Captain America vs. The Patriot Act?

Nerd_52637 writes "Yesterday, Marvel Comics released the first in its miniseries Civil War, which can only be described as a gutsy comic-book series focusing on the whole debate over homeland security and tighter government controls in the name of public safety. The seven-issue series once again puts superheroes right back in the thick of real-world news, just as DC Comics has Batman battling al-Qaeda in a soon-to-appear comic and Marvel's X-Men continue to explore themes of public intolerance and discrimination. In Civil War, hero is pitted against hero in the choice of whether or not to side with the government, as issues ranging from a Guantanamo-like prison camp for superheroes, embedded reporters and the power of media all play in the mix as Superheroes are ordered to register as human WMDs or be branded fugitives."

Comments

Re:Been there, done that

[enrac]

They touched on this in Dark Night Returns. Reagan uses Superman in some Cold War skirmish, Batman is a fugitive . . .

This is about more than the theme

[orbz]

To all you people rushing to say "Obscure comic company X did this in 1983 maaaan!"... just because some comic you read dealt with the issue of corrupt government before is not the same thing. This particular government is QUITE a particular government, and George Bush is named as the president in this Marvel series (according to TFA), which makes this a pretty specific attack on this very specific post-9/11 presidency and I think that makes this quite noteworthy. This isn't just about the fiction of it.

Re:Been there, done that

[cliffmeece]

Not just that, but in the eighties the Avengers had this as a recurring story element. Specifically it was about government regulation of the Avengers, and if I recall correctly, they had some government regulator guy who was always breathing down their neck. Flat-top guy with sunglasses.

Also, that was the same guy ( I'm pretty sure ) that tried to screw Captain America out of his identity, which again is pretty much the same storyline.

Their argument was that they (the government) 'owned' the concept and image of Captain America and wanted to get some return on their investment. CA refused and gave up the costume and shield and became a fugitive hero (much like in Civil War) while the government appointed super patriot as the new CA.

It got worked out in the end, though ;-)

Re:Been there, done that

[Babbster]

The sweet, red-headed fellow you're talking about was Avengers liaison, Henry Peter Gyrich who, by the way, became something of a "nice" guy during the last run of Avengers leading up to the infamous (and annoying) "Avengers Disassembled" storyline. One of his "best" moments was when he forced The Falcon onto the Avengers because he felt that they didn't have enough minority representation (and, to be fair, they didn't). It was a pretty interesting storyline considering the uproar that Affirmative Action has caused over the years.

Re:Been there, done that

[mvdwege]

the conspiracy in Watchmen is non-governmental: It's actually an exceedingly liberal private citizen (Adrian/Ozymandias) who is controlling public opinion and worldview.

I respectfully submit that when a person starts to think that they can cure all humanity's ills by themselves, that they are the only enlightened leader capable of doing so, and that the end justifies the means, even if the means is killing millions, that that person has no right to any political classification but Fascist.

If they were to proclaim it was in service of the greater good, of which they are merely the executive officer, then they might make a claim to the classification of Communist (specifically a Marxist-Leninist, 'vanguard of the proletariat' and all that).

In no way can it be claimed they are a liberal, not even in the distorted US meaning of the word.

This message brought to you by your local Political Education Officer.

Mart