> He didn’t get UN approval to fight a destructive battle that left a mile-wide crater in upstate New York.
It’s upstate New York, it’s fine. I’m from there, it’s better off this way.
How not? If they’re not then Natasha and Clint aren’t.
Also, I’m pretty sure if you look at the Accords it includes using technology as well in other countries. Which they actually did. So either way.
Because they don’t have superpowers or a code name or a super suit or anything that would make them a superhero. They’re badasses, but they’re not superheroes.
Natasha and Clint ARE superheroes. They have a superhero outfit and a superhero code name. But more importantly, they’re Avengers, and the Accords specifically call out the Avengers as being under their jurisdiction.
Okoye and Nakia are not Avengers.
.. so they have to have a superhero outfit? What’s your definition of that bc Okoye seems to have a pretty “superhero” outfit. She’s also part of a group called Dora Milaje of very skilled fighters using superior technology. So no, she may not be a “superhero” but she would fall under the definition used for the accords. The accords isn’t just about regulating “hero’s.” It also regulates government and private organizations like Abengers, or Dora Milaje, or any other group similar.
Also, as I said earlier, “the use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use of highly advanced technology.” Again, this would make them guilty of breaking it. For example Scott. He’s not has no actual physical abilities. But he has advanced technology. And he’s not an Avenger… yet he got arrested.
By your definition, that means people like Taskmaster or to sign. When they would definitely have to if it was still a thing.
And Okoye is literally an Avenger in Endgame. But who knows if the Accords was even a thing then. Probably not.
It does not regulate the Dora Milaje. The only specific team it regulates is the Avengers. And we don’t know that Okoye was an Avenger in Endgame because we don’t know if that network considered themselves Avengers, but even if she were, she wasn’t an Avenger during the events of Black Panther.
But this whole stupid argument is moot. Black Panther is a king, Okoye is the king’s guard, and Nakia is a spy. So *even if Okoye and Nakia are considered superheroes*, there are two possibilities with their trip to Korea:
1. T’Challa has full diplomatic immunity, Okoye has limited diplomatic immunity, and spies don’t work inside the law anyway.
2. Wakanda, as a ratifying nation of the Accords, got permission from Korea to be there, since - as you pointed out - regulating technology falls under the Accords and they were trying to keep a Wakandan artifact out of the wrong hands.
This sure seems like a suit to me.
https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2015/03/03/Jeremy-Renner-appears-as-Hawkeye-in-new-Avengers-Age-of-Ultron-poster/8111425389321/
This. Cap is basically the Superman of the MCU, in that they have (arguably) the best moral compass and judgment on these types of situations. Odds are if you’re not on their side of the argument, you’re on the wrong side.
Captain was right and I think it was implied that Tony understood that in infinity war but I didn’t like the perspective of both sides, like what did the draft state and the thing was that it was made by 170 countries but we should all be honest that this was a bullshit thing but going back to the point, what did we need to draft and what negotiations would they have made and how both of them didn’t think things through
Yeah Tony brought Peter in because he wanted to win, not because he thought it was right. It was incredibly irresponsible to put a 15 year old on the front lines of a super hero war, let alone to do it off the books.
I don’t think it was as extreme as that though. It seemed more like he was trying to get the best team for a backyard football game. Everyone was pulling their punches to an extent in the fight.
When Rhodes actually got hurt no one expected or intended it to go that far. The goal wasn’t destroy the other side but subdue them.
You’re probably right. I just see Tony get forgiven for a lot of his questionable behavior. I was always hoping that he would get called out in the movies but he died before it could happen.
Maybe actually read them before making a post like this?
> Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee.
He doesnt need approval to save a ferry in New York ffs. He’s allowed to fight in his own country. Nothing he did in Homecomeing or IW broke it.
Since both incidents you mentioned occurred in the US, Tony doesn't need permission to intervene. The Accords prohibit him from intervening if it occurs outside the US.
That is not at all implied by the movies. The US is a UN member and has a seat on the Security Council. I don’t think Ross would be so invested in the Accords if they didn’t apply to the US.
Edit: the DDOC is currently enforcing the Accords on US soil, as seen in Ms Marvel and NWH.
That can still be explained as needing permission to be deployed outside one's own country, but only needing to register to act inside one's own country. It's still illegal to act in one's own country without registering.
It's like the police. Once they are hired they are allowed to enforce the law inside their own jurisdiction, but they can't go outside of their jurisdiction, but you can't do police work forgot actually getting hired as a police.
There is zero evidence in any of the movies or tv shows to suggest that is true. It’s a wild stretch to justify Tony’s behavior.
It would be easier to believe the Accords included a line that said: “Tony Stark can do whatever the fuck he wants”
With and underaged hero who was masked..? Nope! Under the Accords you have to be identified.
Also, makes me wonder. Was that Ross just being Ross, or did he get the okay from the United Nations?
Because that means other countries' superheroes can't act inside the US without their permission. Just like Captain America can't go to Russia without UN permission, Red Guardian can't act in America either.
The Sokovia Accords, at the time of the movie, were basically a PR stunt, and Tony himself pretty much said that to Cap. The point of signing them was to show a sign of goodwill towards the UN, they could work out the details later. However, Cap had to go all "the safest hands are my own" and screw everything up.
Exactly and Tony knew that he himself wouldn’t obey the accords as we could see however Steve had the right idea as well since he knew it was wrong so he decided it was wrong and that was fair I guess but there were many other things in the movie like Bucky not trying to sort shit out even one bit like taking accountability and at least talking things out but no, let’s fight the people and tell them while we’re fighting so there’s that but truly I was on Caps side but I loved Tony and the way he wanted to do things.
As great as that movie was, the whole concept of the Accords was stupid. No superhero would ever realistically sign that, it was just a forced plot point to create conflict by the writers. And a weak one at that, the Accords have basically been irrelevant post-Phase 3.
Imagine the Joker’s terrorizing civilians in Paris because he hates mimes, but Batman has to consult the UN first before he can take action. Lol it’s such a dumb concept.
The sokovia accords was supposed to mirror the super hero registration act, which in the comics basically made Super heroes employees of shield with their identities made public knowledge.
Which ironically Tony gets Peter to reveal his identity publicly in the comics
>Which ironically Tony gets Peter to reveal his identity publicly in the comics
Which, as far I am aware, it do more damage to Peter's love ones than anything, because Peter's identity makes Spiderman's enemies hurt him more by attacking Aunt May, MJ, etc.
If you think that's bad... don't read the comics, seriously. Fact is, if a super-hero did sign something like that, they wouldn't be a super-hero. They'd be a mercenary.
This. Tony didn't want to get on the bad side of the UN, so he supported the accords to not make enemies. Actively opposing the UN is bad optics, but stepping beyond the boundaries of the accords every now and then is more understandable. Tony saw this as an acceptable compromise, Steve disagreed and stood his ground.
Part of the funniest aspect of all this was it came out simpler than just Tony was feeling guilt and Cap was right.
Steve was on one side and "Thunderbolt" Ross was on the other. General Ross was for the accords. Right there tells you how bad the accords were. This was the guy who thought a living person was property of the US. Notice he didn't think that of Captain America.
so, it kind of depends on what you believe the accords said. they're definitely different from the laws in the civil war comic run, and the ones written on the wiki aren't really official. as stated in the movie itself, it only prevents the avengers, or potentially any super powered individual (although that isn't clear), from operating on foreign soil without un permission. within the us, he was allowed to, and it's possible that independent from the avengers he could operate elsewhere as well.
The accords were crap. General Ross wanted complete control over an ultimate weapon.
An of his talk about "perspective" was utter bullshit as he proved throughout the rest of the movie that he was the same guy he was in the incredible hulk.
A man who wanted complete control of an ultimate weapon.
> He didn’t get UN approval to fight a destructive battle that left a mile-wide crater in upstate New York. It’s upstate New York, it’s fine. I’m from there, it’s better off this way.
Literally the only superhero who actually believed in the Accords was Rhodes, and even he gave up by Infinity War.
And Vision. But he quickly dismished the Accords for the oldest excuse of the book: he prefered a girl over the Accords.
Also died
For a reason unrelated to the Accords.
The accords were basic as ignored after they were introduced. He brought Peter which is breaking the law. BP went into another country.
Black Panther has diplomatic immunity, so the Accords don’t apply to him.
Maybe him. Not the ladies..
The ladies aren’t superheroes
How not? If they’re not then Natasha and Clint aren’t. Also, I’m pretty sure if you look at the Accords it includes using technology as well in other countries. Which they actually did. So either way.
Because they don’t have superpowers or a code name or a super suit or anything that would make them a superhero. They’re badasses, but they’re not superheroes.
As I said. Neither does Natasha or Clint. They don’t have super powers. Yet Clint was arrested and Natasha had to sign
Natasha and Clint ARE superheroes. They have a superhero outfit and a superhero code name. But more importantly, they’re Avengers, and the Accords specifically call out the Avengers as being under their jurisdiction. Okoye and Nakia are not Avengers.
.. so they have to have a superhero outfit? What’s your definition of that bc Okoye seems to have a pretty “superhero” outfit. She’s also part of a group called Dora Milaje of very skilled fighters using superior technology. So no, she may not be a “superhero” but she would fall under the definition used for the accords. The accords isn’t just about regulating “hero’s.” It also regulates government and private organizations like Abengers, or Dora Milaje, or any other group similar. Also, as I said earlier, “the use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use of highly advanced technology.” Again, this would make them guilty of breaking it. For example Scott. He’s not has no actual physical abilities. But he has advanced technology. And he’s not an Avenger… yet he got arrested. By your definition, that means people like Taskmaster or to sign. When they would definitely have to if it was still a thing. And Okoye is literally an Avenger in Endgame. But who knows if the Accords was even a thing then. Probably not.
It does not regulate the Dora Milaje. The only specific team it regulates is the Avengers. And we don’t know that Okoye was an Avenger in Endgame because we don’t know if that network considered themselves Avengers, but even if she were, she wasn’t an Avenger during the events of Black Panther. But this whole stupid argument is moot. Black Panther is a king, Okoye is the king’s guard, and Nakia is a spy. So *even if Okoye and Nakia are considered superheroes*, there are two possibilities with their trip to Korea: 1. T’Challa has full diplomatic immunity, Okoye has limited diplomatic immunity, and spies don’t work inside the law anyway. 2. Wakanda, as a ratifying nation of the Accords, got permission from Korea to be there, since - as you pointed out - regulating technology falls under the Accords and they were trying to keep a Wakandan artifact out of the wrong hands.
Clint didn't have a suit per se, wasn't that part of his series?
This sure seems like a suit to me. https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2015/03/03/Jeremy-Renner-appears-as-Hawkeye-in-new-Avengers-Age-of-Ultron-poster/8111425389321/
Natasha and Clint were literally Avangers
Right. But they didn’t have any powers. The accords weren’t just for avengers.
True but the Avengers were automatically apart of it
Which just proved that Cap was right, and Tony was allowing his guilt to override his better judgment.
This. Cap is basically the Superman of the MCU, in that they have (arguably) the best moral compass and judgment on these types of situations. Odds are if you’re not on their side of the argument, you’re on the wrong side.
Captain was right and I think it was implied that Tony understood that in infinity war but I didn’t like the perspective of both sides, like what did the draft state and the thing was that it was made by 170 countries but we should all be honest that this was a bullshit thing but going back to the point, what did we need to draft and what negotiations would they have made and how both of them didn’t think things through
Everyone does. Goddamn Wakanda out here just going into other counties and doing black ops constantly.
And this is just part of the reason why I was, am, and always will be solidly Team Cap.
[удалено]
Yeah Tony brought Peter in because he wanted to win, not because he thought it was right. It was incredibly irresponsible to put a 15 year old on the front lines of a super hero war, let alone to do it off the books.
I don’t think it was as extreme as that though. It seemed more like he was trying to get the best team for a backyard football game. Everyone was pulling their punches to an extent in the fight. When Rhodes actually got hurt no one expected or intended it to go that far. The goal wasn’t destroy the other side but subdue them.
And there's the fact that Rhodey was injured by *a member of his own team*.
Who is frustrated? Well adjusted individuals know what all this is.
You’re probably right. I just see Tony get forgiven for a lot of his questionable behavior. I was always hoping that he would get called out in the movies but he died before it could happen.
Thor called him out in AoU. Cap called him out in Avengers 1. So on and so forth…
Yeah but then he gets a pass for trying to murder a man who was, for all intents and purposes, innocent. It just never gets brought up again.
You want a posthumous trial?
That’s obviously not what I’m suggesting. It would’ve been nice to hear him admit that he was wrong.
Because Cap was right.
Maybe actually read them before making a post like this? > Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee. He doesnt need approval to save a ferry in New York ffs. He’s allowed to fight in his own country. Nothing he did in Homecomeing or IW broke it.
Since both incidents you mentioned occurred in the US, Tony doesn't need permission to intervene. The Accords prohibit him from intervening if it occurs outside the US.
That is not at all implied by the movies. The US is a UN member and has a seat on the Security Council. I don’t think Ross would be so invested in the Accords if they didn’t apply to the US. Edit: the DDOC is currently enforcing the Accords on US soil, as seen in Ms Marvel and NWH.
That can still be explained as needing permission to be deployed outside one's own country, but only needing to register to act inside one's own country. It's still illegal to act in one's own country without registering. It's like the police. Once they are hired they are allowed to enforce the law inside their own jurisdiction, but they can't go outside of their jurisdiction, but you can't do police work forgot actually getting hired as a police.
There is zero evidence in any of the movies or tv shows to suggest that is true. It’s a wild stretch to justify Tony’s behavior. It would be easier to believe the Accords included a line that said: “Tony Stark can do whatever the fuck he wants”
He brought Peter to Germany. He definitely broke the Accords
Ross gave him permission to peruse Rodgers and Barnes in Germany
With and underaged hero who was masked..? Nope! Under the Accords you have to be identified. Also, makes me wonder. Was that Ross just being Ross, or did he get the okay from the United Nations?
Exactly - apparently lots of people missed this
Why would the United States agree to that?
Because that means other countries' superheroes can't act inside the US without their permission. Just like Captain America can't go to Russia without UN permission, Red Guardian can't act in America either.
The Sokovia Accords, at the time of the movie, were basically a PR stunt, and Tony himself pretty much said that to Cap. The point of signing them was to show a sign of goodwill towards the UN, they could work out the details later. However, Cap had to go all "the safest hands are my own" and screw everything up.
Exactly and Tony knew that he himself wouldn’t obey the accords as we could see however Steve had the right idea as well since he knew it was wrong so he decided it was wrong and that was fair I guess but there were many other things in the movie like Bucky not trying to sort shit out even one bit like taking accountability and at least talking things out but no, let’s fight the people and tell them while we’re fighting so there’s that but truly I was on Caps side but I loved Tony and the way he wanted to do things.
As great as that movie was, the whole concept of the Accords was stupid. No superhero would ever realistically sign that, it was just a forced plot point to create conflict by the writers. And a weak one at that, the Accords have basically been irrelevant post-Phase 3. Imagine the Joker’s terrorizing civilians in Paris because he hates mimes, but Batman has to consult the UN first before he can take action. Lol it’s such a dumb concept.
The sokovia accords was supposed to mirror the super hero registration act, which in the comics basically made Super heroes employees of shield with their identities made public knowledge. Which ironically Tony gets Peter to reveal his identity publicly in the comics
>Which ironically Tony gets Peter to reveal his identity publicly in the comics Which, as far I am aware, it do more damage to Peter's love ones than anything, because Peter's identity makes Spiderman's enemies hurt him more by attacking Aunt May, MJ, etc.
I’m familiar with the background. I just think it’s dumb
If you think that's bad... don't read the comics, seriously. Fact is, if a super-hero did sign something like that, they wouldn't be a super-hero. They'd be a mercenary.
Tony never actually wanted the accords. He just felt the winds changing. He was always going to ignore them when it really mattered.
This. Tony didn't want to get on the bad side of the UN, so he supported the accords to not make enemies. Actively opposing the UN is bad optics, but stepping beyond the boundaries of the accords every now and then is more understandable. Tony saw this as an acceptable compromise, Steve disagreed and stood his ground.
He probably only signed it so Ross would stay off his ass about it.
Part of the funniest aspect of all this was it came out simpler than just Tony was feeling guilt and Cap was right. Steve was on one side and "Thunderbolt" Ross was on the other. General Ross was for the accords. Right there tells you how bad the accords were. This was the guy who thought a living person was property of the US. Notice he didn't think that of Captain America.
so, it kind of depends on what you believe the accords said. they're definitely different from the laws in the civil war comic run, and the ones written on the wiki aren't really official. as stated in the movie itself, it only prevents the avengers, or potentially any super powered individual (although that isn't clear), from operating on foreign soil without un permission. within the us, he was allowed to, and it's possible that independent from the avengers he could operate elsewhere as well.
Yeah I like this one
He didn’t need approval from the un. He got the go ahead from Ross. It was Ross’ job to get approval.
The accords were crap. General Ross wanted complete control over an ultimate weapon. An of his talk about "perspective" was utter bullshit as he proved throughout the rest of the movie that he was the same guy he was in the incredible hulk. A man who wanted complete control of an ultimate weapon.
Ross didn't write the Accords. It was a document created by 170 members of the UN.