fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2527 ]

[ SECRET POST #2527 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2527 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And this illustrates perfectly my point about the superheroes being a scapegoat. If someone's family member died it's not surprising they'd want someone to "pay" for it, and the people responsible are dead. However, that's an emotional response and it isn't fair or right.

They're not scapegoats. By and large their private individuals who take matters into their own hands and summarily decide to murder large swathes of the population. It's like your neighbor deciding that, because he has a tank (but possibly not the license for it - and yes, private individuals can own tanks in some U.S. states), he gets to make the rules in your neighborhood and dissenters will be summarily shelled.

There are exceptions, of course, but by and large they're unstable criminals.

Wait, are we even talking about the same thing here?

By my understanding, you just compared superheroes who work to defeat villains to someone who causes trouble just because they have power.

This is like saying the Avengers wrecked New York just for the hell of it, and completely ignoring the role Loki and his henchmen had to play.

a.) You said "superheroes" which is a general term and I responded generally.

b.) Yes, superheroes do generally cause trouble because they have power and the people around them don't.

c.) They're not elected officials, paid law enforcement officers whose allegiance is to the law (and not to their own agendas), or even bound to enforce or respect the laws of their country.

They know it.

And they act like it.

c.) But, specifically considering the Avengers:

- There were several very simple things that the Avengers or SHIELD could've done to avert the invasion without leveling Manhattan. For example:
There's a gap in the narrative during which Loki is rushing toward New York, the Avengers in hot pursuit. It apparently didn't occur to anyone to called ahead and tell any of the law enforcement agencies with branch offices in New York - including the SHIELD branch office, I'd wager - that there were magically deranged people setting up a Doomsday Device on top of Stark Tower and could they please just nip up and stop them? Coulson has already demonstrated SHIELD's ability to break into the Tower and, as the owner of the tower, Tony could certainly have given them access.

Then, there'd be no need for an epic, downtown brawl, especially since the cube and the device were apparently being protected by a lone old scientist. (And, hell, Tony's building security probably should've been able to take him.)

- And while I'm on the subject?
Loki is a Norse god with a small army of human minions, lots of them arguably brainwashed, and a magic cube of infinite power that apparently can't be used, save by complicated technological devices, none of which Loki has and ends up spending most of the film fabricating.

SHIELD has an army of agents, presumably not brainwashed, a billionaire, genius inventor with the world's best war machine as his personal bauble, two super-steroided soldiers (one of which is both a genius and turns into an enormous monster fueled by rage!strength, the other of which seems to be a genuinely good person), and a Norse god of their own.

I hate to say it, but Loki's the scrappy of the piece. And yeah, with that sort of mismatch regarding resources, I'm going to hold SHIELD to a much higher standard of behavior than I would a lone lawman in pirate-run Tortuga.

Edited 2013-12-04 02:41 (UTC)

For A and B, I was talking about a specific kind of superheroes, with emphasis being on the Avengers, not superheroes in general. In other words, I was referring to what the secret was talking about, which I suppose I assumed you were doing too. Maybe not? But I'm not talking about "superheroes" who go around and wreck shit for the fun of it (and I would then hesitate to continue calling them superheroes tbh); I'm talking about superheroes who stop violent and destructive villains because it's the right thing to do, which may incur collateral damage either as a result of their necessary actions or as a result of the villain's rampage, or both.

For C, you sound awfully naive if you believe that cops and such are actually generally more noble than superheroes (especially keeping in mind that the later is fictional and often presented as being especially noble).

In regards to your other points:

1. Do you really expect cops to effectively stop Loki?? Also, how much time exactly did they have?

2. Apparently Loki isn't the "scrappy of the piece" considering how much trouble it was to shut him down...

C - Maybe I just believe that average people have the power to save themselves.

1. Yes. See the above point. And all of the myths, including the Norse ones, in which a trickster character is outwitted by an average (or below average, in some stories) person.

2. The Avengers/SHIELD's difficulties don't make them less objectively overpowered or him more powerful. It's a fact: they had way more resources than he did.

Maybe I just believe that average people have the power to save themselves.

...wat

dude no if a giant ten foot tall alien that wanted to kill you were standing in front of you and you had no superpowers you'd shit yourself and scream and probably die and that is exactly what I would do too.

And all of the myths

This is MCU. What Loki did in the myths is utterly beside the point.

The Avengers is just an example. You can imagine a similar scenario with basically any villain. Loki had powers that made it impossible for normal humans to strongarm him. Natasha was able to manipulate him, but she's gifted in that area, and manipulation would hardly have stopped him from setting up his conduit. So take Loki as he is in the movie, or imagine it's some other villain, and the point stands. Ordinary humans do not have the power to stop this guy.

It's a fact: they had way more resources than he did.

So why then did it take an entire movie to defeat him? Raw tallying of resources doesn't alone demonstrate an advantage. The fellow is very good at hiding, and he eluded SHIELD for an amazingly long time given their tracking and locating abilities, and he has some incredible sources of cosmic power at his disposal. He brainwashed Hawkeye with zero resistance. He would have done the same to Tony if not for his arc reactor. Stop acting like he's just an ordinary criminal.

This is an idiotic argument.

These private individuals [unstable criminals!!!] decide to just up and murder buckets of people. I mean, really. That's what you take away from superheroes.

Yes. But then, I believe that the law exists for a reason, no one should be held over a fifteen story drop until they squeal, and that citizens have no right to summarily stomp all over the rights of others, citizens or not.

But then, I'm also capable of defending my position with more than "you're stupid for not agreeing with me!" So, you know, I can see where we might have a strong difference of opinion.

DA

So in your mind, with great power comes the responsibility to stay home and watch alien invasions demolish half the Eastern Seaboard on CNN, because nobody's paying you to do anything about it?

Did I say that in any of my previous statements? No.

It's the logical conclusion of your previous statements. You have been saying that you think it's appropriate or reasonable for citizens to blame or pursue legal action against superheroes who "rampage" through the streets trying to stop monsters and aliens from destroying cities. That rather directly implies that you think it would be better for said superheroes not to do that. So if now you're saying that you don't think they should just sit on their hands and watch as major population centers are destroyed, what DO you think superheroes in these situations should do?

I have difficulty believing that in worlds where aliens, mutants, monsters or whatever have always existed (or have come out as existing any time ago) that the military, government law enforcement agencies, and whatever specialized task forces such worlds would have wouldn't have ways of dealing with those threats without the intervention of masked vigilantes.

I'm not against good Samaritans but I am against people who take matters into their own hands because they can't be bothered to be sensible and call ahead to any of the very many agencies with offices in New York - including, surprisingly, the state, county, and city LEOs - and tell someone on the scene, "Hey, deranged brainwashed scientists have broken into my private property and are setting up a doomsday device on the roof of my new skyscraper. If you could just send someone up to stop them and maybe clonk them on the heads?"

If we're taking the MCU as an example, it's not the case that government agencies have known about all these things for very long; SHIELD only found out about Asgardians a couple of years prior to The Avengers, and while they'd known about the Hulk for longer than that, no effective means of combating either had been developed. Think about the amount of havoc that Loki was able to create in Germany the last time they'd encountered him - sending a bunch of human cops or security guards up to that rooftop might have just gotten a lot of innocent first-responders killed (or mind-controlled) for no good reason if Loki was up there, as they assumed he was.

(no subject)

crunchysunrises - 2013-12-04 03:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-04 03:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

crunchysunrises - 2013-12-04 04:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-04 04:16 (UTC) - Expand

government law enforcement agencies

You mean like...SHIELD?

Or do you really believe that cops alone can stop supervillains?

Also, you seem to have an alarming "just trust the benevolent government, everyone!" vibe in your comments. I'd rather trust the people who have repeatedly demonstrated that they use their power for good, but also use it to avoid being directly reliant on the government even when they work for them, and who have the power to stand up to super-powered villains, than cops who are, in comparison, incompetent and corrupt.

(no subject)

crunchysunrises - 2013-12-04 03:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2013-12-04 04:56 (UTC) - Expand

Wow. Way to miss the point.

Really? Because I think that, as much fun as superheroes are from their own perspective, you're missing how awful they'd be for anyone else's perspective. And I think that's a point that you're missing.

The analogy does not hold. It's really that simple.

That's not an analogy.

(No, seriously, an analogy is a comparison between two things for the purpose of example or explanation. I was discussing perspective, not say X is to Y.)

This is just so mind-boggling. People with superpowers saving millions of lives and keeping widespread local destruction from becoming global destruction...why do you think people would see this as awful????

holy GOD are you annoying

And you're not?

Okay, if my neighborhood were peaceful and the neighbor suddenly did that, then yeah, I'd be pissed.

However, if some crazy terrorists were suddenly invading my neighborhood and seemingly intent on burning down my home and killing me and my family, then actually, I'd be pretty happy that this crazy guy with a tank was defending our neighborhood from this threat - especially if the only thing he requested in return was to be left alone when he was done or something to that effect. If he destroyed my car in the process, I'd be upset, but I wouldn't blame him.

And, if my family member died because of something he did in the process of stopping the invasion, then yes, I'd likely be upset at first that why did THEY have to die for this cause...but after that, I'd probably be grateful that I and the rest of my family are still alive, and that (at least some of) my friends and neighbors are still alive, and if I'm comparing that to "we're all enslaved and/or dead", then yeah, I'd actually still be grateful that someone stepped in and kept a bad situation from getting worse. Maybe not happy, but still grateful.

it isn't fair or right

but it's still how life works.

I really hate it when people say things like this. They're shitty cop-out justifications for acting in ways that are self-gratifying even if they hurt others. You could tack it on to any number of things, irl or in fiction, that people say is wrong. And, you know, it really misses the point when the entire conversation is basically about whether or not it's right to blame the heroes for the damage. Your entire response boils down to "it's right because it exists"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only