Poll: Should Superheroes Become Licensed Crime Fighters and Rescuers Or Remain Vigilantes?

[Cicada 5]

A question that pops up in superhero comics and related media from time to time is whether or not superheroes should remain anonymous vigilantes or join the police, military, fire brigade etc.

I personally think them being licensed crime fighters and rescuers is a good idea. Institutions aren't perfect but they are preferable to letting anonymous vigilantes run around unchecked. That never works in real life and it's debatable if it even works in superhero universes.

 

[Saelune]

Depends on the benefits and protections they provide and whether or not they will be used to help people or used as instruments of war, particularly for government interests rather than actually helping people of other countries...

As well as if people are forced to do it, especially if they dont want to be heroes anyways.

Edit: The poll makes no sense. Its a this or that question, but with a yes/no answer selection.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Depends on the setting. The Batman had to be a vigilante because the major authorities of his city were too corrupt to ever be trusted with any kind of crime-fighting initiative, many of them actually working hand in hand with the mob or merely getting kickbacks. Same for any dystopian setting such as V for Vendetta where the government itself is one of the main evils of the world.

The original comics Civil War was started over this dilemma of a registration act trying to institutionalize all legal super heroes, thus eliminating vigilantism and giving trusted heroes a license to work. Most didn't have a problem with it at first since Marvel's national governments are more or less similar to our own- insanely flawed but at least not actively evil. However, many drew the line and stayed vigilantes when they learned that the act would require them to reveal their civilian identities to the world. Would you really want someone like Carnage or the Juggernaut (*****) to learn who you are and who your family is?

Many more went vigilante after the fallout over the registration act led to Norman Osborn becoming head of SHIELD. That was just too much for a lot of supers to swallow, and they resolved to continue on as vigilantes despite the stigma involved and active persecution by the new SHIELD. If the authorities are too stupid or corrupt to be trusted, vigilantism is the only recourse if you want to be a hero, but they should always remember that few will ever thank them for it.

Though I would certainly read an arc in the comics where the Batman is blamed for some catastrophe, completely outlawed, and instead Bruce Wayne joins the police force, using his vast foreknowledge of police procedure to become an extremely effective and un-bribeable officer. Pretty sure there's no law against billionaires joining.

 

[DoPo]

Would you really want someone like Carnage or the Juggernaut (*****) to learn who you are and who your family is?

I've heard that a lot but I really cannot get people who propose that argument seriously. It's a valid thought excercise, to be sure, but this particular chestnut bugs me for one simple reason: comic books are stupid. They throw these characters and scenarious that you simply cannot discuss in any meaningful way. Would an unstoppable force move an unmovable object? Would villains[footnote]villains who are apparently unwavering, unstoppable and unmanageable. Also, some of these villains seem to have unlimited resources at their disposal. Yet, these villains are somehow less of a problem NOW even when they embody, sometimes literally, "unstoppable force".[/footnote] to go after somebody after their secret identity[footnote]which, let's be honest, cannot be really THAT secret. From what I've seen, at least, writers are trying to bend over backward to keep it a secret even when any rational circumstance it'd have been revealed. So, secret identities seem to embody the "unmoveable object".[/footnote]?

I don't think you can have it both ways. Villains should rationally[footnote]even in-universe[/footnote] be a problem regardless of the secret identity or they will not be a problem. Posing that "oh but what if learns who really is?" isn't really a valid question.

 

[Fox12]

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

 

[Parasondox]

Wait a minute? That question seems familiar. Heard it somewhere before.

General Ross, is that you?!?

 

[Bob_McMillan]

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

 

[Saelune]

Would you really want someone like Carnage or the Juggernaut (*****) to learn who you are and who your family is?

I've heard that a lot but I really cannot get people who propose that argument seriously. It's a valid thought excercise, to be sure, but this particular chestnut bugs me for one simple reason: comic books are stupid. They throw these characters and scenarious that you simply cannot discuss in any meaningful way. Would an unstoppable force move an unmovable object? Would villains[footnote]villains who are apparently unwavering, unstoppable and unmanageable. Also, some of these villains seem to have unlimited resources at their disposal. Yet, these villains are somehow less of a problem NOW even when they embody, sometimes literally, "unstoppable force".[/footnote] to go after somebody after their secret identity[footnote]which, let's be honest, cannot be really THAT secret. From what I've seen, at least, writers are trying to bend over backward to keep it a secret even when any rational circumstance it'd have been revealed. So, secret identities seem to embody the "unmoveable object".[/footnote]?

I don't think you can have it both ways. Villains should rationally[footnote]even in-universe[/footnote] be a problem regardless of the secret identity or they will not be a problem. Posing that "oh but what if learns who really is?" isn't really a valid question.

Well, it would help if we dont have Batman logic. As long as villains of the calibur of Joker are killed instead of constantly fruitlessly imprisoned, sure. I mean, the random generic muggers that Spider-Man leaves hanging everywhere dont deserve death, but most supervillains do.

Personally though, I think if Superpowers appeared on anywhere close to the level of DC or Marvel, I think the world would either have to adapt to an extreme, or all life would just get wiped out.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Here's what I think, if a superhero wants to be a superhero they can as long as they register or have some kind foresight. But it is just the person who has powers they deserve the privacy and should not be turned into soldiers which leads me into...

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

I forget if it was part of the movie but I think one of the points that made Capt. America side against it in the comics is that they were going to force meta-humans to work for Shield including those who didn't want to fight crime. It was essentially forcing people to give up their security and become soldiers which at least the former has a lot of parallels In a society.

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

To be fair a lot of superheroes don't kill like Judge dread or at least not as willingly. They're also not nearly as big of jackasses as Dredd is although, that's pretty hard to top.

 

[Fox12]

Here's what I think, if a superhero wants to be a superhero they can as long as they register or have some kind foresight. But it is just the person who has powers they deserve the privacy and should not be turned into soldiers which leads me into...

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

I forget if it was part of the movie but I think one of the points that made Capt. America side against it in the comics is that they were going to force meta-humans to work for Shield including those who didn't want to fight crime. It was essentially forcing people to give up their security and become soldiers which at least the former has a lot of parallels In a society.

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

To be fair a lot of superheroes don't kill like Judge dread or at least not as willingly. They're also not nearly as big of jackasses as Dredd is although, that's pretty hard to top.

I was under the impression that they were just going to force them into retirement if they refused, which is honestly pretty reasonable.

I always thought that Captain Americas deal was more personal, though. He was more concerned about Scarlett Witch (which was reasonable) and Bucky (which wasn't) then he was with politics. That's fine for a motivation, but I wish Cap hadn't been so condescending about the whole thing. He was basically acting for entirely selfish reasons. I don't know where he came off moralizing over everyone.

 

[Pseudonym]

Ehm, the poll question is "A or B" and amongst the possible answers are yes and no. Would no just mean that I'd want superhero's to stop crimefighting alltogether?

Besides that, I don't like vigilantes. Joining existing police forces is pretty much always preferable. Even if the government is corrupt another group of shooters hardly ever improves anything.

 

[EternallyBored]

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Depends on why they are being licensed, if its to perform their work, then its not really much different than certain scenarios in reality. A Search and Rescue volunteer still needs to be registered to assist emergency services personnel, even though they don't get paid. A Doctor or lawyer still needs to be licensed and registered to volunteer their services in a professional capacity, once you have a certain level of power and responsibility, the government generally expects you to have the right licenses and registration even if you do it for free. With superpowers, any competent government body would want to make sure the heroes at least were trained to some minimum level of competency before allowing them to act in lieu of professional emergency services.

Superpowers in an ideal scenario would be useful to register and license for a number of reasons. If a government body has your powers and ID on record, then it is similar to a concealed Carry license, or destructive device license, even if no actual heroing goes on, much like owning explosives, the government wants to know who in the area has something like that so that they can better track if something like that is used maliciously. This is even more true for superpowers, the government would be very vested in knowing someone with laser vision was living in a town if a murder happened that involved laser burns, or knowing that someone with precognition was becoming a stock broker and potentially manipulating the market in an unethical manner.

Another reason is of course competency, even security guards need to be licensed in most states, despite not having any more privileges than a citizen when it comes to defending themselves and making arrests, the license is there to prove that the person has the minimum level of knowledge to perform their duties. In the case of superpowers, the government isn't going to want you saving people if you don't have full control of your powers, or your powers might have unintended side effects, "great you freed those people trapped under the rubble, but it turns out your telekinesis puts out radiation, so now they all have cancer". It's also an accountability thing, emergencies give you a lot of leeway, but if you are acting in a major capacity on a regular basis, the government still expects you to have the proper licenses, registrations, etc. so that you can be held accountable when you fuck up, even if you are an entirely volunteer organization, you better believe even non-profits and charities still need registration and licensing when applicable.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Have you not watched Captain Amercia: Civil War or the novel it is based on?

Well ok technically you never mention who would licensed them but it would be the Government that would do it. The general problem with that was the general trust toward the government or that they feel their freedom will be restricted if they became the Government dogs. Cap example was that they were order not to go somewhere but Cap knows he is needed over there.

 

[Saelune]

Here's what I think, if a superhero wants to be a superhero they can as long as they register or have some kind foresight. But it is just the person who has powers they deserve the privacy and should not be turned into soldiers which leads me into...

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

I forget if it was part of the movie but I think one of the points that made Capt. America side against it in the comics is that they were going to force meta-humans to work for Shield including those who didn't want to fight crime. It was essentially forcing people to give up their security and become soldiers which at least the former has a lot of parallels In a society.

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

To be fair a lot of superheroes don't kill like Judge dread or at least not as willingly. They're also not nearly as big of jackasses as Dredd is although, that's pretty hard to top.

I was under the impression that they were just going to force them into retirement if they refused, which is honestly pretty reasonable.

I always thought that Captain Americas deal was more personal, though. He was more concerned about Scarlett Witch (which was reasonable) and Bucky (which wasn't) then he was with politics. That's fine for a motivation, but I wish Cap hadn't been so condescending about the whole thing. He was basically acting for entirely selfish reasons. I don't know where he came off moralizing over everyone.

He wanted to not be locked up by beurocratic BS and government bias/interests. He wants to be able to save people when they are in danger, not after going through the proper channels, and even if they care to try.

Even ignoring nefarious intent, the UN is pretty useless in actually dealing with threats. The Rwandan Genocide is a glowing example of the UN just literally having soldiers stand around and do nothing, even when their own were being killed along with the genocide victims.

I find it funny that Don Cheadle who starred in Hotel Rwanda, happened to play a pro-registration character.

 

[Fox12]

Here's what I think, if a superhero wants to be a superhero they can as long as they register or have some kind foresight. But it is just the person who has powers they deserve the privacy and should not be turned into soldiers which leads me into...

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

I forget if it was part of the movie but I think one of the points that made Capt. America side against it in the comics is that they were going to force meta-humans to work for Shield including those who didn't want to fight crime. It was essentially forcing people to give up their security and become soldiers which at least the former has a lot of parallels In a society.

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

To be fair a lot of superheroes don't kill like Judge dread or at least not as willingly. They're also not nearly as big of jackasses as Dredd is although, that's pretty hard to top.

I was under the impression that they were just going to force them into retirement if they refused, which is honestly pretty reasonable.

I always thought that Captain Americas deal was more personal, though. He was more concerned about Scarlett Witch (which was reasonable) and Bucky (which wasn't) then he was with politics. That's fine for a motivation, but I wish Cap hadn't been so condescending about the whole thing. He was basically acting for entirely selfish reasons. I don't know where he came off moralizing over everyone.

He wanted to not be locked up by beurocratic BS and government bias/interests. He wants to be able to save people when they are in danger, not after going through the proper channels, and even if they care to try.

Even ignoring nefarious intent, the UN is pretty useless in actually dealing with threats. The Rwandan Genocide is a glowing example of the UN just literally having soldiers stand around and do nothing, even when their own were being killed along with the genocide victims.

I find it funny that Don Cheadle who starred in Hotel Rwanda, happened to play a pro-registration character.

He wanted to save people, but the film gave us the perfect reason why that doesn't work. His team got tons of innocent people killed. He turned a crowded city into a war zone. Countries should get to decide whether or not they have foreign powers intervening in their affairs. In this case he isn't even accountable to the U.S. Army. He isn't accountable to anyone. The red tape exists for a reason. The beuracracy in the U.N. and the United States government isn't an accident. The founders built it into the system on purpose. It's actually a good thing. We don't want people running rampid without oversight.

 

[Saelune]

Here's what I think, if a superhero wants to be a superhero they can as long as they register or have some kind foresight. But it is just the person who has powers they deserve the privacy and should not be turned into soldiers which leads me into...

They should have oversight in order to make sure they're accountable to the general population. Their actions affect everyone, so they should be controlled. That's why I couldn't stand Captain America in Civil War. He basically decided that he should be able to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, at any time, without any oversight, even if the country doesn't want him there. And then he got innocent people killed. Tony Stark was right to reign him in. The Vigilante angle only works if we assume the person is both morally perfect (which is impossible, since morality is relative) and if they succeed completely every time (which is impossible to guarantee).

But superheroes wear their underwear on the outside, so I guess they should get to do whatever they want.

I forget if it was part of the movie but I think one of the points that made Capt. America side against it in the comics is that they were going to force meta-humans to work for Shield including those who didn't want to fight crime. It was essentially forcing people to give up their security and become soldiers which at least the former has a lot of parallels In a society.

If heroes need to be licensed, then what is the difference between them and a cop or a soldier?

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Perzactly...though they do have some licenced heroes.

Hell, that's almost Judge Dredd.

To be fair a lot of superheroes don't kill like Judge dread or at least not as willingly. They're also not nearly as big of jackasses as Dredd is although, that's pretty hard to top.

I was under the impression that they were just going to force them into retirement if they refused, which is honestly pretty reasonable.

I always thought that Captain Americas deal was more personal, though. He was more concerned about Scarlett Witch (which was reasonable) and Bucky (which wasn't) then he was with politics. That's fine for a motivation, but I wish Cap hadn't been so condescending about the whole thing. He was basically acting for entirely selfish reasons. I don't know where he came off moralizing over everyone.

He wanted to not be locked up by beurocratic BS and government bias/interests. He wants to be able to save people when they are in danger, not after going through the proper channels, and even if they care to try.

Even ignoring nefarious intent, the UN is pretty useless in actually dealing with threats. The Rwandan Genocide is a glowing example of the UN just literally having soldiers stand around and do nothing, even when their own were being killed along with the genocide victims.

I find it funny that Don Cheadle who starred in Hotel Rwanda, happened to play a pro-registration character.

He wanted to save people, but the film gave us the perfect reason why that doesn't work. His team got tons of innocent people killed. He turned a crowded city into a war zone. Countries should get to decide whether or not they have foreign powers intervening in their affairs. In this case he isn't even accountable to the U.S. Army. He isn't accountable to anyone. The red tape exists for a reason. The beuracracy in the U.N. and the United States government isn't an accident. The founders built it into the system on purpose. It's actually a good thing. We don't want people running rampid without oversight.

Yeah cause the government never does that. Hell, the one guy who deserves to be punished the most, is the pro-reg guy, aka Iron Man, since Ultron was his fault. Captain America didnt unleash the aliens in the first Avengers, nor are any of them responsible for Loki.

Considering how shitty the government, politicians, and cops are these days, I fail to see how they are the better choice than CAPTAIN FUCKING AMERICA. Yeah, not every hero is him, but ya know, the idea of Trump potentially having ANY jurisdiction over powered people is a horrifying idea.

People bring up responsibility, but we are ALL human, and EVERYONE is fallible. I fail to see how having a badge or a seat in office somehow absolves or resists that, cause the opposite seems to be more often the reality of it.

And the next logical argument is always who polices them? Other heroes, and us. A vigilante crosses the line and gets taken down by someone, they are a hero. But what if a cop crosses the line and gets taken down? (or a politician) What would you call them? And I mean the specific cop who did the wrong, not some other cop in some misguided revenge plot.

No, we dont want people running ramped without oversight. But thats why I stand on the opposite side of you on this.

 

[Recusant]

I'm not particularly familiar with the comics that doubtless form the underlying basis for this question, but I am familiar with the history of vigilantism, and many of the terrible, terrible things that have been done in its name. When you get right down to it, what's the difference between hiding your identity under a suit of brightly-colored spandex and hiding your identity under a white sheet? All too often, here in the real world, "government corruption" doesn't mean "they're spying on their own citizens"; it means "they're ignoring violations of unwritten social laws, like 'no walking through the wrong neighborhood while being black' or 'no whistling at white women while being Irish'", at least so far as the vigilantes are concerned.

A system of checks and balances is absolutely necessary, and vigilantism inherently ignores that. Just because one person (or group thereof) sticks to fighting reprehensible crimes doesn't mean they all will- and if they have superpowers, it becomes all the more dangerous. Make them seek some sort of certification or make them stop crimefighting.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I'd say it depends on how it's implemented. Namely so that heroes can do their thing and not be hampered by an obstructive government. Especially when they spend all their time going after the heroes who don't want to register, instead of, you know, going after the supervillains? *COUGH*CivilWar*COUGH*

Obligatory TVTropes link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperRegistrationAct