Does anyone find it odd that Tony's on the "anti-side" of things in Civil War 2, especially given his history?

[useridgoeshere]

If you ever watch Minority Report you will see why Tony is on the side he is.

From what I can make out from the teasers, I would/am on team Tony. You cannot arrest someone for something they have not done. A lot of people will disagree with me I know, because it's they idea that they're going to do it . I don't think the idea of Civil War II is accountability, it's about whether it's right or wrong to use someone to catch people before they commit any crime, I suppose it's accountability in the sense that you're arresting people accountable for what would have been a crime.

But at the heart of it, it seems there is the question of "if they are caught before committing a crime, are they still guilty?"

Not just Minority Report, which did this long ago. Bendis himself went here with the Trial of Jean Grey and the villains were clearly the ones trying to persecute Jean Grey for something she hadn't done, but might do. Carol might be well-intentioned, but it's hard to see how she'll be right.

[Cmbmool]

If you ever watch Minority Report you will see why Tony is on the side he is.

From what I can make out from the teasers, I would/am on team Tony. You cannot arrest someone for something they have not done. A lot of people will disagree with me I know, because it's they idea that they're going to do it . I don't think the idea of Civil War II is accountability, it's about whether it's right or wrong to use someone to catch people before they commit any crime, I suppose it's accountability in the sense that you're arresting people accountable for what would have been a crime.

But at the heart of it, it seems there is the question of "if they are caught before committing a crime, are they still guilty?"

BUT didn't he do the same thing when it came to the first Civil War and arresting those that didn't comply with the SHRA, even as they were protecting the public ?

Also, didn't he also do the same thing considering the many 'ideas' he had in planned out with Reed and Hank and how it backfired on him ?

[adameastment]

Not just Minority Report, which did this long ago. Bendis himself went here with the Trial of Jean Grey and the villains were clearly the ones trying to persecute Jean Grey for something she hadn't done, but might do. Carol might be well-intentioned, but it's hard to see how she'll be right.

I completely forgot out The Trial of Jean Grey! Maybe rightly so? Heh.

But yeah, at the moment it is hard to see, everyone I've spoken to has basically said that they're hoping that Tony just does something awful. Because, why not?

[adameastment]

BUT didn't he do the same thing when it came to the first Civil War and arresting those that didn't comply with the SHRA, even as they were protecting the public ?

Also, didn't he also do the same thing considering the many 'ideas' he had in planned out with Reed and Hank and how it backfired on him ?

Well, no. Because the SHRA was a law, if you're unregistered and "fighting crime" then you're committing a crime. If he was arresting someone before they committed a crime then it's still the question of are they guilty?

(Apologies for the double post)

[Cmbmool]

Well, no. Because the SHRA was a law, if you're unregistered and "fighting crime" then you're committing a crime. If he was arresting someone before they committed a crime then it's still the question of are they guilty?

(Apologies for the double post)

Then explain to me this:

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Civil_W...ession_Vol_1_1

[adameastment]

Then explain to me this:

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Civil_W...ession_Vol_1_1

Grief.

But there isn't anything in his statement that says he regrets it really other than it leading to the death of Cap. He still says clearly it was the right thing to do, but it's the people he worked with that he didn't like, and the end result.

You've reminded me though, I need to buy that

[Raye]

Not just Minority Report, which did this long ago. Bendis himself went here with the Trial of Jean Grey and the villains were clearly the ones trying to persecute Jean Grey for something she hadn't done, but might do. Carol might be well-intentioned, but it's hard to see how she'll be right.

That's the thing here. I am sure both of them think what they are doing is right. It is possible to see how someone could reach the conclusion that preventing something terrible (like a mass murderer going on a crazed rampage, killing dozens of people. or in more superhero terms, preventing someone with incredible powers from killing thousands, or something) is the right course of action. It will all come down to how they present it, what the catalyst is, and if they can resist the temptation to blatantly vilify one side of the conflict this time around. It's a little hard to judge if it is in character for Tony or Carol to be taking the positions they are taking without seeing the catalyst event first.

But, at it's core I don't see it as out of character for Tony. The FIRST Civil War was out of character for him, but this seems to line up with his ideals to me.

[Hypestyle]

The only problem I have is when it comes to known super villains and active criminals who aren't in jail, why isn't the heroic community more proactive in finding these people and capturing them and disabling their resources?

[Cmbmool]

That's the thing here. I am sure both of them think what they are doing is right. It is possible to see how someone could reach the conclusion that preventing something terrible (like a mass murderer going on a crazed rampage, killing dozens of people. or in more superhero terms, preventing someone with incredible powers from killing thousands, or something) is the right course of action. It will all come down to how they present it, what the catalyst is, and if they can resist the temptation to blatantly vilify one side of the conflict this time around. It's a little hard to judge if it is in character for Tony or Carol to be taking the positions they are taking without seeing the catalyst event first.

But, at it's core I don't see it as out of character for Tony. The FIRST Civil War was out of character for him, but this seems to line up with his ideals to me.

Given that Tony had the Extremis at the time of Civil War makes me want to ask was it really out of character for him to act the way he did during the event ?

Even though he knew it would label him as the bad guy ?

[norj]

The only problem I have is when it comes to known super villains and active criminals who aren't in jail, why isn't the heroic community more proactive in finding these people and capturing them and disabling their resources?

Because as soon as they are done with one crisis another pops up.

[Mary Jay]

If you ever watch Minority Report you will see why Tony is on the side he is.

From what I can make out from the teasers, I would/am on team Tony. You cannot arrest someone for something they have not done. A lot of people will disagree with me I know, because it's they idea that they're going to do it . I don't think the idea of Civil War II is accountability, it's about whether it's right or wrong to use someone to catch people before they commit any crime, I suppose it's accountability in the sense that you're arresting people accountable for what would have been a crime.

But at the heart of it, it seems there is the question of "if they are caught before committing a crime, are they still guilty?"

I'll probably be on team Tony too, but I think it will be hard for me to take sides, a bit like it was hard with the first Civil War event.

Because on one side, I don't think you should arrest someone for something they haven't done.

On the other hand, if you know something is going to happen to someone, and that someone could be hurt or killed, don't you have the moral obligation to do something about it? Can you just stand by and do nothing, knowing very well what's going to happen? Are you less of a hero then because you haven't done anything to save a life?

I mean, without actually arresting the perpetrator and charging him/her for a crime they haven't commited, can't you just take them somewhere else until danger is passed for the target? Or better yet, take the target somewhere safe?

[Cmbmool]

I'll probably be on team Tony too, but I think it will be hard for me to take sides, a bit like it was hard with the first Civil War event.

Because on one side, I don't think you should arrest someone for something they haven't done.

On the other hand, if you know something is going to happen to someone, and that someone could be hurt or killed, don't you have the moral obligation to do something about it? Can you just stand by and do nothing, knowing very well what's going to happen? Are you less of a hero then because you haven't done anything to save a life?

I mean, without actually arresting the perpetrator and charging him/her for a crime they haven't commited, can't you just take them somewhere else until danger is passed for the target? Or better yet, take the target somewhere safe?

Wait a minute, I recall something that could finally prove my case.

Remember this thing written by Bendis:

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/New_Avengers_Vol_1_22

Try to explain this.

[adameastment]

On the other hand, if you know something is going to happen to someone, and that someone could be hurt or killed, don't you have the moral obligation to do something about it? Can you just stand by and do nothing, knowing very well what's going to happen? Are you less of a hero then because you haven't done anything to save a life?

I mean, without actually arresting the perpetrator and charging him/her for a crime they haven't commited, can't you just take them somewhere else until danger is passed for the target? Or better yet, take the target somewhere safe?

I completely agree with all of that, if you've seen Minority Report that's basically what happens, except they arrest the person right at the moment of the crime taking place which just means that they can be arrested for attempted murder or whatever.

It depends entirely on the powers of the precog and the idea that Captain Marvel comes up with. If it's simply to arrest the person as soon as the precog see's whats happen or whether they do a Minority Report and wait until the crime is about to be committed so at least the perpetrator can at least be charged with something. Both cases I have problems with. But yeah, I guess we really need to wait and see as to what the argument is actually based on

[MichaelC]

Does anyone, but me find it odd that TONY STARK, the man that had the Extremis, thought of a million plans to safeguard the world, build a supervillain prison in another dimension, and even nearly caused an international incident to push the SHRA is AGAINST the idea of a seer/clairvoyant ?

I mean this is the man that fans labeled the VILLAIN of the previous Civil War and somewhat still do to this day.

Doesn't anyone find it odd ?

As a long-term Iron Man reader, it was all the Civil War actions that seemed wildly, wildly out of character, to the point that reading it was much worse than listening to fingernails dragged across a chalkboard. Stark has always been a libertarian type. He'd go anarchist before he went fascist. Making him the Pro-Reg guy was insanely out of character. It sounds like he will actually get to act in-character in Civil War II, to those of us who have been reading him for decades.

I can see why people who only know him from the first Civil War would think of this as out-of-character, but it is actually the version you think of as the real him that is the perversion.

[Tony Stark]

Marvel won't dare put their new golden boy in a bad light this time around, but it isn't impossible that he can be in the right under the same pretenses.

People say this, but yet the first Iron Man movie came out a year after the first Civil War and Tony was easily the most hated characters in comics.