How exactly did the SHRA in Civil War even work?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Doesn't matter who runs it. The SHRA itself is wrong, regardless of whether it's Steve or Tony running it. Until the country came to it's sense and tossed the law out (which didn't happen until after Siege), the heroes weren't going to support it. Steve being in charge of throwing people into a negative zone prison for violating an uconstitutional law doesn't magically make it okay. It's wrong regardless of who is doing it, not that Steve would.

Again, the point being the only real sollution to the situation was to wait until the law simply went away. Eventually the public and government does realize it... it just takes times. And of course it also means doing your best not to get locked in the negative zone until that happens.

Generally speaking, laws don't just go away without massive effort.

I think the biggest problem of Civil War is that it acted like Captain freakin' America had no idea how to influence people and would/could only try to punch his way out.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If I understand it correctly, it's a law that requires people to be an adult in order to be a super hero. That to me seems reasonable actually.

Firstly it's not a super HUMAN registration act... it's a super HERO registration act. Meaning it's legistiating about what you're doing instead of what you are. Miles in theory shouldn't be violating the law simply because he's sitting on his living room couch like Cage did with the SHRA... you have to actively be doing something unlawful.

Secondly, I honestly agree with the law in principal. I wouldn't want minors being police or soldiers, and I honestly don't think they need to be super heroes.

Course, like the SHRA we have to see how the law is enforced. If they're building homicidal clones to hunt down teen heroes and tossing them into the negatize zone then we've got a pretty big problem.

Cloud 9 would disagree with your assessment.

The problem is that every writer had their own version of the Registration Act, with the only common thread being that it made the government looks like @$$-holes.

[Ichijinijisanji]

Cloud 9 would disagree with your assessment.

The problem is that every writer had their own version of the Registration Act, with the only common thread being that it made the government looks like @$$-holes.

uhh wouldn't cloud 9 agree considering she was conscripted and didnt want to be a hero to begin with, just to fly

[capandkirby]

This one wasn't Tony's fault. It was entirely the fault of Maria Hill jumping the gun and trying to arrest Steve just because he said he didn't like a law that wasn't even made legal yet.

And Steve's side wasn't blameless. Tony did try extending the olive branch to them. Here's how that went.

Except that Hill was already working with Stark at that point (when she had her men open fire on Steve). She and Tony were tag-teaming it, she called Steve into SHIELD while Tony dropped the news about the SHRA on the rest of the Avengers. Which in itself was dirty pool, particularly as he and Steve were co-leaders of the Avengers.



Look, I have no love of Hill. In my mind not only was Pleasant Hill a MASSIVE violation of human rights (it also proved she had learned NOTHING from Civil War and I can't with characters who don't evolve and learn from their mistakes, they're aggravating) but Secret Empire was also her fault. She was told to destroy that cube, she did not. The thing is though, that, in Civil War, even at the point where she had SHIELD open fire on Steve, she was already working with Stark. And we know this not only by the above panel, but also from the fact that the team she ordered take down Steve was already in place and trained to take down superheroes using weapons developed by Tony. I would love nothing more than to place the blame of everything at her feet, she's a great scapegoat. BUT, the simple fact of the matter is that by the time the exchange you posted above took place, where Steve used the electronic scrambler on Tony (Civil War #3) the pro-registration side had already arrested people and thrown them into the negative zone, kidnapped people in their underwear and interrogated them, and shot at several heroes. With guns. And bombs. That could have very well killed them. I mean, maybe not Luke, but as we found out later with Steve, he is NOT bullet proof.

Do I think Steve should have been more diplomatic? Sure. But I also think that Stark should have approached Steve about the SHRA and his plans regarding it before the pro-registration side started treating the unregistered like they were less than human, not after. Even if you put what a betrayal it is to find out your friends had built a prison, i.e. torture chamber, like the Negative Zone, to, as Sue put it, imprison half of your Christmas card list, even if you put aside that your friend had developed weapons specifically for the intention of hunting you down, even if you put aside the fact that the pro-registration side was knocking on people's doors in the middle of the night to coerce them to signing, don't you think Steve should have heard, from his friend, that this was going to be a thing before it became a problem, before the right to due process became something ignored and taunted? Regardless how Tony felt about Steve's personal politics and philosophies on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as I pointed out earlier, Steve was not just his friend, they were co-leaders of the Avengers at the time, designing a prison meant to house half your friends behind your professional partner's back is not cool. I don't blame Steve for taking it personal. Emotionally, I can relate to Steve's reaction fully. Logically I do agree with you, though, in that both men resulting to what honestly amounted to high-tech fistacuffs was idiotic. You'll get no disagreement that they were both acting like testosterone-fueled boneheads throughout multiple instances during Civil War. Everyone in the Marvel Universe would benefit from a mandatory HR sponsored class in diplomacy, conflict resolution and professionalism.

[Huntsman Spider]

Generally speaking, laws don't just go away without massive effort.

I think the biggest problem of Civil War is that it acted like Captain freakin' America had no idea how to influence people and would/could only try to punch his way out.

Because Mark Millar was (and maybe still is) a cynic who didn't think Cap making a righteous speech a la what happened in the movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, would've been a "realistic" outcome, especially when the point of Civil War was an allegory for America post-9/11 deciding its ideals weren't worth s*** compared to the need for security.

Except that Hill was already working with Stark at that point (when she had her men open fire on Steve). She and Tony were tag-teaming it, she called Steve into SHIELD while Tony dropped the news about the SHRA on the rest of the Avengers. Which in itself was dirty pool, particularly as he and Steve were co-leaders of the Avengers.



Look, I have no love of Hill. In my mind not only was Pleasant Hill a MASSIVE violation of human rights (it also proved she had learned NOTHING from Civil War and I can't with characters who don't evolve and learn from their mistakes, they're aggravating) but Secret Empire was also her fault. She was told to destroy that cube, she did not. The thing is though, that, in Civil War, even at the point where she had SHIELD open fire on Steve, she was already working with Stark. And we know this not only by the above panel, but also from the fact that the team she ordered take down Steve was already in place and trained to take down superheroes using weapons developed by Tony. I would love nothing more than to place the blame of everything at her feet, she's a great scapegoat. BUT, the simple fact of the matter is that by the time the exchange you posted above took place, where Steve used the electronic scrambler on Tony (Civil War #3) the pro-registration side had already arrested people and thrown them into the negative zone, kidnapped people in their underwear and interrogated them, and shot at several heroes. With guns. And bombs. That could have very well killed them. I mean, maybe not Luke, but as we found out later with Steve, he is NOT bullet proof.

Do I think Steve should have been more diplomatic? Sure. But I also think that Stark should have approached Steve about the SHRA and his plans regarding it before the pro-registration side started treating the unregistered like they were less than human, not after. Even if you put what a betrayal it is to find out your friends had built a prison, i.e. torture chamber, like the Negative Zone, to, as Sue put it, imprison half of your Christmas card list, even if you put aside that your friend had developed weapons specifically for the intention of hunting you down, even if you put aside the fact that the pro-registration side was knocking on people's doors in the middle of the night to coerce them to signing, don't you think Steve should have heard, from his friend, that this was going to be a thing before it became a problem, before the right to due process became something ignored and taunted? Regardless how Tony felt about Steve's personal politics and philosophies on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as I pointed out earlier, Steve was not just his friend, they were co-leaders of the Avengers at the time, designing a prison meant to house half your friends behind your professional partner's back is not cool. I don't blame Steve for taking it personal. Emotionally, I can relate to Steve's reaction fully. Logically I do agree with you, though, in that both men resulting to what honestly amounted to high-tech fistacuffs was idiotic. You'll get no disagreement that they were both acting like testosterone-fueled boneheads throughout multiple instances during Civil War. Everyone in the Marvel Universe would benefit from a mandatory HR sponsored class in diplomacy, conflict resolution and professionalism.

Cosigned, especially the last part, which would have prevented all of the hero-on-hero nonsense we kept seeing over the past decade, especially debacles like Avengers Vs. X-Men and Civil War II.

To repeat my earlier point, Mark Millar was (and maybe still is) a cynic who didn't think American readers, especially post-9/11, would go for the kind of outcome where the heroes talked things out and agreed to uphold freedom and democracy for all despite its difficulties and costs. So cue Cap and Tony slugging it out with each other and Cap trying to just outfight the SHRA when he should've been using all his charisma, passion, and actual talent for public speaking to outcampaign it and its supporters. That speech he gave to Spider-Man in the ASM Civil War tie-in arc once Peter saw sense and defected from Tony's side? That should have been how he addressed the entire nation and its citizens, as opposed to just trying to fight his way out of the SHRA, no matter bad and unjust it was. Alas, we got a slugfest that culminated in the metaphorical death of American ideals, as represented by the assassination of Steve Rogers.

[XPac]

Because Mark Millar was (and maybe still is) a cynic who didn't think Cap making a righteous speech a la what happened in the movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, would've been a "realistic" outcome, especially when the point of Civil War was an allegory for America post-9/11 deciding its ideals weren't worth s*** compared to the need for security.



Cosigned, especially the last part, which would have prevented all of the hero-on-hero nonsense we kept seeing over the past decade, especially debacles like Avengers Vs. X-Men and Civil War II.

To repeat my earlier point, Mark Millar was (and maybe still is) a cynic who didn't think American readers, especially post-9/11, would go for the kind of outcome where the heroes talked things out and agreed to uphold freedom and democracy for all despite its difficulties and costs. So cue Cap and Tony slugging it out with each other and Cap trying to just outfight the SHRA when he should've been using all his charisma, passion, and actual talent for public speaking to outcampaign it and its supporters. That speech he gave to Spider-Man in the ASM Civil War tie-in arc once Peter saw sense and defected from Tony's side? That should have been how he addressed the entire nation and its citizens, as opposed to just trying to fight his way out of the SHRA, no matter bad and unjust it was. Alas, we got a slugfest that culminated in the metaphorical death of American ideals, as represented by the assassination of Steve Rogers.

It's not just that Millar is a cynic though (even though he is). It's a comic book story, so of course we're going to get people punching each other. You need that. You're not going to get a comic book event or a MCU about a couple guys just talking. You gotta have the fighting. Not that it can't be handled better... but it's not a story worth telling if you're not throwing in a couple super hero fight scenes.

And I also do think it's important to note that in the end, the SHRA is tossed out and Steve is basically put in charge of the whole freaking super hero community. So in the grand scheme of things, I do think the american ideals do win out. It just took a couple years to get there.

[XPac]

Cloud 9 would disagree with your assessment.

The problem is that every writer had their own version of the Registration Act, with the only common thread being that it made the government looks like @$$-holes.

Honestly I'm not 100% sure what Cloud 9 would have disagreed with me over.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Because Mark Millar was (and maybe still is) a cynic who didn't think Cap making a righteous speech a la what happened in the movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, would've been a "realistic" outcome, especially when the point of Civil War was an allegory for America post-9/11 deciding its ideals weren't worth s*** compared to the need for security..

I think the issue is that Millar's stories are plot driven not character drive. Hence why we had a clone Thor simply to have all the Big 3 together, for example.

He writes his stories for flashy movies without regards to the actual characters involved.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Honestly I'm not 100% sure what Cloud 9 would have disagreed with me over.

Your post said that it was a superhero registration, not superhuman, underage included. Cloud 9 was both

[XPac]

Your post said that it was a superhero registration, not superhuman, underage included. Cloud 9 was both

I was talking about Kamala's law in Outlawed, not the SHRA in Civil War. The post I was responding to was specifically asking my opinion on that.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I was talking about Kamala's law in Outlawed, not the SHRA in Civil War. The post I was responding to was specifically asking my opinion on that.

Ah, okay. My bad

[Agent Z]

Except that Hill was already working with Stark at that point (when she had her men open fire on Steve). She and Tony were tag-teaming it, she called Steve into SHIELD while Tony dropped the news about the SHRA on the rest of the Avengers. Which in itself was dirty pool, particularly as he and Steve were co-leaders of the Avengers.



Look, I have no love of Hill. In my mind not only was Pleasant Hill a MASSIVE violation of human rights (it also proved she had learned NOTHING from Civil War and I can't with characters who don't evolve and learn from their mistakes, they're aggravating) but Secret Empire was also her fault. She was told to destroy that cube, she did not. The thing is though, that, in Civil War, even at the point where she had SHIELD open fire on Steve, she was already working with Stark. And we know this not only by the above panel, but also from the fact that the team she ordered take down Steve was already in place and trained to take down superheroes using weapons developed by Tony. I would love nothing more than to place the blame of everything at her feet, she's a great scapegoat. BUT, the simple fact of the matter is that by the time the exchange you posted above took place, where Steve used the electronic scrambler on Tony (Civil War #3) the pro-registration side had already arrested people and thrown them into the negative zone, kidnapped people in their underwear and interrogated them, and shot at several heroes. With guns. And bombs. That could have very well killed them. I mean, maybe not Luke, but as we found out later with Steve, he is NOT bullet proof.

Do I think Steve should have been more diplomatic? Sure. But I also think that Stark should have approached Steve about the SHRA and his plans regarding it before the pro-registration side started treating the unregistered like they were less than human, not after. Even if you put what a betrayal it is to find out your friends had built a prison, i.e. torture chamber, like the Negative Zone, to, as Sue put it, imprison half of your Christmas card list, even if you put aside that your friend had developed weapons specifically for the intention of hunting you down, even if you put aside the fact that the pro-registration side was knocking on people's doors in the middle of the night to coerce them to signing, don't you think Steve should have heard, from his friend, that this was going to be a thing before it became a problem, before the right to due process became something ignored and taunted? Regardless how Tony felt about Steve's personal politics and philosophies on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as I pointed out earlier, Steve was not just his friend, they were co-leaders of the Avengers at the time, designing a prison meant to house half your friends behind your professional partner's back is not cool. I don't blame Steve for taking it personal. Emotionally, I can relate to Steve's reaction fully. Logically I do agree with you, though, in that both men resulting to what honestly amounted to high-tech fistacuffs was idiotic. You'll get no disagreement that they were both acting like testosterone-fueled boneheads throughout multiple instances during Civil War. Everyone in the Marvel Universe would benefit from a mandatory HR sponsored class in diplomacy, conflict resolution and professionalism.

I don't recall Tony ordering Hill to arrest Steve for saying he wouldn't follow a law that wasn't passed yet. In fact, I recall him chastising her for jumping the gun. And as for the rest of your post, this occurred in books where the main agenda was making the SHRA look as bad as possible. Take the issue of the Negative Zone. In JMS' Spider-Man, it's stated that any and all dissenters will be sent there indefinitely. In the main Civil War book, it was a temporary facility until Tony could find a more humane place that was also secure. And again, I'm pretty sure N-Zone making people depressed was something they made up for the Civil War event.

[Hybrid]

That's the problem, the story was so inconsistent because none of the writers were on the same page. What even is that?

[Ichijinijisanji]

That's the problem, the story was so inconsistent because none of the writers were on the same page. What even is that?

how were the writers on different pages?

[Agent Z]

how were the writers on different pages?

See my comment about the Negative Zone.