If your Home brew character was involved in the Civil War Event of the Marvel 616 Universe, which side would they be on?

My main homebrews (Nightmask, Paragon ), would definitely side with anti-registration. Neither would be willing to go along with what constitutes slavery or allowing a law to stand that basically contains at its root life imprisonment without any legal recourse simply for existing and choosing to not become part of a slave army to the US government or be told to leave after a year of servitude to any other country (especially Nightmask as a legal natural-born citizen of the US ).

Glitch, my cyberpathic mutant, would be anti-registration and likely go full on villain (he's a political anarchist) turning the world's technological weapons and robots against governments in a way Ultron only has electronic wet dreams about. He'd have a field day making Iron Man's armor go on a killing spree.

Windchill, a cryokinetic / aerokinetic mutant, would probably be pro-registration at first.

Glare, a pyrokinetic mutant, already is a villain.

Dr. Naughty would be helping make sure the Negative Zone prison is more torturous and lethal.

Intimidator would be anti-registration, but damned near impossible to capture

DJ Hellbound would continue to be a villain, causing chaos with his magical dubstep music.

I think that's all my homebrews I have posted here.

Powersurge, my mutant, would be "Pro-Registration", but would likely have opposed it's implamentation from within the system.

All of my old characters were mutants, so assuming they weren't depowered during M-day, they'd already be registered...and they also worked for the government already. Ultimately they'd have ended up on the anti-reg side...hunting captain america while working with zemo would've put stark square in the sights of the black ops team (which...now that I think about it...the " 'secret-hit-squad' team-within-the-team " is another idea marvel "stole" from me, damn it...)

The Omen would think that both sides were idiots and play both against the middle to ensure Osborn's rise to power in a bid to both eliminate The Sentry, Loki and The Serpent from the chess board and keep everyone distracted, allowing Mikaboshi to gain in power and thus bring the world one step closer to total destruction, allowing him to finally face the source of all evil reboot the universe in his image finally get some peace free surtur so he can play the fiddle while creation burns meet jack kirby...

My gal Darsion would be on the Anti-Registration side.

Great and Powerful Turtle - American laws dont apply to him as he is a citizen of Atlantis.. Though I can see him trying to help his "Friends" escape from a harsh and unjust ruling.

Avenger - Would do everything in his (Rather Considerable) power to fight such an unamerican thing.

Horrorshow- Very anti-registration, but also wouldnt fight against the forces of law and order even though he would believe in this they are wrong, so would probably register.

Senator - been there done that ..
From senate judiciary hearing-Oct 17 2006

SENATOR JOHNSTON: Senator Kendrick, as per your request, this hearing is open both to the press and the public. Have you
prepared your defense and where is your counsel?

SENATOR KENDRICK: Senator Johnston, yes I noticed the press and public are here at my request (Turns and smiles warmly at
the gathered crowd.) and I dont feel I need counsel other than my own conscience as I have done nothing either immoral nor
illegal.

SENATOR JOHNSTON: (Looking sternly down from his seat at Senator Kendrick.) We havent said you have Senator, this is
only an investigative hearing, not a trial. Now if we can get on with the questions.

SENATOR KENDRICK: As ya'll wish, I give the floor to my distinquished colleuges to ask any questions you wish. I will
answer them to the best of my ability. (Crowd murmurs, as usual, at Senator Kendricks southern drawl and seeming
inflappable calm and courtesy.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: First question, is it or is it not true Senator, that you have spear-headed many bills that give
preferential treatment to that portion of our population referred to as mutant, or homo-superior?

SENATOR KENDRICK: Well, that is a simple no Senator. I have helped with some legislation that required "equal" employment
and opportunities for all people no matter what their genetic orientation. But nothing that was "preferential".

SENATOR JOHNSTON: A simple yes or no will do Senator. Now on to the next question. Have you or have you not had multiple
dealings with known, and suspected, unregistared "Super Humans"?

SENATOR KENDRICK: Well, shucks. That isnt a simple yes or no answer Senator. (S.K. replies with a slight laugh and a smile)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: We feel it is. But if you will be brief in your answer we do need one for this to continue.

SENATOR KENDRICK: I will attempt to be brief. (Slight chuckle) While I have been in office I have had "multiple dealings"
with many people. And suspected is such a loose term that it could apply to just about anyone. I mean, shucks, after seeing
the length some of my Honorable fellow Senators can speak,many would suspect that some of them dont need to breathe, or
at least not with their mouth. (Murmur of laughter from the Galley, Senator Johnston does not look pleased.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: That will be enough. (Looking feircly up into the galley.) Anymore outbursts and I will have this
hearing closed to both the public and the media.

SENATOR KENDRICK: I would not suggest that. (Said calmly, but S.K.s voice taking on a slight edge.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: What was that Senator?
SENATOR KENDRICK: I said "I would not suggest that" Senator.

SENATOR JOHNSTON: And why would that be Senator?

SENATOR KENDRICK: Because Senator, besides the fact that I would walk out if you did, (Gasps from the crowd.) I think you
are going to want to know what I have to say next.

SENATOR JOHNSTON: And what would that be Senator Kendrick?

SENATOR KENDRICK: Well, as you well know. Those who have registered with the Superhuman Registration Acts identities
are protected by congressional seals and are not available to this august body. (Pauses as if to give Senator Johnston a
chance to speak.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: True. Continue..

SENATOR KENDRICK: Well, I have in my possession the name of at least one of those individuals who has registered and wish
to allow the American public the chance to know that there is one of these being walking these hallowed halls.(Galley goes
suddenly quiet, as the man who has been pushing for revocation of the bill, or at least ammendments to it that would allow
those registered greater ability to keep their identities private, and their civil rights protected, offers to turn in the name of one of those he has striven to protect.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: (Leaning forward slightly, a look of rapt attention on his face.) Yes, and that person would be?

SENATOR KENDRICK: It would be myself. (At this the galley erupts in a flurry of confusion and noise, several reporters
rushing out of the room to get in touch with their editors.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: Quiet, Quiet! (Banging his gavel, Senator Johnston attempts to control the pandemonioum by shouting over it.)

SENATOR JOHNSTON: (After finally getting the quiet he was commanding.) If this is a jest Senator, it is in very poor taste.

SENATOR KENDRICK: No, it is not a jest. I am the "Super Hero" known as "Senator" formerly known as "Charger". I have a
history that has been recorded by the media with the Avengers, and I think it is time to put all my cards on the table as it
was. I serve the trust that the public has put in me, both politically and by engaging in what you yourself have called
"illegal and immoral displays of super-hubris" Senator Johnston. But I believe that it is every Americans duty to do what they can to make life better for all other Americans. And the current incarnation of the Super Human Registration Act is both a violation of civil liberties that we are granted by the Constitution of this great country, as well as..

(( At this point trial was interrupted by the sudden entrance through the western wall of the known mutant terrorists The Marauders. During a harsh battle, though luckilly no bystanders were harmed, Gene, with the help of The Coven (Who showed up moments later due to ShadowWytch's Gateway) defeated the Marauders, though Sabertooth was incinerated "By accident." How this will effect Gene's political career has yet to be seen. ))

Joe Solarte, as Sorcerer Supreme of the Earth and Head of the Tower of Magic in the United States......

Because a lot of what we do depends on official sanctioning of the local governments, and the fact that the Orders of Magic DO regulate themselves in ways that the SHRA act does, I think as a wizard I would fall in as being in compliance with it. But would LEGALLY challenge the more controversial portions of the act in court.

I would make sure to be doing it even more so AFTER January of 2009, after George W Bush is out of office and Barrack Obama is in office. Because I know 100% that the CIVIL WAR was written/done in such a way to go after George W Bush and his cronies by left leaning people at Marvel Comics. By challenging the act AFTER Bush has left, and knowing that Obama has largely kept intact just about everything that Bush did in anti-terrorism legislation, it tells me that Marvel was never interested in addressing the constitutionality of what it was and was more interested in villanizing George W Bush and his administration.

Something tells me that this issue is no longer discussed at Marvel Comics since Obama took office.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Solarte, as Sorcerer Supreme of the Earth and
> Head of the Tower of Magic in the United
> States......
>
> Because a lot of what we do depends on official
> sanctioning of the local governments, and the fact
> that the Orders of Magic DO regulate themselves in
> ways that the SHRA act does, I think as a wizard I
> would fall in as being in compliance with it. But
> would LEGALLY challenge the more controversial
> portions of the act in court.
>
> I would make sure to be doing it even more so
> AFTER January of 2009, after George W Bush is out
> of office and Barrack Obama is in office. Because
> I know 100% that the CIVIL WAR was written/done in
> such a way to go after George W Bush and his
> cronies by left leaning people at Marvel Comics.
> By challenging the act AFTER Bush has left, and
> knowing that Obama has largely kept intact just
> about everything that Bush did in anti-terrorism
> legislation, it tells me that Marvel was never
> interested in addressing the constitutionality of
> what it was and was more interested in villanizing
> George W Bush and his administration.
>
> Something tells me that this issue is no longer
> discussed at Marvel Comics since Obama took
> office.

Or they simply took a current event and cranked it up to 11 in comic book terms, and I suppose I should point out that Marvel's official stance from quesada himself was that you were supposed to be in SUPPORT of the SHRA. Which would mean in support of Bush. Meanwhile some writers depicted all the things obviously wrong about the SHRA, just like actual Americans did with Bush and the Patriot Act and his other actions ('hey I'm president I can declare 'free speech' zones way over there and that the constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply over here!'). Bush is no longer in office, the public has been moved on to other things, so of course we aren't seeing writers beating a dead horse with Obama in office. They're a comic book company out to make money they aren't a political action committee out trying to sell this or that issue to the public like limbaugh.

I have to say I did not follow it THAT closely as I am not that into comics anymore. So at the website I was posting at, all the Republicans were making the most noise that the SHRA was being done completely as a political viewpoint of the writers/artists at Marvel. Which did not take a lot of imagination on my part to see. Also, because the liberals on the site were gloating about it.

I found it preposterous that they would let the SHRA out the way it did. IMHO, it was clearly done to draw parallels to the PATRIOT act which are there to a point, save the it is one thing for the PATRIOT act to help uncover real terrorists via judicial review while the SHRA was all about making superhumans into outlaws, which I just did not buy.

My point is that if Gore had won in 2000 and the EXACT same PATRIOT act had passed; or if Kerry had won in 2004 and kept the PATRIOT act, they would never have gone the path of the SHRA that they did. I am an independent and I clearly saw it as a political slant on MARVELs part, at least from the staff they had in the mid 2000's.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to say I did not follow it THAT closely as
> I am not that into comics anymore. So at the
> website I was posting at, all the Republicans were
> making the most noise that the SHRA was being done
> completely as a political viewpoint of the
> writers/artists at Marvel. Which did not take a
> lot of imagination on my part to see. Also,
> because the liberals on the site were gloating
> about it.

Being the most vocal about something is hardly proof of correctness, if anything it seems that those shouting so hard how 'obvious' something is are just hoping if they shout loud and long enough people will actually listen to them and start to believe instead of form their own opinions based on the material.

> I found it preposterous that they would let the
> SHRA out the way it did. IMHO, it was clearly done
> to draw parallels to the PATRIOT act which are
> there to a point, save the it is one thing for the
> PATRIOT act to help uncover real terrorists via
> judicial review while the SHRA was all about
> making superhumans into outlaws, which I just did
> not buy.

Except the Patriot Act hasn't been proven to uncover any real terrorists (and 'you'll just have to take our word for it' isn't proof) and did spend its time going around laws regarding things like Due Processs and torture by outsourcing it and saying things like 'well sure we know those countries like to torture people but you can't prove we knew they'd torture the particular people we sent to them'. It also was used to brand people criminals based on nothing but nationality or religion and ship them off to places where they had no legal council and were denied anything even remotely matching a speedy trial (gee it's been how many years since 9/11 and with all this so-called proof Bush NEVER held a single trial to show how successful those indefinite confinements were? ). Just because we do it instead of Russia, China, or Iraq doesn't make it okay and not-okay if they do it.

> My point is that if Gore had won in 2000 and the
> EXACT same PATRIOT act had passed; or if Kerry had
> won in 2004 and kept the PATRIOT act, they would
> never have gone the path of the SHRA that they
> did. I am an independent and I clearly saw it as
> a political slant on MARVELs part, at least from
> the staff they had in the mid 2000's.

Well first off you don't know if 9/11 would have happened if Gore was president, or that if it had something similar or identical to the Patriot act would have occurred. Different behavior out of the president would have shaped things differently.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Being the most vocal about something is hardly
> proof of correctness, if anything it seems that
> those shouting so hard how 'obvious' something is
> are just hoping if they shout loud and long enough
> people will actually listen to them and start to
> believe instead of form their own opinions based
> on the material.

That was just how it came off to me. The GOPers were making a big stink about it, and there were some very open liberals whom were openly gloating about it. So to someone like me, it just came off that way. And based on what I read.......50/50 on a lot of it. Some if it was reasonable. Some was unreasonable. Some of it could pass judicial muster. Some of it would never survive a court challenge.

>
>
> Except the Patriot Act hasn't been proven to
> uncover any real terrorists (and 'you'll just have
> to take our word for it' isn't proof) and did
> spend its time going around laws regarding things
> like Due Processs and torture by outsourcing it
> and saying things like 'well sure we know those
> countries like to torture people but you can't
> prove we knew they'd torture the particular people
> we sent to them'. It also was used to brand
> people criminals based on nothing but nationality
> or religion and ship them off to places where they
> had no legal council and were denied anything even
> remotely matching a speedy trial (gee it's been
> how many years since 9/11 and with all this
> so-called proof Bush NEVER held a single trial to
> show how successful those indefinite confinements
> were? ). Just because we do it instead of Russia,
> China, or Iraq doesn't make it okay and not-okay
> if they do it.

It has ALWAYS been legal to send suspected criminals whom are not US citizens back to their country of origin. If that country happens to allow bad things, then that is on them. Not us. And we don't give asylum to criminals so that is out.


> Well first off you don't know if 9/11 would have
> happened if Gore was president, or that if it had
> something similar or identical to the Patriot act
> would have occurred. Different behavior out of
> the president would have shaped things
> differently.

Well, if you are a 9/11 Truther then obviously not. But the facts are that the terrorists were already in country, were already doing their flight training, were already doing dry runs of what they were going to do in 9/11. Now, I saw a ridiculous story that had Gore won, they would have made sure VP Lieberman was on floor 86 of the WTC to make sure he got hit in the attack, opening the door for Gore to select Hillary as his veep in the aftermath.......and I am sure the Clintons would have had used the same guy that REALLY did Oklahoma City to take out Gore then, right?

Makes as much sense as the other stories out there. But I agree that Gore would have not gone into Iraq, would have realized that higher oil prices= more resources for Iran to use to develop a nuke and thus would have made that central to the war on Terror would go hand in hand with ending dependency on foreign oil.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was just how it came off to me. The GOPers
> were making a big stink about it, and there were
> some very open liberals whom were openly gloating
> about it. So to someone like me, it just came off
> that way. And based on what I read.......50/50 on
> a lot of it. Some if it was reasonable. Some was
> unreasonable. Some of it could pass judicial
> muster. Some of it would never survive a court
> challenge.

Well you know as well as I people love to latch onto things and proclaim them loudly as truths no matter how silly it is (Hey look Spongebob Squarepants is obviously homosexual and so an icon for Gay Pride! Yes, some do have that in their heads.) You also have to wonder why people who tend to be quite dismissive of comic books as 'kids stuff' suddenly end up admitting that 'well yeah we read comics, got to find those hidden messages after all'.

> It has ALWAYS been legal to send suspected
> criminals whom are not US citizens back to their
> country of origin. If that country happens to
> allow bad things, then that is on them. Not us.
> And we don't give asylum to criminals so that is
> out.

Except it is on us to knowingly send someone off for torture or execution when they've not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt into what we know will be torture or death. 'Hey not my problem I didn't break his bones the guy I gave him to did' is not even close to moral or ethical, when he's not even been tried to determine his guilt or innocence. For which without an actual trial you can't legally call someone a criminal, and we give asylum to criminals all the time, just look at the former Nazi scientists we quietly slipped in and others who were part of the Nazi regime who were never tried for their crimes. We'll give asylum to anyone no matter what their crimes if we think they're useful enough.

> Well, if you are a 9/11 Truther then obviously
> not. But the facts are that the terrorists were
> already in country, were already doing their
> flight training, were already doing dry runs of
> what they were going to do in 9/11. Now, I saw a
> ridiculous story that had Gore won, they would
> have made sure VP Lieberman was on floor 86 of the
> WTC to make sure he got hit in the attack, opening
> the door for Gore to select Hillary as his veep in
> the aftermath.......and I am sure the Clintons
> would have had used the same guy that REALLY did
> Oklahoma City to take out Gore then, right?

I've no idea what a '9/11 Truther' is, from the context I gather it's a derogatory label for those Conspiracy Theorists who's bone of contention is the events leading up to and following 9/11 but not sure. I no more believe the US government would allow something like 9/11 to knowingly happen (even if you go for the purely amoral idea of a politician they're all wealthy and that event was financially harmful to everyone including them and they aren't the sorts to allow anything that costs them money especially when it could make them look good stopping it) than I believe Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen.

> Makes as much sense as the other stories out
> there. But I agree that Gore would have not gone
> into Iraq, would have realized that higher oil
> prices= more resources for Iran to use to develop
> a nuke and thus would have made that central to
> the war on Terror would go hand in hand with
> ending dependency on foreign oil.

Yes, while Gore would have been going for as close to 100% renewable as possible (like Carter tried to do) due to the environmental concerns it would have also been very successful politically as it removes one of the key falsehoods used by terrorists to get recruits as us being out for their oil (like we've seen cheaper prices for oil after taking Iraq from Saddam). Can't remove the 'you're hating on our religion so gonna kill you first' but at least if we weren't so short-sighted and got off the Oil standard they couldn't keep up the lie of 'well you're after our oil!' and reduce the problems.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Well you know as well as I people love to latch
> onto things and proclaim them loudly as truths no
> matter how silly it is (Hey look Spongebob
> Squarepants is obviously homosexual and so an icon
> for Gay Pride! Yes, some do have that in their
> heads.) You also have to wonder why people who
> tend to be quite dismissive of comic books as
> 'kids stuff' suddenly end up admitting that 'well
> yeah we read comics, got to find those hidden
> messages after all'.

If there were "hidden messages" in the 80's, I did not notice it. I do remember something being said AGAINST the Amnesty Act of 1986 in a PETER PARKERPECTACULAR SPIDERMAN comic once. And while I can't stand Spongebog Squarepants, there are times I wish my daughter would watch him instead of being in Justin Bieber.......



> Except it is on us to knowingly send someone off
> for torture or execution when they've not been
> proven beyond a reasonable doubt into what we know
> will be torture or death. 'Hey not my problem I
> didn't break his bones the guy I gave him to did'
> is not even close to moral or ethical, when he's
> not even been tried to determine his guilt or
> innocence. For which without an actual trial you
> can't legally call someone a criminal, and we give
> asylum to criminals all the time, just look at the
> former Nazi scientists we quietly slipped in and
> others who were part of the Nazi regime who were
> never tried for their crimes. We'll give asylum
> to anyone no matter what their crimes if we think
> they're useful enough.

It is not on us for what happens in other countries legal systems. That's the sad fact. If we have a criminal captured, and have questionable evidence to make a conviction on a person, then certainly we should release them. But look at Israel, how they take DNA from all criminals they capture and look how many are later linked to suicide bombings? Ultimately, we are the USA. What the law is in other countries is ultimately on them. And if an Al-Qaeda person is taken in arms against the US and thus has violated the Laws of Land Warfare, then yes, we detain them. If they followed the entire international law, then yes they would be considered EPW's and granted their rights under the Geneva Conventions. That is for valid combatants.



>
> I've no idea what a '9/11 Truther' is, from the
> context I gather it's a derogatory label for those
> Conspiracy Theorists who's bone of contention is
> the events leading up to and following 9/11 but
> not sure. I no more believe the US government
> would allow something like 9/11 to knowingly
> happen (even if you go for the purely amoral idea
> of a politician they're all wealthy and that event
> was financially harmful to everyone including them
> and they aren't the sorts to allow anything that
> costs them money especially when it could make
> them look good stopping it) than I believe Pearl
> Harbor was allowed to happen.

I consider a 9/11 Truther to be those that think Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, that is was all controlled explosions. Even Bill Maher thinks those people are beyond stupid, has blasted them MANY times on his show.

Do I think the US Government thought something was up? Probably. But certainly NOT THAT!


>
> Yes, while Gore would have been going for as close
> to 100% renewable as possible (like Carter tried
> to do) due to the environmental concerns it would
> have also been very successful politically as it
> removes one of the key falsehoods used by
> terrorists to get recruits as us being out for
> their oil (like we've seen cheaper prices for oil
> after taking Iraq from Saddam). Can't remove the
> 'you're hating on our religion so gonna kill you
> first' but at least if we weren't so short-sighted
> and got off the Oil standard they couldn't keep up
> the lie of 'well you're after our oil!' and reduce
> the problems.

Defeat the need for oil and you have completely driven the entire Arab world down to 3rd world nation status, yes, I think Al Gore would have realized that and would not have pursued policies that actually ENRICHED Iran and our enemies instead. If Gore had gone out there on September 15th (his address to the Nation) and said that central to winning the war on Terror, was going to be some sort of agenda on this issue. He would have probably spelled it out: the lower the price of gas is, the less thread they are to us. Do I think he might have compromised on Off-Shore drilling, nuke power, and things that the Left would have gone to war over? Yes, I actually think he would have opened up ANWAR, opened up drilling on public lands, and stuff IF it was done to advance hybrid technology and to get us off fuels.

But, on the same thing, I firmly believe that what you decry about the PATRIOT ACT, under Al Gore, would have been far more severe as far as civil liberty erosions go, and I think most of the left would have shut their mouths and never cried about it like they did under Bush. Even if the EXACT same parts of the Patriot act were passed, I don't think the left would denounce it.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Except it is on us to knowingly send someone off
> for torture or execution when they've not been
> proven beyond a reasonable doubt into what we know
> will be torture or death. 'Hey not my problem I
> didn't break his bones the guy I gave him to did'
> is not even close to moral or ethical, when he's
> not even been tried to determine his guilt or
> innocence. For which without an actual trial you
> can't legally call someone a criminal, and we give
> asylum to criminals all the time, just look at the
> former Nazi scientists we quietly slipped in and
> others who were part of the Nazi regime who were
> never tried for their crimes. We'll give asylum
> to anyone no matter what their crimes if we think
> they're useful enough.

Over here in Britain we have a thing called the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from sending people back to countries where they could be tortured (though not to places like the US where they can be executed). I guess that allows us to think of ourselves as smugly superior to Americans.

> I've no idea what a '9/11 Truther' is, from the
> context I gather it's a derogatory label for those
> Conspiracy Theorists who's bone of contention is
> the events leading up to and following 9/11 but
> not sure.

That's the meaning of the term. It's about as pejorative (or not, as I tend to think) as using the term birther to those who believe the conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate being a fake. If you need to refer to either group, you've got a quick and easy way to do so.

And, of course, if Gore had won (ignoring the argument about whether the 2000 election was stolen), then world history since then would have been vastly different. The 9/11 hijackers might or might not have been caught before the attack (the outgoing Clinton regime expressed concerns about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the incoming regime that weren't followed up). If it did still happen, the American response would have been more measured, and certainly wouldn't have included an invasion of Iraq. And the US would have made at least a token effort to reduce carbon emissions and invest in renewable energy. It would have had major implications in other countries - here in the UK, Labour might not have gained the authoritarian streak that defined their second and third terms, and without Iraq, they might not have been so unpopular.


Anyhow, to get back on topic, any home brew character that I was running would be against the registration act, unless they had a pre-established Judge-Dredd-style approach to law and order.

I would say the would all register-
Than destoy them ALL from the inside

Yeah back on subject, because my character has helped re-establish the Orders of Magic back on Earth (and thru out the galaxy), and because the charter was officially signed with the US Government and the United Nations, the Orders of Magic do regulate wizards and stuff. That is their whole point. So we would definitely hold up our treaty and go over it. Probably have to retain some lawyers to ensure that the treaty is maintained.

Now, as Sorcerer Supreme and master of a Tower of High Sorcery, my character would feel the following would be appropriate responses to the SHRA from our world.

1) We would not violate the identity of any wizard that does not want it. While my character maintains a public ID, not all do.
2) We would gladly assist the US in detaining and punishing of any wizard whom uses their magic for criminal gain. While the Orders of Magic do allow wizards, outside the Towers or other common places, to largely do what they want, there is a point where we put public safety over growing magic. And that would be one part of it.
3) We would gladly provide to the authorities what spells are out there, what they do, and how to identify them from a law enforcement standpoint.
4) We would notify immediately the US Government or other authorities of any violations of the law in our areas. Including notification of any real threat.
5) We would feel honor bound to regularly brief government officials via liaison officer of some kind, about the goings on in the realms of magic. In a way superior to what you saw described in the novel of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (chapter 1 where the relationship between the Minister of Magic and the muggles Prime Minister is shown).

My characters most of which would side on anti reg side
-gilgamesh my demi god hero has fought mutant regs before the sheer stupidity with which marvel mangled good heroes.
white wolf my animal like mutant having felt the sting of taskmasters whips in his own reality fight to the death.
slinger on the side of the pro then switch after he sees the rights of people who were heroes being hunted and being treated like criminals.
Sentinel definetly ops the regs all his true heroes cap daredevil are on what he consider the side of the angels, besides the iron punk and and govmnt are nothing but quentaesntial bullies.
silver spider would be pro as he was already working with govt.
luminesent a former soldier but mutant would try to sit out as she does no want to be put in jail or kill any of her friends in opsing sides.
sgt steel would fight with his might , muscle and hart to show the american puplic that the pro is wrong and die doing it.
soap man( yeah soap man) still trying to clean up society would hide as he is hopelessly out matched on all lvls( unlike others here who say my character would wipe floor with all, grin)
white bolt my very first rolled character and mutant would ops the regs.

Fortunately the Civil War crap doesn't exist in the Future Force world.

If it did, I'm pretty sure the team would be pro-registration. They've never been masked vigilantes. They have no problem with public IDs or working with law enforcement. Kid Marvel is the child of a police officer, Wildstar uses her "superhero" fame to get modeling and endorsement contracts. They'd have no reason to oppose registration, at least initially. Even with the morally questionable tactics that begin to appear, Kid Marvel would most likely stay working side by side with Reed Richards because he sees himself in that same vein. Wildstar might stay pro-reg, or she might drop out and hang with the mutants until everything dies down. Varos is the only one I can see maybe switching to the Secret Avengers side.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2012 10:26AM by FTJ.

Some of my NPCs (don't really get to play characters of my own) reactions to Marvel's Civil War in pretty strongly:


Brown Mouse: A former thief and a mutant, Brown Mouse would be worried about both how the law affects mutants but would also see it was an opportunity to make a legitimate break from a criminal past.

Double-Draw: A teenager who is unknowingly the avatar of "Lady Luck" herself, she would ignore the law and rely on her supernatural luck to just keep on doing what she's doing without worrying about the consequences... as usual.

Emerald Flame: An Irish lass, and something of a rebel, she would just go on doing what she does until being forced to leave the country.

Liberty-Lass: A really Captain America wannabe, and a lawyer in her secret identity, she would be anti-registration all the way... following Cap's lead without question while also working in her secret identity as a defense lawyer to fight for the rights of those imprisoned under the law.

Major Muscle: A bit of a nerd and a tool, he would be quick to register and support the law just for the honor of working with luminaries in the scientific field such as Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, and Hank Pym. He'd feel bad about going after other heroes though.

Radiant Sentry: An old school hero from the 40s, he would do his best to uphold the law by registering, but he would also publicly speak out against it and do everything he could to get the law repealed.

Sonix: A rocker and a rebel, he would make a huge show of opposing registration... and when they capture him, he'd shout loud enough to shatter windows for several blocks protesting about how his mutant rights are being trampled by the man.

Windy Skye: A free spirit (think modern hippie), she would absolutely rebel against the oppressive government law. The warrior nature of the teutonic thunder god that grants her powers would also inspire her to do so in a less than peaceful manner.

Let's see;

Jack O' Lantern - Anti-Registration! C'mon, Cap of all people.....we can't side against cap....and Hercules....and...wait...are those free nachos?
Hornet - Registration, after all, it's clearly all of our responsibilities to see that we're using our powers for good (Then again, she is a skrull traitor)
Sagittarion - Registration, but only if Gilbert Industries gets to build the systems in which the Registration data resides.
Bloodstone - It makes no difference, in 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 years, it will like all civilizations, pass.

Free Nacho!? Why didn't you say so!!
Mega Rooster say no to superhero profiling!!

Hmmm thats a long list of characters to go through.

Forsaken. Works for a corporation dealing with more supernatural elements and quasi legal to illegal activities that his employers cannot be seen having a hand in. Would probably be opposed to the level of intrusion posed by the Registration and oppose it strongly on the basis that he does not like Iron Man, Pym or Richards more than anything else. Also he's not much of a hero and has some legal issues with the US government due to some battles with the supernatural gone wrong.

Equilibrium. Pro Registration all the way, He was a fully trained Ranger before an accident granted him his Sonic Powers to begin with, firm believer in training and accountability though he believes that the true identities of masked heroes should be kept at the highest levels of secrecy in order to protect their families.

Jersey Devil. Obvious Mutant, Super chipper and bubbly, is a Canadian hero but would support the registration to ensure heroes are accountable for their damage.

Doctor Roboto. Dead at this juncture due to a failed space mission which claimed most of the PC's. He would probably side against it, but did not get to play him long enough to fully flesh out his personality.

Crazy Ivan. Strongly opposed, he's worked very very very hard to vanish from every governments watchlists and databases, last thing a crazed inventor needs is to be answerable to a higher power.

Trainwreck. Works for the US Marshalls, Pro Registration.

MidKnight. Anti Registration, his girlfriend and family aren't even fully aware of who he truly is as he keeps having to mind wipe their memories of them finding out, which is going to be a nightmare sometime soon.

The Dungeon Master. He's a 5'2" 19 year old kid with a dozen physical ailments, if the Registration will give him Medical he's all good.

Farad. Bad Girl, if the heroes are forced to be answerable and deal with internal affairs after every single mission, her life as a villain gets so much easier to screw with the good guys. Pro Registration.

damn good props to all, just wish it could be barried.

Retcon would try to undo the damage caused by the act. Otherwise be very anti-registration.

Black Spider: Pro. Definitely. He would feel that registration would be the better path in order to help control villains like Gargoyle. He would feel it may be the only way to get Gargoyle to finally stand down and see reason.

Eclipse: Against. It would make his job as a protector of the night more difficult.

Brother Oak: Wouldn't care. He lives and operates out of Ireland. He'd be willing to help his friends, but not if it would cause an international incident.

Gaijin: Against. He's a merc, and not really a hero, but registration would cut into his business.

As for the villains, Gargoyle wouldn't care unless it cuts into his profits at all, WyldKard and Paladin and Akuma would be too set on their respective missions to even notice.

Jaguar (my main character, displayed separately here) would try to ride the fence...being heroic he wouldn't want to break the law, yet (down deep) he would feel this law to be wrong, and discriminatory. His alter ego would be very vocal in his displeasure with the government trying to enforce this law, as all of his friends know he is a liberal.

Starburst (who I will post soon), being a silly teenager, has no real political opinions of her own; except being influenced by those around her. She would have no idea of the long term effects of a law like this might have on her or other mutants.

The Alliance (team I have designed, and will post) being partly made up of mutants would be pretty much like Jaguar, and ride the fence until they were forced to state they were against registration, and hoped the government would support their decision.

Agent Titan would be backing Captain America and the Avengers Resistance while Blackwolf and the Mighty Destroyer would be on Iron Man's side-Blackwolf because of the need for order and MD because he's an asshat like that sometimes.

All good!!
While most seem to detest the Civil War story arc(myself included) it does bring out some interesting moral conflicts.

I agree and that was certainly interesting about the CIVIL WAR storyline.

When I first heard of it, my initial impression was actually opposite of what was going on in the comics. I would have assumed that Tony Stark would have opposed it and Captain America embraced it. I don't think there is any question that having Captain America react to it the way they did in the comics was designed SPECIFICALLY for Captain America to 'stick it' to George W Bush. I read quotes that more or less confirmed that from MARVEL that made it clear to me at least that is exactly what they were doing. And, based on their ideology's, wanted Tony Stark for what he represented to be on the other side. Note that this was before the IRON MAN movies came out, which to me is a different jump for Stark as far as how he could be.

I do think Spiderman was handled correctly in that he did what he always did up until his famous unmasking. I