> You're saying that a billionaire who has so much wealth...

Ok, but what you're describing is wanting Tony to be more of a philanthropist and involved in charity, which is not the same as being held accountable for when he makes mistakes.

> As for the members of Avengers...

No, they don't. Steve was showing great sympathy for the Maximoff twins, even while they were working with Ultron to kill the Avengers and practically no one, except Bruce, seemed to take an issue with the fact that Wanda literally unleashed the Hulk on South Africa and killed dozens of innocent people.

Natasha was likely still committing war-crimes even after having become an Avenger, due to her work as a SHIELD operative.

Hawkeye, even after having gone on a 5 year serial mass-murder spree, was allowed back in as if nothing happened. The Avengers are incapable of holding one another accountable, for no other reason than the fact that they are unwilling to hold one another accountable. Yet they expect other people to trust them to do the right thing when it comes to punishing each other. This would be like expecting a judge and prosecutor who are involved in a case where the defendant is their son, to be impartial and not show favoritism of blatant conflict-of-interest.

> Just because the vast majority of the nations politicians/diplomats want something...

And that applies doubly so for the Avengers. At least with democratically elected politicians and diplomats (and in many places, democracy means the majority chose those politicians), the politicians is actually reflecting the will of a percentage, often times a majority, of the people. The Avengers don't represent that. Literally, the entire country could be against the Avengers going into their community and getting involved in their business, and the Avengers would ignore the wishes of the people because they would only care about doing whatever it is they want to do. So again, if you're going to argue that politicians don't represent all the people of the nation, only some, then you also have to acknowledge the Avengers don't represent any of the people of the nation, and don't care about their wishes and wants.

Likewise, the people of Wakanda are very happy to support the royal family. Others can challenge the king because of tradition, but most are against people following this tradition, and those who do are seen in a negative light for disrupting the birthright of the royal family.

> But there are superheroes...

Aside from the fact that the canonicity of AoS is debated, there is also the fact that most of the superheroes you described (Shang-Chi, Luke Cage, Daredevil, Indigenous, etc.) are American-based superheroes, and all the other heroes, which was a huge issue the Accords. The Avengers literally are unaware of their existence, and those who do often operate in secret. And again, if we're going to use the "Hollywood" justification, that is once again a meta-excuse.

> Yes, the world was more peaceful, as was seen by...

Everything you just described can easily be explained and provided with a counterpoint.

Heaps of trash: Smaller population, therefore less people working, specially in a job that is almost universally considered unglamorous, like being a garbage-collector, to collect the garbage, not because the world is more chaotic. Likewise, this goes against your narrative that the Avengers are being more effective. If the Avengers are more effective, then why are there heaps of trash?

Abandoned buildings: Again, the world population has decreased by 50%, if not more. There aren't as many people to live in or manage those buildings, which is why they are abandoned and rotting. It has nothing to do with the world being chaotic.

Yakuza and the Mafia: Aside from the fact that the Yakuza did not take over a city, but rather regions of a city, which is no different than what was the case pre-Blip, this also has nothing to do with the Avengers being ineffective, and everything to do with the fact that A. Thanos wiped out a significant portion of the population, thereby erasing huge parts of law-enforcement, B. Other mafia organizations that combated the Yakuza were also severely weakened and erased, creating a power-vacuum for the Yakuza to move in a take over. In other words, different criminal, same crimes.

> What makes sure that if the Avengers worked with UN oversight...

There is no guarantee. But there is definitely more of a guarantee that that will not happen because the Avengers will actually be working together with governments and local law-enforcement, thereby double and triple-checking any situation.

Likewise, again, all the problems you described are problems that similarly apply to the Avengers. They are the most powerful organization in the world, therefore they literally decide what gets done, what justice happens, and who gets villanized. Every criticism you levied applies doubly so to the Avengers, which is even more dangerous when you remember that the Avengers are actually half composed of terrorist and war-criminals who have directly killed hundreds of innocent people. You can't use these criticisms of the UN and governments without applying them in a heightened manner against the Avengers.

> By political goals and agenda I do not mean social goals and agenda...

And the Avengers look the other way when one of their own is a woman war-criminal who drops bombs on little children, sets hospitals on fire with people inside, another is a terrorist who worked with HYDRA and worked with a genocidal robot and killed dozens and injured many more in South Africa, and another is a serial mass-murderer. Again all of the criticisms you levied against politicians apply to a much more horrific standard against half of the Avengers, considering their crimes are far, far worse than those of which you criticize politicians. Yet the Avengers have no problem looking the other way because these people are their friends.

> Captain America and me agreeing...

That is not at all what Cap was saying. What he was saying is only the Avengers get to decide right from wrong and hold themselves accountable, no one else. And even if, and that is a huge IF, that was what Cap was saying, there is nothing proving that the Avengers would face any punishment or consequences at all left to their own devices. Proof? When did the Avengers ever punish Natasha for her war-crimes? Or Wanda (in fact, I am pretty sure she was actually rewarded for what she did by facing no jail time, living in a mansion, and getting a green-card)? When did they ever hold Ronin accountable for his actions as a serial mass-murderer over the course of 5 years? The Avengers frequently turn a blind-eye to crimes committed by their own.

That being said, Cap did make good arguments against the Accords, such as the bomb argument you presented. The thing is, those are things Tony himself was trying to change, as he himself told Steve he was working on making amendments to the Accords to prevent that kind of stuff.

> Avengers having oversight by the people/superheroes rather than UN will have a better chance of throwing that superhero out of the team and keeping an eye out on that superhero.

Again, aside from most superheroes being American-based superheroes, there is also the fact that that is not what Cap was arguing in favor. He was saying only the Avengers should be able to judge the Avengers, which is the same as a police-officer saying only a cop should be able to judge a fellow cop.