> > But I'm not sure why the idea of anyone supporting registration is "uncharacteristic". The ones with no secret ID who already work for the government had no real reason to oppose it. Yes, Reed has changed his mind on the subject, but the world is a very different place since last time he had to think on the matter in 1989.
> It might have been nice if Marvel had worked out some relatively clear version of what the SHRA was and made sure all th writers got the memo. The "gotta be registered and take basic training" bit is far more defensible than the "backdoor draft/Initiative" angle.
This is what comes of letting the tie-in writers "write the stories they wanted to tell", rather than getting them to obey the core book, enabling JMS and Jenkins in particular to utterly villify Team Tony.
> That said, the enforcement of the Act, even as portrayed in the mini itself, is draconian and frankly disgusting. Secret extradimensional prisons and detention without trial for anyone refusing to register? And that's the "good guy" position?
It's that harsh to serve as an effective deterrent. If they obey the law, it won't happen to them.
> It's especially ludicrous when you reaize that merely being detained and unmasked effectively completes the bulk of the registration process anyway. Once you're in the system, would it matter if you were offering some putative resistance to...being entered into the system?
It serves as a way of keeping superhumans who refuse to comply with the law detained until they actually agree to cease illegal vigilantism, as well as being a facility to incarcerate the most dangerous superhuman criminals.
> > > -- Lots of disbelief on Millar's part about how Iron Man is viewed as a bad guy. He discusses the Cap/IM meeting in issue 3, and makes a point that Cap throws the first punch ( which is an untruth, because Tony took down two of Cap's men first ).
I did forget to add here, SHIELD were the ones who took down Cloak and Asgardian/Wiccan. Cap did start the superhero-on-superhero violence.
> > > He seems to think that Iron Man's comprimising with the government is somehow a justifiable position. Given Millar's political statements in previous interviews, it seems odd that he'd take Tony's side.
> > Since the event ended, Millar's been pretty consistent in his statements that Tony was right, and that compromise with the government is less-worse than a masked elite standing unaccountable and above the law, and less-worse than a running battle with their own government, less-worse than ignoring the will of the people, less-worse than "we're going to pick and choose which laws we obey".
> And this is why Mark Millar has become fundamentally inapable of writing Marvel-style superhero fiction that works. He simply misses the underlying premise of the genre: that the heroes are not an "elite" in the first place. Yes, in the "real world" masked vigilantes would be an awful thing, because the real-world sorts of people who engage in systematic and sustained vigilante campaigns tend to be pretty awful people. But that's simply never been true of the vast bulk of Marvel's underdog (and often hangdog) heroes. Does anyone in their right mind really think of Spider-Man as a dangerous elitist?
No, the likes of Spider-Man and Daredevil are simply, any way you look at it, illegal vigilantes. Your "masked elite" are the organised, 'official' superheroes, who close ranks and protect each other from any kind of accountability with a frightening frequency.
> It's imply not a reading that can be applied successfully to...well, the pre-Civil War Marvel Universe. If any heroes were part of an elite, they were the Avengers. And the Avengers, of course, spent the majority of their history very much tied up with the government.
Which, outside of that one time Gyrich cut down their roster, the government never had any control over their lineup, and have ever used the line "once an Avenger, always an Avenger" to allow anyone back onto the team, regardless of their past misdeeds.
> I might add that using Iron Man and the Illuminati as the lead-up certainly didn't help whatever specious point Millar meant to make. If you're arguing against masked elitism, it's a bit hard not to think that the Illuminati secretly meeting to decide whether the superhuman community -- whom nobody asked them to represent, mind you -- should or shouldn't comply with the law.
....the law is the law. If one chooses not to comply with the law, that's what prison is for. Whatever the Illuminati decided is irrelevant to the fact that each and every person, superhuman or not, has a duty to obey the law.
All the Illuminati meeting did was have Tony and Reed, two of the leaders of the superhuman community, stand up and suggest that they all support the Act because it was going to happen.
> There's also the basic problem Millar seems to have utterly, abysmally missed: the SHRA isn't being enforced or run by directly elected officials. It's being administered, per the end of CW #7, by a largely unaccountable international spy agency and supported by two of the most elitist superheroes around (Tony and Millar-Reed, who does not resemble any other Reed).
> It's not as if Tony Stark is currently responsible to "the people," now is it? Yet Millar seems to think that a centralized and sinfinitely classifiable administration of superhumans granted official police powers is less elitist than a loose confederation of gifted amateurs so long as Congress passed a law permitting it. For God's sake, he really seems to be arguing that we'd all be better off if, say, the NSA ran the prison system and the police.
That kind of misses the point of "who else actually has the ability to enforce this law?" The regular cops can't deal with superhumans.
> Back when Millar was writing The Authority, fans of his run often argued that he was as hard on the team's quasi-fascism as on their largely one-dimensional opponents when someone made the point that the Authority themselves were effectively totalitarian enforces of their own private laws.
> It's rather harder to do that after reading Civil War; Millar really seems to like stories about law enforcement by way of black ops and wetwork and the like. There's a certain fetishization of the ubermenschen-as-hard-man in a lot of his work, and I'm becoming quite uncomfortble with him as a writer as a result. The way in which his work presents ideas of democracy and law isn't so much challenging or daring as morally imbecilic, and I'm rapidly tiring of it.
> His work genuinely seems incapable of containing or getting over the idea that not every law enacted via a democratic-republican process advances the interests of democracy. And that's a lesson I imagine a seventh-grader in a Histry or Civics class could work out.
> Millar's work has crossed the line for me from deeply irritating to ethically indefensible. Luckily for me, it's also becoming increasingly difficult to defend aesthetically, so perhaps I can just be done with his writing for good and all.
I'm probably the absolutely last person to debate this with, being someone so filled with loathing for humanity that he Just Doesn't Care about criminals being denied their rights, or 'abuses of democracy' in the name of The Greater Good. I'd happily lock every man, woman and child on Earth away in the Negative Zone in the interests of my own safety, so I have no issues with The Tony locking criminals away there for my entertainment.