Yeah, I mean, Tolstoy? Dickens? Cummon.
Geez, guys, I’m not saying ANYBODY in America ever mistrusted the government until recent times. I’m saying the general cultural atmosphere of the people in the old days (certainly during the 50s) was far more trusting than it is today. The general media did NOT automatically took the position that everything should be questioned- quite the opposite in fact. This is why things that are so obvious to us today -like equal rights for women or minorities- were such a controversial concept back then. There was a definite pressure to conform socially. And while there was certainly activity against it, it just didn’t affect the comics much until the 70s.
(And that’s the last thing I’m going to say on that topic. I really want to cap off my Civil War review, I don’t want the thread to get derailed.)
My version of how the Civil War should’ve gone next post.
It’s not a derailment. You made a point about Civil War. Some of us are not agreeing with it. That’s how discussions go. We don’t all just sit around singing kumbayah and agreeing with each other. We’re being civil and disagreeing with a point you made.
In fact, real literary criticisms get critically discussed. Papers are written on papers written on papers written on papers written on books. Get used to it.
A forum is a medium for discussion. The expectation is that the original poster will provide a topic and the rest will extrapolate from that. It is not generally considered off topic if one comments on a post that the originator of the thread created. Indeed, in the media forum it’s a general expectation that people give feedback on the work within the thread.
Also, 984 is correct about literary criticism. When one presents a point of view, it is out there for other scholars to critique, expand upon, refute, et cetera. By creating a thread that is somewhat of a critique, it is folly to assume that we should just read it and be done with it. To keep criticism alive, it must be discussed. And thus it is not only on topic for us to discuss the salient points of your posts, but it should be expected of us.
And I’m being civil and telling you guys I’m not interested in branching off that way; I don’t feel this is the thread for it. Sociopolitics on the real world can get very controversial very fast. But hey, you can keep discussing the topic here if you want. I just won’t anymore, except as regards my analysis of Civil War.
I would agree that discussion of the socio-political environment surrounding a work are undeniably on topic when discussing the work; as Foucault argued, statements depend on the conditions of the discourse in which they arise, and cannot exist outside of the statements which precede and follow them. As such, the Civil War not only cannot exist outside of the “Post-9/11” America in which it was created and conceived, but also cannot exist outside of the Reagan '80s, Vietnam, or even the Revolutionary War and the enlightenment principles on which America is founded. The role of the Hegelian dialectic is especially key in any consideration of superhero comics. The masked vigilante trades in a human visage and identity for a more generalized appearance; Daniel Rand takes up the mask of Daredevil, in lieu of Matt Murdock, and becomes Daredevil by virtue not of any verbal declaration (he does not have to announce “I am the Daredevil”), but rather by the performative act of wearing the mask which confers the heroic identity.
When discussing a politically-oriented Marvel comic, Captain America is absolutely key to consider from this standpoint. His generalized, abstract appearance is not simply that of a vigilante, but that of a nation. Captain America becomes the personification and facial representation of the entire imagined community of a nation state. Consider the “Nomad” identity Captain America briefly takes up when he becomes disillusioned with the United States Government in the 1970s with regard to Hegel’s dialectic; initially, Captain America is the Abstract (being an abstract representation of America and its values), but when he sees this abstract is flawed, he turns to the Negative (the “Nomad” identity, in which he rejects Americanism in favour of becoming a nomad, a man without a country), before arriving at the Concrete in returning to his original identity with the understanding that he can represent America without standing for its government.
The Civil War Captain America is no different, and the Civil War Iron Man exists within a similar dialectic. What Captain America is to America, Iron Man is to transnational capital and globalization. While Captain America has the righteous, yet rebellious streak many have noted as common among American heroes (Priscilla Wald describes it quite eloquently in the context of “outbreak narratives” in her book Contagious), Iron Man’s personal moral convictions are less strict (Tony Stark is an alcoholic and womanizer), but he sides more strongly with the government and social norms, since the capital (and capitalism) he represents necessitate the Hobbesian sovereign state for which he fights. As such, either individual may be seen as an abstract and as a negative, in reference to the other. The resultant synthesis/concrete phase in the dialectic is perhaps less hopeful in Civil War than it has been in the past, with Captain America realizing that what is easy and convenient will more often be chosen than what is right, in a symbolic victory of capitalism and the state. In fact, while the legality of superheroics is a more central theme than in the past, the government is arguably brought under less scrutiny than in the past, and is shown as the winner not only in a practical, but largely in a philosophical sense.
The assertion that legality has not been dealt with before is hardly true, though; Spiderman and the X-Men both had numerous legal issues throughout their career, with Spiderman frequently a wanted “criminal” and government attempts to regulate mutants being frequent topics. Political questioning was still quite common in the artistic world of all the eras the 984 mentioned, as well. the villains Casablanca are Nazis, and its hero is an American, but Rick fought with the loyalists (and thus on the same side as communists) in the Spanish Civil War, and cannot return to America. Another Bogey movie, Key Largo, features Bogart’s character lambasting claims that he was a war hero with the phrase “I believed some words.” In the western classic The Magnificent Seven, a hero argues that a contract no court would enforce is “Just the kind you have to keep.” John Ford’s Westerns abound with anti-establishment sentiment. Beat poetry aligned itself heavily against capitalism and militarism. More strict censorship forced these themes into undertones or the works into obscurity, in comparison with today, but they were heavily present in art for a long time. The issue, I feel, is largely as the 984 argued, and the difference is less in the discourse surrounding comics, but the place of comics within that discourse; it is a more recent phenomenon that comics have attempted to place themselves in the canon of more serious Art. The child/adult audience is less key than the change from attempts to entertain to attempts to make serious, meaningful statements about the world.
I would still say that is a result of the shift towards a more adult audience. Superhero comics of old pandered mostly towards children, and they were bought mostly by children. Sometime along the way, children kept buying them as they got older. I don’t know if this is the result of slight maturation which kept them hooked or the collecting mentality or what. (I concede that it may very well have been prompted by the Spider Man/Green Arrow drug stories of the 70s). But it happened. As adults kept buying them, it allowed comic book authors to tackle more serious subjects and make the more meaningful statements you mentioned. See generally The Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Kingdom Come.
Eventually, the conflict of the post-9/11 world and independent liberties would come to the forefront. Superhero registration just didn’t make as much sense or wouldn’t have as weighty a message when the idea of liberties being curtailed for the sake of safety wasn’t as prominent in the American psyche. The 90s couldn’t breed such a message because that was vapid, fatuous decade. The 80s bred it in its own regard with the aforementioned The Watchmen and V for Vendetta, but it was nowhere near as prominent and real a dialogue as it was after 9/11. Even then, notice that comic books did not tackle the subject until 2006. That coincides quite well with the public questioning of various actions under Dubya; it wasn’t really until that time that the public had more dissent over the issue rather than limiting the hatred for The PATRIOT Act to “a few wacky hippies.”
But, whatever it may be, such an issue never would have been broached without adult consumption of comics. You may point to the X-Men and its civil rights parallels, but I think the idea of preaching the equality of humanity and human decency is more approachable and teachable to children (notice that Sesame Street and other puppet shows will tackle that issue for four year olds) than the idea of a government subservient to the people and the wickedness of restraining liberty.
So: How should Civil War -or just a storyline dealing with the legality of super heroes in general- have gone about? (Please note that I’m not trying to write a better story than Civil War here- just a more logical one.)
First, it’s important to point out that this kind of thing had already been tried before in Marvel Comics, though not as extensively. During the 90’s there was the “Mutant Registration Act” in the X-Men comics; the American government instituted the Commission On Superhuman Activities (who tried to force Captain America to work only for them and then replaced him when he refused) and Project: Wideawake, which created the infamous mutant-hunting Sentinel robots. The thing with all these stories is that they never really tackled the issues at hand. Those who were in favor of restraining superpowered activity always ended up manipulated by villains and looking like idiots in the end, while the heroes looked good in the eyes of the public, so the matter would always be dropped without truly exploring it.
Still, this being the Marvel Universe, it isn’t that hard to believe that the public would eventually approve of a law such as the SHRA- all that it needed was the proper catalyst and handling. Did Civil War have it?
First, a scandal would be needed to bring attention to the matter. The Stamford incident would qualify… except it kinda pales in comparison with other events, such as the rampage of Magneto (or somebody pretending to be him, it’s complicated) on New York, which according to a Marvel editor resulted in thousands of deaths. Why THAT event didn’t result in harsher government action right away is the real wallbanger here. (According to CW, Stamford was just the last straw the public would tolerate. I don’t quite swallow it, but let’s ignore that one for now.) More than the number of deaths, it’s the fact that one (or more) heroes directly cause a disaster that is important- and that the public becomes aware of it the moment it happened. (Again, Stamford fails here because a) the cause of the disaster was a villain who turned out to be unexpectedly more powerful than usual, and b) it was NOT broadcast live- you can tell from the New Warriors’ dialogue.) If the explosion had been caused by a hero tampering with a bomb against other people’s instructions, the fact that it was the fault of superheroes not being careful enough would have carried more weight.
Next comes a problem of focus: you need to show the reactions of the people on the street, both for and against the proposed law. The series did not did do this enough, not even in CW: Frontline where it WAS supposed to be the point. In particular, I would’ve liked to see more people speaking in defense of the heroes; judging from the main CW series you’d think EVERYBODY suddenly assumed no superhero (even those who had nothing to do with the New Warriors) was trustworthy.
The main series should also have had The Commission present the law, since you know, this IS their job, but I think they only appeared in one of the tie-ins (smells of poor research to me.)
OK, now let’s assume the law is passed. I actually find most of its (basic) requisites believable: if you have dangerous powers, the equivalent of hidden weaponry that can’t be taken away, society has a right to know it. Similarly, in the real world vigilantism is illegal because only properly trained (both on the strictures of the law and the use of violence) police forces are supposed to deal with criminals- and let’s face it, most superheroes, being average Joes who suddenly gained powers and then went around beating punks, are not skilled in either facet. (Though the Avengers and Fantastic Four are exceptions, possibly the X-Men as well.) Note that The Avengers, due to their having made a deal with the government in order to operate freely in the US (and at one point, internationally) ALREADY have authority and training, in exchange for being identified by retina scans instead of by name or fingerprints- again, did Millar know this?) Note also that the SHRA could NOT force heroes to work for the government- only make them accept training if they want to be active, but they could also just retire.
Still, as I mentioned earlier, most “heroes on the street” would be very leery of trusting the government, MUCH less with their secret IDs. Too many bad experiences. Most notably, Spider-Man had just had a storyline where a villain learned his secret ID and went around psychologically torturing him by threatening his loved ones. Spidey simply would NEVER be convinced to reveal his identity, even if Stark watched over May and MJ 24/7. What about the REST of the people close to him? Even his boss, J.J. Jameson, who hates Spider-Man, would be a target! So basically, the Avengers and FF might accept the ruling, but most other heroes would not (The X-Men would definitely refuse due to their history with the government.)
Then comes the point of enforcing the law. Technically, if an unregistered superhero captured a criminal, he’d be breaking the SHRA. But, you know, it’s kind of hard to believe most people would react as badly as they did to people who are helping or even SAVING others. (I would write in at least one case of “______, you’re under arrest for violating the SHRA… oh darn, he got away. Clumsy of me, eh?” 
Would’ve been cute. Civil War however never even attempted it though.)
Of course, at SOME point the government would need to get serious and begin arresting heroes. An agency like SHIELD would definitely be involved… except SHIELD is actually an independent, INTERNATIONAL Agency (Marvel’s writers, in recent years, have been using it as a sort of super-CIA, answerable only to the U.S., not realizing that an Agency as visible as SHIELD is couldn’t operate out of American territory without causing international incidents.) We could, of course, get past this by simply having the US Government ask SHIELD for help. Of course, Fury would never hunt the heroes he’s trusted for years, but at the time of the series he wasn’t in control anymore. And of course, the registered heroes would be asked to help too. Sentinels would only be used as a last resort, given the troubles and bad PR they have caused in the past.
Any arrested heroes would be put in the same super-prison where the villains are kept. (No need for the dangerous negative Zone thing, ESPECIALLY since there had already been a prison there -for villains- and it ended disastrously. Again, how could Marvel miss this?) There they likely would be registered against their will (their powers examined and their identities sought out) thought that would be a field day for lawyers claiming civil rights abuses. Famous Marvel lawyers like Matt Murdock (secretly Daredevil) and She-Hulk would then come in. (In Civil War though, Murdock wasn’t available and Shulkie actually sided with the government!) Free heroes might then try to rescue the arrested ones (which would actually BE illegal, but as I said they don’t often think with their heads.) Of course, SHIELD and the Avengers would be waiting for exactly that.
From here on, the situation would logically carry on as both the people and the heroes try to adapt to the new status quo. Certainly there would be people (including notable heroes like Captain America) working to try fix things, possibly by arranging a deal similar to the Avengers’ for the arrested heroes, talking about things on talk shows, etc.
However, there’s a factor here we can’t just leave out: the villains. Bad guys fall in two camps: crooks with super powers, and the smarter kind who prefer to manipulate things from behind the scenes. The first kind would laugh at the heroes, but they too would be targeted by authorities, who might actually be more effective if they depended on trained agents and heroes- on the other hand, the arrested or retired heroes would not be around to help. (Note also that SHIELD is an anti-terrorist Agency; while they might help for a time, they couldn’t devote their full forces to arresting costumed characters.) The “Master Villains” would definitely see this as a moment to strike, while everyone is distracted. This might lead to some incident where the public begins regaining trust, since, as we know, they would beat the bad guys in the end. It should not be an immediate thing, though; the law may stay on but slowly lose its power as it becomes apparent that there will always be unregistered heroes- and that most of them CAN be trusted.
And this isn’t even mentioning the stuff that even the authorities would be at a loss to deal with- alien invasions, demons, etc. Such stuff ALWAYS happens in Marvel, sooner or later. After all, if they could handle everything, would there even had been a need for individuals to turn into supervigilantes in the first place?
…And that’s it, basically. Oh, you can pepper it with superbattles and what have you to make it more interesting, but that’s how I think the actual SHRA events would’ve turned out if more research (and more common sense) had been included. The most extreme stuff- like the nanite brainwashings- would never even be considered.
OK, your turn. Agree? Disagree? Other ideas?
I think the fact that it was a school, full of children, that was destroyed is pretty important, as well. I think the public feeling on the subject was that it was partially caused by the New Warriors’ careless handling of the situation, and the fact that they chose to battle a villain unnecessarily right near a school full of children.
It was passed pretty quickly and easily, so there was a decent amount of in-universe public support. If we consider the allegory to legislation like the Patriot Act that Civil War was trying to make, the extremely high approval rating of Bush and public support for measures like the Patriot Act immediately following 9/11 were the same way; as the 984 put it, anyone against the Patriot Act was dismissed as a crazy hippie for a while.
Actual vigilantes are arrested for doing just that in the real world, I see no reason why the comics universe would be any more lenient, especially in a story specifically about laws on vigilantism being more strict.
It seems like a lot of the things you said should happen (heroes trying to break their friends out of the prison, lawyers getting involved, Captain America talking to the media, villains trying to take advantage of the situation, an alien invasion) did happen.
Did they know they were near a school? In fact, in the comic Nitro runs from his hideout towards the school. Namorita tries to stop him before he gets there but then he “goes off” (and note, even if the heroes had intel about Nitro before the fight, the fact his powers had been boosted tremendously was unknown to anybody -except the Damage Control people). And let’s not forget that Nitro WAS going to blow up places intentionally so DC could benefit- if it didn’t happen in Stamford, it was going to happen elsewhere, perhaps even in a more populated area. Yet nowhere is this pointed out.)
It was passed pretty quickly and easily, so there was a decent amount of in-universe public support. If we consider the allegory to legislation like the Patriot Act that Civil War was trying to make, the extremely high approval rating of Bush and public support for measures like the Patriot Act immediately following 9/11 were the same way; as the 984 put it, anyone against the Patriot Act was dismissed as a crazy hippie for a while.
Oh, the Patriot Act parallels are intentional, no doubt. And I do not doubt that a lot of the public would support it- but certainly not EVERYBODY, particularly the (presumably) numerous people saved by heroes over the years. Yet in the whole event, I can only think of one story in which a civilian Anti-Reg demonstration took place (in Fantastic Four, and it devolved quickly into a clash of mobs). One of CW’s biggest criticisms was that it asked us (the fans) to choose a side, so we expected a better argument for both options, but we basically only got the Pro-Regs beating up on the Anti-Regs… and then declaring that “the right side won” despite the blatantly immoral acts they committed.
Actual vigilantes are arrested for doing just that in the real world, I see no reason why the comics universe would be any more lenient, especially in a story specifically about laws on vigilantism being more strict.
You’re missing my point. Can you imagine what would happen if, say, a man helped save several people from a burning building or a robbery… only to be then arrested for operating without a license? Technically correct, but morally controversial. I wanted to see at least something like that (or a Pro-Reg person “failing” to capture an Anti-Reg Hero, out of last-minute misgivings) to remind us of that not everyone had lost their morals or common sense all of a sudden.
It seems like a lot of the things you said should happen (heroes trying to break their friends out of the prison, lawyers getting involved, Captain America talking to the media, villains trying to take advantage of the situation, an alien invasion) did happen.
Not exactly. The ‘heroes trying to free the imprisoned ones’ wasn’t an impulsive thing done by heroes who failed to see the other side’s points; it was an actual rescue from what was effectively a gulag (by this point, even the fans agreed it was the right thing to do). The only lawyer involved was She-Hulk, and she was there mostly to “help” Speedball (which resulted only on his going crazy with guilt); Cap never got to talk to the media because the writer sicked SHIELD on him so he would become a leader of the resistance, but that would only happen if he had been truly convinced that the government had overstepped its bounds, which was NOT evident until later in the story; villains FAILED to take much advantage of things, and the alien invasion only came two years later (real time, about half a year in the comics) and it failed to improve things much (in fact, it ended with Osborn in power.)
I think the whole point is whether or not they are near a school is the sort of thing they should check and be careful about. There’s a good chance he wouldn’t have started running if he didn’t see a superhero team about to capture him. I think it’s pretty fair to argue that the way they handled it was at least somewhat negligent, which, the argument was made, is too negligent for people who can cause serious damage if they make a mistake.
I think the attempt was to show that public opinion was pretty strongly on registration’s side. Average Citizens didn’t really weigh in too many opinions, at all, and if most were for the registration side, I don’t see why we would see many civilians protesting against it. The two reporters in Frontline were supposed to kind of represent the Civilian arguments from each side. I really don’t remember many Pro-Registration arguments that weren’t from heroes or SHIELD/government people, either. People were shown to be on that side more often, but more people were.
I’m not missing the point, at all. I’m telling you that people who saved others from robberies have been arrested in the past. There’s a lot of moral to-do about vigilantism in fiction, but, usually, nobody cares that much in real life.
I guess I just don’t get why you’re being so critical about slight differences from what you claim you would have done. Also, I’m pretty sure Osborn coming to power counts as the villains taking advantage of the situation, just a little. The demand of wanting huge villain plots and alien invasions within a relatively brief crossover event is sort of ridiculous; they arose in the environment created by the event as appropriately large events. A full-scale invasion or a villainous plot getting resolved in half an issue or in a side book without most of the characters even being there wouldn’t exactly be ideal, either.
I agree there was a fumble on the Warriors’ part, although it seems more the fault of the producers of their TV show, who only revealed the IDs of the villains to them at the very last minute; also the kids were in hiding, and they were arguing whether to go ahead when one of the villains happened to spot them. And don’t forget, with or without them Nitro WAS going to blow up the town, or another one. Bad situation, but all in all, not the kind of event that I’d consider truly damning; a good investigation of the events (Consider: THE ENTIRE EVENT WAS RECORDED) could even have cleared them of much guilt. (Then again, exactly what did the audience see? We don’t know. The tape could have been altered by third parties to make them look guilty. That’s why I would use a live broadcast instead).
I think the attempt was to show that public opinion was pretty strongly on registration’s side. Average Citizens didn’t really weigh in too many opinions, at all, and if most were for the registration side, I don’t see why we would see many civilians protesting against it. The two reporters in Frontline were supposed to kind of represent the Civilian arguments from each side. I really don’t remember many Pro-Registration arguments that weren’t from heroes or SHIELD/government people, either. People were shown to be on that side more often, but more people were.
There were quite a few incidents showing the public as being on the “pro” side, including the (rather narmy) attempt by three rescue workers to stop Cap from beating up Iron Man (instead of, you know, doing their jobs of rescuing civilians.) But where were the equivalent, “Hey, we trust you guys” incidents? After over a decade (In Marvel time) of being saved nearly every week by the heroes, NOBODY even comes out to say, “I trust them?” This IS a big flaw in what was supposed to be a balanced argument, Arac.
I’m not missing the point, at all. I’m telling you that people who saved others from robberies have been arrested in the past. There’s a lot of moral to-do about vigilantism in fiction, but, usually, nobody cares that much in real life.
And I’m telling you, I just wanted to see some people on the pro-side show inner conflict over arresting people they KNEW where heroes. That’s my point.
I guess I just don’t get why you’re being so critical about slight differences from what you claim you would have done. Also, I’m pretty sure Osborn coming to power counts as the villains taking advantage of the situation, just a little. The demand of wanting huge villain plots and alien invasions within a relatively brief crossover event is sort of ridiculous; they arose in the environment created by the event as appropriately large events. A full-scale invasion or a villainous plot getting resolved in half an issue or in a side book without most of the characters even being there wouldn’t exactly be ideal, either.
Those were not “slight differences”, Arac, though I guess you’d need a deeper understanding of the Marvel Universe to see it. Oh, and I never asked for the invasions and such to happen ‘within Civil War’- but at least some kind of climatic event (other than the poorly thought out final battle between the heroes) needed to happen. Also, this being Marvel, you’d think Dr. Doom or something would’ve showed up at some point. But as I said earlier, I suspect the author was just too engaged in his moral tract to care.
I think the fact that there was a television crew there to begin with was something of a problem. A bunch of teenagers turned saving lives into a spectator sport to get rich/famous, basically. When something goes very wrong as a result of even slight negligence, to people who are hurt and afraid, that looks pretty irresponsible. However much of it was the producers fault, the heroes should never have agreed to let television producers manage and control the means in which they did their jobs.
Again, the general public was on the pro side. A few pockets probably weren’t, but the early protests against Bush’s actions were small, few, and got little media attention compared to all of the people rallying behind him. The number of people/characters arguing for each side isn’t what balances it, it’s the actual argument, and I’d contend that the actual arguments were fairly skewed in against registration. As you said, there were some grievous moral errors on the pro-registration side, and the anti-registration heroes had arguments a lot more convincing, in many ways, than “it’s dangerous not to.” There were both philosophical and practical problems with registration that I feel were addressed far more heavily than anything other than the practical advantages of registration, which seemed to be the only major talking point anyone on that side had. I agree that the debate part could have been handled a lot better, but I really don’t think showing faceless, nameless throwaway characters (or introducing characters entirely to make arguments within a specific storyline) spouting off rants about it would be the best way to fix it.
I think that does come out, several times, in the repeated offers to surrender and ask them to register before actual arrests. Otherwise, if they had reservations about arresting people who violated a law, they probably wouldn’t support that law.
They storyline is fundamentally about an ideological conflict within the superhero community, a climactic event other than a battle between themwouldn’t have made sense. Are you arguing for a more amicable ending, like in the “X vs. Y” comics of old, where the two heroes fought to a standstill until a new threat arrived for them to team up against? I feel like that’s been played out, for one thing, and it wouldn’t really be a workable solution, either; once Doctor Doom or whoever was defeated, the story would be right back where it started, with the heroes in conflict. I’m not saying the battle was well-executed (I wasn’t happy with the way Civil War turned out, either), but I think it was one of the few workable endings.
I think the fact that there was a television crew there to begin with was something of a problem. A bunch of teenagers turned saving lives into a spectator sport to get rich/famous, basically. When something goes very wrong as a result of even slight negligence, to people who are hurt and afraid, that looks pretty irresponsible. However much of it was the producers fault, the heroes should never have agreed to let television producers manage and control the means in which they did their jobs.
The “Reality Show” thing comes from the previous (failed) attempt to revive the New Warriors series; apparently someone thought that exploiting that fad would help sales. (Within the comics, it was explained that the Warriors had lost their funding, and were reduced to having their adventures taped for TV to make ends meet- however, they were genuinely trying to help, they weren’t in it for the money. It does look bad, though.)
…And that’s pretty much all I have to say. The rest is mostly your disagreeing with me more on details than facts. Eye of the Beholder and all that.
I think I’ll leave things there. I’ve already spent more time on this thread than I intended to… I’ve other stuff to work on, I need to focus on it. So, until my next thread, I’ll leave you guys with a scene from Civil War: Disney! :hahaha;
Are you suggesting they aren’t/werent meant for entertaining purposes?
Charle: You asked me to stop posting in your threads, and I did.
So please, don’t post in mine, OK?
Let this be a lesson, Wil. Never try to apply comic book reality to the real world, especially with regards to crap like Civil War. It never ends well.
I don’t know where Charl requested that, but you have no right to say that, Wilf. It’s a subset of trolling. Don’t do it again.
>:\
Let this be a lesson, Wil. Never try to apply comic book reality to the real world, especially with regards to crap like Civil War. It never ends well.
I think you got it backwards: it’s applying too much reality to comic books that doesn’t work.
He requested in one of his threads a few months ago. And it was only a petition, not a demand (otherwise I would’ve brought it to a mod’s attention.) And I hope you’re also directing the criticism at him here. Pay better attention next time.
(No more comments from me on this matter.)