(no subject)

[seekingferret]

My big thought on Captain America: Civil War was that Steve needed to be hit on the head with a political philosophy textbook. Hard. This led to my conception of the Enlightenment Philosopher Natasha meme.

Comments

This is wonderful

[brainwane]

I was significantly dismayed that Steve was so very -- I thought uncharacteristically -- wrong on matters of governance. Leonard (my spouse) asked me whether I had perhaps had my mental model of Steve Rogers built on the union-organizer-Steve characterization that my fannish circles prefer, and forgotten about the many ways Captain America's been characterized in canon, including as blustery fighty anti-oversight dude. I admitted that this could be right.

I ID more with Natasha than with Tony or Steve in CACW, particularly on the "assess terrain, pick battles, live to fight another day" level. So your concept is wonderful.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

Yeah, one of my first thoughts leaving the movie was that this Steve is not at all compatible with the Average Avengers Local version of Steve.

On further reflection, one way to look at Civil War is that everyone on team Tony except for Peter has probably read Rousseau and Locke, whereas on team Steve, probably only Sam has. There's a difference in amount of college education, a difference in class identity, and therefore a difference in attitude about government.

Another way to think about Steve is to wonder if when Steve heard "We're going to put you under United Nations oversight," Frozen-in-1944-Steve heard "We're going to put you under League of Nations oversight."

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

I read someone who suggested that Steve was reacting the the events in The Winter Soldier and Tony the events in Age of Ultron. That seems entirely plausible.

Steve, despite (because of?) being a soldier is very anti-authoritarian and has been since the first Cap film, so his position, while not my own, didn't seem uncharacteristic. The other thing is that he's, what, 25? He's a hothead. Had the bombing not happened, I think he could have been persuaded given time.

I have to admit that given what we've seen of institutions in MCU I have slightly more sympathy for Steve's position than I would otherwise.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

Yeah, but demanding the right to parachute into Africa with guns and bombs and no authorization or oversight is hardly an anti-authoritarian position, right? Or, I mean, it's anti-authoritarian in that it's anarchistic.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

One thing I was confused about coming out of the film was if the Avengers had truly been working without government oversight. Prior to Winter Soldier, they were working under SHIELD, more or less. Rhodey was definitely working under the DoD through IM3 and I can't imagine that changed. My assumption was that after Winter Soldier the Avengers were working with the tactic approval of the DoD --Rhodey perhaps a compromise of sorts? The accords were likely something being working on behind the scenes after Winter Soldier to control the Avengers, and Ultron just gave them fuel to the fire, but I simply can't imagine them operating, even with Stark's money, totally without some kind of implicit go ahead. Plus I have to imagine that, even if Stark isn't making weapons anymore, he is still knee deep in DoD contracts and that would certainly be a point of leverage -- on both sides really. In any event, there are clearly lines of communication open between the Avengers and the US government at the beginning of the film that seem to go through Stark. I just can't buy that they had complete autonomy for, what, two years, post-Winter Soldier.

If you assume that then Steve, while still wrong, makes somewhat more sense -- he wants the approval of governments to act, but not their orders on how to act.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

I should also say -- I'm not up on Agents of SHIELD, but SHIELD clearly supports Avenger action in Ultron -- is SHIELD still a government agency or is it totally rogue now?

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

tl:dr is that the government system of MCU makes no sense at all, but I'm working on a long post where I actually try to figure this all out anyway.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

As of when I last watched AoS a few months ago, SHIELD was totally rogue, except that it was partnering with several government agencies, except that those government agencies were infiltrated by HYDRA also, except that it made no sense that SHIELD could keep operating at its scale without government funding.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

See, this is why I think that Steve Rogers' position in Civil War is slightly more defendable than if he was in our world: wtf are the government institutions in MCU even?

But the flip side is that if you have a world where multiple government agencies are regularly infiltrated and controlled by an organization that is a Nazi off-shoot and also you have government organizations that essentially go rogue and operate independently, then it makes perfect sense that the government has not stepped in before now to shut the Avengers down and it is, in fact, only the large numbers of deaths that have made it politically expedient to do so. This also makes me wonder about how Stark Industries operates: Tony taking Stark Tower/Avenger's Tower off the grid, trying to privatize world security with Ultron — how are these acts squared government oversight? My guess is that they are not.

This also makes me wonder if, in fact, the US is the only country with mass corruption and confusion wrt government entities. If it is, then putting the Avengers under the UN makes sense. If it is not, then putting the Avengers under the UN does not make sense. So far we have only seen, briefly, hints of WWII era Germany, USSR, and modern day Wakanda's government structures and each of them leave me with more questions than answers.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

Okay, fine, maybe, but wouldn't Steve have to articulate that as his objection? Not that the only oversight he was willing to accept was his own conscience, but that he was unwilling to subordinate his moral compass under any government agency capable of being hijacked by HYDRA? I feel like if he had said that, Tony could have come up with a compromise he was willing to live with. "Duh, Steve, that's a good point! I don't want to accidentally work for HYDRA either. Let's make sure we put someone on the council that you trust with your life. And you're so paranoid you wonder if even they could be a HYDRA mole? Let's make it a UN security council-style system where every member has an absolute veto... If the council doesn't all agree, we don't go. Safer that way for everyone, right? And what if the whole council is turned by HYDRA? Well, I'll ask your old buddy Dead Nick Fury to come up with a contingency plan for that situation, too!."

And also, mind you, Steve's major objection to government oversight seems to have been that the Sokovia Accords wouldn't allow his best friend, A BRAINWASHED HYDRA AGENT WITH SUPERSTRENGTH AND LETHAL INFILTRATION SKILLS, to run free. I mean, Steve is hardly immune to HYDRA entanglements himself!

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

What, wait, I actually do object to the characterization that Steve is against the Accords because of Bucky. Bucky didn't actually come into play until after Steve had already declined signing and when he and Tony argued after Bucky was brought in it was Tony's treatment of Wanda where Steve drew the line. The way I see it, Steve was against the Accords, but breaking the Accords wasn't because he was against it. It was because he wanted to save his friend. His objection to the Accords was government oversight, but that isn't why he acted. On the flip side, he didn't think that Bucky should be imprisoned without proof that he was in fact the bomber, but that isn't why he was against the Accords. And I don't think his position was that Bucky should run free, rather that there should be more of an investigation into whether he did it or not.

It was also my understanding that the Accords applied only to the Avengers not to all people with extraordinary abilities — which was part of why T'Challa could act as the Black Panther, despite not acting under UN control. Which would also mean that the Accords don't even apply to Bucky at all — ratifying them or not would be completely separate to his arrest, trial, etc.

If it was the later — applying to all people with abilities, then when Tony recruited Spider-Man, *Peter Parker* would have been acting against the accords because he hadn't signed. Likewise, T'Challa. The only people who were technically within the bounds of legality acting as Avengers in the airport were Tony, Rhodey, Natasha (until she let Steve and Bucky go) and Vision (though I am not sure if Vision and Rhodney were at the UN and therefore unsure if they did in fact officially sign? Did anyone officially sign or did the bombing happen first?)

As for your first point: Steve sucks at articulating his thoughts, positions, and relying important information. That's all I've got.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

Wait, if the accords do only apply to the avengers, then Ant-Man is imprisoned simply for aiding and abetting, not for breaking the accords.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

I think the Accords do have to apply to everyone with metahuman powers/suits or they don't make any sense. Like, what happens if a random guy falls in nuclear waste and suddenly he starts flying all over the world messing shit up trying to be a hero, he can't be prosecuted because he wasn't an Avenger?

I think that clearly Black Panther signed them, and I think it is even possible that Tony had Spiderman sign them, although this raises all sorts of legal questions about whether a minor can sign a contract like that without consent of his guardian, but whatever, this is a Marvel movie and anyway, maybe Tony tricked Aunt May into signing her consent by telling her it was part of the scholarship he gave Peter.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

Hmmmmm. My take was that anyone who signs is able to use their powers for UN sanctioned actions/missions, but that people who don't sign can't use their powers for what would amound to unsanctioned military actions. I don't think it's regulating the use of powers in general -- Vision doesn't stop Wanda from doing her red light hand thing -- only the use of powers for what amounts to military actions.

But, the thing is — prior to the arrest Bucky wasn't running around using his powers, so he wasn't breaking the accords. The thing they thought he did — bomb the UN — wasn't something that needed superhuman powers (obviously, since Zemo has none). When he was going to be arrested it wasn't for breaking the accords. It was for bombing the UN. The caution in arresting him was because of his powers, but the act they thought he did, didn't break the accords — it broke other laws. It was only when he resisted arrest that he (possibly) broke the accords, but, again, he's resisting arrest. There are other laws at play there that are already in place.

I 100% don't think that the UN gave T'Challa the go ahead to do anything he does in the film, especially the first sequence where he chases Bucky. He clearly does that without the knowledge of the team who went in after Bucky and everyone is shocked when he takes off the mask. Also the signatures would presumably be public so people would have known his identity, which they pretty clearly don't. Also: the Black Panther acts on behalf of Wakanda. Unless there was a clause that he could act without UN oversight within his own borders and on matters of Wakandan national security, I cannot believe he would sign and agree to only taking missions the UN told him to take. I also can't believe he would agree to go on an UN mission if it was against the best interests of Wakanda. From the POV of either the next-in-line or the king of a country, that's not a good decision.

Anyway, I need to watch the film again, because I am legit more confused now by the Accords than when I came out.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

Also is Clint covered under the accords? He's just arrow guy. Lots of people have bows and arrows. He's not superhuman/powered/fancy suited/etc.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

Wait, I realized it sounds like I'm arguing against myself wrt the accords — let me clarify. Prior to this film the only superhuman/suit people that the public knows about have either been the Avengers or their enemies, so that's why I think the law is basically written for the Avengers, but possibly (ideally?) encompasses other superpowered folks. I mean — I don't think that the existence of the Black Panther, much less his identity was even known prior to the Bucky chase, so I don't think they would have thought to have him sign as a superpowered individual — only as the leader of a country (or rather his father as a leader of a country).

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

The more I think about the accords and particularly T'Challa's relationship with them the more confused I am.

I mean, he's clearly decided on his own to kill his father's killer (you killed my father, prepare to die!) and no where does it indicate that the UN has given him the OK to do so -- it really seems like he gets a pass because a) he's a king and b) he's gunning after the right guy. And when he follows Tony at the end -- that seems like individual action, not action that is backed by the UN.

But clearly he supports the accords wrt controlling the actions of The Avengers.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

wherein right guy is the guy that the UN wants on the hook, not the actualfax bomber, obvs.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

I don't think T'Challa gets a pass because he's a king... he gets the same pass that Steve got, right? Clearly Steve also violated the Accords in that chase, and just like T'Challa he was arrested, but both were basically let off with a warning- sign on, retire, or get arrested the next time. Steve declined. T'Challa joined team Tony, i.e. signed on. Right? I mean, nothing in this movie makes sense legally, though.

Re: This is wonderful

[ghost_lingering]

Yeah, I can maybe see T'Challa provisionally joining to capture Bucky. Still can't see him joining long term or agreeing to not act unless the UN gives its blessing if it's a matter involving Wakanda. Peter is also still a problem.

Another point of legal confusion: when Tony confined Wanda to the compound, was she really in any legal danger? It seemed like it was partially to do with her citizenship status, but surely that would have been settled long before the start of the film.

Re: This is wonderful

[brainwane]

Also, given that basically any inventor or soldier can evidently put on a supersuit and start to use it, why are, for instance, War Machine and Falcon under the same sweeping regs as someone like Steve Rogers or Wanda Maximoff? I like how sasha_feather put it: "I feel like the X-Men franchise makes this point better: people's bodies should not be politicized in this way. A person's body is not inherently a weapon."

I'm trying to remember who articulated this where I saw it (maybe somewhere in the MetaFilter thread), but: in the comics, the Superhuman Registration Act requires heroes to publicly come out from behind their secret identities, and is run by the US government. In the MCU the Sokovia Accords don't seem to have any implication regarding secret identities and it's run by the UN. Given those changes, I feel like the writers could have just as easily and plausibly found a way to make Tony anti-Accords and Steve pro-Accords, except that they want to keep reasonably close to the stances from the comics.

I sort of want to take yasaman's warning ("One of my personal rules for superhero movies is DON'T THINK TOO HARD ABOUT THE POLITICS. Because they never hold up. Never.") but it does feel to me like "but but but the entire plot is about a proposed bill/law/treaty so how could the logical infrastructure not be solid enough to endure some thought and scrutiny?" Because the point was explosions and Stucky and banter. The Sokovia Accords make about as much sense as the economics of the Federation, which is to say, only as much as the narrative demands.

Anyway, Hawkeye. I suppose the only reason he's covered is that he's one of their fighters, and the Accords are a bill of attainder concerning one specific superhero team.

"red light hand thing"

[brainwane]

Thank you for this. I liked it unreasonably much.

Re: This is wonderful

[jack]

It would make sense to have an international convention on what to do with people with metahuman powers, when it's ok to use them in war, how to detain them, or when it's necessary to kill them and it seems likely the accords will turn out to have covered that.

But they didn't actually say any of that, so it's possible that everyone else is just restrained by the *normal* laws against unlicensed flying devices, against vigilante violence, against trampling international borders, etc, etc. And the Avengers are tacitly admitted to be necessary and exempt from all that, so the accords determine WHEN they can do their thing.

There could well be a clause saying "metahumans working with the avengers" or something.

I assumed Black Panther just mostly had diplomatic immunity.

Re: This is wonderful

[seekingferret]

As a datapoint, Agents of SHIELD S3E20, which I am watching though it's mostly pretty boring and sometimes infuriating, is very clear that the Sokovia Accord also apply to the Inhumans and any other enhanced individuals. Which makes them pretty clearly terrible, but not in the way that Steve was objecting to.

[starlady]

I lol'd. A LOT.