Originally Posted by
Electricmastro
I'm sure it's possible to be well-intentioned and responsibly considerate towards the well-being of the population at large while keeping mutants, or just superheroes in general, in proper check, but I think the main thing about it is that, regardless of how often and how in-depth the X-Men gets about social issues, the one aspect that can never be completely be dissociated with it is it being a superhero book. I think it's reasonable enough to say that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby intended for the X-Men to be a fun superhero book first and foremost, with anti-mutant crowds and the Sentinels as well, but not in a way that it becomes primarily a social-addressing book above being a superhero book. I think that the X-Men being a superhero still applies today, or at least through expectation, and by virtue of it primarily being a superhero book it, perhaps inevitably, lends itself to all sorts of big and outrageous scenarios, which I think is how many writers have approached the X-Men series even at the risk losing nuance and being oversimplified.
So yes, I'm sure what you bring up in regards to protecting banks from people who can go through walls or sensitive secrets from people who can read minds is an innocent enough question to ask in of itself, and that there's a good time and place in comics for a critically in-depth analysis of a complex situation that is human/mutant relations, which I'm sure can believably be shown to have its nuances through such an analysis when the writers approach it that way. But that's probably not the most appealing approach in terms of Marvel's overall point of view in wanting to make as much profit from their books as possible, as businesses usually do. From what I've observed, Marvel won't hesitate to put out story arcs or events that are as big, bombastic, or attention-seeking as much as they can get away with it if it means drawing in more readers to buy their stuff, with storylines such as X-Tinction Agenda coming out in the early 1990s, which is arguably when Marvel really started to ramp up in its crossovers, collector gimmicks, and focusing more on style over substance, to the point of pushing aside any potential nuance for the more extreme.
True, we're not in the 1990s anymore, but Marvel's desire to make money from their comics any way they can surely hasn't significantly dropped down, and perhaps with the perception of superhero books needing a more dangerous enemy to fight against so as to draw more attention and result in more profit, they certainly won't hesitate to use the most outrageous villains with the most extremely malicious goals as a means to achieve that, be it a Hitler zombie, the KKK, or a corrupt politician enforcing mutant slavery, mutant genocide, or any other anti-mutant law that results in very shocking atrocities, which is how I think the scenario usually ends up playing out when any politician in the Marvel Universe shows even the smallest concern in regards to how dangerous mutants/heroes can get, because those sorts of concepts are attention-grabbing, big, physical threats for the heroes to smash down on and readers to immediately cheer at.