OUTLAWED! (March 2020)

[Gaastra]

So few properly blame Tony and the Avengers for this.

Thank You!

-Cyclops

No you can blame wolverine who is on both teams for avx. Cap asked him if the X-Men had this and should the avengers stay out of it and logan said attack the x-men! This was all logans fault. Guess everyone forgot phoenix was on earth for years in Excalibur and everything was fine. Man that was one of the worst "everyone is acting out of canon" and "did anyone even read past marvel stories" crap marvel had done in years!

[Stryfe8]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel? For the stoners, smoking the bong water without adding pot? Sounds about right.

we have a winner

[Stryfe8]

This sounds like ass tbh

ass at least has some redeeming qualities

[capandkirby]

The problem with Civil War 1 (and with the MCU version of Civil War), is that only extremes are presented. I've said this before, I'll say it again, Marvel is creating a false dichotomy in narrowing the choices down to either selling your soul to the government, or out-and-out rebellion. And the odd thing about it is that the comics, themselves, presented the third option at one point, which is that the Avengers were non-state actors, which means the Avengers, as an organization, were allowed to choose their own membership, pick their own leaders, decide what battles to fight, but they had to sign a contract with the UN that specified rules of conduct wherein the Avengers agreed to respect International Law, treat people humanely, and adhere to a behavioral guide of conduct. The minute the Avengers acted in a way the UN deemed untoward (re: Avengers Disassembled) the UN terminated their association with the Avengers and the Avengers lost their non-state actor status.

Nice, clean solution. The Avengers still have rules and guidelines and are expected to act as a responsible party, but they're not being conscripted against their will (like say, Tony and Carol tried to do with Jessica Jones, re:Civil War), they're not putting their families at risk (Aunt May) by their real-life identities being public domain, and their not at risk of being controlled by a bad administration coming into office. In the comics it was Norman Osborn, but I shudder to think of how the Avengers and 50 state initiative would be utilized if they existed in real-life by the current administration.

My point, here, is that there are ways to regulate superheroes that don't profile, violate superpowered individuals basic human rights, force conscription, or dox them, therein putting larger targets on their backs.

But hey, why use logic when instead you can have the maximum amount of drama.

As for the kids, young as they are, they do have powers. And those powers can be used to help people at a greater success ratio than those without could manage. It's the age old philosophy Spider-Man, himself, uses as a tenet. With great power comes great responsibility. Or as Steve Rogers often says, it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. These kids are going to be inheriting the Earth one day, instilling a sense of responsibility and protectiveness and involvement shouldn't be so blatantly discouraged. I take my minor daughter to vote with me for every election, because I want to instill in her that she has a voice and a civic responsibility to use it when she comes of age. There exists, in real-life, youth programs for first respondents or the military. I don't see why underage superheroes have to be outright banned, when instead there could be a (voluntary) mentorship program, or (again voluntary) training by older superheroes. Sort of a superhero version of training day. Just going straight to outright banning is a tad ridiculous. But again, why use logic when you can have maximum drama instead.

[jetengine]

The problem with Civil War 1 (and with the MCU version of Civil War), is that only extremes are presented. I've said this before, I'll say it again, Marvel is creating a false dichotomy in narrowing the choices down to either selling your soul to the government, or out-and-out rebellion. And the odd thing about it is that the comics, themselves, presented the third option at one point, which is that the Avengers were non-state actors, which means the Avengers, as an organization, were allowed to choose their own membership, pick their own leaders, decide what battles to fight, but they had to sign a contract with the UN that specified rules of conduct wherein the Avengers agreed to respect International Law, treat people humanely, and adhere to a behavioral guide of conduct. The minute the Avengers acted in a way the UN deemed untoward (re: Avengers Disassembled) the UN terminated their association with the Avengers and the Avengers lost their non-state actor status.

Nice, clean solution. The Avengers still have rules and guidelines and are expected to act as a responsible party, but they're not being conscripted against their will (like say, Tony and Carol tried to do with Jessica Jones, re:Civil War), they're not putting their families at risk (Aunt May) by their real-life identities being public domain, and their not at risk of being controlled by a bad administration coming into office. In the comics it was Norman Osborn, but I shudder to think of how the Avengers and 50 state initiative would be utilized if they existed in real-life by the current administration.

My point, here, is that there are ways to regulate superheroes that don't profile, violate superpowered individuals basic human rights, force conscription, or dox them, therein putting larger targets on their backs.

But hey, why use logic when instead you can have the maximum amount of drama.

As for the kids, young as they are, they do have powers. And those powers can be used to help people at a greater success ratio than those without could manage. It's the age old philosophy Spider-Man, himself, uses as a tenet. With great power comes great responsibility. Or as Steve Rogers often says, it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. These kids are going to be inheriting the Earth one day, instilling a sense of responsibility and protectiveness and involvement shouldn't be so blatantly discouraged. I take my minor daughter to vote with me for every election, because I want to instill in her that she has a voice and a civic responsibility to use it when she comes of age. There exists, in real-life, youth programs for first respondents or the military. I don't see why underage superheroes have to be outright banned, when instead there could be a (voluntary) mentorship program, or (again voluntary) training by older superheroes. Sort of a superhero version of training day. Just going straight to outright banning is a tad ridiculous. But again, why use logic when you can have maximum drama instead.

The MCU though hinted that it was potentially a Hydra deal or that it had been in the wings for a while now. You dont ratify a document that big, that quickly.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I'm hoping the New Warrior kids have a connection to Bombshells, the lefty student protest/terrorist group from Spencer's run on Falcon Cap. I don't mind questioning the values of my heroes and it often makes for better storytelling. Granted it can be poorly done but that could be applied to everyone.

[MacrossPlus]

Ehhhh, I don’t know, they were very cringe

[Chris0013]

So how does this new law work?? Does it do a conscription sort of thing like SHRA? Or is it just if an under 21 super does anything about fighting bad guys??

Trailblazer seems to 'run afoul' of the new law because she helps Thrash stop a threat at a nursing home. But if she just helps out one time because she is in the vicinity (and if she had no intention of making a life out of it) why would it matter?? I see that as no different as people who have helped cops in trouble...they are not being arrested for interfering or impersonating a police officer.

[AnakinFlair]

Haven't I just read this story? Or seen this movie? Are they out of ideas?

[Digifiend]

If you're read Civil War and Robin War, then yeah, there are some ideas that seem similar to those storylines.

[Huntsman Spider]

So how does this new law work?? Does it do a conscription sort of thing like SHRA? Or is it just if an under 21 super does anything about fighting bad guys??

Trailblazer seems to 'run afoul' of the new law because she helps Thrash stop a threat at a nursing home. But if she just helps out one time because she is in the vicinity (and if she had no intention of making a life out of it) why would it matter?? I see that as no different as people who have helped cops in trouble...they are not being arrested for interfering or impersonating a police officer.

From the sound of it, unless a superhero under the age of 21 has the backing and/or training of an adult mentor, using their powers to fight crime is officially against the law. Granted, vigilantism is vigilantism regardless of age, but regulating those who are perceived as not being old or mature enough to take on that burden of protecting others with their abilities would be reasonable enough on its face if not for the CRADLE raids on known gathering places for "underage vigilantes/superheroes." I'm personally more pissed/disappointed that the (original) New Warriors are backing this law, as it's basically doing the same thing as what precipitated the original Civil War --- exploiting blame and vitriol from the public toward young heroes in the wake of one catastrophic incident to pass a law effectively criminalizing the entire superhero community. It was the New Warriors back then, and now it's the Champions' turn in the barrel, as it were.

[Digifiend]

So, other places CRADLE need to raid:

4 Yancy Street, for Brainstorm and Powerhouse.
Pym Labs, for G.I.R.L.
The Kinney apartment (though they'll probably find it empty due to X-23 moving to Krakoa).
Brooklyn Visions, since it's known that Spider-Man is based near there thanks to Ultimate Green Goblin's recent attack (and a preview indicates they do just that, as he's the victim of a sting).
Empire State University, for Nightmask, Squirrel Girl, Koi Boy, Chipmunk Hunk, and Ghost-Spider.
The Baxter Building, for the Fantastix.
Wherever the Great Lakes Avengers are living.

[Chris0013]

From the sound of it, unless a superhero under the age of 21 has the backing and/or training of an adult mentor, using their powers to fight crime is officially against the law. Granted, vigilantism is vigilantism regardless of age, but regulating those who are perceived as not being old or mature enough to take on that burden of protecting others with their abilities would be reasonable enough on its face if not for the CRADLE raids on known gathering places for "underage vigilantes/superheroes." I'm personally more pissed/disappointed that the (original) New Warriors are backing this law, as it's basically doing the same thing as what precipitated the original Civil War --- exploiting blame and vitriol from the public toward young heroes in the wake of one catastrophic incident to pass a law effectively criminalizing the entire superhero community. It was the New Warriors back then, and now it's the Champions' turn in the barrel, as it were.

My point is more this....You have a superpowered person under 21 who has no intention of being a super hero...but while in the bank with their parent bank robbers show up. This super powered individual uses their power to stop the crime...but has no intention of continuing super powered vigilantism...this was a one time thing only because his/her life was in danger. Should this qualify as a violation of the law or just a one off instance that the law is willing to say "this thing happened and it is over and this person can go about his/her life."

As far as the NW backing it...I agree...they should stay out of enforcing it...but should be involved in mentoring those this law affects.

[Matrik]

Lol it will amuse me to think if a new teenage grasshopper debuts for five minutes before he is swamped by the cradle operatives leading to a mishap causing his demise in keeping with his theme of dying shortly after debuting.

[Frontier]

That one was alway the most egregious for me because they literally used Scott as the sole scapegoat and washed their hands of it by forming the Unity Squad to save face lol

I did appreciate that Miles was at least willing to admit that they did screw up on their end. I think Eve Ewing might be trying to point him as the reasonable counterpoint in all this judging by his reaction to Kamala's speech in the previews for the relaunch.

As for the kids, young as they are, they do have powers. And those powers can be used to help people at a greater success ratio than those without could manage. It's the age old philosophy Spider-Man, himself, uses as a tenet. With great power comes great responsibility. Or as Steve Rogers often says, it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. These kids are going to be inheriting the Earth one day, instilling a sense of responsibility and protectiveness and involvement shouldn't be so blatantly discouraged. I take my minor daughter to vote with me for every election, because I want to instill in her that she has a voice and a civic responsibility to use it when she comes of age. There exists, in real-life, youth programs for first respondents or the military. I don't see why underage superheroes have to be outright banned, when instead there could be a (voluntary) mentorship program, or (again voluntary) training by older superheroes. Sort of a superhero version of training day. Just going straight to outright banning is a tad ridiculous. But again, why use logic when you can have maximum drama instead.

This isn't a hard ban on teen vigilante's. They can still operate and be heroes, they just need to have adult supervision and backing of an adult hero.

Which the teens will probably bristle under because they want to be independent, and CRADLE's methods might be shady too going by recent solicits.

From the sound of it, unless a superhero under the age of 21 has the backing and/or training of an adult mentor, using their powers to fight crime is officially against the law. Granted, vigilantism is vigilantism regardless of age, but regulating those who are perceived as not being old or mature enough to take on that burden of protecting others with their abilities would be reasonable enough on its face if not for the CRADLE raids on known gathering places for "underage vigilantes/superheroes." I'm personally more pissed/disappointed that the (original) New Warriors are backing this law, as it's basically doing the same thing as what precipitated the original Civil War --- exploiting blame and vitriol from the public toward young heroes in the wake of one catastrophic incident to pass a law effectively criminalizing the entire superhero community. It was the New Warriors back then, and now it's the Champions' turn in the barrel, as it were.

The New Warriors know how badly something like this can spiral out of control, and they probably see ways to work within the law to make sure kids can still be heroes without having to become fugitives to do it.

So, other places CRADLE need to raid:

4 Yancy Street, for Brainstorm and Powerhouse.
Pym Labs, for G.I.R.L.
The Kinney apartment (though they'll probably find it empty due to X-23 moving to Krakoa).
Brooklyn Visions, since it's known that Spider-Man is based near there thanks to Ultimate Green Goblin's recent attack (and a preview indicates they do just that, as he's the victim of a sting).
Empire State University, for Nightmask, Squirrel Girl, Koi Boy, Chipmunk Hunk, and Ghost-Spider.
The Baxter Building, for the Fantastix.
Wherever the Great Lakes Avengers are living.

I wonder how much of this we'll see covered in the actual books. I guess they would at least have to address GIRL since Nadia is a current team member.