Morality in Casualties of War: Iron Man vs Captain America

It's been a long time since I bought a single issue comic; having spent most of my time collecting trade paperbacks/hardcovers (otherwise referred to as "graphic novels") instead. The last series that I followed issue by issue was Deadpool, in the late 1990's/early 2000's. I recently picked up a copy of the Casualties of War episode within Marvel's Civil War storyline, though, because I was interested in the discussion it contained - and partly because I'm just a big, old Iron Man fan. (And, yes, I know, it's been out for ages.)

.

The series' plot centres around a piece of legislation called the Superhuman Registration Act, which requires anyone with paranormal abilities to reveal their identity to the government and submit to formal training and federal sanctions. The superhero population is now split in two; with one group, led by Tony Stark/Iron Man, who agree with the Act's terms and the other side, led by Steve Rogers/Captain America, who refuse to register. Amidst the civil war that's erupted within the superhero community, the Casualties of War issue consists of a private meeting between Tony and Steve, as they each attempt to debate the issue, as well as argue the personal and ethical reasons behind their support/disapproval of the Act.

Superhero legislation isn't a new plot device (the very similar Keene Act plays an important role in the Watchmen storyline, for example) but that doesn't matter because what's important here is the reactions - and the moral motivations behind them - rather than the law itself. Tragically, the Civil War series is fairly one-sided in perspective; it's clear that the writers intend the audience to align themselves with Captain America's group. Casualties of War, however, is a wonderfully even-handed oasis of debate. The logical arguments and pieces of personal evidence put forward by these men is both engaging and compelling. It's really a shame that the book ends so soon.

Both men believe in the positive social role that superheroes can play, when they act justly and are policed by their peers. Iron man believes that the condition of formal training, as part of the Registration Act, will groom new and inexperienced superhumans into heroes less prone to make mistakes and that formal, legal accountability - beyond the scope of just superhero colleague interventions - is required for any position of such power. Captain America believes in liberty as the fundamental value and that superhero activity being government regulated is a cage around basic, individual freedom. Can there be justice without law?

Tony Stark's desire for a system with real accountability partly stems from his status as a recovering alcoholic, his own admission of the mistakes he's made and his fear of how much worse he could potentially have made things. But, as Steve points out, alongside his self-abusive desire for alcohol, Tony has always made use of powers (super, financial, political, personal) to do or get what he wanted, over every other need, and will always find a way to - consciously or unconsciously - justify those actions. Steve Rogers fights for freedom, with the belief that it's better to die nobly than live ignobly. Steve's psychology and value system, though, is a product of the long-passed wartime mid-twentieth century and, as Tony is quick to explain, his beliefs and methods don't lend themselves to situational complexities. While Captain America applies his few moral values to everything, in a machine-like fashion, people (both individuals and cultures) aren't machines and what Steve fails to understand in his work is that not every problem has a simple, black or white, solution.

Superhero fiction has a long history of posing and/or answering some kind of ethical debate. You have the ethics of intent between heroes and villains and you have the ethics of methodology that distinguish heroes from each other, such as the differences between Batman and Superman. Very few stories, though, have genuinely tackled the question that's at Civil War's heart - can it ever be right for a citizen to act as a vigilante?

I won't describe everything said in this argument but, suffice it to say that this issue is the most well written and enjoyable quick read I've had in a long time. I'm disappointed that a short fight scene, especially under such weak pretext, had to be shoe-horned into the climax. That's a few more pages that could have held stimulating debate. Regardless, I'm very glad I picked this thing up, even though I have pretty much left the rest of the Civil War series well alone. I wish the comics industry released material like this more often.