LogFAQs > #878406569

Muffinz0rz posted...

Given their personalities and backgrounds, I swear it seems like Captain America should've been the "pro-oversight, pro-regulation, take accountability for our actions" guy. Whereas Stark, the slightly more "rebellious" character, would be the one saying "if I see a situation heading south, I'm going to intervene." And secondly, he's the one building the autonomous army of "peacekeeping" suits and other projects on his own, why does he want oversight to hinder his innovation? Maybe the Ultron fiasco has him thinking that he needs oversight or regulation?

The thing to keep in mind is, both in the comics and in the movies, Tony is a HUGE control freak. His rebelliousness isn't knee-jerk rebelliousness, it's an unwillingness to do what other people tell him because he's convinced that HE is the one with all the right answers. He has absolutely no problem telling OTHER people what to do.

Back in the 80s there was a storyline where he discovered that someone had broken into his computers, and gained access to his technology. The implication being that at least SOME armored villains in the Marvel universe were using technology directly derived from his own work, and thus, by proxy, he was responsible every time one of those villains hurt or killed someone. His solution to this problem was to hunt down EVERY SINGLE TECH-BASED CHARACTER (both villains AND heroes) he even SUSPECTED of using his technology (some of whom actually weren't), and then forcibly destroyed their technology so they couldn't use it anymore (actively attacking the US government in the process to destroy armor he actually GAVE them for peace-keeping reasons). It was actually the first time where he actively beat the shit out of Captain America because he believed he was right, and that him being right trumps all other considerations. Including the opinions of long time friends.

THAT is Tony Stark.

And that Tony Stark actually fits perfectly with the pro-registration stance.

In the comics, Tony's Civil War logic was basically "People are afraid, this legislation IS going to be passed, and if we support it now, we can shape and control the form it takes, and be in a position to make sure it isn't abused in the future." That actually pays off in the sense that, because of his strong support for the law, he's actually put in charge of SHIELD and handles registration himself. The problem is, he DOES this by putting anyone who refuses to register in super-extra-dimensional-space-prison, and making evil clones of Thor and hiring super-villains to hunt down heroes who refuse to register. Every aspect of his behavior relates directly to his own control-freak nature.

Captain America's logic, by contrast, was basically "This law shouldn't exist in the first place, because it treats people like criminals in-advance solely because OTHER people did something wrong, and because . So as heroes, we should stand up and reject this law and do everything in our power to oppose it, not simply compromise and accept it." In a sense, Cap's stance can be summed up by the logic of "Supporting the lesser evil over the greater evil is still supporting evil." Which fits his personality to a T, as there have been multiple moments in the comics where it's established that Cap supports the IDEA of the American Dream and freedom far more than he does the legal system of the US (so much so that on multiple occasions he gave UP being Captain America because he refused to support a country that was actively rejecting its own ideals).

(cont)


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family