Captain America: Civil War thread

[Crazedwraith]

"woefully" is a matter of opinion, but "wilfully" is an unwarranted insult. Their is no call to insinuate dishonesty on my part because I have a different interpretation than you.

When you're interpretation is based on your preconceptions of the film, predating you actually seeing it? Perhaps not intentionally dishonest, I retract that implication, but we're all certainly inclined to see what we expect to see.

Now, I only saw the film once, some time ago, so I will acknowledge that subsequent viewings might alter my perception of it. But to me it seems quite clear that Cap likely would have disregarded the Accords regardless. If it hadn't been Bucky, it would have probably been something else. Their was an irreconcilable conflict of views on the role of the Avengers at that point, and any number of things could have been the trigger.

I only saw the film once. Some time ago. (Not watched my bluray yet and might rewatch AoU ahead of it). I actually think you're right, that Steve might well have defied the treaty at a later date if Bucky hadn't happened.

But then again, perhaps not. Civil War intentionally stresses the characters to breaking point to make it happen. Steve not only has Tony strong arming him into signing the treaty right there. But leaves that meeting unfinished, as Peggy Carter has died. Which is only going to make him more protective of Bucky, the last friend from that era he has. Then he finds out Bucky has been framed, which prompts the first fight, then he finds out the possibility of the world threat of the 5 Winter Soldiers. Which he does try to get the word out about. And leads to the airport fight.

Likewise Tony is in a bad place in the movie, breaking up with Pepper, not part of the Avengers, confronted with civilian causalities. It's very much in his character that it's his way or the highway.

I digress slightly but the point is if these things hadn't happened right then. Steve and Tony might have talked it over and come to a compromise. (If Tony was willing, which is doubtful) And when said crisis hit, it wouldn't have gone the way it did.

And in any case, in the movie as presented; Steve's main motivations are 'Bucky Before Everyone' and 'save the world from winter soldiers' he was not at any point fighting Government oversight just because government oversight is bad. (And it was, since it seemed to include the proviso that the Avengers could only act if all eleventy-one signatories agreed)

Any if you're comparing to them to the Agents of SHIELD well they're hardly the paragon of oversight and professionality themselves. Having being a rogue entire independent spy group since the end of series 1. Coulson and his team constantly working for their own changing personal reasons and vendettas. This is not to say that's bad, it's called being attempts at interesting characters. But I wouldn't say they were better or worse than the Avengers. (Especially given the original point that triggered this conversation. That there's no in-universe reason, Coulson keeps saving the world by the skin of the teeth rather than getting help)

[Elheru Aran]

If it wasn't for Bucky, I suspect Steve would've taken the mandatory retirement option that was offered to any supers who didn't sign the registration act. He wouldn't have been happy about it, and he'd be first in line to rub their faces in it once they fucked up, but he would've gone that way.

What threw all that off was Bucky getting framed for the bomb attack by Zemo, which was Cap's motivation for going after him and staying in the game. If Bucky hadn't been framed and had kept his head down, probably Steve would've taken the 'retirement' and just gone looking for his old mate on his own.

[Lost Soal]

That seemed like a fairly minor side plot, all in all. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but to my recollection, it wasn't the main motivation of either side in the civil war. Cap's was basically "Go vigilante because government accountability is bad" (yes, you could make the case that the MCU authorities are horribly untrustworthy and the Accords deeply unjust, but that's mostly based on stuff that doesn't come up in the film), combined with trying to protect his old best friend from a murderous manhunt (the latter is a sympathetic motivation, but hardly world-threatening material). While Stark's was basically guilt over past mistakes with "avenge my parents" tacked on for the final fight scene.

If the motive was simply to stop Zemo/the Winter Soldiers, the Avengers would have all be on the same page and their would have been no civil war.

The Stuff did come up in the film, multiple times. Tony was clearly of the belief that if Cap signed then his pursuit could be made retroactively official and once press coverage died down the act could be amended to bring Wanda in. If that can be done then what other changes can be done when there is no scrutiny.
Ross threatened to have Stark locked up, not because he disobeyed but simply because he failed.
Then there is the containment. Zemo was locked up in solitary confinement, unable to move, restricted to only 2 toilet breaks a day, denied any access to an attorney and subject to electrocution whenever the UN feels like it. This is a guy who has no powers of any description, just military training.
Thats not even accounting for the US run prison which had the Avengers locked up in, three of whom also had no powers.

It was pretty clear that Tony's only reason for attacking Bucky was him killing his parents. That it was because Bucky had been mind-controlled seemingly made no difference to him. It was a bit of a bait and switch since it seemed we'd be seeing five more supersoldiers only to find out Zemo had killed them, and it fell to Black Panther to deal with him.

This illustrates the differences between IM and Panther on facing the killer of their parents, since Stark went all-out on Bucky while Panther could easily have killed Zemo but was perfectly content with merely imprisoning him.

Why don't you try comparing like for like, Panther also tried to kill Bucky initially, it was only after several days reflection and watching Zemo's plan unfold that he decided he was done being played and controlled by his anger. Once Tony had time to come down and come to terms he seemed willing to forgive at least Cap, possibly Bucky

[Terralthra]

I don't think Stark would've gone as ballistic if Cap hadn't lied to him, too.

[Crazedwraith]

I don't think Stark would've gone as ballistic if Cap hadn't lied to him, too.

While she wasn't there at the finale. Black Widow was also there when it was revealed Hydra killed the Starks. Which the film overlooks a bit. But then I guess everyone expects her to keep secrets.

[Khaat]

While she wasn't there at the finale. Black Widow was also there when it was revealed Hydra killed the Starks. Which the film overlooks a bit. But then I guess everyone expects her to keep secrets.

She'd already taken a bullet ("no bikini season for me") and lost an assignment to the Winter Soldier. I think Widow knows spies and assets play it where it lies: she's been on both sides, she knows "why" better than anyone.

[Civil War Man]

The Stuff did come up in the film, multiple times. Tony was clearly of the belief that if Cap signed then his pursuit could be made retroactively official and once press coverage died down the act could be amended to bring Wanda in. If that can be done then what other changes can be done when there is no scrutiny.
Ross threatened to have Stark locked up, not because he disobeyed but simply because he failed.
Then there is the containment. Zemo was locked up in solitary confinement, unable to move, restricted to only 2 toilet breaks a day, denied any access to an attorney and subject to electrocution whenever the UN feels like it. This is a guy who has no powers of any description, just military training.
Thats not even accounting for the US run prison which had the Avengers locked up in, three of whom also had no powers.

Besides these, and other issues that others have raised with what we know about the Accords, I think there's a major exploitable flaw in the mandatory retirement clause, and one that Ross was undoubtedly fully aware of and ready to exploit.

Obviously someone like Iron Man or War Machine, if they chose to retire, could comply by simply no longer putting on the suit. Someone with powers could retire by choosing not to use their powers anymore, or find a way to utilize their powers in a non-vigilante occupation depending on what they are. The flaw shows up in the case of someone with superpowers who does not have complete conscious control over them, like Banner. Since Banner does not have complete control over the Hulk transformation, then his mere existence is a criminal act unless he signs the Accords and submits to Ross's authority, because he cannot choose to not become the Hulk.

And, as Secretary of State, I think Ross made sure that a loophole like that would find its way into the Accords, because it allows him to clear the interference from whatever is left over of SHIELD and gives him the legal authority to start hunting Banner again.

Which brings up another thing that seemed off about the whole thing. Marvel isn't planning any Hulk movies for the foreseeable future, but I do see some Hulk plot hooks in the making. When Ross presents the Accords to the Avengers, he makes an off-handed comment about why he's no longer a general by talking about how he had a heart attack while playing golf. So he retires from the Army due to his heart condition...and becomes Secretary of State of the United States? For a man who's supposed to be avoiding stress, he picked one Hell of an occupation.

As a side note, I think Thor would be in a rather unique position regarding the Accords, were he present during Civil War. Logistically it would be difficult to imprison him, same as the Hulk or Vision if either of them openly violated the Accords, but Thor has the added complication of not being, in a way, a foreign national (while Hulk is American and Vision has no country of origin in the conventional sense). Asgard did not sign the Accords, and while there isn't any formal diplomatic post between Asgard and any of the Earth governments that we know of, he is still a member of the Asgardian royal family. If Thor were to choose to flout the Accords and continue operating as an independent superhero, then the governments of Earth have to consider the possibility that, even if they had the technology to imprison an unwilling Thor, actually doing so could very easily cause a diplomatic incident with a much more advanced civilization.

[Khaat]

Ross was never not after Banner. The Accords were just the mechanism he could use to force the team to capture Banner (since all Ross's mundane/military efforts were doomed to fail.) Ross is a dangerous person to hand power. This is why SHIELD Fury helped Banner "keep off the radar" (Avengers) and was willing to help him disappear again.

The Accords don't make member nation nationalists criminals if they do act, it outlaws "super-vigilantes" operating in ratifying nations. This would actually leave Thor in the same position as Banner (well, the Hulk): Thor would become persona non grata if he failed to submit to oversight, and a target for capture (not that they could.)

And (the prison) demonstrated quite clearly, it isn't so much about law as order. Ross's order. Stark finally saw this, so he started backing away at the end of Civil War. [What was the intent going to be, Ross? An MCU Suicide Squad?]

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ross was never not after Banner. The Accords were just the mechanism he could use to force the team to capture Banner (since all Ross's mundane/military efforts were doomed to fail.) Ross is a dangerous person to hand power. This is why SHIELD Fury helped Banner "keep off the radar" (Avengers) and was willing to help him disappear again.

The Accords don't make member nation nationalists criminals if they do act, it outlaws "super-vigilantes" operating in ratifying nations. This would actually leave Thor in the same position as Banner (well, the Hulk): Thor would become persona non grata if he failed to submit to oversight, and a target for capture (not that they could.)

And (the prison) demonstrated quite clearly, it isn't so much about law as order. Ross's order. Stark finally saw this, so he started backing away at the end of Civil War. [What was the intent going to be, Ross? An MCU Suicide Squad?]

Red Hulk, anyone? It might give them the opportunity to use Sterns as well since he wasn't seen since the 2008 film.

[Civil War Man]

The Accords don't make member nation nationalists criminals if they do act, it outlaws "super-vigilantes" operating in ratifying nations. This would actually leave Thor in the same position as Banner (well, the Hulk): Thor would become persona non grata if he failed to submit to oversight, and a target for capture (not that they could.)

Maybe so, but it still raises the question that, even if they could somehow contain him, would the member nations be willing to potentially risk causing a diplomatic incident with Asgard by trying to imprison a member of its royal family?

Red Hulk, anyone? It might give them the opportunity to use Sterns as well since he wasn't seen since the 2008 film.

This is what I was hinting at with my "For a man who's supposed to be avoiding stress" comment. Secretary of State is not a very relaxing job, especially for someone who supposedly has a heart condition. I wouldn't be surprised if Ross's heart attack was faked in order to cover up him being the Red Hulk, or if the heart attack resulted in some medical procedure that resulted in him becoming the Red Hulk (like if he took one of the various strains of the super soldier serum in an attempt to fix his heart).

[Khaat]

The Accords don't make member nation nationalists criminals if they do act, it outlaws "super-vigilantes" operating in ratifying nations. This would actually leave Thor in the same position as Banner (well, the Hulk): Thor would become persona non grata if he failed to submit to oversight, and a target for capture (not that they could.)

Maybe so, but it still raises the question that, even if they could somehow contain him, would the member nations be willing to potentially risk causing a diplomatic incident with Asgard by trying to imprison a member of its royal family?

It would be an opening conversation, not a direct action against him, and it would end with someone dropping the words "Diplomatic Immunity" and "Expulsion (please)".

The shown "other realms" didn't appear as advanced as Earth (the places we saw in The Dark World were Stargate SG-1-type backwards little places. Somehow.) I believe Ragnarok is going to change that, and "about damned time!" What's the use of "the Earth is ready for a higher form of war" if that only means vs. personalities like Thor and his kind and the rest of what we've seen out there in Guardians of the Galaxy?

The Nova Squad, Ravagers, and even Ronin's necrodrones were just "normal [humans]" with high-tech gadgets (maybe Stark-tech or Hammer/Vanko-tech sophistication?) Even the Chitauri could have been taken down by a conventional Earth military, if they hadn't started in a metropolis. These other realms look like they're "+1", not "+100".

The only significant threats out there are as unique as the Hulk.

[Gaidin]

When it's still a challenge for us to fly to the moon? Nevermind if we wanted a significant population on the moon in a self-supporting colony? I'm not sure you really are putting Humanity's technology on the right level compared to them.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, with the level of technology we see in the MCU moon colonies shouldn't be that hard- if Tony Stark wanted a moon base he'd have one. But the general point you make is valid. Threats coming to Earth from the greater cosmos could easily have starships of their own (giving them overwhelming military advantages of mobility and bombardment). They could have all sorts of exotic biological or nanotech weapons we've never even heard of and aren't prepared to deal with. And things escalate from there.

...

Hm.

On a largely unrelated note, Thor's in a pretty good position to just not bother coming to Earth if he's not welcome there, which may have been the hoped-for intent of the Accords in the eyes of people who think having superpowered alien princes running around is unnerving.

Ross was never not after Banner. The Accords were just the mechanism he could use to force the team to capture Banner (since all Ross's mundane/military efforts were doomed to fail.) Ross is a dangerous person to hand power. This is why SHIELD Fury helped Banner "keep off the radar" (Avengers) and was willing to help him disappear again.

Although that kind of serves as ammo for Ross's arguments about why the Accords are needed:

"Tell me, Captain, do you know where Thor and Banner are right now? 'Cause you can bet if I misplaced a couple of thirty megaton warheads, there'd be consequences."

[Gaidin]

Honestly, with the level of technology we see in the MCU moon colonies shouldn't be that hard- if Tony Stark wanted a moon base he'd have one. But the general point you make is valid. Threats coming to Earth from the greater cosmos could easily have starships of their own (giving them overwhelming military advantages of mobility and bombardment). They could have all sorts of exotic biological or nanotech weapons we've never even heard of and aren't prepared to deal with. And things escalate from there.

...

If Tony Stark wanted anything technology related he'd have it. But he tends to keep that crap to himself. The human race as a whole can't really pull off the logistics of that at the moment in the MCU is my point. There's a few key places on Earth in the MCU with the awesome technology capable characters, but they don't really open-source their work.

[Civil War Man]

Although that kind of serves as ammo for Ross's arguments about why the Accords are needed:

"Tell me, Captain, do you know where Thor and Banner are right now? 'Cause you can bet if I misplaced a couple of thirty megaton warheads, there'd be consequences."

It's a shame no one could turn that around on Ross.

"Funny you should bring that up. Refresh my memory, Secretary Ross, how many people have died because you decided it would be a good idea to attack Banner in the middle of a civilian population center?"

[Simon_Jester]

He may have suffered some negative consequences, but obviously not career-ending ones, yeah.

And yes, they could advance that argument, but that's an ad hominem- an attack on the messenger, not the message.

You can argue that anyone dumb enough to provoke the Incredible Hulk shouldn't be running a superhero program designed to be accountable and sensible.

But you can't argue that this proves the program shouldn't exist.

[Simon_Jester]

If Tony Stark wanted anything technology related he'd have it. But he tends to keep that crap to himself. The human race as a whole can't really pull off the logistics of that at the moment in the MCU is my point. There's a few key places on Earth in the MCU with the awesome technology capable characters, but they don't really open-source their work.

GHETTO EDIT:

You are clearly correct. At the same time, the advanced capabilities of these few key places do contribute to whether "Earth" as a whole is ready to participate in cosmic/interstellar warfare. The Wakandans being able to armor soldiers in vibranium or SHIELD's ability to arm them with ray guns like the one used by the son of Coul against Loki matter to the state of Earth's military preparations, although they matter rather less in a large-scale war than a smaller scale conflict.

[Gaidin]

He may have suffered some negative consequences, but obviously not career-ending ones, yeah.

He failed up. It's sort of a classic thing that happens in the government.

[Crazedwraith]

He may have suffered some negative consequences, but obviously not career-ending ones, yeah.

And yes, they could advance that argument, but that's an ad hominem- an attack on the messenger, not the message.

More specifically The Tu Quoque fallacy, 'appeal to hypocrisy'.

--

I watched my bluray last night and still enjoyed the film. There were a few things I'd forgotten/not noticed when watching it in the cinema;

1)There were specifically waiting for and hunting Rumlow/Crossbones in the opening. While he is an dangerous foe and trying to steal a bioweapon, you could read it as being Cap's personal mission. The fact that War Machine and Vision are not on it. And BW and Falcon, his sidekicks from his last solo film are emphasises this. (Plus Wanda who he also has great sympathy for in AoU) It is an argument for oversight if we think Cap might not see the big picture overlooking bigger threats to go after personal objectives. (no evidence in the film Cap actually does this)

2) The argument was more or less running down when Cap got the text about Peggy. Cap definitely has the argument that they're more responsible with their power than government, which I think is key to TRR's objections. They do reference the corruption of the World Security Council and SHIELD/HYDRA but Rhodey seems to think the UN is magically above it all. Cap's arguments boils down to 'bureaucracy and political agenda's bad, personal responsibility good' and says the accords would just shift the blame and responsibility from them to the oversight committee. Which really highlights that the Accords are just a public relations exercise (which Stark is aware of). If the Avengers were official overseen, they wouldn't have been told to anything different at NY or Sokovia and it would have done nothing to prevent the collateral damage everyone's so eager to highlight (and I'm still slightly annoyed the film ignores the explicit actions in both Avengers films that show they were highly concerned with those casualties.)

There's really nothing different about the Avenger's situation at the start of this film and at the end of Winter Soldier such as it is. And their operations ie) armed incursions into other people's sovereign territories are already illegal, they're only not overseen because no one has the balls to tell them no. The differences are the Avengers have a knock in Public Opinion thanks to Sokovia and Lagos and Tony was willing to switch sides and arrest people for Ross. If Stark had towed the line they could probably have continued with Widow's position at the end of Winter Soldier.

3) I'd forgotten how close Steve came to signing the accords after Bucky's arrest. He literally has the pen in hand to sign when Stark mentions Wanda's de-facto imprisonment and Steve gets riled up. But he was going to sign with the caveat there had to be safe guards to address his concerns, which is a lot more of a compromise that Tony was offering (He just said, 'sign now and we won't prosecute for what you just did') and basically puts the nail in the coffin for me for this notion that Steve was fighting the Civil War out of some individualistic, anti-government ideology he wouldn't give up on.

[Simon_Jester]

He may have suffered some negative consequences, but obviously not career-ending ones, yeah.

And yes, they could advance that argument, but that's an ad hominem- an attack on the messenger, not the message.

More specifically The Tu Quoque fallacy, 'appeal to hypocrisy'.

It's not even hypocrisy. Ross made a mistake of one kind (performing experiments that created a psycho ragemonster in a place where civilians could come to harm).

He's not accusing them of making a major threat. He is accusing Cap and the Avengers of misplacing a major threat. Of not bothering to consider that maybe a team that includes the Hulk is responsible for having a clue where the Hulk is and what he's doing.

It's not even that they're experimenting recklessly (though Stark just did that and Sokovia was devastated as a direct result). That can be explained in a variety of ways that at least make sense if the stated goal of the Avengers is to protect the world from metahuman and hyper-technological threats.

It's that they're not even trying to keep tabs on the location of two of their most powerful, uncontrollable team members. Which simply does not make sense in that context.

2) The argument was more or less running down when Cap got the text about Peggy. Cap definitely has the argument that they're more responsible with their power than government, which I think is key to TRR's objections. They do reference the corruption of the World Security Council and SHIELD/HYDRA but Rhodey seems to think the UN is magically above it all. Cap's arguments boils down to 'bureaucracy and political agenda's bad, personal responsibility good' and says the accords would just shift the blame and responsibility from them to the oversight committee. Which really highlights that the Accords are just a public relations exercise (which Stark is aware of). If the Avengers were official overseen, they wouldn't have been told to anything different at NY or Sokovia and it would have done nothing to prevent the collateral damage everyone's so eager to highlight (and I'm still slightly annoyed the film ignores the explicit actions in both Avengers films that show they were highly concerned with those casualties.)

Honestly, the biggest change is that if the Avengers had real oversight, Stark would not have been allowed to experiment with the Mind Gem without at least talking to other people about what he was doing. For that matter, he probably wouldn't have been allowed to create the Vision the way he did, either- but it'd be a moot point if it hadn't been for Stark's unsupervised experiments.

I've heard it speculated that Stark has basically been making louder and louder cries for help for two or three movies now- someone to stop him from screwing up his life with reckless actions, someone to stop him from inventing bigger and bigger threats to the world. Him signing the Accords may well be him trying to finally get an answer to his own cries for help.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

IIRC the Mind-Gem was only identified as an Infinity Stone right after Vision was created, thanks to Thor's subplot.

And to be fair, of course they won't know where Thor is since most of the time he's offworld anyway. Of course, it won't be revealed for another year what and indeed where Thor and Hulk will have been all this time- we know from the end of Ultron that Banner went into hiding. It would be the most logical thing in the world if he wound up in Wakanda. I could easily see any Black Widow film focusing on her searching for Banner and encountering remnants of HYDRA along the way.

[Kojiro]

1)There were specifically waiting for and hunting Rumlow/Crossbones in the opening. While he is an dangerous foe and trying to steal a bioweapon, you could read it as being Cap's personal mission. The fact that War Machine and Vision are not on it. And BW and Falcon, his sidekicks from his last solo film are emphasises this.

To be fair, that could just as easily be because Rhodes in an enlisted man and Warmachine is technically US Military property. Operating on foreign soil has complications for him the others don't share. Vision could have been excluded simply because as a covert mission, he's not exactly covert. We've seen nothing to indicate he can appear human. That's my take anyway.

If the Avengers were official overseen, they wouldn't have been told to anything different at NY

Doubtful. Fury was given explicit orders from the Security Council (stupid ass orders but orders none the less). Presumably where the Avengers their assets they'd have maybe ordered them out of the city (most of them anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if they 'forgot' to tell Hulk, just to see if a nuke would kill the beast).

[Simon_Jester]

IIRC the Mind-Gem was only identified as an Infinity Stone right after Vision was created, thanks to Thor's subplot.

Yeah, but it's still weird. It's an obviously powerful artifact (the thing that powered Loki's sceptre, which was an exotic energy weapon and potent mind control device). It's an object that should not just recklessly be plugged into experimental AIs to see what will happen.

And to be fair, of course they won't know where Thor is since most of the time he's offworld anyway.

This is true but not likely to reassure the Earthly public of various nations.

Of course, it won't be revealed for another year what and indeed where Thor and Hulk will have been all this time- we know from the end of Ultron that Banner went into hiding. It would be the most logical thing in the world if he wound up in Wakanda. I could easily see any Black Widow film focusing on her searching for Banner and encountering remnants of HYDRA along the way.

Thing is, Hulk is also one of the most dangerous people in the world. If the Avengers can "have" him as an asset on their side, but then "lose" him in the sense that they know he went into hiding and "can't find him," that suggests the Avengers are being irresponsible. Or that they are complicit in Banner's ability to slip off the radar, in which case they are likewise complicit if Hulk goes on a rampage and destroys another city.

To be fair, that could just as easily be because Rhodes in an enlisted man and Warmachine is technically US Military property. Operating on foreign soil has complications for him the others don't share. Vision could have been excluded simply because as a covert mission, he's not exactly covert. We've seen nothing to indicate he can appear human. That's my take anyway.

Rhodes is an officer but that's a nitpick. The rest of your point(s) are well-taken.

Basically, the post-Avengers 2 team lineup consists of Rhodes, Vision, and people who have strong personal loyalty to Cap. That's it.

If the Avengers were official overseen, they wouldn't have been told to anything different at NY

Doubtful. Fury was given explicit orders from the Security Council (stupid ass orders but orders none the less). Presumably where the Avengers their assets they'd have maybe ordered them out of the city (most of them anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if they 'forgot' to tell Hulk, just to see if a nuke would kill the beast).

A distinct point. While whoever gave SHIELD orders in that era was obviously not the UN Security Council or whatever, it was a broadly similar body which appears to have enjoyed international support and acceptance. They were shadowy and mysterious to us, but presumably not to the leaders of the world's foremost countries.

[Lost Soal]

IIRC the Mind-Gem was only identified as an Infinity Stone right after Vision was created, thanks to Thor's subplot.

Yeah, but it's still weird. It's an obviously powerful artifact (the thing that powered Loki's sceptre, which was an exotic energy weapon and potent mind control device). It's an object that should not just recklessly be plugged into experimental AIs to see what will happen.

And to be fair, of course they won't know where Thor is since most of the time he's offworld anyway.

This is true but not likely to reassure the Earthly public of various nations.

Of course, it won't be revealed for another year what and indeed where Thor and Hulk will have been all this time- we know from the end of Ultron that Banner went into hiding. It would be the most logical thing in the world if he wound up in Wakanda. I could easily see any Black Widow film focusing on her searching for Banner and encountering remnants of HYDRA along the way.

Thing is, Hulk is also one of the most dangerous people in the world. If the Avengers can "have" him as an asset on their side, but then "lose" him in the sense that they know he went into hiding and "can't find him," that suggests the Avengers are being irresponsible. Or that they are complicit in Banner's ability to slip off the radar, in which case they are likewise complicit if Hulk goes on a rampage and destroys another city.

Thor & Banner are not property owed by the US Government & entrusted to the Avengers. Ross' analogy is stupid but shows his mentality, he always considered Hulk to be US property and likely hasn't changed his mind.
Sam asks "how long before we're all being lo-jacked like criminals?" How else are they supposed to know the location of someone at any given time unless they are required to check in daily?

Ross keeps talking about "enhanced" individuals, so what is classified as enhanced. It can't be powers surely because they seem to be including Widow in this category.

[Crazedwraith]

Thing is, Hulk is also one of the most dangerous people in the world. If the Avengers can "have" him as an asset on their side, but then "lose" him in the sense that they know he went into hiding and "can't find him," that suggests the Avengers are being irresponsible. Or that they are complicit in Banner's ability to slip off the radar, in which case they are likewise complicit if Hulk goes on a rampage and destroys another city.

Thor & Banner are not property owed by the US Government & entrusted to the Avengers. Ross' analogy is stupid but shows his mentality, he always considered Hulk to be US property and likely hasn't changed his mind.
Sam asks "how long before we're all being lo-jacked like criminals?" How else are they supposed to know the location of someone at any given time unless they are required to check in daily?

Ross keeps talking about "enhanced" individuals, so what is classified as enhanced. It can't be powers surely because they seem to be including Widow in this category.

This.

The Avengers are an purely voluntary association of superheros. They are not responsible for the location or activities of former members. Ross is argument is bad but would ring well in the public eye.