Poll: Captain America: Civil War -- Choose your side!

[Sonicron]

Most people agree that gun owners should have some oversight because they can kill someone.
If someone can level cities by farting too hard, I feel they should have some oversight.
The exact details of what movie Tony wants to do aren't specified yet, so I'll have to wait and see.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Leaving specifics of the movie aside, the issues of responsibility and accountability cannot be overlooked, especially not for people of power.

 

[Something Amyss]

Their first line of defense against a massive alien invasion was to destroy their beachhead in our world and stop the invasion. It was either that, or let the Chitauri destroy the city themselves and then spread out.

Well in that case, it really is too bad that responsible Stark guy stole that weapon and misused it at the behest of one of their own agents going rogue. It's especially lucky that the Chitauri could be taken down by one weapon at their command ship, too. Otherwise, they might have wasted that attempt to stop the beachead and had no recourse. Seems like the sort of thing you might want to hold someone accountable for.

Now I'm wondering why they didn't just nuke Ultron. There would have been less collateral and it would have stopped the threat at its source.

I mean, if you want to say that Ultron represents 80-90% of the chaos in the MCU I guess you could, but that would require ignoring everything else.

Of course, most of the case you just made can boil down to those government agencies I mentioned but you all but excised from the post.

Excluding Extremis, which is partially the fault of Stark, you have...Loki and the Chittauri who have both been able to get where they are thanks to government interference. Hydra...which actually became the government and nobody seemed to mind that suddenly the nation was into thought crime. Plus, as Mars mentioned, they're largely responsible for the chaos Hulk causes by antagonising an uncontrolled rage monster.

I'd rather trust nuclear launch codes to Harpo Marx.

 

[Lucane]

Most people agree that gun owners should have some oversight because they can kill someone.
If someone can level cities by farting too hard, I feel they should have some oversight.
The exact details of what movie Tony wants to do aren't specified yet, so I'll have to wait and see.

Not exactly the same thing.

Some versions of gun rights don't want to take away or limit use but start off with are people qualified and safe to be around them and or other people not so much as you can't leave the house with a gun after 2pm without a government note.
And with powered people some are born/built with it or didn't have a choice in the matter so an accord to restrict the activities of all such people to an authority wouldn't be exactly the same as how gun control issues would be dealt.

I'm just trying to say it's apples and pears since neither is close to oranging the other.

 

[mduncan50]

Well in that case, it really is too bad that responsible Stark guy stole that weapon and misused it at the behest of one of their own agents going rogue. It's especially lucky that the Chitauri could be taken down by one weapon at their command ship, too. Otherwise, they might have wasted that attempt to stop the beachead and had no recourse. Seems like the sort of thing you might want to hold someone accountable for.

Actually it doesn't matter that the nuke was able to destroy the control ship, as at that point the Avengers had found the ability to shut down the portal which would have cut the drones off from the control ship anyways, however if Iron Man hadn't "stolen" the missile it would have left New York a nuclear wasteland once that bomb hit. And if the Avengers hadn't figured out how to close the portal? The New York would still be a nuclear wasteland, except now there would have been nobody left to stop the remainder of the Chitauri army that was coming through the still open portal, and it looked like there were a hell of a lot more on the other side than had already made it through to New York. (And it is doubtfull that was their full army anyways.) Hope they don't mind nuking some more cities to keep trying to defeat them.

 

[mduncan50]

Honestly the best solution I can forsee is to have those who are concerned with regulation and responsibility to head the effort themselves. Nepotism could be a very real problem but I still think it would be more effective and less dangerous than the government having direct control over these people. I'd rather have the golden boy Captain America and the erratic but genius Tony Stark reviewing and criticizing the actions of a metahuman after they've done some activity or another than have that metahuman be following orders of the demonstrably corrupt government. Tony and Cap both believe in doing the right thing. I think its fair to say that they'll judge any potential misdeeds or collateral damage on its merits and not try to use the metahuman as a pawn. Most metahumans would submit to a supposed council's decisions, such as being requested to stop superheroing, even if they disagree with the ruling they would know that disobeying this self-regulating body of metahumans would put all of them at risk for a government crackdown. You can still argue that there's a bit of deprivation of liberty there isn't a danger of corruption and being used as a pawn. You may agree or disagree with an individual decision from this hypothetical council but you know that its altruistic in nature and not going to be easily perverted like a government body can be. Its a sort of compromise and I doubt that Cap would be fully satisfied with it, maybe even violently rebelling against this compromise, but it seems to be a superior method of regulation over letting the government that was just infested with Hydra have control of metahumans.

The problem with that theory is that... well that's pretty much what is happening in this movie. Tony and Steve are judging the actions and damage of themselves and their fellow superheroes, but since they disagree over the responsibility of those involved and how to subsequently deal with them, they are now going to war on who is "right".

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Team Cap all the way. He believes and encourages the best in people, which is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness (perhaps short-sightedness when it comes to Bucky). The big X factor for me is whether Thunderbolt Ross and his cronies are trying to make Bucky pay for his past sins, or whether those sins are all too current. I do share Cap's concern that over-regulation can restrict real, honest change and action.

 

[mduncan50]

So, buncha random speculation. My bet is that either somebody re-triggered Bucky and he actually was responsible for the bombing, or that General Ross is behind the bombing to force the ratification of the Slovakia Accords.

Don't forget about Zemo. To do so is to bring about your downfall!

Also, Stark, because apart from an initial defense to stop Bucky from being summarily executed, the proper thing to do would have been to get the media involved in getting Bucky a fair trial instead of just hiding him. Especially if he made sure that Bucky was remanded into the custody of the Avengers and was guarded by one of thir members 24/7 while Cap went off looking for the 'real culprit'.

Well if Bucky is in the custody of the Avengers, and the Avengers have to follow the government's orders or be sent to the raft, then what's the difference if the just handed him over to the government?

Also, it's almost certainly only a civil war in that the Avengers were tasked with capturing Bucky after the utterly disastrous initial attempt.

I really think that their differing ideologies as to whether their actions should be government controlled is going to be the larger issue, but that the Bucky situation is the first place where those ideologies really come to a head.

 

[mduncan50]

The difference is that had he come right out and explained that to Stark and demanded that Avengers as a whole take him into custody to avoid and 'accidents', Stark's position might have changed. But from what we see, he doesn't do that. Instead it looks like he is demanding Bucky remain free. That doesn't happen with normal people accused of terrorism, why should it happen with superpowered ones? It's pretty damn clear he's a flight risk.

Well the difference is that Bucky wasn't responsible for his actions, and while I agree that he should be brought in (for psychological counseling more than anything else), the reality of the situation is that he would sit in Guantanamo for a decade or so, and may get a trial. As for why Cap is fighting so hard to keep him free, my guess is that the UN explosion is perpetrated by Zemo or one of his underlings and they frame Bucky, and that at the time Cap is either with him, or is tracking him closely enough to know it is impossible that Buck could have done it. I also disagree that he is a flight risk at this time. After all, he got away from Cap in Winter Soldier and instead of hoofing it to the country least likely to extradite him, he went to the Captain America exhibit at the Smithsonian to try to piece his memories together. He seems to be someone searching for answers, not running from justice.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, but speculating is fun

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'd go with Iron Man simply for that fact that it'd be more interesting. I know this probably doesn't have much bearing on anything, but just going for the goody-two-shoes is kind of too expected. Just going from Stark's issues in Ultron, I mean...he was basically the villain of that movie. And his higher intelligence and overcompensated reasoning in protecting the human race just always ends badly. So I'd like to see where he goes with it.

 

[mduncan50]

I'd go with Iron Man simply for that fact that it'd be more interesting. I know this probably doesn't have much bearing on anything, but just going for the goody-two-shoes is kind of too expected. Just going from Stark's issues in Ultron, I mean...he was basically the villain of that movie. And his higher intelligence and overcompensated reasoning in protecting the human race just always ends badly. So I'd like to see where he goes with it.

No such thing as a bad reason. I love seeing people's different motivations for choosing one side or the other. I've seen everything from which actor is cutest to which side would actually win in a fight. If it gets you into the struggle of the movie then who's to say that one reason is better than any other.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Is there a "none of the above" option?

In the comics it was clear both sides lost sight of things and were royally screwing up. Stark used disaster (and created some, but that's another story) to push for every pet project her ever had in mind about making the Avengers more pro-active and global. The extent to which he went "with us or against us" should put anyone into worry mode. On the other hand, Cap ignored legitimate if somewhat irrationally caused (new york can become a war zone every few weeks and no one blinks, blow up one school...) fear the public had and basically decided to beat up Iron Man's side until the public stopped being stupid.

In the movie, based on what we know, unless the Inhumans on SHIELD get a namedrop, which would make me lean more Iron Man for reasons others have mentioned about super-powers popping up in the untrained and potentially criminal, based on the movies, exactly how much point is there in registering "superpowers"? Alien invasions are beyond any hero's control, and most of the other fights were scientists playing with toys hard to control until after the fact. That leaves the Hulk's rampages, and you're really only holding him in check if he lets you. What can they do, register anyone smart enough to build a super-suit of armor and watch them 24/7?

On the other hand, what exactly is going to be different beyond what SHIELD's MO was in season 1? Find, track, and deal with renegade super powered people. Unless Stark, Ross, or someone else starts going crazy with plans, it seems just an effort to get back to status quo, which seems stupid to fight against. I suppose there's a logical argument for hydra infiltration, but that's an argument for proper vetting.

It seems like this could be another pointless fight between people missing the point of why they're fighting, whcih granted, was the end message of the comics, even if they had to let one side "win".

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'd go with Iron Man simply for that fact that it'd be more interesting. I know this probably doesn't have much bearing on anything, but just going for the goody-two-shoes is kind of too expected. Just going from Stark's issues in Ultron, I mean...he was basically the villain of that movie. And his higher intelligence and overcompensated reasoning in protecting the human race just always ends badly. So I'd like to see where he goes with it.

No such thing as a bad reason. I love seeing people's different motivations for choosing one side or the other. I've seen everything from which actor is cutest to which side would actually win in a fight. If it gets you into the struggle of the movie then who's to say that one reason is better than any other.

True, I mean that's the nature of man and sports, right? Any competition, from MMA to downhill skiing you may want a certain character/personality to win for just reasons, whatever they are. And that's what makes it entertaining.

In the recent Bats vs. Supes it was an easy choice for me, because Supes was boring and Bats would have to think of a functional approach. Even though here I believe Iron Man has the upper hand, the downside for him is if anything goes wrong or interferes with his suit he's done for.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Iron Man for Black Panther and Spider-Man.

Really though, it's because I have a friend who's strictly Team Cap and it's not so much I want Iron Man to win, I just want her to lose.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

I believe that superheroes should be held accountable for their action, and be registered with the government. As for Bucky, he should stand trial and own up to his crimes. The Winter Soldier is an adult and should be treated as such, we can't keep letting superheroes off the hook on some contrived reasons. Superheroes aren't to be trusted and Civil War is Proof. Instead of going to court and letting the justice system handle Bucky: Iron Man and Captain America are going to get into a pointless fist fight and cause billions of dollars in property damage, which will in turn give people a reason to hate superheroes. How am I supposed to trust these heroes if they cause more destruction than save lives?

 

[mduncan50]

I believe that superheroes should be held accountable for their action, and be registered with the government. As for Bucky, he should stand trial and own up to his crimes. The Winter Soldier is an adult and should be treated as such, we can't keep letting superheroes off the hook on some contrived reasons. Superheroes aren't to be trusted and Civil War is Proof. Instead of going to court and letting the justice system handle Bucky: Iron Man and Captain America are going to get into a pointless fist fight and cause billions of dollars in property damage, which will in turn give people a reason to hate superheroes. How am I supposed to trust these heroes if they cause more destruction than save lives?

Bucky may be an adult, but he was also tortured, brainwashed, and mind-controlled. Not what I would call a contrived reason. It could be fair to say that he should still stand trial and let a military tribunal decide whether or not he should be held responsible, with the expectation that the general public knows that this is a possibility, but also remember that this is a world where people would not accept the idea that Kilgrave existed.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

I believe that superheroes should be held accountable for their action, and be registered with the government. As for Bucky, he should stand trial and own up to his crimes. The Winter Soldier is an adult and should be treated as such, we can't keep letting superheroes off the hook on some contrived reasons. Superheroes aren't to be trusted and Civil War is Proof. Instead of going to court and letting the justice system handle Bucky: Iron Man and Captain America are going to get into a pointless fist fight and cause billions of dollars in property damage, which will in turn give people a reason to hate superheroes. How am I supposed to trust these heroes if they cause more destruction than save lives?

Bucky may be an adult, but he was also tortured, brainwashed, and mind-controlled. Not what I would call a contrived reason. It could be fair to say that he should still stand trial and let a military tribunal decide whether or not he should be held responsible, with the expectation that the general public knows that this is a possibility, but also remember that this is a world where people would not accept the idea that Kilgrave existed.

Something tells me that this is all going to be rendered moot and pointless when HYDRA, or someone from HYDRA show's up at the last part of the movie for the Avengers to fight against.