cap_ironman | Like Rubbing Salt Into the Wound...

Ok, due to the recent post about Cap's lingering spirit showing up in the new Thor coming out ( Thor #11, I believe), I remembered a certian vid that I had watched about Cap and his death. After watching it, I was irritated. The more I thought about what had been said, the more pissed off I got. And I want to know what you guys think of it.

Not sure if this has been posted here but it's basically Cap's death on the news:

I feel that I could write several pages worth in response to all the things that piss me off in this thing but I will make it short in asking all of you this:

I'm I over-reacting to this?

Am I wrong in being mad at not only the Editor but also these "fans" that basically give Cap the completely short end of the stick?

Am I wrong in being mad that these people try to say it's "ok he's dead" because his death had meaning and he wasn't really relevant any more?

"Not relevant"? A man who did nothing but promote and defend personal liberty and freedom is not relevant? Granted he was a man out of time, but he was a GOOD man. He was even a ~~fucking~~ artist, for God's sake, how many super-heroes are artists?!

His death had meaning? Why? How? Because the present Editor at Marvel demands that his writers make them "meaningful" by being permenant? No. It wasn't meaningful - it was meaningless. Just like when JFK was shot down, just like when so many good, no, great men were shot down. How is a violent death like that "meaningful"? And to make it worse, the blame is put on Tony, Cap's best friend and practically-canonized-exwife. Don't even get me started on the shit-storm that is being hurled at Tony and the complete and utter gang-rape of his character in the recent Marvel storylines, that is a whole other discussion.

Why is it that practically every other character in the Marvel universe gets revived AT LEAST TWICE but Cap gets, basically, jack shit? Oh, just to make this clear, him waking up from the ice DOES NOT COUNT AS A REVIVAL.

I just don't understand this anymore - I really don't.

If this is some sort of ploy to "test" us and see how long we stick around till they bring Cap back it is really shitty of them and even worse writing on their part.

I just want to know that I am not alone in feeling this way. That I am in some way justified in wanting to slap the people in this video and fire the editor at Marvel and every other "edgy" writer involved in the CW, Secret Invasion, and new CA storylines (and any other horrible storylines I am forgetting).

I'm not accepting Bucky as the new Captain America and quite frankly I never will. In my completely biased opinion, he's a goddamn wuss-ass. Cap never carried a gun, he didn't like them, he didn't need them. He was above that. And Bucky toting a gun in the Cap costume is, in my opinion, disrespectful to his memory (especially considering how he died) and to everything he stood for. Cap didn't need a gun, he survived many years and many battles without one. He proved that guns didn't always win a battle.

He was - IS - a good man. A good character. He deserved a hell of a better death than the one he got and a hell of a better send off than the ones in this vid.

I think those are the things that piss me off the most...the video just reinforces it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's a sort of self self-congratulatory smugness that makes me livid, and that sort of 'look at me!' vibe going on in the Civil War arc really took the bloom off that rose. But I found CW compelling, and I thought it was a good shake up of MU. It could have been better, but whatever. It brought me back into comics, so there.

Yeah, Ed Brubacker is making me take a second look at Captain America, the comic, and I'm thinking of following it until Steve comes back. I think he will... but I'd want it to be good, and am patient in doing so.

And to me, that's what Steve stood for-- he understood that the application of principles could be complicated and nuanced, but he never questioned the principles themselves.

This. This x1000.

Steve understood the power he had, although he might not have been able to articulate it. Tony understood it too (when he castigated Rogers wearing the uniform and undermining the SHRA because he could), hence him trying to get Steve on side. But Tony, as much as he understands the power of such imagery, he couldn't honestly understand why Steve was against it.

Steve Rogers, the guy who lived through the US corralling Japanese Americans into camps circa Pearl Harbour, the man who fought the Nazis - Steve knows first hand about social engineering, how the SHRA was like, a whiff of eugenics. Steve Rogers - blonde haired, blue eyed, Aryan wet dream - was aware of his privilege (white, blonde haired guy) and used his privilege and image for a cause that he believed in, and that really made Rogers real to me.

It also shows how insulated Tony is: his intellect, his industrial might and his wealth gives him a distance where he thinks that society can be engineered. On that tip, I can understand why people think of Stark as a fascist. I don't, I just think Stark is removed from it all, and it didn't really occur to him what he had done until Steve got killed. So when Stark says at the end of The Confession that another victory as such would 'undo' him, Stark is right. Social engineering, that sort of ideologue that the SHRA represents, has literally destroyed M U's America. Tony's adherence to the future, but neglecting the human equivalent has wounded him severely - he's lost a good friend (two, if you count Thor, WTF?), a shield brother, and the respect of the superhero community. Stark did what all other villians couldn't do - he destroyed Superheroes.

That's deep. Too deep. This is why I can't help but to feel sorry for Stark, and hope that he doesn't go gently into the dark night of the soul.

Right, tl; dr. Sorry about the epistle.

Quite honestly, if I were in Tony's position just before the beginning of Civil War, I would almost certainly have made the same decisions as him. I don't believe he missed the facist overtones of the SHRA, and I don't believe he's insulated to the extent that he believed the SHRA was the best way forward for the country.

But the problem is that sometimes a black-and-white ethical decision has to be made with regard to long-term consequences. Steve refused to compromise his morals and chose to fight overtly, and I respect that. Tony sacrificed his morals to try and influence the situation covertly, and I respect that too.

I also don't think you can totally divide this into old-fashioned ethics and modern moral relativism. We have many ancient tales of martyrs who refused to deny their faiths, and died still resolute, but equally there are tales of people like Esther and Sheherazade, who put themselves in a precarious position in order to try and influence events for the better.

Did Tony's strategy work? Unless there's a longer term plan in there, probably not. Though I've often wondered if he was angling for a sea-change in both public and legal opinion when he made sure Steve was put on trial in his uniform...

Quite honestly, if I were in Tony's position just before the beginning of Civil War, I would almost certainly have made the same decisions as him. I don't believe he missed the facist overtones of the SHRA, and I don't believe he's insulated to the extent that he believed the SHRA was the best way forward for the country.

I agree. Big time. I agree with both men's positions, and am sorry that they didn't work things out before they bought the bullet. But I don't think Tony realised the human cost of the SHRA - not until he found himself on the other side of the cage when he called Steve a sore loser.

I'd have thrown my lot in with Steve, tbh, although I respect Tony's position (which is why I still like the character). As a poc, I'm a bit leery when it comes to social programmes similiar to SHRA, Patriot Act, Terrorism Acts, et al. I'm a walking vulnerable.

But the problem is that sometimes a black-and-white ethical decision has to be made with regard to long-term consequences.

IAWTC. I'm pretty new to the Avengers universe, but I've been reading back issues like a maniac for the past few months, and the impression I've formed so far is that Steve will always do what he believes is right, regardless of consequences. If the consequences are bad, he'll feel terrible about it, but the knowledge that he did the right thing will sustain him. Tony, OTOH, never does anything without considering the consequences (to others, anyhow -- he's all too willing to disregard consequences to himself), and he'll do things he knows are wrong if he thinks it'll produce the best outcome.

Which means when things go wrong, he doesn't really have anything to sustain him, not even the knowledge that he'd stuck to his principles. No wonder the guy's permanently depressed.

Like Rubbing Salt Into the Wound...

Queseda and Millar make me want to hurl

Re: Queseda and Millar make me want to hurl

I agree with your post, especially this.

Re: Queseda and Millar make me want to hurl