How exactly did the SHRA in Civil War even work?

[Digifiend]

You're creating a false dichotomy. Either one or the other. Either the unregistered sign, or they're anarchists. It is possible for democracy to exist but for bad laws and unjust, inhumane treatment to exist simultaneously. It is not undemocratic to fight an unjust law, particularly within a society where free speech, the right to peaceful protest and the right to due process exists. Squelching protest, the way the pro-registration side did, was NOT democratic nor were Reed, Stark and Skrull!Pym trying to uphold democracy, they were creating a state of martial law, which is about as undemocratic as you can get. Those with superpowers were told they had to sign (wherein the pro-registration side knocked on Jessica Jones' door in the middle of the night and told her she HAD to sign or else, even though she had no intentions of being a superhero at that time as she had JUST had a baby)...



Or they were thrown into a prison with dirt floors, and no beds, denied medical treatment, where the prison was located in an area that slowly drove those who inhibited it insane...



It is not undemocratic to say, this is wrong, and refuse to sign. Protesting is pointing out that there is a flaw in the system that needs to be fixed.

Obama, himself, thought the SHRA to be unconstitutional...



Because. it. was.

Keep in mind that SHIELD starting enforcing the SHRA before the thing had even passed. When Hill open fired on Steve for refusing to arrest anyone who didn't sign, the SHRA hadn't even gone through congress yet.

Yeah, they tried to arrest Luke Cage before it became law too.

[capandkirby]

Yeah, they tried to arrest Luke Cage before it became law too.

I know, right? Poor Luke. It's hard to say who was treated the worst by the pro-registration side between Luke, Steve and Jessica. Eh, stike that. Jessica (Drew) was definitely treated the worst.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The way it worked was however it screwed the protagonist the most, that's how it worked.

In whatever manner it made the main characters of the book look cool thumbing their nose at authority, that's how it worked.

Be nice IMO, if they kept the 50 states thing around to at least contrast registered and unregistered heroes

[Frontier]

I know, right? Poor Luke. It's hard to say who was treated the worst by the pro-registration side between Luke, Steve and Jessica. Eh, stike that. Jessica (Drew) was definitely treated the worst.

This was Veranke though.

[Huntsman Spider]

This was Veranke though.

Yes, but the nature of her impersonation was that she acted, reacted, thought, and felt exactly as Jessica Drew would have, so it still stings.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Yes, but the nature of her impersonation was that she acted, reacted, thought, and felt exactly as Jessica Drew would have, so it still stings.

To a degree, sure. But when you keep secrets and they get out, some blow back should be expected

[Huntsman Spider]

To a degree, sure. But when you keep secrets and they get out, some blow back should be expected

True, but it's not like the pro-registration side, as outlined by capandkirby, had any real moral high ground to stand on with regards to "Jessica"/Veranke after everything they'd done in the name of enforcing the SHRA.

[U.N. Owen]

Also, Negative Zone prison. It's located in a dimension that induces madness from despair. Need I say more?

[Agent Z]

Also, Negative Zone prison. It's located in a dimension that induces madness from despair. Need I say more?

Was this always the nature of the Negative Zone or just something they came up with for Civil War?

[capandkirby]

This was Veranke though.

True, but they didn't know that yet. Stark and Hill, at this time, when these panels took place, thought this was Jessica Drew and this was how they treated her.

To a degree, sure. But when you keep secrets and they get out, some blow back should be expected

They didn't know about the Skrulls yet when this took place. Those panels were from the start of Civil War (New Avengers #23), before the SHRA had passed. As far as Stark and Hill knew, this was Jessica Drew, and they had SHIELD drag her out of bed, in her underwear, and brought her in to interrogate her.

True, but it's not like the pro-registration side, as outlined by capandkirby, had any real moral high ground to stand on with regards to "Jessica"/Veranke after everything they'd done in the name of enforcing the SHRA.

Exactly! Thank you.

My point here was that Stark was tasked with getting superheroes to sign the SHRA, and this was his approach (keep in mind that the thing hadn't even passed yet. Also, if it makes everyone feel better, neither Steve nor Luke were Skrulls)...




Excessive force anyone? And these two were his fellow Avengers and one of them, Steve, supposedly his friend. So the entire point here is that, from the get-go, civil liberties were being abused. Right out of the gate. This was Steve's first introduction to how the SHRA was going to be enforced. Being shot at. Before the law had even passed.

And the kicker here is that Steve didn't even go from the above scene straight to "Viva Revolution!". First he went into hiding, and was pretty depressed about the whole thing, but Hill KEPT chasing him down. She was relentless...



So the moral here is that if you're trying to sell your new law to the superhero community as not being unconstitutional and fascist, this is the exact wrong way to go about it.

Oh, and there is nothing democratic about martial law.

[Frontier]

Was this always the nature of the Negative Zone or just something they came up with for Civil War?

I don't think any book portrayed the Negative Zone prison as a positive thing.

[Ichijinijisanji]

I don't think any book portrayed the Negative Zone prison as a positive thing.

he's asking if the negative zone inherently makes people depressed as some sort effect outside of imprisonment or if it was something made up for the book

tbh i dont remember it having that effect in the captain marvel or FF books, but i may not be remembering completely

[Ultimate Captain America]

The problem here is the relation between the Marvel Universe and the real world. Other fictional universes, such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Middle Earth (and all characters, stories and lore contained in them) are very clearly not set in the real world, so they can do basically anything as long as things stay consistent. But the Marvel Universe does not want that, they want us to see it as if it was the real world with just some superheroes and super villains running around. Like reality, unless noted.

That may have worked in 1963, when everything started and there was just a handful of superpowered guys around, but nowadays it's so fantastic and departed from reality that it is bonkers to keep trying to force real world standards to it. The laws and regulations, even the constitution, do not exist in a void, they exist in a given setting, and if this setting changes, the laws are amened to accommodate to it. When we say, for example, that the SHRA goes against the Constitution or against this or that law, we are taking for granted that those still exist and exactly like ours. An example: in the real world there are guns, civilians may have guns, so there are several gun laws that regulate their sale, possession and use. Do you think it is facist or oppresive for this laws to exist? Superhumans do not exist in the real world, so there are no laws regulating them, congressmen wouldn't waste their time with such nonsenses (I hope...). But in a world where many individuals have powers that may be as lethal as guns or even more so, do you really think that laws wouldn't have been amended to cover this a long time ago? Do you think that, in 2019, a guy with a superpower can really still use the loophole "it's not a gun, so there's no law that forbids me from firing lasers from my ass against those criminals"?

[capandkirby]

The problem here is the relation between the Marvel Universe and the real world. Other fictional universes, such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Middle Earth (and all characters, stories and lore contained in them) are very clearly not set in the real world, so they can do basically anything as long as things stay consistent. But the Marvel Universe does not want that, they want us to see it as if it was the real world with just some superheroes and super villains running around. Like reality, unless noted.

That may have worked in 1963, when everything started and there was just a handful of superpowered guys around, but nowadays it's so fantastic and departed from reality that it is bonkers to keep trying to force real world standards to it. The laws and regulations, even the constitution, do not exist in a void, they exist in a given setting, and if this setting changes, the laws are amened to accommodate to it. When we say, for example, that the SHRA goes against the Constitution or against this or that law, we are taking for granted that those still exist and exactly like ours. An example: in the real world there are guns, civilians may have guns, so there are several gun laws that regulate their sale, possession and use. Do you think it is facist or oppresive for this laws to exist? Superhumans do not exist in the real world, so there are no laws regulating them, congressmen wouldn't waste their time with such nonsenses (I hope...). But in a world where many individuals have powers that may be as lethal as guns or even more so, do you really think that laws wouldn't have been amended to cover this a long time ago? Do you think that, in 2019, a guy with a superpower can really still use the loophole "it's not a gun, so there's no law that forbids me from firing lasers from my ass against those criminals"?

We're not talking guns. We're talking human beings. With sentience. With families. With lives. Some of whom had no control over how they received their powers nor can they help that they have them. And if they are American citizens, as both Luke Cage and Steve Rogers are, then they are protected by the right to due process. Which means they are innocent until proven guilty. Therein the onus falls on law enforcement to prove that they erred, but before law enforcement can do that, an actual error has to be committed. When you single out a group of people based on physiological differences, and make the assumption that they are going to commit a crime with the powers that they have, you are assuming guilt before innocence. This is also called profiling. Anyone, no matter if they are superpowered or not, can wake up one morning and decide to assault someone. Every one of us has the capability of strutting our 'power' over another person. Ted Bundy did not need superpowers to be a terrible, heinous, monster of a murderer. What keeps most people from committing a crime is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to be a good citizen. Having powers does not make one automatically more likely to commit a crime. That choice to be a good citizen is still present. Just as it's present for every living, breathing, person.

Do I think profiling is wrong? Yes. Do I think assuming a group of people to be 'dangerous' because of who they are is wrong? Yes. Again, to use this direct example, the Japanese American internment camps of WW2. 10,000% wrong. The government made the assumption, because of their race, that Japanese Americans were a risk to the country. Most of whom had been born in the US and had zero connection to Japan. And for the crime of lineage, they were assumed to be dangerous and stripped of their property and shipped off to internment camps. Is that wrong of the government? Yes. It was very, very wrong.

Now, it's different to say, those who have CHOSEN to be Avengers (you know, voluntarily) should have rules in place. Sure. And as I pointed out, they have in the past. Prior to Avengers Disassembled the Avengers served as a non-state actor to the UN, like the Red Cross and Greenpeace (to use real-life examples of a non-state actor). Meaning that they had the authority to fight supervillians and handle crises-es, but their contract with the UN did come with protocol, guidelines and rules of conduct that they had to adhere to. And all of the Avengers, including Steve, agreed to these rules of conduct and protocol when they signed on to be Avengers. No one here is saying that the Avengers should be free to do whatever the heck they want.

But that's not what the SHRA was. The SHRA forced everyone with superpowers into conscription, whether they wanted to serve or not. Jessica Jones is a prime example of this. When Stark and co. knocked on her door in the middle of the night to get her and her husband to sign the SHRA, she pointed out that she had just had a baby, that she wasn't planning on using her superpowers, and she didn't feel she should be forced into becoming a superhero just because of her powers (New Avengers #22). The SHRA profiled her. So yes, that's wrong. And the cherry to top off the wrongness on this sundae composed of wrongness, was how anyone with superpowers was completely stripped of their rights to humane treatment for refusing to sign a piece of paper. To give an example: SHIELD bombed, without warning, an underground bunker where a bunch of anti-registered were hanging out. And the anti-registered, at the time, weren't even out on the streets using their superpowers, they were in hiding. Battlestar is injured from this attack. He is then taken to the Negative Zone, NOT treated for his wounds, and placed in a cell with dirt floors, no beds, and no toilet, in an area that slowly drives people insane.

You tell me, is this the proper way to treat someone? It is humane?



And for what? By the end of the day Steve was right. He warned Tony, in Casualties of Civil War, that having a list of registered heroes was dangerous, because they had many enemies who could easily hack into any system and get to that list and also because administrations in the US come and go and a bad administration could come into power and use that list for nefarious means. And what happened? Enter Norman Osborn stage left. Tony had to delete his brain to prevent Osborn from getting to that list.

[Ultimate Captain America]

As I said, you apply real world standards into a fictional world that has long lost similarities with the real one. Do you think that's profiling? It isn't. Or more precisely, it is, but the reasons that make racial profiling wrong do not apply to it. The color of the skin does not make anyone more or less dangerous than any other, thus racial profiling is wrong. But having superpowers does make someone objetively more dangerous than those who don't. If someone does not like his powers and does not intend to use them, they shouldn't have a problem with the police coming to remove their powers from them. It would be the same principle than with guns: you can have them if you follow the specific laws and regulations, or not at all. Remember, by the way, that having an undeclared weapon is a crime, even if you keep it locked in a drawer and never use it.