[MCU/RAR] You write the Sokovia Accords

[Batman]

'Earle: What makes you think you can decide who's running Wayne Enterprises?
Wayne: Well, the fact that I'm the owner.
Earle: What are you talking about? The company went public a week ago.
Bruce Wayne: And I bought most of the shares - through various charitable foundations, and trusts, and so forth. Look, it's all a bit technical, but the important thing is that my company's future is secure. [speaks slightly louder] Right, Mr. Fox?'
Given that Tony pretty much unilaterally made Pepper CEO in IM2 something must have changed since his problems with the board.

[Civil War Man]

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

Even controlling a majority of shares doesn't give him carte blanche. Minority shareholders could, for instance, bring a class-action lawsuit against him for failing in his fiduciary duty to consider their interests, and they'd have a good case if they could uncover instances of, for example, Stark using company resources on personal projects.

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.

We already do that. New technology comes out, and we have to change how we look at the world in order to accommodate that. When e-mail came out, we created rules on the appropriate use of e-mail by government officials. It didn't stop e-mail from happening.

And banning military applications of certain technologies not about stopping technology that is "too advanced", but preventing nations from committing atrocities. Militaries are not allowed to use poisoned weapons. They're not allowed to use tear gas. They're not allowed to use spike traps. They're not allowed to use flamethrowers in urban centers. They're not allowed to use land mines made from plastic. They're not allowed to use chemical and biological weapons. Those technologies aren't "too advanced."

And as others have pointed out, not being allowed to, for instance, use biological weapons has not stopped us from studying biological agents likes viruses and bacteria, including how they may be weaponized (remember the whole anthrax scare back in '01?). Not allowing the US military to be able to drop Pym particles on enemy cities and effectively erase them from existence wouldn't stop all research on Pym particles (assuming Pym was not there to prevent the research himself).

[Elheru Aran]

I'm guessing that Tony was the primary owner of the corporation, probably via inheritance from his parents, to begin with, enjoying the dividends to finance his playboy lifestyle and letting his eggheads do the majority of the research. He did go to MIT or some such school, so he's no slouch himself, hence the basement laboratory for when he wants to play around and prototype stuff or build a fancy engine for his new sports car. Stuff like that.

Then after the IM1 announcement-- both of them, I suppose, since they're significant changes both to the operation of the company and its public 'face' of Tony Stark-- stocks would've taken a massive hit, so it would have been possible for him to buy up any loose shares at cutthroat prices. It's quite possible that Project Insight/HYDRA-led SHIELD approached him at this point to offer a deal-- build the repulsor engines for their fancy Helicarriers, they'll help shore up his company and pour money into his accounts in return.

With the public drama of Iron Man 2 (Vanko and Howard Stark's conflict, Tony's breakdown that lets Rhodes run off with the suit that becomes War Machine, the Hammer Drone farce), that would've harmed the profile of the company even more. It would be like Bill Gates suddenly started running around with a posse, dating young starlets, throwing money around at strip clubs... people would be looking at Microsoft and being all 'what the fuck man'.

So it's entirely possible that around IM1-IM2 Tony was able to largely buy up stock in his own company to the point where he was likely more or less the sole owner. This is particularly notable in IM3, where IIRC the corporation took a big hit after the attack on Tony's house and he vanished for awhile; imagine if Elon Musk did the same thing after a terrorist attack on his place, Tesla would have a bit of a crisis.

At this point (Civil War being the current status quo of Marvel cinema), my primary recollections of what Stark Industries is doing beyond the obvious Iron Man stuff are: some medical stuff (that Korean doctor, or was she Chinese? seemed connected to Stark in some fashion), some humanitarian stuff, and the big-ass charitable donation to MIT. Beyond that, we don't really know much of anything about what they're doing in the civilian sphere. It could well be that they simply aren't doing much of anything because having scaled back weapons production drastically, they don't have that much else to do.

[Khaat]

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)

The line was "the board's claiming your have PTSD". I have zero idea if that would mean much of anything in business law, but it was played as though it meant a great deal - Stane had effectively displaced Tony at the top of the board. I imagine if it were possible, Tony could be forced to sell or accept non-voting shares in the running of the business (or "retire with a golden parachute")? I know LLCs have non-voting shares, dunno about Inc.'s

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

You could always sell, possibly causing a stock price crash (devaluing what Tony has), or cascade collapse of confidence in Stark Industries, to the point that only Tony owns interest in a company noone wants to do business with, since he won't sell 'em the really cool toys. Or guns.

Given that Tony pretty much unilaterally made Pepper CEO in IM2 something must have changed since his problems with the board.

It had nothing to do with shares, it was in the by-laws: Tony could appoint his own successor. But Stane was the driving force behind the injunction, and with him out of the picture, Tony could have cowed the rest of the board back into line (or just chased them off/bought them out - at the cut stock prices.) Imagine if Bruce had had an in-costume knock-down drag-out fight with Earle, after which Earle was declared dead in a private plane crash....

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.

True, but how many super-mega-military-contract-heavy companies are run by a genius billionaire philanthropist playboy who just escaped captivity in a warzone?

[madd0ct0r]

indeed. closest I can find is Musk talking about solar power at the Telsa company show: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/l ... story.html
that was 2 months ago. stocks crashed afterwards, and picked up a few weeks later: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid ... ck%20value

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah... 'super-mega-military-contract-heavy companies' tend to be run by wealthy, usually white, usually Protestant or Catholic, usually obscenely wealthy men and women, that tend to avoid celebrity. I mean, who can name the guy (or woman) that runs General Electric without checking Google first, just for a quick example?

Tony on the other hand... high-rolling his way through Vegas, massive demonstrations for the military (blowing up mountainsides?), making splashes at tech conferences, that kind of thing, camera flashes *everywhere* he goes. The most comparable modern guy is indeed Elon Musk from what I understand (I don't follow business very closely or at all in fact). The fortunes of his company, more than most others, would rest heavily upon what he does and says in the public eye... especially if he's holding most of the corporate stock to start with and is the public face of the company.

EDIT: Don't forget messing around with at least one society reporter, not the first one if Pepper's reaction is anything to go by (though that might have been more along the lines of 'great, another damn bimbo to kick out' rather than 'great, another reporter').

[Simon_Jester]

Even controlling a majority of shares doesn't give him carte blanche. Minority shareholders could, for instance, bring a class-action lawsuit against him for failing in his fiduciary duty to consider their interests, and they'd have a good case if they could uncover instances of, for example, Stark using company resources on personal projects.

This is true.

That said, unlike most real billionaire's, Tony Stark's personal abilities are one of the keys to his company's success. He may well have successfully convinced minority investors that letting him invent and design on the company's behalf, while giving him access to company fabricators and machinery, is worth giving him discretion to design personal projects. Because giving him freedom to work on projects of his own choosing has probably netted the company billions in the past.

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.

Thing is, governments can obtain nuclear fuel without too much trouble. It's difficult for "rogue" governments to do so, sure. But that's mainly because bomb-grade fissile materials aren't like arc reactors. They cannot be made in a cave with a box of scraps. Vanko made his first arc reactor on a quite limited budget too- although to be fair he already knew the design or could reasonably deduce it. But then, by now so much Starktech has been made and dispersed (especially Ultron drones) that it seems unlikely that salvaged arc reactors aren't available if you're willing to pay enough money for one.

The original stated concern wasn't to prevent arc reactor-based terrorism. It was to prevent arms races between governments. And that is simply not practical in my opinion. Bans on the technology won't be perfectly reliable, and ultimately the nations that comply with a ban on militarized arc reactors will wind up at a major disadvantage compared to ones that don't.

This ties into someone else's quote, too...

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.

We already do that. New technology comes out, and we have to change how we look at the world in order to accommodate that. When e-mail came out, we created rules on the appropriate use of e-mail by government officials. It didn't stop e-mail from happening.

And banning military applications of certain technologies not about stopping technology that is "too advanced", but preventing nations from committing atrocities. Militaries are not allowed to use poisoned weapons. They're not allowed to use tear gas. They're not allowed to use spike traps. They're not allowed to use flamethrowers in urban centers. They're not allowed to use land mines made from plastic. They're not allowed to use chemical and biological weapons. Those technologies aren't "too advanced."

Whereas arc reactors would have to be prohibited entirely because they are too advanced. Literally all they do is provide electrical power more efficiently than existing engines and generators. They're not weapons in and of themselves. They're certainly not unusually inhumane weapons the way poison gas or undetectable land mines are.

Moreover, the demand for them in places like civilian aviation (as electric motors driving engines, if nothing else) will tend to create a situation where militaries can literally buy them off the shelf. You can't do that with nerve gas or land mines.

[Civil War Man]

Whereas arc reactors would have to be prohibited entirely because they are too advanced. Literally all they do is provide electrical power more efficiently than existing engines and generators. They're not weapons in and of themselves. They're certainly not unusually inhumane weapons the way poison gas or undetectable land mines are.

Moreover, the demand for them in places like civilian aviation (as electric motors driving engines, if nothing else) will tend to create a situation where militaries can literally buy them off the shelf. You can't do that with nerve gas or land mines.

I don't think arc reactors themselves would necessarily end up on the list, since they are pretty much just power generation. Weapons that use the arc reactors as a power source, like unibeams, might not be allowed depending on what effect they have on someone who is unarmored and has no superpowers that might protect them. Same with repulsor technology. Ok as propulsion, not okay as weapons if it results in messy deaths when used on mundane humans.

There is precedent for that, too. Lasers are fine in some applications in warfare, but not in others. Using lasers for precision targeting systems is fine. Using lasers to blind enemy soldiers is not.

That does have a caveat that the arc reactor becomes fairly ubiquitous. One nation having a monopoly on them would, as I mentioned before, cause an arms race, and could very quickly escalate conflicts based on how much more advanced they are than other available technology.

Say, for instance, the US military has the Iron Man suits, but Russia does not. The American President decides he's had enough of Putin's shit, and so he sends 1,000 Green Berets in Iron Man suits to overthrow the Russian government. Since Russia in this scenario does not have the Iron Man technology, their only options are basically either surrender, field their own legion of superpowered individuals, or deploy nuclear weapons, because at this point superpowers and nukes are pretty much the only things that can do more than scratch the paint.

[Simon_Jester]

Whereas arc reactors would have to be prohibited entirely because they are too advanced. Literally all they do is provide electrical power more efficiently than existing engines and generators. They're not weapons in and of themselves. They're certainly not unusually inhumane weapons the way poison gas or undetectable land mines are.

Moreover, the demand for them in places like civilian aviation (as electric motors driving engines, if nothing else) will tend to create a situation where militaries can literally buy them off the shelf. You can't do that with nerve gas or land mines.

I don't think arc reactors themselves would necessarily end up on the list, since they are pretty much just power generation. Weapons that use the arc reactors as a power source, like unibeams, might not be allowed depending on what effect they have on someone who is unarmored and has no superpowers that might protect them. Same with repulsor technology. Ok as propulsion, not okay as weapons if it results in messy deaths when used on mundane humans.

Repulsor hits don't seem to be worse for human beings than bullets; if anything the reverse may be true judging by what happens when Iron Man starts pounding on those Ten Rings fighters in Afghanistan. Heavy energy weapons like the unibeam or lasers might be problematic... but by that standard, so are heavy machine guns and artillery, which can shred people.

That does have a caveat that the arc reactor becomes fairly ubiquitous. One nation having a monopoly on them would, as I mentioned before, cause an arms race, and could very quickly escalate conflicts based on how much more advanced they are than other available technology.

Say, for instance, the US military has the Iron Man suits, but Russia does not. The American President decides he's had enough of Putin's shit, and so he sends 1,000 Green Berets in Iron Man suits to overthrow the Russian government. Since Russia in this scenario does not have the Iron Man technology, their only options are basically either surrender, field their own legion of superpowered individuals, or deploy nuclear weapons, because at this point superpowers and nukes are pretty much the only things that can do more than scratch the paint.

Right.

The basic problem is that arc reactor technology can't and arguably shouldn't stay contained forever. If you try to ban development, you just guarantee that one guy will develop it in secret and deploy a mass of fighting vehicles that use arc reactors and energy weapons (copies of WWII Hydra weapons, if nothing else). Meanwhile, the civilian community is deprived of the enormous benefits of widespread clean energy.

But if you let arc reactor technology proliferate, there is simply no way to stop widespread use of energy weapons on the battlefield, even without any other changes in technology (e.g. repulsors).

At some point it makes more sense to just say that there is no point in trying to limit technological development, because even insanely dangerous stuff like Pym particles in bombs isn't really worse than nuclear weapons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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*

Stock traders are... panicky. A point in this case is 1 dollar of stock price. 1 share of Lockheed Martin will cost about 237 dollars at current rates. So a 40 point drop for Lockeed right now would equate to a share price of 197 dollars per share.

Massive temporary panics can happen for a lot of reasons. Something happens and everyone tries to dump their stock.

Now, boards of directors are all about the stock price. They see a dip in the stock price, they want heads to roll. Often no matter how the company is actually doing.

[Civil War Man]

Right.

The basic problem is that arc reactor technology can't and arguably shouldn't stay contained forever. If you try to ban development, you just guarantee that one guy will develop it in secret and deploy a mass of fighting vehicles that use arc reactors and energy weapons (copies of WWII Hydra weapons, if nothing else). Meanwhile, the civilian community is deprived of the enormous benefits of widespread clean energy.

But if you let arc reactor technology proliferate, there is simply no way to stop widespread use of energy weapons on the battlefield, even without any other changes in technology (e.g. repulsors).

At some point it makes more sense to just say that there is no point in trying to limit technological development, because even insanely dangerous stuff like Pym particles in bombs isn't really worse than nuclear weapons.

By that logic, there is no point to have any sanctions against any nation that uses mustard gas, VX, nukes, weaponized viruses, asteroids dropped from orbit, etc., because it's not like any one of those is inherently more horrific than the others. The logical conclusion of that argument is that there should be no rules of engagement, at which point Ultron is probably the good guy in this story, because anything that hastens humanity's extinction in that world can only make the universe a better place.

And that's setting aside the fact that you are working off a faulty premise, that banning certain weapons slows technological progress and that allowing their use hastens it. The Geneva conventions ban lots of things in real life, and that has not slowed technological progress at all. In fact, in many fields it's accelerating.

Seriously, how would allowing nations to use Pym particles as a weapon of mass destruction advance scientific knowledge on MCU Earth? How would encouraging weaponization of arc reactor technology advance it? The reason arc reactor technology has the potential to provide widespread clean energy in the MCU is because Stark was resisting attempts to put it in the hands of the military. If he handed it over to Stane in IM1, for instance, it would probably be decades before anyone decided to seriously pursue arc reactors as clean energy. There would be so many patents and top secret classifications covering it that most civilians wouldn't even be able to look at one without being sent to prison or sued for everything they have. Using it to make bigger and more destructive weapons would always be the number 1 priority for it until something with more destructive potential came along.

[Simon_Jester]

The first problem is that drawing the line between dangerous and not-dangerous technology is impractically hard. Clean energy sources are safe- but clean energy sources that replace engines in airplanes radically alter the way military aircraft function even without repulsors. Clean energy sources hooked up to existing weapons technology turns them into superweapons.

Moreover, it's not practical to just categorically ban every new technology that gets invented from being used in weapons as being too "provocative" or whatever. I mean, if we'd written these accords in the '50s, would we be advocating banning the use of transistor circuitry? Trying to do this kind of thing results in the countries that ignore your restrictions becoming much stronger militarily, and would tend over the long run to render Earth defenseless against outside threats (e.g. the Chitauri).

I mean, you're essentially trying to impose a technological 'freeze' and say that all weapons using technology invented after 2005 or so are illegal. How well will that play in 2050 or 2100?

EDIT: It's not just a question of banning weapons that are exceptionally inhumane. It's that weapons design has always made use of the most advanced available material science, power generation, propulsion, computers, and so forth. Trying to ban all these things from use in weapons is going to be met with incredulity, and it's very much questionable whether you're actually doing the world any favors by doing so. Because making weapons out of better materials or replacing machine guns with ray guns doesn't necessarily make war deadlier or more inhumane.

[madd0ct0r]

I think you guys are arguing past each other.

[Simon_Jester]

Very probably, but I'm not sure how to resolve it.

I mean, I get the idea that exceptionally horrible weapons can or should be banned by treaty. But historically, people have banned weapons because they caused uniquely horrible ways to die, or because it was impossible to restrain them from hitting civilians not targeted, or something specific. Not just because they were new and powerful technology. No one has ever succeeded in permanently banning new, advanced weapons technology and forcing everyone to fight using weapons that run on older, more primitive technology.

People banned biological weapons- but biological weapons were not in any real sense "more powerful" than other weapons already available. They were just nastier. Likewise for poison weapons, undetectable land mines, and so on.

An Iron Man suit is almost a textbook example of the kind of weapon technology people don't ban. It's powerful, but it's also a weapon of localized, precise, targeted destruction.

Likewise, if anyone could figure out how to power a Hydra weapon without the Cosmic Cube, they very probably wouldn't get banned. Because a ray gun that disintegrates people isn't going to rampage out of control and kill a million people who weren't targeted, like a bioweapon would, and if it kills you, it kills you quickly and with a minimum of suffering- unlike, say, a spiked pit trap or a poisoned weapon.

Pym particle bombs are potentially nasty, but their effects would seem to be fairly well confined to the actual target of the attack. You could upscale them to cause fairly widespread destruction, but you can do that with a lot of weapons.

...

So a lot of people are going to look at a widespread, categorical ban on putting new technologies into weapons. And they're not going to think "let's ban these especially horrible weapons." They're going to think "this is a deliberate attempt to force technological stagnation on Earth's militaries, while dedicated 'super' teams are free to develop weapons as advanced and powerful as they want."

[Civil War Man]

So a lot of people are going to look at a widespread, categorical ban on putting new technologies into weapons. And they're not going to think "let's ban these especially horrible weapons." They're going to think "this is a deliberate attempt to force technological stagnation on Earth's militaries, while dedicated 'super' teams are free to develop weapons as advanced and powerful as they want."

After giving it some thought, there are ways around this. Allow military use of superpowers/supertech, but impose strict rules of engagement regarding their use. For example, use of powers or tech that do the same thing as something that's currently outlawed (like blinding lasers or causing asphyxiation) would be covered by the pre-existing conventions and treaties that outlaw military use of those types of weapons. Other powers that are not currently covered, but would be if current tech could pull it off (like, for example, mind control), would have new rules drafted up to outlaw their use in warfare. Having rules against disproportionate response (so no responding to a Hawkeye level threat by throwing multiple Hulks at it) would help limit the possibility of superpower arms races, as would rules against using high-level superpowers as invasion forces. In general, the intent would be to only allow military superheroes for the purposes of defense against supervillain attacks or contributing to planetary defense.

Similar rules of engagement should also apply for the purposes of law enforcement. If you are a superhero with the powers of an ancient god, you don't get to apprehend petty criminals.

[Simon_Jester]

The rules of engagement part is iffy. I mean, for one it's hard to define "too powerful to be doing this."

For another, very powerful heroes trying to help out with street level problems have the potential to do a lot of good. If Superman didn't fly around Metropolis grabbing purse snatchers and breaking up muggings, the crime rate in Metropolis would be a lot higher. And powerful superheroes (with a few exceptions like the Hulk) tend to cause a lot less collateral damage than you'd expect from, say, the police responding to a burglary with tanks and bazookas.

[Elheru Aran]

On the other hand there's a pretty valid argument to be made that superheroes don't need to be doing the police's job for them... that vigilante justice isn't the kind of justice we want to be letting loose in our cities.

If the superheroes were literally part of the police force, that would be another matter.

But what if Godzilla shows up in San Francisco and Superman is trying to talk down a hostage situation in Metropolis, in his 'official' capacity? Which crisis is more important?

Of course all this is part of the questions about how superheroes fit into our world that comic books cover every day...

[FaxModem1]

The purpose of SHIELD seemed to be restricting arms and technology for themselves to the point that their way more advanced 2007 was roughly identical to ours. Though that's because Hydra was running the show.

A rules of engagement where the Avengers save the world from existential threats, alien invaders, mad scientist doomsday weapons that a special ops team couldn't handle is probably wise. The Avengers aren't really needed for non powered threats. It would also make the Accords easier to swallow for members of the Accords don't have to worry about the Avengers tearing up their city in pursuit of someone like the Punisher. We don't have American soldiers catching burglars in American cities, after all. It's not their job. So having Steve Rogers or Tony Stark do so is overkill. Same for weapons dealers, pirates, and normal human Hydra agents.

But, by all means, let's increase the amount of research into wacky comic book science. The next round of invaders, say maybe the Kree, have ships that can do a lot against us.(though they were defeated by a force of minor fighters unable to take on one of their ships, but it was enough to come to the bargaining table, so bad example). That healing device from Avengers 2 should be in every hospital, after all. Though the film's would never do it, because it stops being our world and becomes Star Trek.

Earth is going to need capable defenses against threats, and half a dozen people is not enough for that.

[Joun_Lord]

First thing I'd do is make some Tony Stark oversight committee and also a protection detail to keep random ass people from approaching him and making him do stupid shit. No reporters, no grieving mothers, no scientists working on super weapons, Tony stays away from everyone for everyones protection because Tony Stark is a fucking menace. Then I'd work on the Accords.

For me the thing about the Accords is I'd make them about creating an international framework for dealing with "enhanced" problems rather then a registration. Registration would be part of it but fully voluntary so long as people stay within the rules.

Superheros and super tech is a problem that cannot be solved by letting everyone run around willy nilly johnny cowboy. People actively patrolling the streets, taking the role of law enforcement or soldiers need registered, need oversight. Enhanced individuals not using their powers for law enforcement or military purposes would not be forced to register. Someone mentioned Colossus as a construction worker which I like. Or Peter Parker defending himself. Use of powers not "offensively" really, not doing a job someone trained to do should be doing. I think I'd have it a bit like firearm registration in the US. Someone who owns a gun but just pops off a few rounds at the range or packs heat because muggers usually don't have to register their weapons. They aren't going around vigilante style actually looking for crime to fight and criminals to blast. Someone who does that but is trained and registered and empowered to do so is a cop, someone who does so without permission is a criminal. Crime fighting with super powers or exotic tech would be like going around with a Glock or an AR-15 looking for street thugs committing bad acts. Highly illegal unless done by someone empowered by the law to do so.

Any superhero wanting to fight crime or fight Nazis needs to become a cop or government agent or soldier. Them running around doing their own thing even with good intentions can get people hurt, has no accountability, and no oversight. We are having a big thing in the US about police not having accountability. Now imagine the same problems we are having with dangerous law enforcement but remove any oversight, and consequences, and maybe add is some super powers. Some rich 1%er going around beating up criminals could be a good thing if done by a good person but maybe not. It is only his judgement that decides who is a criminal, what is excessive force and no way for someone who was hurt wrongly to seek justice.

Some flying rodent going around breaking limbs and crippling fucks because he believes they are criminals but their crimes might be simply being black or poor or petty crimes if they are even criminals. Does someone who pick pockets deserve to get their legs broken? No but what is he going to be able to do when it happens. No oversight. Same if its a case of mistaken identity or just bias on the part of the vigilante. Cops hurt or kill people all the time wrongly. Sometimes it because the cop is a dickhole sometimes its without any ill intent, just a mistake or something. Cops can be investigated when they hurt or kill someone, sued if they fucked up, punished if they did wrong (and if a prosecutor feels like it). Someone guy in a mask with a secret identity can do what he wants with no consequences.

But even leaving aside people being injured or killed, if nothing else super heroes and teams like the Avengers need people in charge directing their focus and helping smooth feathers during incidents. Cops get orders to patrol certain areas, investigate certain crimes. Soldiers get orders to march this way and that, dig a hole, fill it back up, shoot those guys, hydrate, and watch that Powerpoint. They don't just do what they want. Superheroes even not part of a police force or military but doing their own thing like the Avengers still need direction.

I'd mostly trust Rogers to do what is right while leading the Avengers but I can't really see him asking permission all the time to get shit done, asking for permission to go on a mission, asking permission to enter someones borders to stomp Hydra's nuts. But for the most part whatever he does he does with good intentions, good reasons, and its the right thing to do.

Someone like Steve could mostly be allowed to lead their team how they see fit with minimal oversight but would need a governmental organization helping make sure shit stays legal. Any non-critical mission would have to have some paperwork and permissions granted. Say the attack on the Hydra base in Avengers 2. Important but not something that can't wait long enough to atleast go through a oversight committee even if they don't ask permission. Might not be able to ask permission for some missions because of groups involvement with governments. Its not unreasonable to think Hydra was in bed with the Sokovia government as they were operating so openly and would get warned if they Avengers asked permission to do their mission. Still atleast get permission from the committee. Something like aliens invading or an in progress or imminent major fubar event protocol can be skipped and maybe no permission needs asked.

Most anyone else though, chain o' command all the way even for high level events. You didn't have the entire US military heading for New York or DC on 9/11 because they were under attack, I don't see why every super hero would need to do the same if the Trade Federation invades New York again or apes attack the Golden Gate bridge. They need permission just as a military unit would need. They might be better served going somewhere else, handling other problem rather then socking some baddy in the jaw. They might pose more of a danger depending on their skill set.

To use the 9/11 example again, soldiers were deployed around ground zero and DC in the aftermath of the attacks. They were infantry though, soldiers helping recovery efforts, inspecting potential targets, and providing security. They didn't deploy a battalion of tanks, they weren't required even if there was possible fighting (thankfully there was none). Soldiers armed with small arms and jet fighters were right for the job if there were any more attacks, tanks were not.

A super hero who's power is blowing shit up trying to do crowd control might not be the wisest choice. Super heros with super strength or the ability to phase through objects would possibly be fantastic at causality recovery efforts in the aftermath of a super battle or natural disaster. There needs to be someone in charge giving the orders of who goes where, what jobs are best for everyone rather then just letting everyone do their own thing and possibly making shit worse.

Really in universe the Accords had problems but were mostly all right, the main problem was the implementation. It was spear head by walking train wreck Tony Stark and nut fuck General Ross. Stark thought he knew what was best for people and did things without thinking and Ross was a idiot willing to do extreme shit such as have a private war to find the Hulk and build a possibly illegal prison for super heroes that were imprisoned without trial or probably any legal representation.

Steve was even ready to sign the accords until Tony let slip that he had Vision keeping Wanda prisoner on Tony's orders. Maybe not have the Accords be led by a moron and a psycho more heroes would be onboard to sign. It seems kinda stupid the two people who need to be held accountable more then anyone else were the ones pushing for others to be held accountable.

[Darth Yan]

Tony has done good but the problem is he lets his guilt consume him.

First I'd have invited Steve and the other heroes to the negotiation process. They're words could be taken in and we could reach a compromise.