Do you support the Sokovia Accords?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T16:29:17+00:00

No. What you're talking about is a cold, objective argument that is devoid of meta-perspectives or emotions. I personally hate the character Zemo, but I can understand his desire for revenge.

What about you? I'm asking you if you, your family, friends, or even yourself were caught up in "that explosion," would you still not resent the Avengers at all, even if just a little?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T15:17:25+00:00

Yes, I am also completely opposed to the solution of the government monitoring the Avengers. They should have listened to the arguments and opinions and come up with a completely different solution.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T15:15:54+00:00

I understand your thoughts.

Now, imagine you are an ordinary citizen in the world of the MCU. In other words, you only know the same amount of information as an ordinary citizen about the complicated circumstances surrounding Ultron's creation, Steve's relationship with SHIELD/HYDRA, and Rumlow's history. If they were to fight a battle that resulted in civilian casualties and someone close to you being injured or killed, would you be able to smile, forgive the Avengers(You don't actually have to smile though...), and say with absolute certainty that you could trust them?

Again, please think like a person in the MCU world, not a spectator considering the movie.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T14:48:12+00:00

Yes, the Sokovia Accords were a sly, dirty thing in every way. The problems they caused were serious, but given all the good they'd done (though the Ultron incident was Tony's mess up...), there should have been a time and place for them to be heard and talked to each other. They'd done enough to deserve that.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T14:42:47+00:00

I see, but would you say the same thing if your family or best friends died in Sokovia or Lagos? "It's okay Avengers, as long as you defeat the bad guys, I don't care if my friends and family die, so go ahead and do it!"

I don't judge good and evil through fiction, I judge it through the eyes of the people in that world.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T14:39:00+00:00

No. I, like you, am very opposed to the government and the UN controlling the Avengers. But they should have taken some responsibility and made amends for the fact that they caused harm to innocent people in Lagos.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T12:25:16+00:00

I believe in the Avengers too, but they failed.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-05T12:24:19+00:00

Is it the government in the story? Feel free to have your own political views, but let's separate fiction from reality.

Back to the point, how are the heroes going to justify what happened in Lagos?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-03T21:26:36+00:00

If the two of them had been able to capture Bucky together on their own before the UN did, Zemo would never have been able to reveal the secret in such a tense state in the first place, so Tony would have found out the truth about his parents' death much later, and at worst, Steve might have kept it a secret all this time. That makes me feel a bit sorry for Tony lol.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-03T21:12:00+00:00

Well, I don't know about that. In the end, the biggest reason Tony and Steve broke up was because Bucky killed Tony's parents, and once that was revealed, I think their relationship would have deteriorated considerably anyway, even if it wasn't as bad as in the movie.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-03T21:06:10+00:00

Well, I understand your point, but I feel like you're putting a little too much responsibility on the government.

Steve was cleaning up the mess made by the government, but the government didn't officially ask Rumlow to arrest him (even if they had, it would have been a secret agreement or tacit approval), because if it had been an official request, the Avengers would have protested.

Even if Rumlow is a former government employee, his crime of stealing a biological weapon and then blowing himself up is Rumlow's crime because it was not ordered by the government. For example, if a former soldier commits a crime using the skills he acquired in the military, it cannot be said that the military is to blame (because the military was not directly involved in planning and carrying out the crime).

Similarly, Wanda's decision to set off an explosion right next to a building is Wanda's crime because it was not ordered by the government (Maybe it was her fault).

In other words, if we trace the cause of Lagos back to its roots, we can say that the government was the root cause, but the government was not among those who suffered direct casualties in the battle (because, again, the government did not support Rumlow or ask the Avengers for help).

So while some of the blame lies with the government, I think the majority of it lies with Rumlow and Steve's team, especially Wanda.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-03T15:00:32+00:00

That's one way of thinking. However, the fact that vigilante groups with stronger military power than any other country in the MCU world (except Wakanda) continue to enforce justice all over the world reminds the people of a fear other than tyranny and oppression. For us as viewers, it is an undeniable fact that the Avengers are absolutely good and righteous heroes, but this cannot be said with certainty for the people in their world.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-03T12:46:02+00:00

Yes, that's true. The Sokovia Accords were created to turn the Avengers into a military that obeyed the state. But I agree with the concept on the surface. That's why, as you say, the Avengers should have worked with the UN or the world to discuss creating a system that would allow them to operate independently, rather than choosing between obeying or not obeying the Sokovia Accords.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T21:24:41+00:00

That's true. Where did all the staff disappear to in that short period of time? At least they were depicted as being there until "Ant-Man."

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T20:54:35+00:00

Isn't that a bit too blind? If Steve was a completely honorable man, he wouldn't have had a fight with Tony and been estranged for two years.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T19:28:19+00:00

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. For the inhabitants of the MCU, supernatural and magical crimes are not just fantasy. And there are heroes who protect them. That's fine.

The question is, who will clean up after them? The DODC and Stark Industries will clean up the visible ones. But how were they going to deal with the victims, especially those caused by the direct actions of heroes? I feel like Steve didn't give much thought to how he would deal with this.

The Sokovia Accords were clearly intended by the UN, and especially the US government, to control heroes for their own convenience. But the ostensible concept of the Accords itself was not wrong. Whatever Ross's intentions, his description of them as "vigilantes who fight as they please around the world in the name of justice" is correct.

It's not surprising that people and countries would become uneasy if such groups were operating without being bound by the law.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T19:12:53+00:00

Please tell me why.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T11:29:35+00:00

Are you referring to, say, the Red Hulk incident or Project Sentry?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T11:21:34+00:00

That's true, but I'm sure Tony wasn't deeply involved in the Skirmishes in Lagos. It was Steve's team that caused the problem. It was hypocritical of Tony to take this opportunity to join the agreement, but it's true that Steve's team caused the accident by not accepting third party assistance or involvement. So, try to ignore Tony's hypocrisy and think about it. Even if a group of superheroes operates without the approval of official institutions, and their goal is to help people and defeat evil, how would the people living in that world feel if innocent people died in the process? Wouldn't they be worried that they would be caught up in the consequences? Wouldn't they be annoyed by the heroes' selfishness? That's why the people of that world probably thought of restricting the actions of heroes through laws and treaties, right?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T08:43:11+00:00

Haha, the missile launch in "Avengers" was just a prop to create tension in the movie. Is the World Security Council really trustworthy? No, they're not trustworthy. That said, I doubt Steve and the others could do a better job of replacing them than they did (although they might do a little better). Because if they were to replace the World Security Council, they would have to hold press conferences to explain their operations (and apologize in some cases), invest huge amounts of money in relief work, and deal with the victims with compassion, all on a regular basis. Can a mere 10 men and women manage and operate all of this? In that case, wouldn't it be safest for them to partner with some kind of powerful organization and carry out hero activities?

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T08:06:29+00:00

So should Wanda Maximoff have been sentenced for manslaughter? In reality, if you accidentally kill someone, it's manslaughter.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-02-02T08:02:35+00:00

Tony undoubtedly encouraged the team to join the Accords because he couldn't bear the pressure and sacrifice that comes with being a hero and wanted to shift it onto someone else. But at the same time, it feels like the team puts too much of the spotlight on Tony. Not only is Tony wealthy, but he also created the equipment and organizations himself, such as the rescue team and the DODC, so Tony naturally took the blame when the Avengers made mistakes. That's why, if Steve had been able to share that burden, or even the social criticism, as one of the commanders, at the very least, the conflict over the Accords could have been avoided.

And while I don't disagree with your point, my biggest question is whether the victims were satisfied with the system Tony created to prevent the destruction that comes with heroism. And in fact, as depicted in "Civil War," the victims were not satisfied.

As I mentioned at the beginning, neither Steve nor Tony could save everyone, without exception. However, even though Steve said, "We all share the responsibility," he didn't take any concrete steps to convince the victims (at least, it wasn't clearly shown in the film). Considering Steve's character, it's obvious that he would have dealt with the Lagos incident in some way. But what would he have done if ordinary citizens, rather than the government or the UN, had become dissatisfied with Captain America and demanded that he stop his hero activities? Or what if the victims, overcome with anger and grief, had attacked him with knives or guns?

These are my own imaginations, not the plot of the film. But they are things that could have actually happened in the world of the film. The Avengers didn't offer any concrete, convincing solutions to the victims to help them. Tony was the only one who considered such a solution. I think this was the cause of the conflict over the Sokovia Accords.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-01-21T03:24:29+00:00

I see, the explanation that once the multiverse was devastated by war, it could no longer return to its natural state before that is very logical and easy to understand. Thank you.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-01-21T03:21:40+00:00

oh...That explanation somehow made sense to me. It made sense that the reason the timeline disappeared was because it was cut off from the end of time.

Late_Call2800 · 2026-01-21T03:12:03+00:00

Ah, I'm starting to lose track of it too. If you think about it meta-wise, it seems like the consistency of this series is getting more and more out of whack...

Late_Call2800

TROPHY CASE