Avengers Twilight 2 Preview.

[Huntsman Spider]

Presuming Steve is a rightwing-libertarian, who cares? Here's what's important, Steve doesn't judge people solely for the color of their skin, their religion, or political standing regardless of his own. He can believe in whatever he wants.

Also, 1) We don't know what he did and didn't do while he was senator. He could have proposed 1,000 things, it's not going to happen just because he's Steve Rogers because 2) it just doesn't work like that. I work for the state. I know the state isn't the same as the federal government, but the line is thinner than people tend to think. Lots of state programs are federally mandated. Lots of what people assume is state money is actually federal money. Almost anytime a governor is taking credit for a grant that forces them to do something positive, if you trace it back, it's usually actually a federally mandated thing or at the very least something the federal government can take the money from if the state doesn't use the money in a way that was promised. The state just takes credit for publicity and votes. Hundreds of wonderful things are proposed all the time. Thousands and thousands of dollars go into researching them assuming they even get that far, and even if the research determines these proposals are good ideas, most of them don't get off the ground. When they do get off the ground, it's at least two years of budgeting, contracting, finding partners and employees before anything can get started and by that point directors may have changed, mayors mayors have changed, governors may have changed, senators may have changed, presidents may have changed, and maybe something that was a sure thing once before becomes a trial run, which is code for, we don't actually want to do this but we said we would, so we'll do it for a year with intent to cancel. It's also not unusual for money to go from one project to the next as long as it is open and honest and the two are tangentially related.

My point is, Steve as a Senator is lesser than Steve as a vigilante. The other legislators might respect Steve, but at the end of the day, there is not way they could care less. They're out to push their own agendas, to please their lobbyists, to stay in the good graces of the other legislators that support them, and perhaps stumble on to satisfying the public that elected them along the way. The role of Steve as a senator reduces him to just another cog. He's not going to influence legislators the way he influences the public. Legislators have too much baggage to be all that malleable. So what if Steve did propose ways to help the homeless? Why do you think anything would change? Because he's Steve Rogers? No. The homeless would still be on the streets for the exact same reason they're on the streets right now.

You can make the argument that Steve could do more, but as stated above, a lot of heroes could do more. Superheroes attack the symptoms, not the disease, because if they attacked the disease, there wouldn't be a need for superheroes (you can replace the word superhero with other words). Steve doesn't even have the most power to enact the kind of changes he's being called out to make here because he doesn't have money like that. He's had to get money from both Tony and Deadpool. Votes are good. The power to influence people is good. Ain't nothing more influential or powerful than money.

You raise very valid points there.

[The Negative Zone]

Presuming Steve is a rightwing-libertarian, who cares? Here's what's important, Steve doesn't judge people solely for the color of their skin, their religion, or political standing regardless of his own. He can believe in whatever he wants.

Also, 1) We don't know what he did and didn't do while he was senator. He could have proposed 1,000 things, it's not going to happen just because he's Steve Rogers because 2) it just doesn't work like that. I work for the state. I know the state isn't the same as the federal government, but the line is thinner than people tend to think. Lots of state programs are federally mandated. Lots of what people assume is state money is actually federal money. Almost anytime a governor is taking credit for a grant that forces them to do something positive, if you trace it back, it's usually actually a federally mandated thing or at the very least something the federal government can take the money from if the state doesn't use the money in a way that was promised. The state just takes credit for publicity and votes. Hundreds of wonderful things are proposed all the time. Thousands and thousands of dollars go into researching them assuming they even get that far, and even if the research determines these proposals are good ideas, most of them don't get off the ground. When they do get off the ground, it's at least two years of budgeting, contracting, finding partners and employees before anything can get started and by that point directors may have changed, mayors mayors have changed, governors may have changed, senators may have changed, presidents may have changed, and maybe something that was a sure thing once before becomes a trial run, which is code for, we don't actually want to do this but we said we would, so we'll do it for a year with intent to cancel. It's also not unusual for money to go from one project to the next as long as it is open and honest and the two are tangentially related.

My point is, Steve as a Senator is lesser than Steve as a vigilante. The other legislators might respect Steve, but at the end of the day, there is not way they could care less. They're out to push their own agendas, to please their lobbyists, to stay in the good graces of the other legislators that support them, and perhaps stumble on to satisfying the public that elected them along the way. The role of Steve as a senator reduces him to just another cog. He's not going to influence legislators the way he influences the public. Legislators have too much baggage to be all that malleable. So what if Steve did propose ways to help the homeless? Why do you think anything would change? Because he's Steve Rogers? No. The homeless would still be on the streets for the exact same reason they're on the streets right now.

You can make the argument that Steve could do more, but as stated above, a lot of heroes could do more. Superheroes attack the symptoms, not the disease, because if they attacked the disease, there wouldn't be a need for superheroes (you can replace the word superhero with other words). Steve doesn't even have the most power to enact the kind of changes he's being called out to make here because he doesn't have money like that. He's had to get money from both Tony and Deadpool. Votes are good. The power to influence people is good. Ain't nothing more influential or powerful than money.

One could argue that the tragic flaw of superheroes is that with all of their physical powers to stop villains and put out literal fires that they can't just radically change society like we want to. If they were to use ther awesome powers to force change, would it not lead to a totalitarian society like these comics show?

[Triniking1234]

One could argue that the tragic flaw of superheroes is that with all of their physical powers to stop villains and put out literal fires that they can't just radically change society like we want to. If they were to use ther awesome powers to force change, would it not lead to a totalitarian society like these comics show?

Honestly, the opening argument is just a variation of the "Why doesn't Batman use his money to stop crime?" nonsense.

People expect superheroes to save the planet from getting blown up every week and still expect them to use their private resources to solve problems society brought on themselves? You also have a poor understanding of how Western governance works because even if a hero tried to enact change to the system, the politicians would just their power over them, since they are either just a regular citizen of that country or a foreigner like Thor, to prevent them from doing so.

[Huntsman Spider]

One could argue that the tragic flaw of superheroes is that with all of their physical powers to stop villains and put out literal fires that they can't just radically change society like we want to. If they were to use ther awesome powers to force change, would it not lead to a totalitarian society like these comics show?

The ultimate catch-22 of the genre's premise. How far can you go with your powers before you stop being a "concerned citizen" who just happens to have superpowers and start becoming more of a vigilante, or even a totalitarian trying to impose your will on others just because you can, or perhaps just an "anarchist" who doesn't believe in laws in the first place?

Honestly, the opening argument is just a variation of the "Why doesn't Batman use his money to stop crime?" nonsense.

People expect superheroes to save the planet from getting blown up every week and still expect them to use their private resources to solve problems society brought on themselves? You also have a poor understanding of how Western governance works because even if a hero tried to enact change to the system, the politicians would just their power over them, since they are either just a regular citizen of that country or a foreigner like Thor, to prevent them from doing so.

Alas, a very valid point as well. Hell, we already saw some of that in the original Civil War and even in the more recent Outlawed, basically Civil War with teenage/under-21 superheroes, the idea that if superpowers existed in even a semi-realistic context, politicians would be trying to use their governmental powers to coopt and/or repress superpowered individuals going out and parading themselves as superheroes for the sake of maintaining the dominant sociopolitical order. Even before Civil War, its writer Mark Millar pointed out in his 12-issue Spider-Man saga for Marvel Knights that corrupt corporate and political/governmental actors alike would have a vested interest in keeping superheroes from using their powers and resources to potentially enact greater social change, outright commissioning the creation and proliferation of supervillains to distract them from ever doing that.

[Nomads1]

One could argue that the tragic flaw of superheroes is that with all of their physical powers to stop villains and put out literal fires that they can't just radically change society like we want to. If they were to use ther awesome powers to force change, would it not lead to a totalitarian society like these comics show?

That was basically what caused the "new Superman" (Jon Kent) series to fail completely. They turned him into a super-powered activist instead of a super-hero, and, like it or not, activism does come with a lot of imposing your world views onto others.

Peace

[Triniking1234]

That was basically what caused the "new Superman" (Jon Kent) series to fail completely. They turned him into a super-powered activist instead of a super-hero, and, like it or not, activism does come with a lot of imposing your world views onto others.

Peace

Tom Taylor's a good writer but people want to see Superman suplex Lobo and Brainiac.

[Frontier]

Defeating fascism with a hug .

[Huntsman Spider]

Tom Taylor's a good writer but people want to see Superman suplex Lobo and Brainiac.

Golden Age Superman used to go after wifebeaters and slumlords and crooked arms dealers fomenting wars for profit. Early New 52 Superman by Grant Morrison was a more modern take on that same concept, though Morrison did also point out that maybe, just maybe, to allude to Nomads1's point, that wasn't necessarily the best thing for a superhero to do. Slippery slope and all that . . .

Defeating fascism with a hug .

Speaking of superheroes defeating or otherwise taking on fascism, who besides me actually read this second issue of Avengers: Twilight? Some twists along the way there, especially given the true mastermind of this dire future and all . . . though in a way, after the first issue with that revisionist documentary painting the Red Skull as a secret hero trying to take down Hitler from within . . . I probably should have seen it coming.