JMS on Usenet

Message

Subject: Re: Why saying there is no right or wrong side in Civil War is a lie
Date: 21 Feb 2006 20:34:49 -0800
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe

barn...@shentel.net wrote:
> The New York Times article puts the key point of Marvel's Civil War as
> "Would you give up your civil liberties to feel safer in the world?"
>
> If that's even close to the way it is presented by Marvel then there
> can be no question which side is right, despite the writers claims.
> Because no one who puts safety first would phrase the question that
> way.
>
> So basically everyone against registration is being true to themselves,
> while everyone else is either behaving out of character or being simply
> a stereotype of their character, to fit them on the appropriate sides.
>

Actually...no.

This was one of the points I raised with Marvel when the idea first
came across the pond from Mark Millar...those who take sides on this
issue must, on balance (there are always folks on any side of an
argument who take that position for purposes of convenience) do so
because they actually *believe* that they are right.

Which is why, in the first Spidey issue of mine that actually deals
straight-on with the topic, I went to considerable pains to spell out
exactly why the senators and others involved with this genuinely
believe they're right in doing so...and some of their points even Peter
can't argue with.  Doctors belong to the AMA and drugs are administered
through the FDA so that if there's a mistake, there's accountability.
If the doctor on your block should be held accountable and be find-able
in the event of a mishap, shouldn't a hero also be liable, find-able
and accountable if he should wipe out a city block in a mishap?  And if
not, then is he really a hero?

There are likely some heroes out there who are tired of working on the
periphery, tired of fighting the police and the bad guys, who wouldn't
mind the idea of being endorsed and acknolwedged and brought in, in
exchange for legitimacy and the ability to focus on just the bad guys.
CIA agents are covert, work under a variety of aliases...but the
government knows their real names.  Shouldn't that apply to heroes as
well?

So in sum, I don't think it's really a paper tiger or as much a
strawman argument as you might suggest.  (In some of our knock-downs at
the retreat, Mark took the position that hell yeah, most heroes would
go for it, just as most americans would go for it...but then he's
Scottish, and therefore of suspicious morality.)*

(And to your first notation...there have been any number of Gallup
polls and others that ask straight up, "Would you be willing to
sacrifice some of your liberties in exchange for better national
security?" and the majority of those polls have, sadly in my view, come
back in the positive.)

jms
(and that was just a joke, for any scots in the group)