[MCU/RAR] You write the Sokovia Accords

[Crazedwraith]

There's a lot of discussion going on in the Captain America: Civil War review thread about the Sokovia Accords and there's a general feeling that while the idea of oversight is admirable and needed. The implementation of it is deeply flawed. The discussion there is most about what the film actually showed.

For this scenario, YOU replace Thunderbolt Ross as Secretary Of State, just after the events of Age Of Ultron, the UN and the public is scared of the events in Sokovia and need reassurance. The Avengers wish to remain as independent as possible.

You are in charge of bringing the Avengers of back under supervision that the world will accept, while also retaining the willing services of as many of them as possible and keeping them as effective and quick responding as possible.

What do you do? How do you Sokovia Accords look?

[The Romulan Republic]

1. The Avengers will need to be put under some government authority. I'm just not sure how. Hydra infiltration renders the lawful authorities suspect, the Avengers are a multi-national group and probably can't reasonably be put under one nation's authority (though perhaps an argument could be made that as they are based in American and lead by Americans, they should be under US authority- but I doubt the rest of the world will love that idea), and a UN-run organization would be almost certainly toothless and hamstrung by bureaucracy much of the time.

I think the best solution might be to say that they cannot operate in a nation without the permission of that nation's government, or (in the event of an intervention in a rogue state being required) the UN. But otherwise remain independent. But I really don't know all the legal issues.

2. The superhuman registry from Agents of SHIELD will not be implemented, except in cases where someone's powers pose an innate threat to the public's safety (like Rogue's "touch me and you die" power, to borrow an example from X-men). No punishing people or subjecting them to scrutiny based on suspicion, fear, or prejudice only.

Members of a team like the Avengers will be required to register, however. Those who uphold the law must be accountable to the public.

3. Creation of new superhero teams outside state authority should be prohibited. The Avengers will be grandfathered in, but no vigilante superhero team proliferation.

4. The Avengers and any other existing teams will be consulted in the drafting of these Accords. Cap. is less likely to rebel if his concerns are addressed rather than being told "these are the rules, sign them" with no input.

[Crazedwraith]

I'd forgotten AoS and that they had the Accords apply to all metahumans/inhumans. That's a whole another kettle of fish but an interesting one.

[FaxModem1]

Well, let's see.

SHIELD, or some other international agency to police superpowered people/'enhanced persons' needs to exist, as well as an agency to fight alien invasions with. A lack of helicarriers or other technological defenses when someone like Thanos, the Kree, or something else comes along is stupid, and Steve's an idiot for thinking a few people in a clubhouse can handle every intergalactic threat that might come by.

Define what exactly an 'enhanced person' is, as someone with access to the Inhuman gene, alien tech, magic, or has been enhanced enough by science to be beyond normal human capabilities. If Black Widow and Hawkeye are subject to the Accords, frankly, so are most of the people at the Olympics.

Make it a UN controlled agency, but with a Director or some other person in charge, who is on-call for whenever an emergency hits, and can direct the Avengers towards saving the day. But who can be replaced or appointed by someone else if they get power hungry, are working for HYDRA, are secretly a Skrull or whatever. This also means that everyone on a team has to file a report afterwards.

This also means that the UN has to shell out the cash and facilities to support such an organization. Donations from alcoholic billionaires are always welcome.

Registration is not necessary unless you are a wanted criminal or are engaged in criminal activities(including public endangerment), as I'm sure a person who can get good grades or is exceptionally athletic is really not a problem unless they're robbing banks or some other nefarious scheme.

The Avengers will be led by said UN appointed director, even if it's just in a rubber stamping capacity. This will involve training, so that incidents such as friendly fire, civilian casualties, and team deaths are all kept to a minimum. Government wise, jurisdiction in countries where such incidents are taking place will go to the Avengers, meaning that local police and military will have to cooperate in a local or support role.

Imprisonment of any 'enhanced individual' is to fall in line with the Geneva Convention. Have a facility set up for these cases, but ensure that they are given a fair trial and convicted. In cases of 'powers being beyond their control', detain them for public safety while making them comfortable(IE, more like visiting a college dorm or hotel room than a jail cell) and coordinate with local labs to try and cure them, or at least make the powers controllable. Allow visitation from family and friends.

Open up a voluntary academy for powered individuals, with a complete health plan and salary for those who want to have a career in 'superheroing', IE working for our version of SHIELD. Find civilian applications for powers if possible, and draft legislation for them to be compensated for their powers if they use it toward such ends.

The main difference between this version of SHIELD and the MCU version is A. people aren't being drafted B. we are treating this like a military meets a police force, not a spy agency with unclear agendas. C. In the field decisions aren't going to be decided by a bunch of bureaucrats in the middle of an alien invasion(Avengers), or only allowed where sanctioned(IE, if a UNSC member vetoes a mission due to politics, as outlined in Civil War)

IE. If we're going to do this, let's do this smart and not be monsters about it.

[Civil War Man]

It would need to be clear that the purpose of the Accords would be accountability, not control, and exists to protect both people with and without powers. To that end, I would also have TRR's idea of including superheroes in the process, so it's something they help create instead of something that's been imposed on them. I'd also include FaxModem's idea of creating a specific definition of enhanced individual, to keep the Accords from being over- or under-inclusive, and encouraging civilian applications of superpowers in a way that benefits humanity as a whole.

It's also important to have a specific mandate for people who want to use their powers for being a superhero. Define situations where a group like the Avengers are allowed to act unilaterally, where they'd be authorized to act if they obtain permission from some form of oversight committee first, and where they would not be allowed to interfere under any circumstances. Have rules in place where the superheroes cannot interfere in something outside their mandate, but also cannot be compelled to act on something within their mandate if they object to it.

I'd consider having a clause prohibiting superpowered individuals from serving in any nation's armed forces. Allowing people with superpowers to be soldiers would inevitably result in an arms race between rival nations, and encourage them to engage in really shady experimentation like the Winter Soldier program in order to create more or better super soldiers. If that ban's implemented, I'd also prohibit them from participating in war beyond providing humanitarian assistance or apprehending any superheroes/supervillains who violate that prohibition.

Like FaxModem, I'd implement counseling and training programs for superpowered individuals who need or want them. I'd limit detention to supervillains and people with powers that leave them unable to live independently without hurting others, though. People like Banner or Rogue, who take due care to keep their conditions from harming others, would not be subject to any form of detention, and someone who is detained would be subject to release if they can demonstrate the ability to live independently without harming others.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm of two minds about prohibiting superhumans in the military. Practically speaking, it makes sense to want to avoid escalation. Ethically, I'd be loath to prohibit someone from certain professions they would otherwise be fit to perform on the basis of (in at least some cases, i.e. Asgardians and Inhumans) ethnicity.

Besides, its probably a given that some will not agree to that ban, or will cheat on it. And our real world has been bad at bringing those people to account. North Korea has nukes. Assad gassed his people and yet remains in power, because he has Russian buddies. I fail to see how it would necessarily be different here, unless you empower someone to enforce the rules without needing to go to the UN or a national government for approval. And then that group is above the law, and the whole point of the Accords is defeated.

[Kojiro]

1. The Avengers will need to be put under some government authority. I'm just not sure how. Hydra infiltration renders the lawful authorities suspect, the Avengers are a multi-national group and probably can't reasonably be put under one nation's authority (though perhaps an argument could be made that as they are based in American and lead by Americans, they should be under US authority- but I doubt the rest of the world will love that idea), and a UN-run organization would be almost certainly toothless and hamstrung by bureaucracy much of the time.

Could perhaps Asgard serve as the government authority? At least so long as Thor remains on earth and not as ruler? Hydra (or any human group) is astronomically unlikely to ever be able to infiltrate it. And Asgard already considers themselves our protectors (if not galactic police in general), having gone to war on our behalf already. Added to that they have no vested interested in our politics, grudges or agendas and they certainly aren't going to be threatened by Earth government bullying or sanctions. Perhaps more importantly if a super powered individual does go rogue, Asgard actually has the power to intervene. Heimdal and the Bi-Frost make them exceptionally well poised direct the Avengers quicky and precisely.

Of course this would require Asgard to consent to such a role, but given their crown prince has already decided out realm is his protectorate, it hardly seems a giant stretch. And if there's one person that can reign Thor in, it's going to be Odin. Basically, if Earth is going to transition into the galactic arena of 'higher forms of warfare' why not do so under the protection of those who have previously and still partially protect us?

Obviously the flaw is that every human government will immediately reject the idea of alien oversight, but that was my first thought anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok.

My general approach would be to basically create an agency similar to INTERPOL, we put it under the UN charter with a mandate to
1) Stop existential threats to humanity from Alien Invasion, Hostile Supernatural Forces, Supertech Forces, and Enhanced Humans
2) Counter non-existential threats posed by Aliens, Hostile Supernatural Forces, Supertech Forces, and Enhanced Humans
3) Investigate the above
4) Dr. Strange is specifically excluded from this, because he is over there dealing with Surreal and Lovecraftian threats that are beyond anyone else's paygrade.

Put them under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (to hold them accountable if they fuck up in a criminal way). Give them an operational budget funded out of the UN's coffers, and make sure they have a very large insurance policy for civil damages. Bear in mind, they should not be held liable for damages inflicted during a SuperFight for reasons other than negligence. Lets face it, when aliens invade, buildings are going to be damaged and civilians will die. However, Tony Stark should be held personally liable for Ultron, because that absolutely was negligence.

As for operational control...

Give that to Cap, with a non-enhanced adviser. I seriously cannot think of anyone better for the job.

No metahuman registration, but anyone who wants to operate in an Enhanced fashion for any reason but basic self-defense or mundane work assignments (if Colossus wanted to be a construction worker, he would be exempt, and if you try to mug Peter Parker, good luck), will have to register with them or join them outright. A regulatory framework would need to be put into place to handle people like Spiderman who work in parallel with mundane law enforcement, but have secret identities they want to keep in order to protect family members from retaliation.

Any internal investigations where a conflict of interest might be relevant should be handled by INTERPOL, in conjunction with Dr. Strange (if he consents to it). Those incidents should be rare enough that it is not required very often, and because he does not operate inside the 3+1 dimensions that cover the jurisdiction of this body unless shit hits the fan in a really really bad way.

[Simon_Jester]

Aside from human governments rejecting "put Asgard in charge," there's another problem.

Asgard has enemies and internal politics that Earth is utterly ignorant of. Our sole point of contact is Thor, and he's not around all the time. By making ourselves a protectorate of Asgard, we could be making ourselves a target for people who don't actually care about us otherwise. Moreover, we're vulnerable to power shifts inside Asgard, should those happen to take place- we know OOC that as of The Dark World ending, Asgard is in fact controlled by Loki, for instance.

2. The superhuman registry from Agents of SHIELD will not be implemented, except in cases where someone's powers pose an innate threat to the public's safety (like Rogue's "touch me and you die" power, to borrow an example from X-men). No punishing people or subjecting them to scrutiny based on suspicion, fear, or prejudice only.

What about a man whose power is to make people do whatever he says? Where do you draw the boundary between things that are and are not innate threats to public safety.

Define what exactly an 'enhanced person' is, as someone with access to the Inhuman gene, alien tech, magic, or has been enhanced enough by science to be beyond normal human capabilities. If Black Widow and Hawkeye are subject to the Accords, frankly, so are most of the people at the Olympics.

What about, say, Ant-Man? He has no intrinsic powers, but with access to his suit becomes amazingly dangerous. For purposes of what he can potentially do for (or to) people he's a superhero, but for purposes of how hard it is to keep him in a jail cell, he's a normal (if inventive and technically adept) person.

The Avengers will be led by said UN appointed director, even if it's just in a rubber stamping capacity. This will involve training, so that incidents such as friendly fire, civilian casualties, and team deaths are all kept to a minimum. Government wise, jurisdiction in countries where such incidents are taking place will go to the Avengers, meaning that local police and military will have to cooperate in a local or support role.

That jurisdiction thing is not going to go over well.

Imprisonment of any 'enhanced individual' is to fall in line with the Geneva Convention. Have a facility set up for these cases, but ensure that they are given a fair trial and convicted. In cases of 'powers being beyond their control', detain them for public safety while making them comfortable(IE, more like visiting a college dorm or hotel room than a jail cell) and coordinate with local labs to try and cure them, or at least make the powers controllable. Allow visitation from family and friends.

Where does the Hulk fall in this scheme, by the way? He has marginal control over his powers, imprisoning him only makes him angry, and, well.

I'm of two minds about prohibiting superhumans in the military. Practically speaking, it makes sense to want to avoid escalation. Ethically, I'd be loath to prohibit someone from certain professions they would otherwise be fit to perform on the basis of (in at least some cases, i.e. Asgardians and Inhumans) ethnicity.

Besides, its probably a given that some will not agree to that ban, or will cheat on it. And our real world has been bad at bringing those people to account. North Korea has nukes. Assad gassed his people and yet remains in power, because he has Russian buddies. I fail to see how it would necessarily be different here, unless you empower someone to enforce the rules without needing to go to the UN or a national government for approval. And then that group is above the law, and the whole point of the Accords is defeated.

Another issue is the definition of what constitutes enhanced humans. Is trying to make your own Iron Man suits by reverse-engineering a destroyed Ultron drone or three an 'enhanced human' project? Because I fail to see how that's different than researching better purely conventional weapons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What about a man whose power is to make people do whatever he says? Where do you draw the boundary between things that are and are not innate threats to public safety.

The problem with a universal registration scheme is that its only use is to suppress people. Anyone with criminal intent will simply... not register. So the bigger question is "how do you know who has powers that are inherently dangerous?" and the answer is, "you don't". All you will ever end up doing is opening up innocent people--including completely harmless innocent people, like a dude with gills and webbed feet but no other powers--to persecution.

[Solauren]

I'm thinking -
You want to superhero, you have register. This would work like a private investigators license.
You want to use any non-involuntary abilities as part of your job, you register.

i.e Jessica Jones would have to register to get away with using her super strength on her job.
i.e Luke Cage would not have to register just based on his high level of invulnerability
i.e Someone that can breath water, would not have to register based on that ability.
i.e Deadpool would not have to register because of his regeneration. (Just everything else he damn well does)

Acts of Self-Defense are allowed regardless of registration.
Acts of Defense of others in life and death situations are also allowed.
Basically, any situation where use of a weapon would be allowed.

i.e Jessica Jones beating the shit out of the Purple Man is a case of self-defense.

Superheroes would have to go through government channels for cross border operations.
A special office would be required to be created by each signature government, or else a direct line to their head of government.

Superheroes can be ordered to stand-down by the local government, and can be given orders by the government of the country that serves as their home base.
Superheroes that disobey orders to stand-down are subject to the same review/disciplinary actions as a cop or soldier (depending on the situation), by their home country, and the 'host country, as needed. (Or maybe the host country and the UN Security council)
Iron Man is ordered to stand down in France. He refuses. Review by the UN Security council.

Superheroes have the right to refuse orders they object too. (This does not include stand-down orders).


Experiments with Alien technology must be approved by the host government, and all results reported to them.


Superheroes would be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Iron Man 1: As stark was fighting in self-defense, he wouldn't face charges. However, he'd be expected to help pay the repair bills.
Iron Man 2: Again, self-defense for Stark, and let's face it, it was his stuff that got lunched.
Thor: Thor was acting in self-defense. Good luck going after Loki.
Avengers: Planet was in danger, by no action of the Avengers. They were operating under the local government.
Barton would be subject to a review, Fury would say he saw the mind-control work, but it would be public record what happened.
Iron Man 3: What is it with Stark getting his own stuff trashed? (I know, it's part of the over-all self-destructive behavior story...)
Captain America 2: That's just a clusterfuck. I can't see Rogers or the Widow facing charges. In fact, wasn't that the point of that hearing scene?
Avengers 2: Okay, NOW we get into things.

First Battle: Did the Avengers have the local governments permission to operate in the country?
I'm going to assume, yes, they did. No one wants Hydra operating in their country.
No consequences under the Accords.

However, everything after Ultron got lose, I'm going to assume that was all 'rush, rush, rush' without talking to anyone.
That would be in violation of the accords as I'd write them.
Of course, under the accords, Stark would have to report the sceptor and his plan to experiment on it, and what, and get permission.
When that went sideways, he'd have to report it. When they located Ultron, they'd have called Wakanda, and advised them of the situtation.

Now, the Hulks little 'mind fucked' rampage would be investigated. He'd be cleared, as he was under mind-control. The Scarlet Witch would be facing charges on that. Fortunately, Stark probably handled all the damages (did he actually buy that building that quickly?), and there appears to have been no loss of life.
Really, it would get down to, would Banner press charges?


Realistically, the only question would be the oversight body. Proper procedures in place and all that, and a fast frame work, and even Rogers should have no problem with it.

[FaxModem1]

Define what exactly an 'enhanced person' is, as someone with access to the Inhuman gene, alien tech, magic, or has been enhanced enough by science to be beyond normal human capabilities. If Black Widow and Hawkeye are subject to the Accords, frankly, so are most of the people at the Olympics.

What about, say, Ant-Man? He has no intrinsic powers, but with access to his suit becomes amazingly dangerous. For purposes of what he can potentially do for (or to) people he's a superhero, but for purposes of how hard it is to keep him in a jail cell, he's a normal (if inventive and technically adept) person.

See 'enhanced by science', without the pym particles, Scott Lang or Hank Pym are just people wearing a very interesting cosplay costume. The command over ants might require things like 'enhanced by tech' added to the Accords, or regulation of dangerous pieces of equipment, same with an Iron Man or War Machine suit.

The Avengers will be led by said UN appointed director, even if it's just in a rubber stamping capacity. This will involve training, so that incidents such as friendly fire, civilian casualties, and team deaths are all kept to a minimum. Government wise, jurisdiction in countries where such incidents are taking place will go to the Avengers, meaning that local police and military will have to cooperate in a local or support role.

That jurisdiction thing is not going to go over well.[/quote]

Countries accepted SHIELD coming into their country with impunity in Agents of SHIELD, so this does have precedent.

Imprisonment of any 'enhanced individual' is to fall in line with the Geneva Convention. Have a facility set up for these cases, but ensure that they are given a fair trial and convicted. In cases of 'powers being beyond their control', detain them for public safety while making them comfortable(IE, more like visiting a college dorm or hotel room than a jail cell) and coordinate with local labs to try and cure them, or at least make the powers controllable. Allow visitation from family and friends.

Where does the Hulk fall in this scheme, by the way? He has marginal control over his powers, imprisoning him only makes him angry, and, well.

In such a classification level, I'm sure some tropical island somewhere very, very far from civilization would be the best place, but outfitted with as many durable comforts of home(shelter, entertainment, food, etc.) would probably be the best way. That would be if he doesn't have control over his powers. If he does, and he does destroy things and kills people(not in service of Avengers or the Accords), then yeah, detainment via exile is going to be his sentence. We've never seen him fly, or leap thousands of miles, so he would essentially be stranded, or swimming until he reached somewhere.

Hulk is really such an exception to the standard powered individual in the MCU that he deserves special classification of his own anyway. Unless one of those booths from Agents of SHIELD could nullify his powers like it does Inhumans.

[Simon_Jester]

See 'enhanced by science', without the pym particles, Scott Lang or Hank Pym are just people wearing a very interesting cosplay costume. The command over ants might require things like 'enhanced by tech' added to the Accords, or regulation of dangerous pieces of equipment, same with an Iron Man or War Machine suit.

That then creates the problem of finding the dividing line between "enhanced" technology and "normal" technology. Between "enhancement" research and the kind of research that happens in real life to cure disease, advance science, and (sadly) create better weapons. Which technologies are so dangerous they have to be internationally regulated by the Accords, and what effect will this have on scientific research in general?

In such a classification level, I'm sure some tropical island somewhere very, very far from civilization would be the best place, but outfitted with as many durable comforts of home(shelter, entertainment, food, etc.) would probably be the best way. That would be if he doesn't have control over his powers. If he does, and he does destroy things and kills people(not in service of Avengers or the Accords), then yeah, detainment via exile is going to be his sentence. We've never seen him fly, or leap thousands of miles, so he would essentially be stranded, or swimming until he reached somewhere.

Island. That's a good one, should probably work- though detainment via exile would have to be on the same kind of island as voluntary confinement.

What about a man whose power is to make people do whatever he says? Where do you draw the boundary between things that are and are not innate threats to public safety.

The problem with a universal registration scheme is that its only use is to suppress people. Anyone with criminal intent will simply... not register. So the bigger question is "how do you know who has powers that are inherently dangerous?" and the answer is, "you don't". All you will ever end up doing is opening up innocent people--including completely harmless innocent people, like a dude with gills and webbed feet but no other powers--to persecution.

Honestly, this issue is problematic enough that I no longer strongly favor such systems, at least not in the context of superhero settings as they actually work. I was mostly poking at the legal boundary that would have to exist in a system of limited registration. Some powers are really dangerous and potentially insidious in ways even the Hulk isn't, because they can be used without it being immediately obvious what's happening and what to do about it.

[Civil War Man]

That then creates the problem of finding the dividing line between "enhanced" technology and "normal" technology. Between "enhancement" research and the kind of research that happens in real life to cure disease, advance science, and (sadly) create better weapons. Which technologies are so dangerous they have to be internationally regulated by the Accords, and what effect will this have on scientific research in general?

My approach to the Accords, at least when addressing the issue of powers and supertech in warfare, is to treat them as another round of the Geneva Conventions. My logic behind banning people with superpowers from serving in the armed forces is that allowing them would inevitably lead to human rights abuses, like forced conscription and human experimentation. Even just banning powers with overt battlefield uses is not sufficient, because even non-combat powers can be a destabilizing force. Any military that recruited someone like Cypher would instantly gain an advantage over any opponent because their opponent would be left unable to secure any of their communications.

As far as supertech, we already ban certain types of technology from use in warfare (most obvious example being NBC weapons). Pym particles and their derivatives, for instance, can very easily be considered a WMD when you consider their sheer destructive potential. Drop canisters of unshielded and unregulated Pym particles over a city, and watch entire sections of it be essentially erased from existence as they are shrunk into the microverse. Iron Man suits and their derivatives wouldn't necessarily be outright banned, but I can see them being very heavily regulated because of just how powerful they are. They are essentially main battle tanks and fighter-bombers wrapped up in a human-sized package and given VTOL flight capabilities.

Banning certain types of tech in warfare doesn't even necessarily restrict their civilian applications, too. Tear gas and pepper spray, for instance, are banned from use in warfare but are legal when used for riot control or self defense. As long as you don't make the rules over- or under-inclusive, it's perfectly feasible to, for example, prohibit the military use of certain types of Stark technology without inhibiting its application in civilian power generation.

[Simon_Jester]

The big problem there is that we'd basically have to keep constantly editing the relevant section of the Accords to stop any "too advanced" technology from being used by the military. Moreover, all this systematic effort to suppress advanced weapons technology would have the net effect of badly weakening the world's defenses against an alien or supernatural threat, because it means that our military technology becomes in effect stagnant.

[FaxModem1]

One possible solution is making regulations on exotic materials, same as we do in reality. Iron Man's power core or Pym Particles could have similar regulations as the DoE puts on, say, uranium. Being in the Avengers grants access, of course.

Pym Particles are already known to be dangerous to the user, so this is already justified.

[Elheru Aran]

Outside of the MCU, there are a LOT of fantastically high-tech super-geniuses in the Marvel Universe, heroes and villains both. Reed Richards, Victor von Doom, etc. Hell, I'm pretty sure Wakanda has the technology to casually go to the Moon anytime they want. The main reason why this high tech isn't commonly available is usually some lame excuse like 'with this great power nothing good would come of it', 'you turn into a villain in the future', or whatever. Sometimes it's a bit more understandable-- for example, a lot of Reed Richards' technology is very unique because it's all experimental, prototypes, uses the specific powers of the Fantastic Four to function, whatever-- and as such would be impossible to mass-produce. Doctor Doom runs a nation that's the European equivalent of North Korea and won't share his stuff with *anybody* (except, occasionally, Richards, when they're forced to ally by circumstances).

As for how this works in the MCU... certainly Tony Stark could probably put feet on the Moon... a time or two, but I don't think that even Stark Industrial has the money and pull to do more than a couple of Iron Man suits up there as a publicity stunt. He seems to hold his repulsor technology very close and dear. The arc-generator tech is also very proprietary, and obviously his computing stuff is simply ridiculous (JARVIS anybody?). But, that's basically because he's able to use an entire corporation's worth of resources for *his own* purposes. In real life, the stockholders would attempt a coup soon as he declared a cessation to arms manufacture. One has to wonder, very strongly, what exactly Stark Industries is producing after that point, and whether or not Tony is just using it as his own personal manufacturer and running off savings eight years or so down the road.

[Khaat]

The MCU suffers from the same issues as the comics: they want the world to be relatable to contemporary earth for the audience, so have convoluted/improbably/wall-of-ignorance defenses against the massive changes supers would have had on the world.

The fact that SHIELD had repulsor helicarriers in CA:WS suggests Tony can't keep the genie in the bottle. Hells, even Ivan Vanko had legitimate claim to ARC tech (as his father was co-inventor with Howard!) [I point-out that the US Patent would have only been good for 20 years, so unless the Department of Defense had classified it (only good for 70 years), the conventional protections for the technology would have expired. And as we saw from CA:FA, Howard had the repulsor going long enough ago that even a DOD lock would have expired.]

As for Stark Industries, they probably continued running out the existing contracts (easily covering the next 8 years), unless Tony wanted to burn down Stark Industries. It would still be making weapons; he just wouldn't be making more, new weapons. And Tony was pushed out: Obediah Stane filed an injunction against him. Stane's death wouldn't have been enough to stop the board from continuing that path, especially after the "rogue drone/arc reactor/I am Iron Man" incident in the 1st movie. The Congressional hearing/Hammeroid mess at the Stark Expo in IM2 would have been the last straw for any hold-outs (especially considering Tony's "increasingly erratic behavior" - short of vultures settling in for first-in-line at the carcass, Stark Industries should have collapsed.)

[madd0ct0r]

It was stated that Stark designed the heli-carrier's repulsar engines.

I await with interest the next Iron Man film: Stark Industries. Wall to wall non stop peaceful documentary tours of factories producing factory assembly equipment and their eventual use to assemble and paint plastic toys in Cambodia. Be amazed at Stark chip tractors that can find the center of a field and carry out an optimised ploughing layout themselves☆ Watch the thrilling process of Stark high impact resistant golf clubs transistion from mine to clubhouse. Watch the clamouring cheers as Stark releases a new Usb with inbuilt projector♡ Duck as a 3d image of a new airconditioning unit using Stark motors swings through the cinena on its way to be fitted by an exo-suit wearing construction laborour.

I dunno about you guys, but u think it'll be a hit?
Stark industries might be an embodiment of the military industrial complex ten years ago, but non of the mega corps only make guns. Jets, cars, engines, chips and yes, tractors and aircon units.

☆ decade old tech in real life.
♡ as seen in the first iron man film.

[Simon_Jester]

One possible solution is making regulations on exotic materials, same as we do in reality. Iron Man's power core or Pym Particles could have similar regulations as the DoE puts on, say, uranium. Being in the Avengers grants access, of course.

Pym Particles are already known to be dangerous to the user, so this is already justified.

Pym Particles are also totally unavailable to anyone other than Hank Pym and his associates, so far. They're not even the problem; Iron Man armor is.

By now it almost has to be common knowledge that the armor runs (or can run) on palladium. Stark's a genius, but with hundreds of thousands of technicians all over the world trying to duplicate his work, people are bound to start replicating arc reactors sooner or later, if they haven't already done so. And there are so many civilian applications for arc reactors that trying to make an international treaty banning them for their potential military applications is going to seem ridiculous. Especially if Stark personally gets some kind of grandfather exemption.

And what if other, equally capable forms of energy production are developed? Do we ban them too? How far do we take this kind of Luddism? Banning technologies because they could be used to make powerful weapons is neither practical nor desirable, and even if it succeeded, the main effect would be to inflict technological stagnation on Earth.

[madd0ct0r]

One possible solution is making regulations on exotic materials, same as we do in reality. Iron Man's power core or Pym Particles could have similar regulations as the DoE puts on, say, uranium. Being in the Avengers grants access, of course.

Pym Particles are already known to be dangerous to the user, so this is already justified.

Pym Particles are also totally unavailable to anyone other than Hank Pym and his associates, so far. They're not even the problem; Iron Man armor is.

By now it almost has to be common knowledge that the armor runs (or can run) on palladium. Stark's a genius, but with hundreds of thousands of technicians all over the world trying to duplicate his work, people are bound to start replicating arc reactors sooner or later, if they haven't already done so. And there are so many civilian applications for arc reactors that trying to make an international treaty banning them for their potential military applications is going to seem ridiculous. Especially if Stark personally gets some kind of grandfather exemption.

And what if other, equally capable forms of energy production are developed? Do we ban them too? How far do we take this kind of Luddism? Banning technologies because they could be used to make powerful weapons is neither practical nor desirable, and even if it succeeded, the main effect would be to inflict technological stagnation on Earth.

regualtion =/= banning.

Remember the fuss a few years back when a few bio-med researchers started to raise public awareness that any fool could buy dna bits to replicate some very nasty virus and succeed in the garage? Research on virus has not slowed.

[FaxModem1]

Point, I said regulate by the Department of Energy, not ban. If every city had a Stark Tower like reactor, that would do a lot for the world. I'm just saying that there should be heightened security in case someone tries to turn it into a bomb or abscond with it during transport.

We still have nuclear reactors after all, they're not something locked up in a vault that mankind can't use, but the average Joe on the street can't buy plutonium at a hardware store. I'm thinking similar restraints when it comes to the materials for stark reactors.

[Khaat]

It was stated that Stark designed the heli-carrier's repulsar engines.

Actually, this was a good prelude for Stark buying into the establishment line in CA:CW: Tony knew he couldn't actually, really privatize world peace after all, and he trusted Nick Fury to use it responsibly. The news of what actually happened to Project: Insight may have been so muddied that he didn't pull back from "well, someone needs to be in charge of it, and I'm out." The pendulum started swinging back by the end of Civil War.

I await with interest the next Iron Man film: Stark Industries.

"And here we see the everyday applications of Stark tech changing the face of the MCU" Oh, wait, it really doesn't: the products we know about are things like "IntelliCropsTM", that don't significantly alter the setting from the real world. We don't have first responders (or soldiers, or laborers) in common exo-suits (flying or non-flying) in the MCU. Stark didn't drive a Stark Motors FasterThanYours5000 to the benefit. I didn't spot his unique plexiPhone in anyone elses' hands. Although: it could be he was able to hack into the Congressional hearing room's screen so quickly because he sold them the OS, he/Pepper did fly around in a "unique" plane (maybe an after-market refit?), and Stark industrial automation builds things (didn't see this anywhere)?

Stark industries might be an embodiment of the military industrial complex ten years ago, but non of the mega corps only make guns. Jets, cars, engines, chips and yes, tractors and aircon units.

True, we only heard about the "40 point drop" in Iron Man. That may be just a busy day of uncertain trading - I took it to be a significant down-turn (as it was presented to be the knife with which Jebediah then poisoned the board against Tony.) Yes, Stark Industries makes more than guns; Tony himself made that point. "All of those breakthroughs, military funding, baby." The press conference when he got back wasn't "we're cutting off a quarter (or an eighth) of our business", it was "we aren't making weapons anymore." -> *panic*

[Solauren]

The Congressional hearing/Hammeroid mess at the Stark Expo in IM2 would have been the last straw for any hold-outs (especially considering Tony's "increasingly erratic behavior" - short of vultures settling in for first-in-line at the carcass, Stark Industries should have collapsed.)

Actually, without knowing the shareholder percentages, you can't say that.

if tony still owns more then 51% of the stock, you can't out him. He has controlling votes. (He probably didn't have 51% in IM1, so Stane could lock him out. After that, probably bought all of Stane's stock up and then some to gain shareholder control)

If he owns more, like say, 90%, there is literally nothing you can do beyond cash your dividend cheques

[madd0ct0r]

I don't think you'll ever see a press conference where they say 'we're cutting off a quarter of our business' in those literal words, but you 'll also never see one where people say "We're choosing to focus on xyz" with the implication of shedding an eighth of their business model without seeing an immediate panic. Stocks panic, it's what they do.

I've just been digging for about 15min, and I've not found any publicly traded companies that renounced selling weapons. I found a few on industrial pivots (GE, Garmin, Intel), but stocks tended to rise after the news since the markets were primed with rumour already. I also found a few where the big Jap multi-corps announced they were selling or retiring some subsidiaries, which also tended to be greeted as good news. I guess large publically traded companies tend not announce thigs they think will cause a panic. They either don't do them, or do them quietly.