Maureen would definitely not be for registration. She'd go with the anti-registration crowd for hiding purposes, any knowledge they've got so she can get home and any equipment she might get her hands on.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 have no idea how you manage to arrive at those conclusions, especially regarding Captain America. Forced registration of citizens with indefinite prison sentences for failing to do so? You actually think Captain America, representative of the American IDEAL, would back something like that? A man who on several occasions gave up that costumed identity when the US government sought to force him to serve political ambitions or when the actions of the government were unamerican enough to force him into doubting himself? Sorry but no, there's nothing about Captain America that should have ever had anyone think he'd have backed forced registration of American citizens particularly singling out a segment of the population and punishing it simply for existing.

The same goes with Iron Man, he's long been a control freak with bouts of manic behavior and 'no need to trust anyone else on things if I thought it it must be true' reasoning which frequently caused him problems with his friends. The idea that he'd back registering people 'for their own good' is well in keeping with his history.

Nightmask: I think that GmJoeSolarte's logic most likely derives from the prevailing mindset of the majority of Americans during the World War II era, which was that America was the greatest place to be in the world because of how wonderful the government ran things then. It wasn't EVERYONE'S opinion, mind you, but a lot of people totally backed whatever the government determined was necessary due to the horrible war engulfing the world at the time. Since Cap is a refugee from that era, that particular "my country, right or wrong!" sort of attitude isn't too far off the mark for the patriotic hero. After all, even as the USA was dedicating itself to fighting the Nazi menace, we somehow managed to convince ourselves that imprisoning Japanese-Americans and seizing their property was "the right thing to do" at the time.

Having said that, though--I have to agree with your logic, too. As patriotic and supportive of the US government as Captain America may be, I cannot see him as having gone along with the policy that was being enforced for the Civil War story arc. His horror and loathing regarding anything even vaguely Nazi-ish would NEVER allow him to support the "register or else" law.

I have several homebrew characters...one of them is Krystalyn, a young lady who can transform into a translucent glass-like substance of unearthly hardness and--as a result--has developed light control and vision powers. Her inspiration is Wonder Woman and Captain America both, and I just know that Krys would NEVER have gone along with such a restrictive law.

I doubt any of my various homebrews would have, either.

8)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2013 07:53PM by Alivia.

Alivia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightmask: I think that GmJoeSolarte's logic most
> likely derives from the prevailing mindset of the
> majority of Americans during the World War II era,
> which was that America was the greatest place to
> be in the world because of how wonderful the
> government ran things then. It wasn't EVERYONE'S
> opinion, mind you, but a lot of people totally
> backed whatever the government determined was
> necessary due to the horrible war engulfing the
> world at the time. Since Cap is a refugee from
> that era, that particular "my country, right or
> wrong!" sort of attitude isn't too far off the
> mark for the patriotic hero. After all, even as
> the USA was dedicating itself to fighting the Nazi
> menace, we somehow managed to convince ourselves
> that imprisoning Japanese-Americans and seizing
> their property was "the right thing to do" at the
> time.

The problem with that as you likely realize is that Cap's never been depicted like that (which is why they eventually introduced USAgent to spout all that 'if the politicians say it's okay to deny American citizens their rights and lock them up forever then it's okay' nonsense), and while I don't know if any of the comics at the time addressed it (probably not, back then comics weren't quite so quick to point out public wrongs like the Japanese Internments during WWII and the clear failure of the Supreme Court to oppose such a clearly illegal and immoral act) Captain America would have certainly opposed those unjust imprisonments as well. It's not like all Americans were in support of that act for example (Hawaiian officials fought against implementing it throughout the war, which is why the largest number of Japanese-Americans fighting in WWII against the Axis powers came from there) and it'd be ignoring the actual character of the character to treat him as behaving like a typical American of the time.

> Having said that, though--I have to agree with
> your logic, too. As patriotic and supportive of
> the US government as Captain America may be, I
> cannot see him as having gone along with the
> policy that was being enforced for the Civil War
> story arc. His horror and loathing regarding
> anything even vaguely Nazi-ish would NEVER allow
> him to support the "register or else" law.

I don't think Cap's ever really been supportive of the government per say, more that the government for the most part hasn't been engaging in activities that would require he oppose it like he opposed evil governments during and after WWII. Once the government DID begin outright violating the ideals of America with the Superhuman Registration Act he was promptly in opposition to it and just like people who know what they're doing is wrong will do once he said 'if this act is passed I will not support or enforce it' they attempted to silence his voice to keep from awakening the conscience of the American people and get them to see how horribly wrong the act was and how shameful it was of them to support it.

> I have several homebrew characters...one of them
> is Krystalyn, a young lady who can transform into
> a translucent glass-like substance of unearthly
> hardness and--as a result--has developed light
> control and vision powers. Her inspiration is
> Wonder Woman and Captain America both, and I just
> know that Krys would NEVER have gone along with
> such a restrictive law.
>
> I doubt any of my various homebrews would have,
> either.
>
> 8)

I've a few that might, if only because they're naive enough to not realize the full implications and not draw the parallels with things like the Japanese Internment during WWII (which I imagine to this day still is one of many dirty little secrets not brought up and discussed in schools when discussing WWII). It didn't get enough mention when after 9/11 you had Americans actually wanting to implement the same thing against the Muslim population in the US, which just goes to show that one Nazi was right that the best way to get away with something is to keep the public ignorant that it's happened before so they won't recognize it could happen again and actively oppose it.

I can see how Captain America could be pro registration to a degree. After all we are dealing with an era where "white superiority" was common place among white Americans. Segregation was encourage thus Steve Rogers from that era, could have taken the pro registration stance.

However, Steve Rogers has also read history and without living it, he didn't experience the struggle and hatred. He was looking inside the box from outside. He can see where American Society was wrong in many things and became better for it. He see where the Government has become the tyrant rather then the servant of the people as intended. Capitalism runs rampant, hatred allowed to breed and spread uncheck in most cases, and only address by the Government when a large percentage of the population rises. (YMMV)

The US Government wants control, absolute authoritarianism, yet none of the responsibility of check and balances. Thus Captain America has struggle and at times, taken a stance that "You cross a line that should never been approached"

often we see what the real America has become and at times, we may catch ourselves wondering if Steve Roger utopia America could ever exist? It easy to take a stance as such he has, written and won. It take a strength and dedication many simply doesn't have and that One of the things that draws us to him.

And so we look at Civil War, the morality of the issue that confronts our fav heroes. How can they support such?
And we hate it, each to our own degree.
And we Love it, each to our own degree.

Most of my characters are of the "strong personal liberty" streak and believe "that which governs best governs least". They are very much strongly in suppoer of personal liberties and minimal gov't intervention in private lives. So they would all be very much against the SHRA as well as the various MRA's that have been proposed.

My two cents on how it SHOULD have gone down with Captain America post 9/11.

1. 9/11 Happens- Captain America is obviously stunned by this, something far worse then 12/7/41, something he was there for. Something that spurred him to try to join the military but failed on many occasions.
2. Captain America would be at the forefront, post 9/11 about rallying the USA behind the effort that comes next.
3. Captain America would probably be VERY disillusioned when he did not see the same sort of mobilization behind 9/11 that the country did in December 7th.
4. I think Captain America may well resign from The Avengers temporarily, request to re-enter the US ARMY and go to Afghanistan and the operations vs the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No question about that. I believe I read somewhere that there IS a International Law passed that bars superhumans from openly serving in armed forces, so he would have to step down from the Avengers and put down the shield to do this.
5. Captain America would serve with distinction and honor in Afghanistan. No doubt.
6. The drum for Iraq would begin. I think Captain America would behind the scenes be against it, seeing the plan going EXACTLY in what Al-Qaeda may actually want- operations in heavily urban areas that would result in lots of carnage, bombings, deaths of both US troops AND Iraqi personell.
7. Bush will do his boondoggle. Cap being the loyal soldier would go along with it. Given that he probably would have signed a 6 year contract with the military, maybe 4.
8. The War in Iraq drags on, he realizes that there were no WMD's in Iraq...he sees the military contractors making bank...he sees US troops being sent on patrols to get bombed just to drive the price of oil up. He sees the excessive profits from the oil companies.
9. he starts to speak up privately, and probably there is some smear campaign launched on him.
10. he officially gets out of the military when his contract is up; by this point ,the Patriot Act is already in place, same with the SHRA, and from there goes on.

Now, the problem would be, under the above scenario, that Captain America would be a soldier until the day he ETS's from the service. Until then, he would be duty bound to follow the line, but once out......

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My two cents on how it SHOULD have gone down with
> Captain America post 9/11.
>
>
> [*] 9/11 Happens- Captain America is obviously
> stunned by this, something far worse then 12/7/41,
> something he was there for. Something that spurred
> him to try to join the military but failed on many
> occasions.
> [*] Captain America would be at the forefront,
> post 9/11 about rallying the USA behind the effort
> that comes next.
> [*] Captain America would probably be VERY
> disillusioned when he did not see the same sort of
> mobilization behind 9/11 that the country did in
> December 7th.
> [*] I think Captain America may well resign from
> The Avengers temporarily, request to re-enter the
> US ARMY and go to Afghanistan and the operations
> vs the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No question about
> that. I believe I read somewhere that there IS a
> International Law passed that bars superhumans
> from openly serving in armed forces, so he would
> have to step down from the Avengers and put down
> the shield to do this.
> [*] Captain America would serve with distinction
> and honor in Afghanistan. No doubt.
> [*] The drum for Iraq would begin. I think
> Captain America would behind the scenes be against
> it, seeing the plan going EXACTLY in what Al-Qaeda
> may actually want- operations in heavily urban
> areas that would result in lots of carnage,
> bombings, deaths of both US troops AND Iraqi
> personell.
> [*] Bush will do his boondoggle. Cap being the
> loyal soldier would go along with it. Given that
> he probably would have signed a 6 year contract
> with the military, maybe 4.
> [*] The War in Iraq drags on, he realizes that
> there were no WMD's in Iraq...he sees the military
> contractors making bank...he sees US troops being
> sent on patrols to get bombed just to drive the
> price of oil up. He sees the excessive profits
> from the oil companies.
> [*] he starts to speak up privately, and probably
> there is some smear campaign launched on him.
> [*] he officially gets out of the military when
> his contract is up; by this point ,the Patriot Act
> is already in place, same with the SHRA, and from
> there goes on.
>
>
> Now, the problem would be, under the above
> scenario, that Captain America would be a soldier
> until the day he ETS's from the service. Until
> then, he would be duty bound to follow the line,
> but once out......

I'm not seeing why you think Captain America would reenlist, he's already extremely effective without such ties and he's never been suited to the 'loyal footsoldier' position. He's a passionate individual and a leader of men not a follower and loyal to the country and its ideals not the government and its politicians. He certainly wouldn't go along with a boondoggle because 'well he's a loyal soldier', he'd oppose something like that without question.

After something like 9/11 he'd have immediately begun using his contacts in the spy world including SHIELD (which clearly failed in its duties) to track down the organization responsible, taken a leave of absence from the Avengers and set off to hunt down everyone and bring them to justice. Barring breaks for those world-threatening events that would have to take temporary priority over the hunt of course. He may have checked on old allies or had some offer to help along the way like Nomad/Bucky II (or was he number III? ) and Falcon as back-up and rallied the world against such evil.

MajorSteel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see how Captain America could be pro
> registration to a degree. After all we are dealing
> with an era where "white superiority" was common
> place among white Americans. Segregation was
> encourage thus Steve Rogers from that era, could
> have taken the pro registration stance.
>
> However, Steve Rogers has also read history and
> without living it, he didn't experience the
> struggle and hatred. He was looking inside the box
> from outside. He can see where American Society
> was wrong in many things and became better for it.
> He see where the Government has become the tyrant
> rather then the servant of the people as intended.
> Capitalism runs rampant, hatred allowed to breed
> and spread uncheck in most cases, and only address
> by the Government when a large percentage of the
> population rises. (YMMV)
>
> The US Government wants control, absolute
> authoritarianism, yet none of the responsibility
> of check and balances. Thus Captain America has
> struggle and at times, taken a stance that "You
> cross a line that should never been approached"
>
> often we see what the real America has become and
> at times, we may catch ourselves wondering if
> Steve Roger utopia America could ever exist? It
> easy to take a stance as such he has, written and
> won. It take a strength and dedication many simply
> doesn't have and that One of the things that draws
> us to him.
>
> And so we look at Civil War, the morality of the
> issue that confronts our fav heroes. How can they
> support such?
> And we hate it, each to our own degree.
> And we Love it, each to our own degree.


And that is my point. Captain America as he existed in the 40's saw a much different world to be sure, and thus, while yes many a great liberal came out of that era, so did many a great conservative as well. Which is where I think the Marvel writers missed the mark. They were more interested in making political points circa 2006-whenever the Civil War comics ran.

I maintain there is no question that the SHRA was written to A) Parallel the Patriot Act, which only the real fringe left opposes; and to do it while George W Bush was still in office, thinking it would somehow galvanize opposition to Bush. And they probably think, given how the 2006 and on elections went, that they succeeded. The fact that nearly every thing that Bush enacted Obama has continued shows that they were never interested in dealing with it now that Obama is president and have no problem with it now, at least publicly.

Interestingly enough, John Walker as Captain America, during that phase he was wearing the suit and shield, I remember there was an issue of CAPTAIN AMERICA where he and Battle Star were assigned to help track down a dangerous mutant in support of the Mutant Registration Act. The entire episode their handlers were claiming how this dangerous mutant was out there doing these bad things, but when they finally tracked him down and confronted him and saw this was not a blood thirsty mutant but a terrified kid that did not know what was happening to him. Both John Walker and Battlestar were FURIOUS that their handlers had used them in this manner, saying they are meant to inspire and do good things, and how this kid needs help, not to be preyed upon like a criminal.

Which sorta hits the nail on the head. There HAS to be a road for help to people that end up with super powers, willingly or unwillingly, to get the help they need, no strings attached, no lingering mandate. Sorta like the SAFE HAVEN laws we have in place, where you can turn in a new born infant up to three days after birth, no questions asked at a hospital fire station or police station.

And on the other side...there has to be SEVERE criminal penalties for the KNOWING usage of superpowers for criminal effect.

One of the thing that might have affected comics when I was growing up: most of the comics I read were based on New York, which until the 90's did not have the death penalty. It would seem now, that the death penalty is in place in New York, that people like Electro and others are not just going to the Vault anymore, but to the gas chamber or whatever.

Quote
I don't think Cap's ever really been supportive of the government per say, more that the government for the most part hasn't been engaging in activities that would require he oppose it like he opposed evil governments during and after WWII. Once the government DID begin outright violating the ideals of America with the Superhuman Registration Act he was promptly in opposition to it and just like people who know what they're doing is wrong will do once he said 'if this act is passed I will not support or enforce it' they attempted to silence his voice to keep from awakening the conscience of the American people and get them to see how horribly wrong the act was and how shameful it was of them to support it.

I think the proper saying is a true patriot supports his country all the time, and his government when they deserve it.

Quote
I'm not seeing why you think Captain America would reenlist, he's already extremely effective without such ties and he's never been suited to the 'loyal footsoldier' position. He's a passionate individual and a leader of men not a follower and loyal to the country and its ideals not the government and its politicians. He certainly wouldn't go along with a boondoggle because 'well he's a loyal soldier', he'd oppose something like that without question.

After something like 9/11 he'd have immediately begun using his contacts in the spy world including SHIELD (which clearly failed in its duties) to track down the organization responsible, taken a leave of absence from the Avengers and set off to hunt down everyone and bring them to justice. Barring breaks for those world-threatening events that would have to take temporary priority over the hunt of course. He may have checked on old allies or had some offer to help along the way like Nomad/Bucky II (or was he number III? ) and Falcon as back-up and rallied the world against such evil.

Well, he was actually a VERY good footsoldier when he was in WW2. So him going back into active service is not out of the realm of possibility. Remember- Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and Steve Rogers enlists to go fight Germany. I don't remember Cap EVER going up against Imperial Japan in WW2.

Again, I DO remember reading, in the Marvel Encyclopedias that came out in the late 80s, that in the Marvel Universe there is an United Nations law that specifically forbids the usages of superpowered individuals in combat or something to that extent. So I don't think you can see a uniformed Captain America in the lead against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Especially when there was already a blurred line in the Laws of Land Warfare and the requirement of uniformed forces that is in that. Cap may well, if he wants to partake and he absolutely WOULD be ok with the invasion of Afghanistan AFTER 9/11

(and Cap would publicly condemn the 9/11 TRUTHERS as freaks, just like Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, and many, many others have done).

But I do think that he would speak out behind the scenes of going into Iraq, would have seen it as the folly that it was BEFORE it happened. Would have gone in if ordered, but like Pat Tillman would let it be known where he stood.

And in the scenarios I mentioned above, when the WMD's were confirmed to NOT exist, when the ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussien are proven to be false; when the Oil and Defense contractors are driving all this for profits, THEN I think Captain America taking a line against the Administration would be warranted.

NOW.....as to how the SHRA SHOULD have been written.....and in a way to pass judicial scrutiny, ie a Supreme Court ruling.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> Well, he was actually a VERY good footsoldier when
> he was in WW2. So him going back into active
> service is not out of the realm of possibility.
> Remember- Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and Steve
> Rogers enlists to go fight Germany. I don't
> remember Cap EVER going up against Imperial Japan
> in WW2.
>
> Again, I DO remember reading, in the Marvel
> Encyclopedias that came out in the late 80s, that
> in the Marvel Universe there is an United Nations
> law that specifically forbids the usages of
> superpowered individuals in combat or something to
> that extent. So I don't think you can see a
> uniformed Captain America in the lead against
> Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> Especially when there was already a blurred line
> in the Laws of Land Warfare and the requirement of
> uniformed forces that is in that. Cap may well,
> if he wants to partake and he absolutely WOULD be
> ok with the invasion of Afghanistan AFTER 9/11
>
> (and Cap would publicly condemn the 9/11 TRUTHERS
> as freaks, just like Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, and
> many, many others have done).

Now see, I'm not seeing why you think Captain America, who is well known for leading people somehow wouldn't keep doing so and instead would choose a course of action that would limit his usefulness. Also whether said law exists or not Cap would have to be an actual active military soldier for it to apply, since he'd be stupid to reenlist (and he's likely technically too old to do so couldn't anyway) and isn't he'd have no problems leading people as he's done for decades, as an independent.

> But I do think that he would speak out behind the
> scenes of going into Iraq, would have seen it as
> the folly that it was BEFORE it happened. Would
> have gone in if ordered, but like Pat Tillman
> would let it be known where he stood.

The problem is you keep basing your views on Cap 'obviously' signing up and ending up just another soldier, which he wouldn't do. Especially seeing how the government was reacting including attacking civil rights.

I think you've got Cap confused with his 'my country right or wrong' short-term replacement USAgent, who is the kind of man to do the things you've ascribed to Captain America. Captain America himself wouldn't do those things.

> And in the scenarios I mentioned above, when the
> WMD's were confirmed to NOT exist, when the ties
> between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussien are proven to
> be false; when the Oil and Defense contractors are
> driving all this for profits, THEN I think Captain
> America taking a line against the Administration
> would be warranted.

I think you're forgetting that Captain America isn't political like that, while he would oppose such things he wouldn't feel it right to engage in such political maneuvering.

> NOW.....as to how the SHRA SHOULD have been
> written.....and in a way to pass judicial
> scrutiny, ie a Supreme Court ruling.

You couldn't write a version that would pass honest judicial review, not without rewriting the constitution and undoing decades of slow progress on human rights and equality. The law requires discriminating against people based on having abilities others don't, singling out a group for restrictive treatment far worse than what the Japanese Americans dealt with during WWII (another terrible act that we never made amends for). You'd be tossing out any pretense of civil rights or laws on equality to make such a law constitutional.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MajorSteel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can see how Captain America could be pro
> > registration to a degree. After all we are
> dealing
> > with an era where "white superiority" was
> common
> > place among white Americans. Segregation was
> > encourage thus Steve Rogers from that era,
> could
> > have taken the pro registration stance.
> >
> > However, Steve Rogers has also read history
> and
> > without living it, he didn't experience the
> > struggle and hatred. He was looking inside the
> box
> > from outside. He can see where American Society
> > was wrong in many things and became better for
> it.
> > He see where the Government has become the
> tyrant
> > rather then the servant of the people as
> intended.
> > Capitalism runs rampant, hatred allowed to
> breed
> > and spread uncheck in most cases, and only
> address
> > by the Government when a large percentage of
> the
> > population rises. (YMMV)
> >
> > The US Government wants control, absolute
> > authoritarianism, yet none of the
> responsibility
> > of check and balances. Thus Captain America has
> > struggle and at times, taken a stance that
> "You
> > cross a line that should never been approached"
>
> >
> > often we see what the real America has become
> and
> > at times, we may catch ourselves wondering if
> > Steve Roger utopia America could ever exist? It
> > easy to take a stance as such he has, written
> and
> > won. It take a strength and dedication many
> simply
> > doesn't have and that One of the things that
> draws
> > us to him.
> >
> > And so we look at Civil War, the morality of
> the
> > issue that confronts our fav heroes. How can
> they
> > support such?
> > And we hate it, each to our own degree.
> > And we Love it, each to our own degree.
>
>
> And that is my point. Captain America as he
> existed in the 40's saw a much different world to
> be sure, and thus, while yes many a great liberal
> came out of that era, so did many a great
> conservative as well. Which is where I think the
> Marvel writers missed the mark. They were more
> interested in making political points circa
> 2006-whenever the Civil War comics ran.
>
> I maintain there is no question that the SHRA was
> written to A) Parallel the Patriot Act, which only
> the real fringe left opposes; and to do it
> while George W Bush was still in office, thinking
> it would somehow galvanize opposition to Bush.
> And they probably think, given how the 2006 and on
> elections went, that they succeeded. The fact
> that nearly every thing that Bush enacted Obama
> has continued shows that they were never
> interested in dealing with it now that Obama is
> president and have no problem with it now, at
> least publicly.

As a quick correction, the people who opposed the Patriot Act included a wide range of Americans and just because you support the loss of civil rights and protections it entailed doesn't make those who expect their government to respect their rights 'real fringe left' (a label clearly meant to marginalize and dismiss them and imply that the 'right-thinking sorts' supported it, the 'right-thinking sorts' are those who opposed it).

Quote
You couldn't write a version that would pass honest judicial review, not without rewriting the constitution and undoing decades of slow progress on human rights and equality. The law requires discriminating against people based on having abilities others don't, singling out a group for restrictive treatment far worse than what the Japanese Americans dealt with during WWII (another terrible act that we never made amends for). You'd be tossing out any pretense of civil rights or laws on equality to make such a law constitutional.

Yeah you could. Because lets face it, the Patriot Act has survived for over 10 years now, and has withstood all legal challenges to it, even with a change of leadership in this country. For all the talk Obama did against it, he has enforced pretty much every bit of it. Which tells me the entire opposition was more because Bush was in charge of implementing it for 7 years. Little else.

But, enough of that, lets get to the S.H.R.A. and how it SHOULD have been done.

The way I see it, a SHRA that would be constitutional would be written as follows:

#1- The Department of Health and Human Services would open up a Mutant, MetaHuman, etc division, that would have doctors and scientists in it. A nationwide advertising would be out there to let it be known: if you THINK you have some sort of mutant or superhuman power, there HAS to be a way for you to come in, and get looked at, free of charge, no strings attached. This would not be a registry, it would be essentially an open door for help for someone whom just got superpowers and does not know what to do next.

#2- I thought it was ridiculous that in the CIVIL WAR, villains with criminal records were agreeing to join up with the government and get a badge and law enforcement authority. No, that would not work. If you want to get paid by the taxpayers, have official authority and stuff, you HAVE to pass everything that a federal officer would have to pass. You want that government paycheck and pension and health care and such? Then sadly, the taxpayers have certain rights as well. That means a full background check (which they do for most federal jobs).

#3- There would have to be a very, very harsh criminal code amendments, that basically puts the KNOWING AND WILLFUL use of a superhuman power on the same level of using an assault rifle to commit a crime, for example. But the bottom line is that it has to be made clear that if you go out and use your superpower to commit crimes, then there has to be mandatory riders that will increase your incarceration time when brought to justice. And yes, this means that all those times that Electro did his things, and was captured by Spiderman and back out a few issues later would not be happening- there have been comics where Electro's actions MUST have cost lives. Electro should be in the gas chamber for these offenses, not out 10 issues later.

#4- sadly, it would not be that hard to apply current US laws to hi-tech heroes and villains. Specifically, the law ALREADY mandates that flying contraptions MUST be approved by the F.A.A. Stuff like that. I would certainly designate anything with offensive weaponry under A.T.F. jurisdiction. There are already plenty of laws on the books in the real world about that. Even if I were to invent a REAL working IRON MAN armor right now, I would need FAA approval to go into the air with it. Would need NASA authority to go into space with it. Would have to abide by emission and other standards per the EPA. So I think those laws are already in place as far as Hi Tech heroes and villains go.

#5- Registrations- If convicted of a crime in the usage of superpowers, then guess what: In our world, the FIRST TIME you convict a sexual offense, you can be designated a Registered Sex Offender for the rest of your life. Especially if it involves a child. So, if you have used a superpower to commit a crime, then you are going to be registered and monitored the rest of your life. If you are a person whom built a suit of battle armor and used it to rob a bank and got stopped by Iron Man, guess what? You are going to be restricted from buying certain things the rest of your life. For example, a hacker whom has been convicted and served his sentence CAN be forbidden legally from owning a computer. Most felons are forbidden from owning guns after they commit a crime with one.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah you could. Because lets face it, the Patriot
> Act has survived for over 10 years now, and has
> withstood all legal challenges to it, even with a
> change of leadership in this country. For all the
> talk Obama did against it, he has enforced pretty
> much every bit of it. Which tells me the entire
> opposition was more because Bush was in charge of
> implementing it for 7 years. Little else.

More because the longer a law is in place and the more used to something people get the less likely you are to be able to motivate them to strike it down even when they know it's wrong. That's one reason removing slavery laws was so difficult, as well as to get women and other minorities the right to vote, or that we STILL haven't removed the Indian Land Management Act that lets big corporations rake in billions every year from land owned by Indians because 'well you don't have enough sense to manage it so we'll do it for you' while paying them NOTHING for what's taken from their land.

> But, enough of that, lets get to the S.H.R.A. and
> how it SHOULD have been done.

Agreed.

> The way I see it, a SHRA that would be
> constitutional would be written as follows:
>
> #1- The Department of Health and Human Services
> would open up a Mutant, MetaHuman, etc division,
> that would have doctors and scientists in it. A
> nationwide advertising would be out there to let
> it be known: if you THINK you have some sort of
> mutant or superhuman power, there HAS to be a way
> for you to come in, and get looked at, free of
> charge, no strings attached. This would not be a
> registry, it would be essentially an open door for
> help for someone whom just got superpowers and
> does not know what to do next.

Someone would have to be making records and someone would be putting them into a database that others who shouldn't have access to them can find it. It happens too often with normal medical records the odds of people doing it to records of super-humans would jump exponentially given they'd be seen as high ticket targets.

> #2- I thought it was ridiculous that in the CIVIL
> WAR, villains with criminal records were agreeing
> to join up with the government and get a badge and
> law enforcement authority. No, that would not
> work. If you want to get paid by the taxpayers,
> have official authority and stuff, you HAVE to
> pass everything that a federal officer would have
> to pass. You want that government paycheck and
> pension and health care and such? Then sadly, the
> taxpayers have certain rights as well. That means
> a full background check (which they do for most
> federal jobs).

Well obviously we aren't going to disagree on this one, people today have mostly reached the point that letting criminals get away with crimes and not paying for it (like we did with the Nazi scientists that were secreted away for their knowledge) is a thing of the past. The last thing you want is anyone but an honest law-abiding citizen in your law enforcement and it only becomes more important when you've got someone with super-powers gaining legal protections and authority to go with it.

> #3- There would have to be a very, very harsh
> criminal code amendments, that basically puts the
> KNOWING AND WILLFUL use of a superhuman power on
> the same level of using an assault rifle to commit
> a crime, for example. But the bottom line is that
> it has to be made clear that if you go out and use
> your superpower to commit crimes, then there has
> to be mandatory riders that will increase your
> incarceration time when brought to justice. And
> yes, this means that all those times that Electro
> did his things, and was captured by Spiderman and
> back out a few issues later would not be
> happening- there have been comics where Electro's
> actions MUST have cost lives. Electro should be
> in the gas chamber for these offenses, not out 10
> issues later.

Sorry can't agree with this, all powers are not created the same. Phasing into a store to steal some jewelry can't even remotely be equated with using an assault rifle on someone. You end up with disproportionate retribution and motivate criminals to be MORE violent and dangerous since if you're going to get the death penalty for a non-violent crime just because you used a power you might as well deserve it. The guy phasing into the store for example is no different than someone shoplifting the stuff or picking the lock or smashing out the window and grabbing it. No way the guy with Phasing should get 40 years in prison when the guy with the brick only gets 2 for the same crime.

> #4- sadly, it would not be that hard to apply
> current US laws to hi-tech heroes and villains.
> Specifically, the law ALREADY mandates that flying
> contraptions MUST be approved by the F.A.A. Stuff
> like that. I would certainly designate anything
> with offensive weaponry under A.T.F. jurisdiction.
> There are already plenty of laws on the books in
> the real world about that. Even if I were to
> invent a REAL working IRON MAN armor right now, I
> would need FAA approval to go into the air with
> it. Would need NASA authority to go into space
> with it. Would have to abide by emission and
> other standards per the EPA. So I think those
> laws are already in place as far as Hi Tech heroes
> and villains go.

Where does it say you have to ask NASA before you launch something into space? Last I heard it was still a civilian agency and not a federal program with legal authority to tell anyone to do anything.

> #5- Registrations- If convicted of a crime in the
> usage of superpowers, then guess what: In our
> world, the FIRST TIME you convict a sexual
> offense, you can be designated a Registered Sex
> Offender for the rest of your life. Especially if
> it involves a child. So, if you have used a
> superpower to commit a crime, then you are going
> to be registered and monitored the rest of your
> life. If you are a person whom built a suit of
> battle armor and used it to rob a bank and got
> stopped by Iron Man, guess what? You are going to
> be restricted from buying certain things the rest
> of your life. For example, a hacker whom has
> been convicted and served his sentence CAN be
> forbidden legally from owning a computer. Most
> felons are forbidden from owning guns after they
> commit a crime with one.

Pointing up a law that's often misapplied and used to ruin lives hardly helps your case (such as people on that registry because they were drunk and took a leak and accidentally exposed themselves to kids, or someone who had some cartoon porn convicted of child pornography when child pornography can only be actual photographs of actual kids and only an idiot would claim otherwise). You also can't very well forbid someone from having super-strength or super-genius, and treating them as a super-bad people deserving lifetime treatment as a depraved threat is just going to encourage worse behavior if they're never allowed to feel redeemed and accepted as decent people after paying for their crime.

Quote
More because the longer a law is in place and the more used to something people get the less likely you are to be able to motivate them to strike it down even when they know it's wrong. That's one reason removing slavery laws was so difficult, as well as to get women and other minorities the right to vote, or that we STILL haven't removed the Indian Land Management Act that lets big corporations rake in billions every year from land owned by Indians because 'well you don't have enough sense to manage it so we'll do it for you' while paying them NOTHING for what's taken from their land.

There is a LOT more to Indian Land Management Act then that. Tribal compacts are what they are, legally binding agreements. I know if a court rules something was done in not-good-faith, at least in California, the Indian Reservations have trumped every lawsuit that Las Vegas Casinos put up to try to stop them from building indian casinos in Southern California. You are right in the long struggle to overcome issues, but just look at how for example Gay Rights have gone in just 8 years, where 8 years ago, Bush used that issue as a wedge to get him re-elected and now gay rights is triumphing across the country.

There is nothing wrong with America that can't be repaired by what is RIGHT with America. I would agree with that statement.

Quote
Someone would have to be making records and someone would be putting them into a database that others who shouldn't have access to them can find it. It happens too often with normal medical records the odds of people doing it to records of super-humans would jump exponentially given they'd be seen as high ticket targets.

They have this problem all the time, where for example, they pass something initially and then a later administration changes it. For example, in California in the mid 90's they had mandatory gun registry for one purpose, and then when a different administration took over and did their PC moves, they went after those whom had legally registered their guns for confiscation. No problem when there are criminal reasons NOT to have a gun, but when it is just because a certain type had been done that way, it is different. I realize that it WILL become a registry no matter how hard you try, there will be SOMETHING to it.

Quote
Well obviously we aren't going to disagree on this one, people today have mostly reached the point that letting criminals get away with crimes and not paying for it (like we did with the Nazi scientists that were secreted away for their knowledge) is a thing of the past. The last thing you want is anyone but an honest law-abiding citizen in your law enforcement and it only becomes more important when you've got someone with super-powers gaining legal protections and authority to go with it.

I read stories about the CIVIL WAR where criminals were getting pardoned and getting official government powers to go after Captain America's side in the Civil War. Ridiculous. A criminal is a criminal and if they already broke the law, then no. Yes you are correct in the Nazi Rocket Scientist analogy, yes. So glad you and I agree on that one.

But let me say- if a superhuman does not have a record and WANTS to be paid by the government, WANTS the official vested authorities, then they
HAVE to abide by the law and by standard regulations. That means, background checks, drug testing, everything that all government agents go thru.

Quote
Sorry can't agree with this, all powers are not created the same. Phasing into a store to steal some jewelry can't even remotely be equated with using an assault rifle on someone. You end up with disproportionate retribution and motivate criminals to be MORE violent and dangerous since if you're going to get the death penalty for a non-violent crime just because you used a power you might as well deserve it. The guy phasing into the store for example is no different than someone shoplifting the stuff or picking the lock or smashing out the window and grabbing it. No way the guy with Phasing should get 40 years in prison when the guy with the brick only gets 2 for the same crime.

I am not saying it has to be EXTRANEOUS but I do think that there has to be added penalties for KNOWINGLY using super powers for a crime. And there is precedent for it.

You and your wife are walking down the street. I grab her purse and then take off with it, and get caught and arrested. I have committed simple larceny, a misdemeanor, depending on what my priors are, I could just get straight probation.

You and your wife are walking down the street. I pull a piston on you, take her purse, and take off with it and get caught and arrested. While I have still committed simple larceny, because I used a firearm in the act, I just got +10 years to my sentence. The point being that you don't use a gun in a crime unless you are willing to take the added years to it. This has already been on the books for a long time now and is on the level legally.

So, using your analogy of PHASING, I do think that if you use your phasing power to get into a bank vault and rob it, should get a extra rider to your sentence if caught that a crew that tunneled underneath it and got into the vault would have gotten.

Especially if there is violence involved. That would definitely trump anything else. Even more so if someone was killed. Like I said earlier, yeah Electro is going to keep committing crimes as he does them every 10 issues in the comics. But come 1995 when the Death Penalty passed in New York, would Electro still do it, knowing he could end up in the gas chamber for his crimes instead of being back on the street?

Quote
Pointing up a law that's often misapplied and used to ruin lives hardly helps your case (such as people on that registry because they were drunk and took a leak and accidentally exposed themselves to kids, or someone who had some cartoon porn convicted of child pornography when child pornography can only be actual photographs of actual kids and only an idiot would claim otherwise). You also can't very well forbid someone from having super-strength or super-genius, and treating them as a super-bad people deserving lifetime treatment as a depraved threat is just going to encourage worse behavior if they're never allowed to feel redeemed and accepted as decent people after paying for their crime

They already forbid convicted hackers of ever owning computers ever again. If you are busted for running a meth lab and get caught, you are forbidden from having anything that can be used to make meth again, for example, if you go out and by a bunch of things that are used to make meth, the government could well be onto you when you buy.

Take THE BEATLE. He commits a crime, is convicted and sentenced to prison, with civil forfeiture of his battle armor, and part of his condition of parole would be he never again builds another BEATLE armor. 6 months after he is convicted, a case worker sees a credit flag, that he has purchased circuit boards, capacitors, resistors, polymer, aluminum, and other components, and sees that all these components were used in his BEATLE mark I armor.

And you are incorrect on your analysis of the child sex registration laws. Nearly all of them involve direct sexual acts against children, the cases you cite are certainly worth scrutinizing, but you fail to acknowledge most of them are depraved individuals whom knowing committed sex upon children and deserve the lifetime of scrutiny their actions caused them.

Abner Jenkins
Main article: Abner Jenkins
An ex-master mechanic, Abe Jenkins left his career to pursue life as an adventurer seeking wealth and fame under the Beetle name. A defeat at the Fantastic Four's hands sent him into the direction of a life of crime. Years later, he joined the Thunderbolts, a choice that eventually took him on a more heroic pathway in life.


Source
[en.wikipedia.org])

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a LOT more to Indian Land Management Act
> then that. Tribal compacts are what they are,
> legally binding agreements. I know if a court
> rules something was done in not-good-faith, at
> least in California, the Indian Reservations have
> trumped every lawsuit that Las Vegas Casinos put
> up to try to stop them from building indian
> casinos in Southern California. You are right in
> the long struggle to overcome issues, but just
> look at how for example Gay Rights have gone in
> just 8 years, where 8 years ago, Bush used that
> issue as a wedge to get him re-elected and now gay
> rights is triumphing across the country.
>
> There is nothing wrong with America that can't be
> repaired by what is RIGHT with America. I would
> agree with that statement.

Another point we can agree on, however that land management act is being used against people who're Indians with what is private land not land that's part of a Reservation. It's been around for enough decades there aren't that many alive who remember a time before it, and it's been deliberately mismanaged with records going 'missing' and multiple administrations having tried to do something about at least finding out where all that money went but can't because they just drag their feet until someone new comes along and forces them back to scratch. Instead of the law being immediately repealed as it has absolutely no right to exist and is a leftover racist law that sadly sees no end in sight.

> They have this problem all the time, where for
> example, they pass something initially and then a
> later administration changes it. For example, in
> California in the mid 90's they had mandatory gun
> registry for one purpose, and then when a
> different administration took over and did their
> PC moves, they went after those whom had legally
> registered their guns for confiscation. No
> problem when there are criminal reasons NOT to
> have a gun, but when it is just because a certain
> type had been done that way, it is different. I
> realize that it WILL become a registry no matter
> how hard you try, there will be SOMETHING to it.

Which is why you can't guarantee someone with super-powers safety, because eventually if not immediately the data ends up in a database that someone will eventually leak (do I need to cite Snowden? ).

> I read stories about the CIVIL WAR where criminals
> were getting pardoned and getting official
> government powers to go after Captain America's
> side in the Civil War. Ridiculous. A criminal is
> a criminal and if they already broke the law, then
> no. Yes you are correct in the Nazi Rocket
> Scientist analogy, yes. So glad you and I agree
> on that one.

Yes a criminal is a criminal BUT as long as he's paid for it as the law warrants it shouldn't be unduly held against him (we also saw the Tinkerer dragged off to the Negative Zone lock-up while with his grand-daughter buying her ice cream when having committed no crime and having left his criminal career BECAUSE he didn't want to be targeted and dragged off like that). Civil War though we did indeed see abuse of government power in the pardoning of criminals, most of them unrepentant mass murderers, to send them after people whose 'crime' was being a good citizen trying to save lives. One (Moonstone) deliberately manipulated an event to go after a hero just so she could arrange a crippling spinal cord injury for him for refusing to sign up.

> But let me say- if a superhuman does not have a
> record and WANTS to be paid by the government,
> WANTS the official vested authorities, then they
> HAVE to abide by the law and by standard
> regulations. That means, background checks, drug
> testing, everything that all government agents go
> thru.

Well of course, what we're arguing about is the involuntary servitude and indefinite imprisonment problems seen with SHRA (one can hardly separate Japanese Internment during WWII and Nazi lock-ups of Jews, they weren't that far apart in the end). You don't have a open registration process inviting people with powers who want to help others join the Police, Fire Department, or other public agency but mandated registration and numbering of people (again not that far off from what the Nazis did to the Jews and other 'undesirables').

> I am not saying it has to be EXTRANEOUS but I do
> think that there has to be added penalties for
> KNOWINGLY using super powers for a crime. And
> there is precedent for it.

Last I checked there aren't super-powers in the real world so it's REALLY unlikely you're going to find precedent for it.

> You and your wife are walking down the street. I
> grab her purse and then take off with it, and get
> caught and arrested. I have committed simple
> larceny, a misdemeanor, depending on what my
> priors are, I could just get straight probation.
>
>
> You and your wife are walking down the street. I
> pull a piston on you, take her purse, and take off
> with it and get caught and arrested. While I have
> still committed simple larceny, because I used a
> firearm in the act, I just got +10 years to my
> sentence. The point being that you don't use a
> gun in a crime unless you are willing to take the
> added years to it. This has already been on the
> books for a long time now and is on the level
> legally.
>
> So, using your analogy of PHASING, I do think that
> if you use your phasing power to get into a bank
> vault and rob it, should get a extra rider to your
> sentence if caught that a crew that tunneled
> underneath it and got into the vault would have
> gotten.

Which is where you're wrong. You keep slotting all powers into a single slot, a slot where what it was used for is completely irrelevant, AND having it inherently be worse than a comparable or worse act by a non-powered human. Has the person with the Phasing power done ANYTHING that can be considered any more excessive than the people who tunneled in? No. Why then should those who tunneled in get a break compared to the guy who phased in? Answer, they shouldn't, the crimes are equal. If you're Superman with heat beam eyes and burn someone to death 10' away have you committed a worse crime than someone who dumps gasoline on someone and lights them up? No, the person still died from a horrible burning death (and probably Superman's victim got off easy with a quick vaporizing).

> Especially if there is violence involved. That
> would definitely trump anything else. Even more
> so if someone was killed. Like I said earlier,
> yeah Electro is going to keep committing crimes as
> he does them every 10 issues in the comics. But
> come 1995 when the Death Penalty passed in New
> York, would Electro still do it, knowing he could
> end up in the gas chamber for his crimes instead
> of being back on the street?

Now see, the death penalty for using your powers to rob people just shows an incredibly draconian and unjust legal system in action. What you actually get is 'well if I'm going to get the death penalty anyway I may as well kill them and deserve it'. You can see an example of that in the Larry Niven Known Space series when ALL crimes were death penalty cases because people wanted to be sure easily transplanted organs were available and the just ran out of actual criminals to strip like a stolen car. So you had people decide if they were going to be treated as spare parts anyway may as well actually deserve it. In a similar vein if you think someone should die because he used powers instead of a gun to rob people he's probably just going to kill them anyway instead of just be happy with his stolen goods, plus if he kills them he has less chance of being caught since now there aren't any witnesses.

> They already forbid convicted hackers of ever
> owning computers ever again. If you are busted
> for running a meth lab and get caught, you are
> forbidden from having anything that can be used to
> make meth again, for example, if you go out and by
> a bunch of things that are used to make meth, the
> government could well be onto you when you buy.

Right, and how do you 'forbid' someone from having access to a super-power that he has? Because most likely the only ways to do that (depending on the person's powers) would likely require horribly inhumane and monstrous methods to make it happen. For that matter how do you really stop someone from gathering those chemicals for a meth lab? They're already criminals, you aren't going to stop them from doing it again by saying 'hey you're forbidden from having those!'. It didn't stop them the first time (since after all we're all forbidden from having those chemicals all at once, or at least some places are that insane) why would it stop them a second time?

> Take THE BEATLE. He commits a crime, is convicted
> and sentenced to prison, with civil forfeiture of
> his battle armor, and part of his condition of
> parole would be he never again builds another
> BEATLE armor. 6 months after he is convicted, a
> case worker sees a credit flag, that he has
> purchased circuit boards, capacitors, resistors,
> polymer, aluminum, and other components, and sees
> that all these components were used in his BEATLE
> mark I armor.

For one I'd wonder why he'd be stupid enough to leave a paper trail if he were rebuilding his suit that his case worker would find (or that the case worker would even notice given how frequently overworked they are). I'd also wonder how you'd hold that against a guy purchase-wise given he's an engineer and it'd be odd that he wouldn't be doing stuff related to his skill-set. I mean if you were to deny him the ability to make use of his most useful skill, the one most capable of earning him a legal living, how can you complain if he returns to crime?

Of course the Beetle is a bad example anyway, he's not a super-human who could be reasonably subjected to something like the SHRA. He's a normal human in a power armor suit, no different than a military pilot in a military jet, the only laws he'd be subject to are the normal laws regarding normal humans and criminal activity.

> And you are incorrect on your analysis of the
> child sex registration laws. Nearly all of them
> involve direct sexual acts against children, the
> cases you cite are certainly worth scrutinizing,
> but you fail to acknowledge most of them are
> depraved individuals whom knowing committed sex
> upon children and deserve the lifetime of scrutiny
> their actions caused them.

I was acknowledging the failed abuses of the system, since you were only presenting it as if the law were only being applied to justified cases of depraved individuals but it gets wrongly applied to many (like most laws too often end up). People can and have ended up on sexual predator lists for drunkenly exposing themselves (and even for pranks like streaking) and it would be a major disservice to everyone to not evaluate things on a case by case basis rather than blanket damning people. The person with healing powers shouldn't get treated as the same as the guy with fire generation who committed arson for hire because he broke the law since he was healing people and was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. Yet that's basically what you've been arguing, that the healer should suffer grievous penalties because he used his healing powers to help others but the law didn't allow for that.

MajorSteel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abner Jenkins
> Main article: Abner Jenkins
> An ex-master mechanic, Abe Jenkins left his career
> to pursue life as an adventurer seeking wealth and
> fame under the Beetle name. A defeat at the
> Fantastic Four's hands sent him into the direction
> of a life of crime. Years later, he joined the
> Thunderbolts, a choice that eventually took him on
> a more heroic pathway in life.

Shows what can happen when you give someone a chance to better themselves instead of 'once a criminal always a criminal', same holds for the former Screaming Mimi AND Hawkeye.

Quote
Another point we can agree on, however that land management act is being used against people who're Indians with what is private land not land that's part of a Reservation. It's been around for enough decades there aren't that many alive who remember a time before it, and it's been deliberately mismanaged with records going 'missing' and multiple administrations having tried to do something about at least finding out where all that money went but can't because they just drag their feet until someone new comes along and forces them back to scratch. Instead of the law being immediately repealed as it has absolutely no right to exist and is a leftover racist law that sadly sees no end in sight.

The main point in the end, is that America as made substantial progress on this and thus, same with superhumans.

Quote
Which is why you can't guarantee someone with super-powers safety, because eventually if not immediately the data ends up in a database that someone will eventually leak (do I need to cite Snowden? ).

I know. You have to at least try though. I recall in the CIVIL WAR that Docter David Banner testified in favor of it, claiming that if there had been an avenue for him to go to get help, that maybe his condition could have been addressed and helped and not gone into the wild so to speak. Yes, privacy is paramount. Unfortunately, yes, there are leaks and if someone has a power that is pretty obvious, ie, if this act existed and THEN the Fantastic Four return to earth with their new powers, yes Ben Grimm is going to be hard to hide.

Quote
Yes a criminal is a criminal BUT as long as he's paid for it as the law warrants it shouldn't be unduly held against him (we also saw the Tinkerer dragged off to the Negative Zone lock-up while with his grand-daughter buying her ice cream when having committed no crime and having left his criminal career BECAUSE he didn't want to be targeted and dragged off like that). Civil War though we did indeed see abuse of government power in the pardoning of criminals, most of them unrepentant mass murderers, to send them after people whose 'crime' was being a good citizen trying to save lives. One (Moonstone) deliberately manipulated an event to go after a hero just so she could arrange a crippling spinal cord injury for him for refusing to sign up.

Yeah and again, that would be something were I suspect Marvel writers were just trying to do it in a way to make the Bush Administration look bad. The fact that this issue seems to be over- I am not hearing any talk of this continuing now that Obama is president, tells me they were just as interested in making political points in real life as they were in telling their story. I can certainly understand why they would not LIKE Bush, but to do some of the things they did in the CIVIL WAR made it less believable.

Quote
Well of course, what we're arguing about is the involuntary servitude and indefinite imprisonment problems seen with SHRA (one can hardly separate Japanese Internment during WWII and Nazi lock-ups of Jews, they weren't that far apart in the end). You don't have a open registration process inviting people with powers who want to help others join the Police, Fire Department, or other public agency but mandated registration and numbering of people (again not that far off from what the Nazis did to the Jews and other 'undesirables').

Ok we both agree.

Quote
Which is where you're wrong. You keep slotting all powers into a single slot, a slot where what it was used for is completely irrelevant, AND having it inherently be worse than a comparable or worse act by a non-powered human. Has the person with the Phasing power done ANYTHING that can be considered any more excessive than the people who tunneled in? No. Why then should those who tunneled in get a break compared to the guy who phased in? Answer, they shouldn't, the crimes are equal. If you're Superman with heat beam eyes and burn someone to death 10' away have you committed a worse crime than someone who dumps gasoline on someone and lights them up? No, the person still died from a horrible burning death (and probably Superman's victim got off easy with a quick vaporizing).

Not doing that. My point that if you use a gun to commit a misdeamor gets you +10 years to what could have been probation is the law already. I am not saying that the crew that tunneled into a bank vault deserves less time. I think the crime for it should be enforced. But I do think that if someone with superpowers KNOWS that if they use their powers for criminal acts, that they will get more time for it will lead to less crime overall if they don't think it is worth it. I would argue that using PHASING to get into the bank vault has actually done less then the tunnelling crew, which would also get destruction of property and did actual property damage to be more.

The parts about the usage of superpowers vs gasoline to kill is different in that we are still talking about murder, which should get the death penalty, superpower or not.

Quote
Now see, the death penalty for using your powers to rob people just shows an incredibly draconian and unjust legal system in action. What you actually get is 'well if I'm going to get the death penalty anyway I may as well kill them and deserve it'. You can see an example of that in the Larry Niven Known Space series when ALL crimes were death penalty cases because people wanted to be sure easily transplanted organs were available and the just ran out of actual criminals to strip like a stolen car. So you had people decide if they were going to be treated as spare parts anyway may as well actually deserve it. In a similar vein if you think someone should die because he used powers instead of a gun to rob people he's probably just going to kill them anyway instead of just be happy with his stolen goods, plus if he kills them he has less chance of being caught since now there aren't any witnesses.

I never said the Death Penalty for robbing people. I am saying the Death Penalty for murdering people.

And you keep dodging what I said about how it is already a +10 years if you use a gun to take a purse then if you just grabbed it and ran. Superpowers should fall in under that, especially if they are the Hi-Tech kind, where you have a dedicated weapon system built to do something with.

Quote
Right, and how do you 'forbid' someone from having access to a super-power that he has? Because most likely the only ways to do that (depending on the person's powers) would likely require horribly inhumane and monstrous methods to make it happen. For that matter how do you really stop someone from gathering those chemicals for a meth lab? They're already criminals, you aren't going to stop them from doing it again by saying 'hey you're forbidden from having those!'. It didn't stop them the first time (since after all we're all forbidden from having those chemicals all at once, or at least some places are that insane) why would it stop them a second time?

We are already seeing this in MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD- where we saw that the guy that would become Scorch was already under some monitoring by SHIELD. And same with Skye being controlled after her incident with the group she used to belong to.

To the part about the Meth Lab, they do bust people for buying things that are needed to manufacture meth all the time; I agree that if you are a meth lab convictee, you sure won't be able to do it legally anymore, as most of what is used to make it can be bought over the counter (not as much anymore- I needed a drivers license to by SUDAFED for example when I had allergies because SUDAFED can be used to make meth).

Quote
For one I'd wonder why he'd be stupid enough to leave a paper trail if he were rebuilding his suit that his case worker would find (or that the case worker would even notice given how frequently overworked they are). I'd also wonder how you'd hold that against a guy purchase-wise given he's an engineer and it'd be odd that he wouldn't be doing stuff related to his skill-set. I mean if you were to deny him the ability to make use of his most useful skill, the one most capable of earning him a legal living, how can you complain if he returns to crime?

Of course the Beetle is a bad example anyway, he's not a super-human who could be reasonably subjected to something like the SHRA. He's a normal human in a power armor suit, no different than a military pilot in a military jet, the only laws he'd be subject to are the normal laws regarding normal humans and criminal activity.

I disagree, the Beetle is a perfect example. He made the willing choice to build his armor and use it to commit crimes with. Now, out of his armor yes he is no different then the comics Iron Man (the movie Iron Man/Tony Stark is different). If the Beetle had more then just the zapper (the current character profile system here at the site seems to be down), but if he built in a shotgun to his armor, and used it, he is in a lot more trouble. My point is that if The Beetle were CAUGHT trying to rebuild his armor, he is in a lot of trouble and heading back to prison. My meth lab analogy above is the point- they do bust in California people whom ran meth labs in the past for trying to reget material to remake a meth lab, and can be noticed if online activity shows they are trying to purchase materials used in it.

Same with the Beetle. So in contrast with the SHRA, I would have a rider where there are penalties that can be added to the regular crimes committed. Yes, out of his armor the Beetle is just a human being.

Quote
I was acknowledging the failed abuses of the system, since you were only presenting it as if the law were only being applied to justified cases of depraved individuals but it gets wrongly applied to many (like most laws too often end up). People can and have ended up on sexual predator lists for drunkenly exposing themselves (and even for pranks like streaking) and it would be a major disservice to everyone to not evaluate things on a case by case basis rather than blanket damning people. The person with healing powers shouldn't get treated as the same as the guy with fire generation who committed arson for hire because he broke the law since he was healing people and was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. Yet that's basically what you've been arguing, that the healer should suffer grievous penalties because he used his healing powers to help others but the law didn't allow for that.

I would agree that blanket laws like that need some clarifications. A guy drunkenly streaking during a prank, I would AGREE that perhaps a short stint on the Sex Offenders List would make them rethink every doing it again, as long as they come off it.

But you don't seem focused that the whole point is to focus on the real sex predators that are convicted and subjected to it. People whom REALLY did do things to children and now are barred from parks and schools, for example.

I think it was on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER where he made the analogy that if Jesus Christ came to the world for a week to heal the sick and dying, that the HMO's and such would be doing everything they could to keep him out of their hospitals and patients, using every legal maneuver they could to keep him away, afraid that Jesus's healing would take away from their profit margins and would lower health care costs.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know. You have to at least try though. I
> recall in the CIVIL WAR that Docter David Banner
> testified in favor of it, claiming that if there
> had been an avenue for him to go to get help, that
> maybe his condition could have been addressed and
> helped and not gone into the wild so to speak.
> Yes, privacy is paramount. Unfortunately, yes,
> there are leaks and if someone has a power that is
> pretty obvious, ie, if this act existed and THEN
> the Fantastic Four return to earth with their new
> powers, yes Ben Grimm is going to be hard to hide.

Sounds like a writer inserting using Banner as an Author stand-in, since Banner had avenues of help and often was in the midst of attempting to cure himself when attacked by people like Ross. Banner himself committed no crimes, and what wrongs the Hulk committed were collateral damage as a result of defending himself from attackers AND having a child's mind. There were means available to deal with things without requiring an act that would label him as not being really human and reducing his civil rights instead of protecting them.

> Yeah and again, that would be something were I
> suspect Marvel writers were just trying to do it
> in a way to make the Bush Administration look bad.
> The fact that this issue seems to be over- I am
> not hearing any talk of this continuing now that
> Obama is president, tells me they were just as
> interested in making political points in real life
> as they were in telling their story. I can
> certainly understand why they would not LIKE Bush,
> but to do some of the things they did in the CIVIL
> WAR made it less believable.

The Patriot Act and Bush's 'I tell you when and where you can have free speech' declarations were public, polarizing things but by now the public's moved on to other concerns. Plus it's not like we haven't had plenty of invasion of privacy storylines since and secret (or not so secret) government organizations monitoring everyone to parallel problems under Obama's presidency.


> Not doing that. My point that if you use a gun to
> commit a misdeamor gets you +10 years to what
> could have been probation is the law already. I
> am not saying that the crew that tunneled into a
> bank vault deserves less time. I think the crime
> for it should be enforced. But I do think that
> if someone with superpowers KNOWS that if they use
> their powers for criminal acts, that they will get
> more time for it will lead to less crime overall
> if they don't think it is worth it. I would
> argue that using PHASING to get into the bank
> vault has actually done less then the tunnelling
> crew, which would also get destruction of property
> and did actual property damage to be more.

Except you keep stating that the guy using Phasing should be punished worse than the people who tunneled in, even though he used a non-destructive method that caused no harm whatsoever. You just can't go 'use a power get an extra 10 years' because that's unjust, all powers aren't the same so shouldn't be treated as automatically incurring a worse prison sentence. Don't we have enough problems as it is from mandated prison sentence upgrades that remove justice from the equation and clogs up the prisons with less serious criminals while letting the worse ones get out early? I had a classmate from high school who got decades in prison for having a petty criminal record and stealing a felony level's worth of copper from a worksite, he saw killers and rapists getting out before him because of his sentencing upgrade even though he was a non-violent offender whose only crimes were theft. There is no justice or benefit from that kind of sentencing.

> The parts about the usage of superpowers vs
> gasoline to kill is different in that we are still
> talking about murder, which should get the death
> penalty, superpower or not.

You still get my point though, even if I rolled an 01 trying to come up with a better comparison.

> I never said the Death Penalty for robbing people.
> I am saying the Death Penalty for murdering
> people.

From your wording it sounded a lot more like upgrading most use of super-powers to break the law to be death penalty offenses, to deter people from using super-powers at all.

> And you keep dodging what I said about how it is
> already a +10 years if you use a gun to take a
> purse then if you just grabbed it and ran.
> Superpowers should fall in under that, especially
> if they are the Hi-Tech kind, where you have a
> dedicated weapon system built to do something
> with.

I didn't dodge anything, I stated outright that you can't go 'all superpowers are guns' as you keep insisting because they aren't. Someone who used a super-power to put people harmlessly to sleep does not equate to someone using a gun to threaten harm to people let alone actual harm to them. As I also already noted power armor users shouldn't be covered under a SHRA anyway, they aren't super-humans they're humans using really advanced technology making them 'guys with guns' not 'guys with super-powers'.

> We are already seeing this in MARVEL AGENTS OF
> SHIELD- where we saw that the guy that would
> become Scorch was already under some monitoring by
> SHIELD. And same with Skye being controlled after
> her incident with the group she used to belong to.

Unfortunately that point works against you, Scorch wasn't a super-villain until later into his introductory episode yet you've got a government organization illegally monitoring an individual with no criminal record or reason to suspect him of criminal behavior only because he had powers and because they wanted to find some means of manipulating him into working for them. The government shouldn't be monitoring people in such a fashion, having super-powers should never grant the government carte blanche to spy on you whenever they fell like just because you've got powers. Heck using your own comparisons the government isn't allowed to monitor people simply because they own guns they require actual justification to think a crime has or will be committed before they can even try and get permission to do so, having super-powers shouldn't grant any more right to ignore someone's rights than someone who doesn't have them.

> To the part about the Meth Lab, they do bust
> people for buying things that are needed to
> manufacture meth all the time; I agree that if you
> are a meth lab convictee, you sure won't be able
> to do it legally anymore, as most of what is used
> to make it can be bought over the counter (not as
> much anymore- I needed a drivers license to by
> SUDAFED for example when I had allergies because
> SUDAFED can be used to make meth).

Yes, and a woman over in Terre Haute was arrested for buying it because she had no idea that the law set a maximum amount you can have at any one time and she unknowingly violated it (you'd think they'd be legally required to inform you of such a law given the felony it represented but apparently not). Which if the drug companies switched to the production of the variant that can't be used to create Meth you'd just about eliminate the problem since removing a critical component to its production would remove the drug itself but the drug companies aren't going to give up even a tiny bit of profit for the good of anyone else.

> I disagree, the Beetle is a perfect example. He
> made the willing choice to build his armor and use
> it to commit crimes with. Now, out of his armor
> yes he is no different then the comics Iron Man
> (the movie Iron Man/Tony Stark is different). If
> the Beetle had more then just the zapper (the
> current character profile system here at the site
> seems to be down), but if he built in a shotgun to
> his armor, and used it, he is in a lot more
> trouble. My point is that if The Beetle were
> CAUGHT trying to rebuild his armor, he is in a lot
> of trouble and heading back to prison. My meth
> lab analogy above is the point- they do bust in
> California people whom ran meth labs in the past
> for trying to reget material to remake a meth lab,
> and can be noticed if online activity shows they
> are trying to purchase materials used in it.

Except Beetle's not a super-human, making another Beetle armor is comparable to someone buying the parts and assembling a rifle when not allowed to do so not a super-powered individual acting to gain back lost powers. He fits only the category of a normal human criminal in spite of how advanced his weapon is.

> Same with the Beetle. So in contrast with the
> SHRA, I would have a rider where there are
> penalties that can be added to the regular crimes
> committed. Yes, out of his armor the Beetle is
> just a human being.

He's just a human being IN the armor too, or are you going to claim a guy piloting a tank is now a super-human but out of it just a normal human? Because it's the same deal, he's got no powers and never has powers he has a tool, something anyone could make use of just like handing someone that tank or a rifle.

> I would agree that blanket laws like that need
> some clarifications. A guy drunkenly streaking
> during a prank, I would AGREE that perhaps a short
> stint on the Sex Offenders List would make them
> rethink every doing it again, as long as they come
> off it.

No, there should be NO stint on the list. He's not a sex offender and being labeled one wrongly ruins people's lives and even gets them killed because it's one of those things that people have been programmed to be totally irrational about and once you've been accused of something like that you never recover from it and actually being put in such a list even temporarily is going to guarantee finding work becomes impossible as well as finding a residence to live in as people just refuse to rent to that 'nasty pedophile' or the neighbors assault and harass him until he leaves or is killed since being on that registry in many places requires you to publicly announce to everyone that you're a registered sex offender and that means only one thing to people, child rapist and they will NEVER look at the actual crime or accept that why they were on there was for anything but even if they see the Police records that state 'streaked too close to a school and flashed a group of middle school girls'.

> But you don't seem focused that the whole point is
> to focus on the real sex predators that are
> convicted and subjected to it. People whom REALLY
> did do things to children and now are barred from
> parks and schools, for example.

Because that's not the whole point, you can't pretend those falsely labeled as actual sexual predators isn't relevant or so trivial (how many ruined innocent human lives do you consider trivial? ) as not worth addressing. All those who can be affected must be considered, not just the guilty parties but the falsely labeled as well.

> I think it was on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER where
> he made the analogy that if Jesus Christ came to
> the world for a week to heal the sick and dying,
> that the HMO's and such would be doing everything
> they could to keep him out of their hospitals and
> patients, using every legal maneuver they could to
> keep him away, afraid that Jesus's healing would
> take away from their profit margins and would
> lower health care costs.

We had someone on here who wasn't much different (although much of his vehement argument was simply to disagree with me since with someone else a year prior he'd vehemently been arguing my side). Jesus would have to be prevented from healing anyone he felt like and instead a committee formed to carefully pick and choose who he could and could not heal because he'd have no right to decide for himself who to heal and instead a faceless group driven by profit should get to decide instead. I imagine it's archived under the 'Making Money the Super Way' thread, if not it's likely under a thread I'd created regarding uses of super-powers for profit and the benefit of the world. He also argued that it would be 'wrong' of someone like Superman to make diamonds and give them to orphanages to help fund them because if he couldn't give to all orphanages then they should all suffer and get nothing. He was big on the 'if he can't provide it to everyone then no one should get it' fallacy.

Of course this is one of the major downsides of such an act, it's really designed to hold down supers and prevent them from having the success in life that non-supers are free to have. The Zodiac webcomic for example has a SHRA introduced prior to the story start and one of the characters is blessed with the power to have any power he can imagine, the more powers reduces his power levels of each and harder to concentrate to maintain them all (as he hasn't figured out how to get around his limitations). He notes to the team how due to his powers he's one of the most regulated and monitored supers in the country solely to prevent him from having any kind of success or impact on the world. Another teammate sympathizes as he's suffered similar being a Colossus style Bruiser who went into demolition only for the Unions to successfully deny him work on the grounds that it was unfair to their members that he could do the work of an entire crew demolishing a building (which by that logic you couldn't have anything but monopolies since any competition is effectively unfair to you since any competition at all takes from your group).

Was writing a long response.

System ate it.

Don't feel like rewriting it.

GmJoeSolarte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was writing a long response.
>
> System ate it.
>
> Don't feel like rewriting it.


I so hate that when it happens. It like you write and you think it very good but just can't recapture what you were writing.
It simply blows

It is more frustrating when you are tied to your phone and the same thing happens

yep.....

Android keypads are bad for typing long posts.

The one I'd currently love to have is
::snapps fingers and broken desktop computer is replaced by new fully working desktop computer ::

Cyberpathy and cyberkinesis...

Make a computer do what you want when and how you wamt it without all those pesky programs and get the computer to self upgrade itself.

Chronomancer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cyberpathy and cyberkinesis...
>
> Make a computer do what you want when and how you wamt it without all those pesky programs and get the computer to self upgrade itself.


Was this meant to go in the What Super Powers Would You Want thread?

EarthBound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Android keypads are bad for typing long posts.
>
> The one I'd currently love to have is
> ::snapps fingers and broken desktop computer is
> replaced by new fully working desktop computer ::


That's either time control or age control.

Was Squirrel Girl around during the Civil War arc?