Falcon and winter solider

[Staffan]

Sure, the MCU has tried to hamfist this nonsense idea into the franchise, but it really fails most of the time, and the other times are only partial failures.

Age of Ultron isn’t a result of superheroes, it’s a result of a scientist developing AI tech too recklessly. The superheroes then stop the AI monster from murdering humanity or whatever. It’s only to give personal stakes and create internal and interteam struggle that the scientist happens to also be part of the team, but nothing about Ultron’s creation actually relies on the existence of superheroes. In a timeline without supers, Ultron could just as easily come about, and have no one to stop him.

Wandavision and civil war make a spectacle case for oversight of superheroes, for sure, though the incident with Wanda in CW is...extremely normal for US military action abroad, so it falls a bit flat for me.

I think a better, more generic case could be made that concentration of power is dangerous. That power could be physical, as in the case of super soldiers or, more extremely, the Hulk, or it could be technological, as in the case of Stark/Ultron. Heck, widen the perspective a bit and you could also make the case for financial and political power, but I doubt Marvel's going to go all anarchist on us.

However, there's one point where Zemo's argument falls very flat, and that is that this is a world with supers anyway. There are aliens with literally god-like powers walking the Earth. There are sorcerers who can rewrite reality and bend time. Random chance endows people with enormous power — Danvers is the most prominent example, but there's also Parker and whatever is going on with Rambeau, plus a whole lot of folks if you include Agents of SHIELD. These are things that happen regardless of the existence of the super-soldier serum. If anything, the serum provides an opportunity to equalize the playing field, by creating supers in a controlled fashion.

A stronger argument would be that the serum in particular is dangerous, because it amplifies negative personality traits more than positive ones — that's why it was so hard for the OSS to find a suitable candidate back in the day.

 

[MarkB]

I think a better, more generic case could be made that concentration of power is dangerous. That power could be physical, as in the case of super soldiers or, more extremely, the Hulk, or it could be technological, as in the case of Stark/Ultron. Heck, widen the perspective a bit and you could also make the case for financial and political power, but I doubt Marvel's going to go all anarchist on us.

However, there's one point where Zemo's argument falls very flat, and that is that this is a world with supers anyway. There are aliens with literally god-like powers walking the Earth. There are sorcerers who can rewrite reality and bend time. Random chance endows people with enormous power — Danvers is the most prominent example, but there's also Parker and whatever is going on with Rambeau, plus a whole lot of folks if you include Agents of SHIELD. These are things that happen regardless of the existence of the super-soldier serum. If anything, the serum provides an opportunity to equalize the playing field, by creating supers in a controlled fashion.

A stronger argument would be that the serum in particular is dangerous, because it amplifies negative personality traits more than positive ones — that's why it was so hard for the OSS to find a suitable candidate back in the day.

I think the issue is that they've been trying to make a real-world point out of what is, essentially, a narrative device - the idea of the proliferation of superpowered heroes leading to a similar proliferation of overpowered threats, with the stakes rising to the point where the collateral damage to non-powered bystanders is tremendous. In comics this seems to get brought up a lot with Batman - the idea that his masked-vigilante approach is somehow responsible for the amount of weird and twisted villains in Gotham.

The thing is that this isn't actually a result of any in-universe imperative. It's purely the result of narrative imperatives - the need for writers to keep audiences interested by raising the stakes for each subsequent movie or comic story, which inevitably escalates the conflicts and casualties involved.

When the writers - whether in comics, movies or TV series - try to treat this as a real, in-universe matter of cause and effect, it always falls flat because it's always a very obvious attempt to paper over the narrative cracks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I guess the question is....what are the standing orders regarding the flag smashers? Are they to be taken as prisoners', or are they enemy soldiers where lethal force is authorized?

The attack was brutal but honestly may have been justified under the current rules of engagement. But of course, having your Captain America brutally finish a guy on camera is just bad PR, even if he was "allowed to" based on his current orders.

This happens in Latvia, a real world sovereign country and member state of the European Union. There are no rules of engagement that would make Walker's actions anything other than murder.

 

[Staffan]

I'm asking trying to think back on the various OG Captain America scenes, as I have a theory. Do we ever really see OG Cap get truly "angry". I could argue that the serum for him would always turn his anger into "determination", whereas with John it turned it into "rage".

I'm not sure we ever see Steve get into a situation where he would be personally angered. He's always a bit distant — he has comrades in arms, but I think pretty much no true friends (other than Bucky). He was clearly attracted to Peggy before being put on ice, but their relationship never got anywhere, and I don't think we ever saw him in a situation where she was seriously harmed or even threatened. I think everyone other than those two are basically on a buddy/co-worker basis with Steve.

The relationship between John and Lamar seemed a lot closer than the one between Steve and anyone else. Those two had been through some serious stuff together, building far stronger bonds. I'm not saying Steve would have reacted with rage toward someone similarly close being harmed, but we've never seen him tested like that.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm not sure we ever see Steve get into a situation where he would be personally angered. He's always a bit distant — he has comrades in arms, but I think pretty much no true friends (other than Bucky). He was clearly attracted to Peggy before being put on ice, but their relationship never got anywhere, and I don't think we ever saw him in a situation where she was seriously harmed or even threatened. I think everyone other than those two are basically on a buddy/co-worker basis with Steve.

The relationship between John and Lamar seemed a lot closer than the one between Steve and anyone else. Those two had been through some serious stuff together, building far stronger bonds. I'm not saying Steve would have reacted with rage toward someone similarly close being harmed, but we've never seen him tested like that.

I liked that humanization of the character. I don't approve of his actions, but I can understand his motivation. Poor Lemar.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

This happens in Latvia, a real world sovereign country and member state of the European Union. There are no rules of engagement that would make Walker's actions anything other than murder.

Except we have no clue what global powers were given to the Global Repatriation Council. Sometimes it sounds like the UN on steroids and with blanket authority.

 

[billd91]

Except we have no clue what global powers were given to the Global Repatriation Council. Sometimes it sounds like the UN on steroids and with blanket authority.

Moreover, the Flag Smashers’ use of the super soldier formula probably makes them subject to the Sokovia Accords and Walker probably has some enforcement power there since Latvia most likely signed on to them.

None of that would likely make Walker‘s act kosher, but it does raise the stakes of what Karli tried to do and what she actually did. She is now basically a UN-cop killer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a better, more generic case could be made that concentration of power is dangerous. That power could be physical, as in the case of super soldiers or, more extremely, the Hulk, or it could be technological, as in the case of Stark/Ultron. Heck, widen the perspective a bit and you could also make the case for financial and political power, but I doubt Marvel's going to go all anarchist on us.

However, there's one point where Zemo's argument falls very flat, and that is that this is a world with supers anyway. There are aliens with literally god-like powers walking the Earth. There are sorcerers who can rewrite reality and bend time. Random chance endows people with enormous power — Danvers is the most prominent example, but there's also Parker and whatever is going on with Rambeau, plus a whole lot of folks if you include Agents of SHIELD. These are things that happen regardless of the existence of the super-soldier serum. If anything, the serum provides an opportunity to equalize the playing field, by creating supers in a controlled fashion.

A stronger argument would be that the serum in particular is dangerous, because it amplifies negative personality traits more than positive ones — that's why it was so hard for the OSS to find a suitable candidate back in the day.

Sure, but since that isn’t Zemo’s argument, I’ll maintain that Zemo is wrong, but emotionally understandable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess the question is....what are the standing orders regarding the flag smashers? Are they to be taken as prisoners', or are they enemy soldiers where lethal force is authorized?

The attack was brutal but honestly may have been justified under the current rules of engagement. But of course, having your Captain America brutally finish a guy on camera is just bad PR, even if he was "allowed to" based on his current orders.

I'm asking trying to think back on the various OG Captain America scenes, as I have a theory. Do we ever really see OG Cap get truly "angry". I could argue that the serum for him would always turn his anger into "determination", whereas with John it turned it into "rage".

Assuming CA is an American, it can be assumed he follows American standards on rules of engagement. (As an aside, military rules of engagement against other enemy soldiers is WAY more strict than police rules of engagement against civilians they are meant to protect, but that's a different, and better left alone, topic).

killing a surrendering person is murder. Full stop. What he did was a crime, no way around it.

 

[hopeless]

I'd argue that Steve's reaction to Bucky makes that argument fall flat.