So, Wandavision?

[Eric V]

So, you may have missed the point slightly. The isn't about the legal justifications why these people aren't in jail.

Folks are annoyed that Wanda "gets away with it". I didn't see a lot of talk about how any of these others "got away with it". We just accepted that yeah, Tony Stark has the blood of thousands on his hands. We just bypass that, 'cuz he's the hero.

But for Wanda, little quarter is given. Even when Stark is significantly responsible for Wanda!



And if there's one thing we have learned from the MCU, it is that governments are on the right side of moral/ethical arguments on a frequent basis?




Except Stark wasn't the one facing most of the consequences, now was he? Captain America and crew were being chased around, while TOny got to be comfortable... except when Cap was punching him.

I have always thought (and said in a few quarters) that Stark should have been tried in court in Hague.

 

[Eric V]

That is just the way it has always been with the mainstream comic book companies. Sure, some smaller companies, who tell grittier stories, are more realistic on this stuff, but not the big boys. How many times in his career should Batman have been locked up for all his law bending and breaking. Vigilantism is generally against the law, after all. But comics say the greater good is more important than punishing the heroes. Plus, how many of them would continue to be heroes and protect the world if they thought there was a real chance of jail time? And as for the MCU, I think that if the Sokovia Accords were not needed to advance the plot and story for all the future films, it probably would not have been in the movies at all.

The Nolan films bring this up, from Dent, specifically.

 

[tomBitonti]

Mentioning Ronin reminded me of something...

Wanda gets let off the hook? Yeah.

But Ronin is off the hook for goodness knows how many people he killed in Japan.

Through the whole thing, Black Widow is telling us how horrible a person she was killing goodness knows how many people.

How much damage to property and life does Hulk inflict? But Professor Hulk is walkin' around a free man...

And Tony Stark. The dude was a weapons manufacturer. Ultron is his fault. So, Sokovia? His fault. The Sokovia Accords, and thus the Civil War? By continuing trail of cause and effect, Tony's fault.

I mean, It was a Stark weapon that killed Wanda's parents. If she had grown up with them, maybe she'd not be such a wreck...

The problem with real-world-style consequences is that they tend to end stories. Tony and Natasha finally pay for their acts with their lives... so their stories are done.

To be fair ... Tony had been zapped by Wanda when he made Ultron. Hulk‘s one recent rampage was also inflicted. Ronin’s victims were presumably vicious killers themselves. Black widow wasn’t given a choice at first, and was probably mentally conditioned since she was a child.
TomB

 

[Umbran]

To be fair ... Tony had been zapped by Wanda when he made Ultron.

He was given a fear-inducing vision, by a person who was radicalized by loss of her parents... to weapons his company built! He was not actively under her control when he started working with the Mind Stone. And, the Ultron project had been in development before the movie started. The project is his reaction to his own untreated PTSD...

So, if we are giving him a pass, then we should give her one, is all I'm saying.

Hulk‘s one recent rampage was also inflicted.

He had two entire movies of rampages before Age of Ultron.

Ronin’s victims were presumably vicious killers themselves.

Because Clint Barton is perfect, even in his period of mourning the loss of his entire family, and should be allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner?

Black widow wasn’t given a choice at first, and was probably mentally conditioned since she was a child.

So, mental conditioning relieves one of moral and ethical responsibility, but grief doesn't?

Seems a bit cherry-picking on what psychological situations give people a pass...

 

[Tonguez]

And if there's one thing we have learned from the MCU, it is that governments are on the right side of moral/ethical arguments on a frequent basis?

Well yes, its the same argument about the right of Soldiers to kill in War or Police to conduct car chases, Governments have special authority and things like the World Security Councils and the Sokovia Accords exist to provide oversight to legitimise their actions.

Stark despite his many flaws and stretching of the boundaries has always played within the system. Cap started as US Military and then a SHIELD asset (the same for Black Widow and Hawkeye). Thor and Black Panther are Royalty with diplomatic immunity and Nortons Hulk was bad when being chased by the military but got legitimised (and a new face) when he was brought in to the Avengers.

Wanda was acting without that oversight and thus had no legitimacy.

It is all about the System, and as much as it may be fragile and illusionary, its the System that gives order and stability to the world.

Thats the MCU framework and the set up of the Sokovia Accords that had Thaddeus Ross questioning whether the Avengers should be considered Heroes or Vigilantes

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Thats the MCU framework and the set up of the Sokovia Accords that had Thaddeus Ross questioning whether the Avengers should be considered Heroes or Vigilantes

The historical difference between pirates and privateers can be applied to superheroes too.

 

[MarkB]

But Stark wasnt let off the hook, Civil War is party about Stark taking some responsibility for his past actions

That's a novel interpretation. To me, it was all about Stark absolving himself of responsibility, by putting the decision-making in someone else's hands.

 

[Morrus]

For the whole, infinite universe, the scale is infinitely larger.

Luckily they are infinity stones!

 

[moriantumr]

It is interesting that the character that is catching flak for not seeing consequences for their actions is the Scarlet Witch. Perhaps centuries of bias against women feared for their “powers” persists even today.

 

[Tonguez]

That's a novel interpretation. To me, it was all about Stark absolving himself of responsibility, by putting the decision-making in someone else's hands.

Tony Stark, Billionaire Playboy, Weapon Manufacturer, Captain of Industry beleived he was untouchable and able to do anything he wanted.
During the arc of the MCU he went from Warmonger to Peacekeeper, he refused to hand his Suit technology over to the US military (until War Machine took it) and he was accused of running a private paramilitary force.
When finally confronted directly with the consequences of his bad decisions he was forced to realise that he had to make himself answerable to someone else not to absolve his responsibility but to moderate it - the World Security Council became the body that Tony Stark finally submitted to