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

[FalloutJack]

I dunno. Let's ask the Hero Association from One Punch Man.

 

[WolfThomas]

Besides, you know, not being paid.

Actually they paid superheroes after Civil and the registration came through. It varied hero to hero. Ares the literal Greek god of war asked for >$100 an hour because that's what he made in construction. Moonstone got offer 1 million US a month to lead the Thunderbolts. Even before then heroes often got paid if they were part of a team. In the 60-70s Tigra got 5,000 US a month in stipend when she was an Avenger.

It's really only Spiderman who tends to be dirt poor (and he's now an entrepreneur/millionaire now so that changed too) .

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Superhero registration is a cool idea that is rarely treated seriously by comic books, because comic books have to be entertaining and compelling, and it's very hard to make the superhero equivalent of the DMV entertaining and compelling.

It breaks down like this. Registration and licensing is a great idea. We need licenses to drive cars, there's no reason we shouldn't need licenses to fire lasers out of our eyes.

Now because it's such a goddamn obvious idea, and because the writers need conflict, they have to vilify the concept somewhat so that its opponents don't look like a crazed separatist militia group. So it usually gets bundled with the idea of superhero conscription, or Holocaust 2: Sentinel Boogaloo, or Norman Osborn. Because those are all really bad ideas, and the writers think that in order to introduce moral ambiguity, you tie a bad idea onto a good idea.

The problem then becomes "well, why the fuck are we conscripting superheroes/herding mutants into camps/hiring Norman Osborn?" And the comics never answer that, because it would kill the conflict by being a completely sensible solution to everyone's problems.

Here's what would happen in real life. Say a bunch of people start getting superpowers all at once. Firstly, most of them are going to try and make money, not become vigilantes. Fighting crime is dangerous, and you don't get paid. Why not use your super-strength for something practical, like construction work? It's not a matter of greed; people need money to live, and everyone needs a job, unless they want to leech off their Aunt May their entire life.

And for the few that decide to put on a costume and go out and fight crime, there's a simple answer: Become a cop. Cops would love to have a guy who's telepathic or bulletproof on their side. You don't want to become a cop? Well, why are you fighting crime then? If you really cared about justice and saving people, you'd put on a badge.

"But what about my secret identity?" What about all those cop's secret identities, that aren't secret, and they literally wear their name on their chest? They're mostly fine? Okay, cool. Don't have a secret identity, then. And if you don't want to risk being targeted by criminals, don't go out and fight crime. Use your spider-powers for stunt work or something.

The thing is that a superhero registration system would look less like Civil War and more like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqO90q0WZ0M]. It would have problems, but they'd be completely different problems. Is evidence obtained through telepathy admissible in court? Is "I was being mind-controlled" a valid legal defence? Should an unpowered policeman treat a man with heat vision as if he's always carrying a gun pointed at whatever he's looking at?

If a sizable percentage of the world population were suddenly turned into a variety of humanoid weapons, then fuck yes they'd need to go get a license. They shouldn't be forced into doing the government's dirty work, like TDKR's patsy Superman, but that's conscription, not registration. "Registration" just means the government has your name and details on file in case they need it. Spoiler: this is something they already have. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number]


Edit: The poll is a little dumb, because it's asking for a yes/no answer to an either/or question.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

What if the super powered people happen to be Trump supporters? What happens when super"heroes" decide to get rid of all the black people in their neighbourhoods?

Now, sure, Trump being in charge of heroes is a bad idea, but that's because Trump being in charge of anything is a bad idea. Heroes are particular bad, but then there's the US military as well.

 

[Saelune]

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.

What if the super powered people happen to be Trump supporters? What happens when super"heroes" decide to get rid of all the black people in their neighbourhoods?

Now, sure, Trump being in charge of heroes is a bad idea, but that's because Trump being in charge of anything is a bad idea. Heroes are particular bad, but then there's the US military as well.

Then the anti-bigot heroes go and save them, instead of waiting for permission or the police who might only make things worse anyways.

 

[EternallyBored]

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.

What if the super powered people happen to be Trump supporters? What happens when super"heroes" decide to get rid of all the black people in their neighbourhoods?

Now, sure, Trump being in charge of heroes is a bad idea, but that's because Trump being in charge of anything is a bad idea. Heroes are particular bad, but then there's the US military as well.

Then the anti-bigot heroes go and save them, instead of waiting for permission or the police who might only make things worse anyways.

And when the anti-bigot superheroes fuck up worse than the police, the public has even less power to do anything about it than we do about the current police force, in some counties the sheriff is at least an elected position, and politicians at least have been pressured into issuing body cameras in response to public pressure, here the public basically has to bend over and take it whenever the superpowered people decide they want to enforce their beliefs on the unpowered people.
All this essentially allowing random civilians to get away with up to and including murder or torture depending on what types of powers they might have.

There's a reason Captain America gets away with his escapades but real life examples of widespread vigilante justice almost always turn into mockeries of justice where shitloads of innocent people get tortured and killed, Captain America is a protagonist, the morality of the story revolves around him, he never has to deal with being wrong unless its a plot point, and his nature means that his actions almost always pan out as morally justifiable because that's the type of hero he is written as. In real life, it would likely turn into the same cycle of revenge killings we usually see when social order breaks down and martial law rules without someone with a monopoly on force.

Depending on the power of the superhumans its a moot point anyway, any realistic scenario with superhumans anywhere near Marvel/DC levels would result in the collapse of governments and the rise of either total anarchy or superhuman feudalism with the most powerful superhumans ruling chunks of land like medieval kings.

 

[Saelune]

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.

What if the super powered people happen to be Trump supporters? What happens when super"heroes" decide to get rid of all the black people in their neighbourhoods?

Now, sure, Trump being in charge of heroes is a bad idea, but that's because Trump being in charge of anything is a bad idea. Heroes are particular bad, but then there's the US military as well.

Then the anti-bigot heroes go and save them, instead of waiting for permission or the police who might only make things worse anyways.

And when the anti-bigot superheroes fuck up worse than the police, the public has even less power to do anything about it than we do about the current police force, in some counties the sheriff is at least an elected position, and politicians at least have been pressured into issuing body cameras in response to public pressure, here the public basically has to bend over and take it whenever the superpowered people decide they want to enforce their beliefs on the unpowered people.
All this essentially allowing random civilians to get away with up to and including murder or torture depending on what types of powers they might have.

There's a reason Captain America gets away with his escapades but real life examples of widespread vigilante justice almost always turn into mockeries of justice where shitloads of innocent people get tortured and killed, Captain America is a protagonist, the morality of the story revolves around him, he never has to deal with being wrong unless its a plot point, and his nature means that his actions almost always pan out as morally justifiable because that's the type of hero he is written as. In real life, it would likely turn into the same cycle of revenge killings we usually see when social order breaks down and martial law rules without someone with a monopoly on force.

Depending on the power of the superhumans its a moot point anyway, any realistic scenario with superhumans anywhere near Marvel/DC levels would result in the collapse of governments and the rise of either total anarchy or superhuman feudalism with the most powerful superhumans ruling chunks of land like medieval kings.

Im pretty sure its legally easier to stop a vigilante than a corrupt cop. I bet if I went and punched out a random guy threatening to shoot someone, Id be in far less hot water than punching out a cop threatening to shoot that same person.

I also think if I punched out Trump now, Id be in less trouble than if I wait for him to become president. People keep saying that we're safer with these people in positions of power and protection than when they dont have that, and I think thats silly.

I dont see why allowing the government to murder and torture is somehow more ok.

 

[EternallyBored]

Im pretty sure its legally easier to stop a vigilante than a corrupt cop. I bet if I went and punched out a random guy threatening to shoot someone, Id be in far less hot water than punching out a cop threatening to shoot that same person.

It's legally easier, but John Q. normal man is fucked on a basic force level, so you end up with having to depend on getting enough superhumans to side with whatever your issues are so that you can enforce a Might makes Right rule. Not to mention it only succeeds on an individual level, a government can be changed on a systemic level, your vigilante reaction only serves as a temporary stopgap until the other side gets enough superhumans for their superpower arms race. It also creates an escalating cycle of violence as without a central monopoly of force, whoever has the most/most powerful superhumans essentially gets to decide the rules, whether the majority of citizens agree with it or not.

I dont see why allowing the government to murder and torture is somehow more ok.

It's not more ok, but they are easier to control, there is a level of accountability that individuals with sufficient power simply wouldn't have, we can see a police officer, get his name and badge number, and know what we need to do to change the local, state, and national policies, even if its hard, even if it takes a long time, or meets resistance it is still more control than the public would have over a superhuman with no regulation. A president can be impeached, real life Hulk is only accountable to himself and any superhuman strong enough to stop him.

Unlike the police officer, the superhuman can hide his identity, blend in with the public, and with sufficient power, basically be able to act without repercussions. Without plot armor, realities equivalent of Spiderman or Iron Man accidentally kills innocent people, and because his identity and the extent of their powers are secret, not only do the police and federal agencies have zero power to identify and capture him, they basically have no way to enforce any laws on them without meeting him with equivalently powerful superhumans, leaving the public at the mercy of the morality and whims of individuals and small groups of superhumans, rather than the, generally corrupt, but limited politicians and bureaucrats.

Officers have been fired for their actions that displease enough of the public, more and more precincts are being issued body cameras, public pressure is putting an end or restrictions on civil forfeiture. If enough people pushed for it, they could get the Patriot act repealed and end NSA domestic spying, the only thing that could end real life Professor Xavier's psychic spying to stop crime minority report style is the government drone striking him, or an equivalently powerful superhuman deciding they cared about people's privacy enough to stop him.

 

[Saelune]

Im pretty sure its legally easier to stop a vigilante than a corrupt cop. I bet if I went and punched out a random guy threatening to shoot someone, Id be in far less hot water than punching out a cop threatening to shoot that same person.

It's legally easier, but John Q. normal man is fucked on a basic force level, so you end up with having to depend on getting enough superhumans to side with whatever your issues are so that you can enforce a Might makes Right rule. Not to mention it only succeeds on an individual level, a government can be changed on a systemic level, your vigilante reaction only serves as a temporary stopgap until the other side gets enough superhumans for their superpower arms race. It also creates an escalating cycle of violence as without a central monopoly of force, whoever has the most/most powerful superhumans essentially gets to decide the rules, whether the majority of citizens agree with it or not.

I dont see why allowing the government to murder and torture is somehow more ok.

It's not more ok, but they are easier to control, there is a level of accountability that individuals with sufficient power simply wouldn't have, we can see a police officer, get his name and badge number, and know what we need to do to change the local, state, and national policies, even if its hard, even if it takes a long time, or meets resistance it is still more control than the public would have over a superhuman with no regulation. A president can be impeached, real life Hulk is only accountable to himself and any superhuman strong enough to stop him.

Unlike the police officer, the superhuman can hide his identity, blend in with the public, and with sufficient power, basically be able to act without repercussions. Without plot armor, realities equivalent of Spiderman or Iron Man accidentally kills innocent people, and because his identity and the extent of their powers are secret, not only do the police and federal agencies have zero power to identify and capture him, they basically have no way to enforce any laws on them without meeting him with equivalently powerful superhumans, leaving the public at the mercy of the morality and whims of individuals and small groups of superhumans, rather than the, generally corrupt, but limited politicians and bureaucrats.

Officers have been fired for their actions that displease enough of the public, more and more precincts are being issued body cameras, public pressure is putting an end or restrictions on civil forfeiture. If enough people pushed for it, they could get the Patriot act repealed and end NSA domestic spying, the only thing that could end real life Professor Xavier's psychic spying to stop crime minority report style is the government drone striking him, or an equivalently powerful superhuman deciding they cared about people's privacy enough to stop him.

Alot of people who are lacking in power (physical or social) already are fucked.

And I disagree that a government is more easily dealt with. If everyone agrees, sure, but as the current election has shown, even a monster like Trump has tons of supporters. A president -can- be impeached, but its never happened successfully.

And honestly, if Super Powers were real on any large scale level, the world is likely fucked no matter what.

I think vigilante heroes are the best defense against vigilante villains. But government villains are a far more dangerous beast.

 

[EternallyBored]

Alot of people who are lacking in power (physical or social) already are fucked.

And I disagree that a government is more easily dealt with. If everyone agrees, sure, but as the current election has shown, even a monster like Trump has tons of supporters. A president -can- be impeached, but its never happened successfully.

It's never happened to a President, but it has happened to other positions, and its gotten close with the Presiden, Nixon very well could have been the first if he didn't resign, so we've gotten far enough to force a President to take the shame of quitting over an impeachment that almost definitely would have succeeded. In the end, that was over mundane criminal acts, not the kinds of horrors that superpowered vigilantes would inflict on the public.

It's difficult, its a pain in the ass, but it still gives the public a hell of a lot more options and control than they would have dealing with an individual with high level super powers.

And honestly, if Super Powers were real on any large scale level, the world is likely fucked no matter what.

I think vigilante heroes are the best defense against vigilante villains. But government villains are a far more dangerous beast.

Vigilante villains is not a thing, those two words don't go together outside of fiction, it would mostly be just vigilantes that are operating off a different set of beliefs from you, versus vigilantes that share similar beliefs to you, government villains also aren't a thing, this isn't a comic book, government superhumans actions, accountability, and place in society would vary greatly depending on the circumstances, mostly the upper limits of how powerful superpowers can get in the hypothetical scenario, as well as the range of powers.

A villain is something from fiction, vigilante heroes are only the best defense because your imagination allows you to think they can be whatever you want them to be, you have no expectations for how they will act. In reality vigilante heroes can just as easily end up like many vigilante groups in history and end up doing more damage to the general populace than the criminals they were originally supposed to protect them from.

If superpowers never got beyond Captain America level, current society might survive, but yes, anything higher and current governments will collapse in favor of superhuman warlords and cabals ruling over society, or if the numbers are low enough, a Justice Lords scenario with an elite group of superhumans ruling the world with a tyrannical fist.

 

[Saelune]

Alot of people who are lacking in power (physical or social) already are fucked.

And I disagree that a government is more easily dealt with. If everyone agrees, sure, but as the current election has shown, even a monster like Trump has tons of supporters. A president -can- be impeached, but its never happened successfully.

It's never happened to a President, but it has happened to other positions, and its gotten close with the Presiden, Nixon very well could have been the first if he didn't resign, so we've gotten far enough to force a President to take the shame of quitting over an impeachment that almost definitely would have succeeded. In the end, that was over mundane criminal acts, not the kinds of horrors that superpowered vigilantes would inflict on the public.

It's difficult, its a pain in the ass, but it still gives the public a hell of a lot more options and control than they would have dealing with an individual with high level super powers.

And honestly, if Super Powers were real on any large scale level, the world is likely fucked no matter what.

I think vigilante heroes are the best defense against vigilante villains. But government villains are a far more dangerous beast.

Vigilante villains is not a thing, those two words don't go together outside of fiction, it would mostly be just vigilantes that are operating off a different set of beliefs from you, versus vigilantes that share similar beliefs to you, government villains also aren't a thing, this isn't a comic book, government superhumans actions, accountability, and place in society would vary greatly depending on the circumstances, mostly the upper limits of how powerful superpowers can get in the hypothetical scenario, as well as the range of powers.

A villain is something from fiction, vigilante heroes are only the best defense because your imagination allows you to think they can be whatever you want them to be, you have no expectations for how they will act. In reality vigilante heroes can just as easily end up like many vigilante groups in history and end up doing more damage to the general populace than the criminals they were originally supposed to protect them from.

If superpowers never got beyond Captain America level, current society might survive, but yes, anything higher and current governments will collapse in favor of superhuman warlords and cabals ruling over society, or if the numbers are low enough, a Justice Lords scenario with an elite group of superhumans ruling the world with a tyrannical fist.

I honestly dont think Nixon would have been successfully impeached.

In a world of superpowers, I think just dealing with the villains is the important issue. I dont think giving legal protection to potential villains is a good idea. All it does is make it harder for good guys to be good guys.

As for "vigilante villains", it was a term I used for writing and point purposes, for the repeating of phrases that makes things look nice when written out, and to differentiate between Government "villains" ie super powered people under Government employ who do evil things.

And villains are real. Its certainly a fancier word than say, murderer, sociopath, killer, rapist, career criminal, corrupt politician, Hitler, etc, but villains exists.

In more general terms, society always falls to the whims of people with power. However such people arent automatically bad, nor is the results of their power, ie government automatically good. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Nobunaga Oda, George Washington, King George III, King Louis XIV, Abraham Lincoln etc were all powerful people in various ways. None of them shot lasers out of their eyes, sure, but they had powers that few common people could stand against on their own.

 

[EternallyBored]

I honestly dont think Nixon would have been successfully impeached.

Succeed or not, he still faced more consequences over it without the use of violent force than we could have levied against a vigilante group.

In a world of superpowers, I think just dealing with the villains is the important issue. I dont think giving legal protection to potential villains is a good idea. All it does is make it harder for good guys to be good guys.

This is almost entirely dependent on circumstances. Also, what protections would we be giving evil people? government registration and licensing of firearms doesn't give legal protection to criminals with guns, neither would the registering and tracking of superpowers, people would break the law regardless, the problem with letting "good guys be good guys" without any sort of registration, training, or licensing, is that in reality, unlike comic books, mistakes, negligence, and incompetence happen, and they aren't handwaved by narrative causality and plot armor, if you do not have a system to hold people accountable and make at least token efforts at prevention in the future, the system falls apart, and generally that's when the voters elect someone that will implement those systems, or stage a rebellion.

In more general terms, society always falls to the whims of people with power. However such people arent automatically bad, nor is the results of their power, ie government automatically good. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Nobunaga Oda, George Washington, King George III, King Louis XIV, Abraham Lincoln etc were all powerful people in various ways. None of them shot lasers out of their eyes, sure, but they had powers that few common people could stand against on their own.

Not all bad, not all good, but history has shown time and time again that the more unchecked power you concentrate into a smaller number of people, and the fewer tools you have to address grievances the worse the outcome generally is. It's why modern democratic societies have so many checks, controls, and methods for peaceably forcing change or checking the power of the various positions.

For all the corruption and problems of modern governments, the vigilante mindset generally produces even more violent results, it is done without the benefit of a criminal justice or court system, so it most often ends up with people being savagely beaten or killed for minor offenses, drug users having their throats slit, common thieves being beat to death, there is no reason to assume these disproportionate responses would be different with superpowers, you would just end up with more collateral damage and innocent people getting hurt without even being able to sue the government for damages.

 

[Saelune]

I honestly dont think Nixon would have been successfully impeached.

Succeed or not, he still faced more consequences over it without the use of violent force than we could have levied against a vigilante group.

In a world of superpowers, I think just dealing with the villains is the important issue. I dont think giving legal protection to potential villains is a good idea. All it does is make it harder for good guys to be good guys.

This is almost entirely dependent on circumstances. Also, what protections would we be giving evil people? government registration and licensing of firearms doesn't give legal protection to criminals with guns, neither would the registering and tracking of superpowers, people would break the law regardless, the problem with letting "good guys be good guys" without any sort of registration, training, or licensing, is that in reality, unlike comic books, mistakes, negligence, and incompetence happen, and they aren't handwaved by narrative causality and plot armor, if you do not have a system to hold people accountable and make at least token efforts at prevention in the future, the system falls apart, and generally that's when the voters elect someone that will implement those systems, or stage a rebellion.

In more general terms, society always falls to the whims of people with power. However such people arent automatically bad, nor is the results of their power, ie government automatically good. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Nobunaga Oda, George Washington, King George III, King Louis XIV, Abraham Lincoln etc were all powerful people in various ways. None of them shot lasers out of their eyes, sure, but they had powers that few common people could stand against on their own.

Not all bad, not all good, but history has shown time and time again that the more unchecked power you concentrate into a smaller number of people, and the fewer tools you have to address grievances the worse the outcome generally is. It's why modern democratic societies have so many checks, controls, and methods for peaceably forcing change or checking the power of the various positions.

For all the corruption and problems of modern governments, the vigilante mindset generally produces even more violent results, it is done without the benefit of a criminal justice or court system, so it most often ends up with people being savagely beaten or killed for minor offenses, drug users having their throats slit, common thieves being beat to death, there is no reason to assume these disproportionate responses would be different with superpowers, you would just end up with more collateral damage and innocent people getting hurt without even being able to sue the government for damages.

When the Government cares about its people's well-being first, then sure. I would love to have such a government that I can fully trust myself to, but I dont. Thats always what this seems to come down to, not so much about superheroes, but who does and doesnt trust the government to do whats right.

The US government was designed and intended to have tons of safety mechanisms, because the whole reason it exists is because the british government was abusive, corrupt, and unwilling to change. Hell, the US exists due to vigilante justice and rebellion (something alot of people seem to forget). However, even with all our safety mechanisms, and methods to combat political failure, it relies on the people being united on it, which is a truly rare thing. Even in the face of national bigotry we are far too heavily divided and there were no failsafes for that.

I trust individuals more than governments.

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

I would say concern for Bucky was more reasonable. Bucky was an innocent man forced to become an assassin against his will, while Wanda was a terrorist that unleashed the Hulk on a civilian population.

Other than that, I agree completely.

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

None of the Avengers did anything to Tony after he created Ultron. Scarlet Witch was placed on the team after her actions in AoU. I think it's safe to say letting heroes police themselves is a bad idea.

 

[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.

None of the Avengers did anything to Tony after he created Ultron. Scarlet Witch was placed on the team after her actions in AoU. I think it's safe to say letting heroes police themselves is a bad idea.

Im pretty sure if he wanted to try again, they'd want to stop them. And they DID stop Ultron. They also saved more people by not having to wait to be ordered to the city after a UN council.

Plus ya know, any permanent members of the UN security council can automatically veto anything. So if China was doing shady shit, and UN heroes were considered to be sent in to deal with it...China just got to say no.

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

None of the Avengers did anything to Tony after he created Ultron. Scarlet Witch was placed on the team after her actions in AoU. I think it's safe to say letting heroes police themselves is a bad idea.

Im pretty sure if he wanted to try again, they'd want to stop them. And they DID stop Ultron. They also saved more people by not having to wait to be ordered to the city after a UN council.

Plus ya know, any permanent members of the UN security council can automatically veto anything. So if China was doing shady shit, and UN heroes were considered to be sent in to deal with it...China just got to say no.

I'm not talking about doing something after he does it the first time. Bear in mind Bruce knew what Tony was doing and did nothing to stop him either.

And there's still the issue of them letting a terrorist join their team and not even letting her stand trial.

 

[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.

None of the Avengers did anything to Tony after he created Ultron. Scarlet Witch was placed on the team after her actions in AoU. I think it's safe to say letting heroes police themselves is a bad idea.

Im pretty sure if he wanted to try again, they'd want to stop them. And they DID stop Ultron. They also saved more people by not having to wait to be ordered to the city after a UN council.

Plus ya know, any permanent members of the UN security council can automatically veto anything. So if China was doing shady shit, and UN heroes were considered to be sent in to deal with it...China just got to say no.

I'm not talking about doing something after he does it the first time. Bear in mind Bruce knew what Tony was doing and did nothing to stop him either.

And there's still the issue of them letting a terrorist join their team and not even letting her stand trial.

Well, now its more fault of action movie fiction really. (Though Bruce is guiltytoo)

 

[Cicada 5]

Another argument in favor of superhero supervision which I agree with

http://www.economist.com/news/diversions/21698458-avengers-should-agree-be-placed-under-un-supervision

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

It would be preferable if they just joined various police and domestic intelligence agencies. Of course, shouldn't be mandatory.

For starters it would enhance transparency, increase co-ordination and mean they could proactively act on intelligence network data from a collegiate of operatives. Let professionals handle investigation, infiltration, etc... the supers can do the muscle stuff.