Civil War II (SPOILERS)

[The Baron]

OK, so having read #0, I see several plot threads:

1)Jennifer is in court, defending the Jester.  I wonder what the legal complications would be of a lawyer acting as an amateur law enforcer.

2)Rhodey is keeping the peace in Latveria. I don't know why they don't just hand control of Latveria over to Victor in perpetuity. He always ends up in charge there eventually, anyhow.

3)Later, the President offers Rhodey SecDef, as a stepping stone to the Presidency, since if a super-hero is going to be President someday, he doesn't want it to be Tony.  Surely Stark has so many skeletons in the closet that if he ran for anything, they'd need to summon the Ghost of Ray Harryhausen to animate them when they all came dancing out?

4)At Ohio State University, a girl and a boy who had just worked up the nerve to ask her out are Terrigen-cocooned.  Do they really just let the Terrigen float around, mutating whom it will?  Surely, one of the MU's many science geniuses could knock up a giant fan to blow it away from populated areas?

5)Leonard Samson visits Carol Danvers, to make sure she hasn't gone nuts.  She is concerned about the menace that they will not be able to stop.

6)Maria Hill informs Jennifer that the Jester - who was convicted- has been killed in prison. Jennifer is outraged, but Maria is all like "He would have recidivated anyway, they always do."  Was Maria always an @$$hole, or did she become one at some point?

7)Back at OSU the kids hatch out of their cocoons. (They just leave these cocoons lying around? they don't collect them and take them somewhere, or at least cordon them off?)  The boy looks normal-ish, but the girl looks demonic and flies away, yowling.  There is some kind of an episode - it's unclear what - and the boy (and the reader) is left wondering what the Hell happened.  He is alone in a devastated city - presumably Columbus, since that's where OSU is in the "real" world.

I'll tell you my main concern - years ago, I was just starting to really get into the Avengers book, and the first Civil War came along and blew it all up, souring me on Marvel for years. I sure hope that's not about to happen all over again.

[Detective 445]

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

  That will depend on what happens to Tony because of it.  I'm betting he skips away from it with nothing more than a warning and  bad look.

Ok, but who at Marvel is saying that his actions in the story are heroic? Even if he doesn't receive punishment, how is that a statement that his actions are heroic?

[Mark S. Ogilvie]

Is marvel ever going to call him a super villain?  They'll always market him as a superhero.  Remember Ulyses has committed no crime, has never been a super villain.  He is by that standard an innocent person.  If A kidnaps B and tortures/assaults him and A is super powered then I consider A to have super villain status, yet I do not think for a moment that marvel is ever going to call Tony a super villain or say that his actions are wrong.  I doubt very much that anyone at marvel will say Tony's actions were wrong and to not say that actions that are obviously wrong are in fact wrong I feel that is condoning those actions.  I think they are going to do the balancing act, trying to portray Tony's actions as wrong but...  It's that little three letter word at the end that tells me that they don't really think what he did was wrong.  If I'm wrong in thinking that way then let someone -anyone- at marvel tell me that they think Tony's actions are wrong.  Until I hear that my opinion stands.

Detective 445 said:

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

  That will depend on what happens to Tony because of it.  I'm betting he skips away from it with nothing more than a warning and  bad look.

Ok, but who at Marvel is saying that his actions in the story are heroic? Even if he doesn't receive punishment, how is that a statement that his actions are heroic?

[Detective 445]

But earlier in the thread you said:

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

  Sorry but I still don't see how marvel can call the character heroic.

I'm asking when they called him or his actions heroic. Especially in the context of this story.

[Mark S. Ogilvie]

 I'm saying that not saying that his actions are wrong amount to the same thing.  If you're not calling bad behavior bad behavior then in my opinion you're implicitly saying that it is good or somehow justified behavior.  

Detective 445 said:

But earlier in the thread you said:

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

  Sorry but I still don't see how marvel can call the character heroic.

I'm asking when they called him or his actions heroic. Especially in the context of this story.

[Wandering Sensei: Moderator Man]

I really enjoyed the Damage Control story!

To be honest, this was the first Damage Control story I've ever read, but I loved how we got to know the characters, the fact that Parker Industries felt protective of their equipment rung true, and now they have a very recognizable new character that could give these guys their own (okay, short-lived) series. At least I would read it, because I see lots of untapped potential with this set-up. I found myself rooting for the couple (whose names I cannot recall).

This was fantastic.

Detective 445 said:

Choosing Sides is an anthology style book that was hit or miss for me. Kind of enjoyed the Damage Control story but I won't continue with it.

[Detective 445]

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

 I'm saying that not saying that his actions are wrong amount to the same thing.  If you're not calling bad behavior bad behavior then in my opinion you're implicitly saying that it is good or somehow justified behavior.  

I can't follow that logic at all. How does being silent about someone's actions mean the same as calling them good? Also, you used the term heroic. Does being silent about someone's actions mean that you think they're heroic?

Your opinion about Iron Man is very clear to everyone on this board. You've stated the same opinion year after year, thread after thread, post after post with great regularity and dedication for a very long time. What's not clear is what you're hoping to achieve in stating the same opinion over and over and over again.

[Mark S. Ogilvie]

Then I'll stop posting my opinion on it.  I'm sure that will satisfy.

[Detective 445]

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

Then I'll stop posting my opinion on it.  I'm sure that will satisfy.

Why not just explain what you want to achieve? I'm sure there's a great reason for it.

[Philip Portelli]

I think the point is that no one thinks Iron Man's actions are justifiable but he does! His friend was killed over one of these visions and he's going to see if there was a reason for it. What they call "kidnapping" is to Stark taking action. "Torture" is "aggressive stimulation in the name of science"! It doesn't matter what the Inhumans, the Avengers or Captain Marvel think of him and his actions, to Tony Stark, he is right!

[Mark S. Ogilvie]

  I was achieving a conversation but that's done now, I've been down this road before recently enough and it leads nowhere but depression and anger, there's nothing I can say and if I keep trying I'll only be put through this time and again.  Enough is enough, as you said I've stated the same opinion, given it different reasons and arguments and apparently reached the limit (though I never realized there was a limit), so I'll say no more on it.  

[Philip Portelli]

Mark, as you said, Marvel will never declare Tony Stark a "super-villain", lock him away, never show him again, condemn those who supported him, condemn those did nothing to stop him, condemn those who failed to stop him and restart all their books to 1975.

Stark has now be recast as a Machiavellian mastermind, a futurist five steps ahead of everyone else including Reed Richards, Bruce Banner and Victor Von Doom and a genuine elitist who truly believes that he knows what's best for the world/universe and that everyone should accept that and allow to do what he feels is right!

Consider him a villain if that brings you any peace but don't think that Marvel ever will!

[Detective 445]

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

  I was achieving a conversation...

I've stated the same opinion, given it different reasons and arguments and apparently reached the limit (though I never realized there was a limit), so I'll say no more on it.  

But is it really a conversation if you just keep making the same point with the same reasons and arguments in different configurations? I'm not aware of any limit in making the same point multiple times. I just wondered what the goal was.