freakin plot. That 'good' characters exist to fight the evil is the genre. It's exactly what this genre is. Therefore hating on heroes for being good, and/or hating on a group like the Avengers for doing exactly what they were created to do, which is fight serious threats of the magical, mystical and paranormal kind, is absolutely ridiculous and I question why those doing it are even here. If one wants real-world law that exists separate from magical, mystical and paranormal threats, and great, super powered heroes rising to defeat them with truth and justice on their side, the tv show Law and Order is probably on syndicate somewhere.

[XPac]

the Hydr-Avengers first act was to kill a monster that showed up to eat people. Osborn's Dark Avengers fought off the Atlanteans. Norman, himself, shot Queen Veranke in the head. and the populace reacted as they've been conditioned to. it doesn't help that the Avengers and SHIELD often recruit or become villains. regular comic book humans don't know the heroes like we readers do. they are really just placeholders for the next ambitious barbarian.

And if villains saved the world every 3 months, they'd probably get more latitude too.

As important as ethics, idealogy, and laws are they ultimately are secondary considerations to the survival of the planet. Heck, in Time Runs Out they gave Thanos a free pass. Its a lot easier to do that for Captain America.

It may not always be the absolute best thing 100% as we saw in Secret Empire, but its understandable nonetheless.

[MichaelC]

Well it effectively makes comicbooks antidemocracy propaganda. You pretty much have to give up on voting and just hope The Rightful King and his Paladins shows up to save you.