An Organization of Vigilantes

I've made topics before about the Protectors, an international task force of superheroes, as well as Division-6, the covert ops branch. Here is another topic that explores what an illegal organization of vigilantes that act outside the law to do justice in stark contrast to the very legal and government funded Protectors would be like. They're called the Mavericks. A fitting name since it means unorthodox, which holds true when dealing out justice compared to how the Protectors are expected to go about it.

The Mavericks were not formed by any government entity, it was formed by former Protectors who were fed up with restrictions and "protocol" dictating how they could go about their business. They were disillusioned with the almighty Protectors, having once admired them as peacekeepers and essentially being The Paragon before realizing what it meant. Having to answer to government officials, who could potentially turn the Protectors into pawns, was something they didn't approve of. Also, they had to register their identities and personal information within the Protectors database to be members. Again, something they hated. They also disliked the idea of having to worry about collateral damage, saying that it hinders their ability to do justice.

As a direct rebellion to all of this, the organization was formed with the idea of being able to things their way, without restrictions. As long as you weren't using your abilities to harm innocents in a malicious way, you're welcome to join the Mavericks. I'll list some things about what it entails.

1. A hero as part of the Mavericks means a lot less glory than being a Protector. In general, the Protectors will despise you and potentially label you as a criminal. In fact, the Mavericks are labelled as a gang by the Protectors, much in same way the Crips, Bloods, Hell Angels, Mafia families, and Juggalos are. They don't take that comparison very well. While the Protectors don't specifically operate against the Mavericks, like they do with other organizations that pose more of a threat and actively harm the innocent (such as Mist), the Protectors will issue warnings to Mavericks when they come in contact to knock it off, or else. Naturally, the Mavericks and the Protectors have some choice words for each other. The general public is mixed on the matter, some view them as heroes while others don't like them.
2. The organization as a whole is a lot less well-funded, for obvious reasons. The Protectors have basically unlimited funding by the United Nations, an example of which being the massive Protectors Tower in Manhattan that serves as the ultimate base of the organization as well as the Watchpoint that floats over the New York City bay. They also have teleporters that take their members directly to the areas. Also, NYC isn't the only place they operate, as they have sections across the world such as London and Tokyo. As for the Mavericks, they can't afford such incredible things. They're based in Los Angeles, and while they have sections in other countries, it basically boils down to safehouses. It's a lot less glamorous than what the Protectors get, basically.
3. Freedom is the #1 principle. In fact, the restrictions of being part of the Protectors was the reason the Mavericks were formed to begin with. They want to be able to operate how they please, and often they have little regard for collateral damage or politics that the Protectors have to deal with. There is no "registering" with the Mavericks by having to give your personal information like you do with the Protectors. It's not unheard of for those who refused to register with the Protectors to go the Mavericks instead. The whole organization is self-supported, refusing to work with any government entity and only getting funds either by their members or trusted allies.

So what do you guys think of this? When I created the Protectors as an international task force of superheroes, I wanted an organization that rounds them out. Any thoughts and suggestions?

An organization with a violent agenda and no regards to public safety is as much a danger to the public as the elements the vigilantes are trying to combat. Are these guys heroes or villains?

Ditto. As much as it's the bane of cowboy cops and military mavericks (heh) everywhere, red tape exists for a reason, namely that it legitimizes the actions taken in the pursuit of justice. When crooks stay out of jail, it's not because the cops couldn't round them up if they wanted to, but because the court would have nothing to work with for an actual sentence. Same goes for black-ops teams being officially disavowed whenever they go abroad, and the closest they come to traditional superheroics would be considered kidnapping. So, unless the Mavericks go full Punisher - meaning they are explicitly regarded as criminals themselves - they would serve no purpose sans taking out their own frustrations on petty criminals.

In another vein, what sort of villains were the Mavericks created to face, that couldn't have been handled by them simply joining the Protectors? Anti-government paranoia is all well and good, but there could be a more rational reason for them choosing to operate as they do. You could have them grudgingly accept the reputation of a street gang or even a terrorist group, paying evil unto evil rather than relying on official authorities - it even solves the funding issue if they simply take the resources of whatever villains they eliminate.

As a premise, let's say there are a number of terrorist groups targeting Eagleland, working with West Coast drug-runners as a funding source. Their country of origin has employed various bureaucratic tricks to block outside influence, so the Protectors are a no-go. Meanwhile, it becomes clear that Division-6 has been infiltrated by a mole, leaking information and sabotaging their own operations. Disillusioned, present and potential members of both teams decide to go rogue, sacrificing funding and assistance for the ability to operate free and with less risk of being compromised.

Overall, this is likely quite a bit darker than what you have in mind, but I'd say it's functional, at least in the short term.

I'm reminded of the trial of Humanity from Robert A Heinlein's novel Have Space Suit – Will Travel.

The idea is that the Mavericks would fight crime outside of the law, mainly because the Protectors have to follow protocol at every turn, something they hated. They see doing justice as something that shouldn't have restrictions, which is why they exist. As for the question as to whether they're heroes or villains, they're more like anti-heroes in general.

I wanted them to round out the Protectors, as I've said before. The Protectors being a government entity still has to follow rules, which they find to be counterproductive. I like the idea of an organization of vigilantes that receive funding either from within or their most trusted allies.

Seems like the question got interpreted as a little darker than I expected. I don't intend for them to be villains like some think they are, just people who act outside the law. Are there any other questions?

If a Maverick goes too far, like blowing up an apartment building just to get one purse snatcher, who deals with him?

How to the Mavericks know who's actually guilty?

How to the Mavericks avoid arrest? I mean, Vigilantism is illegal and for good reason so I assume that they aren't under any legal aegis. Kill a crook and you're still a murderer.

What's the standard methodology for dealing with villains? As I mentioned, leaving them for the police may not work as imagined, since any evidence would be rendered void by their intervention. Beating them senseless merely forces medical technicians to handle them, risking their own safety and wasting efforts that are better put elsewhere. Meanwhile, simply executing criminals would make the team look like a mass version of the Punisher, which has its own problems in the PR department.

Mavericks obviously don't blow up buildings to catch a purse snatcher, in fact they leave that stuff to the police. It's just that the Mavericks dealing with supervillains think they shouldn't have to look out for collateral damage because that limits their ability to do good.

They have their sources. They're not a good as what the Protectors have, being a self-maintained organization, but the Mavericks go on missions as well to stop crime and villainy like they do.

They have safehouses that look like normal abandoned buildings on the outside, and they have ways of keeping their bases secret. The Protectors don't operate against them like they do with other organizations like Mist because compared to a terrorist organization who actively harms the innocent they're less of a priority.

I mentioned before in the relevant topic that the story generally averts Thou Shalt Not Kill because it's completely impractical not to kill anyone on the mission, which is true to life. The Protectors follow that, and so do the Mavericks. As I've said, they prefer to capture them and leave them under arrest, but it can't always be like that. As for how the public sees them, there are those who hate the Mavericks either for acting outside the law or being a "rip-off" of the Protectors, while others see them as heroes who save people when the Protectors can't.

Who or what keeps a Maverick in line? It sounds like you've got a unit of supers with a strong dislike for rules, and they're kept in line with... rules.

Because the Mavericks see themselves as being heroes. They just don't like the way the Protectors go about it. It's not like the Mavericks have a complete disregard for the safety of others, they just want to do things their way.

It's not their ideals that are the problem, it's that they can loose perspective of what they're doing and end up causing more damage than they prevent. If a supervillain takes control of a city with a floating battle fortress and a Maverick drops that battlefortress right into the inhabited parts of the city, has he done good or bad? If a Maverick smashes a supervillain with a car, what happens to the owner of the car? Bad luck, you're out $70k? Does insurance cover metahumans? Certainly the Mavericks aren't going to cover it. If a Maverick throws his arch nemesis through a wall and there was a family hiding behind it, do you really think that family is getting out unharmed?

You've been kinda dodging around this and it's really cliche but Who Watches the Watchmen??

edited 3rd May '17 4:49:43 AM by Belisaurius

Similarly, what's the general public opinion on the Mavericks or even the Protectors? Do the people of a given city actually want them patrolling and handling things "their way" as opposed to leaving matters to civil authorities.

And in turn, if public opinion is mostly negative, do the Mavericks act as if they know better than everyone else? I mean, cowboy cops being dismissive of red tape and bleeding-heart journalism is one thing. However, the moment this attitude is expressed toward society at large, you effectively have another group of supervillains trying to enforce their vision of justice on the populace, with or without their consent. There's gotta be a line somewhere.

Correct me if I'm not, but am I right in assuming that the rules regarding 'collateral damage' that the Protectors follow and that the Mavericks feel get in the way of doing good are not so much 'Don't fight near that heavily populated urban area, civilians might get hurt!', but instead 'I don't care that the supervillain has stolen it and has it aimed at a heavily populated civilian area, you will not under any circumstances destroy that super weapon our government has spend billions on!'?

Because that's really the only way I could see the Mavericks being a viable alternative to the Protectors: If the rules they're chafing under aren't the rules that protect innocent civilians at the cost of making it harder to fight villains, but rather the rules that protect politicians and the government's interests and investments at the cost of endangering innocent civilians.

edited 3rd May '17 1:28:27 PM by Robrecht

How much of the real world's laws apply here? As Indiana said, a lot of super heroics would unintentionally be counterproductive when it came to actually implementing justice in the real world. But this is your story, so how much if those laws are on the books here is up to you. Super hero comics handwave these issues for the sake of telling the story, it would be up to you if you wanted to do the same or explore the consequences of this change in legality.

Also, a consequence of being privately funded means they will forever be at the mercy and whims of their sponsors. While I have no doubt the people donating money to the Mavericks are well intentioned, when you get down to it they are essentially the private police force for a handful of eccentric millionaires.

edited 3rd May '17 2:03:00 PM by Parable

I had been thinking somewhere along those lines. They don't care about the destruction they cause while fighting villains, because to them it's a small price. On the other hand, the Protectors are instructed to avoid as much damage as possible, which isn't always practical.

The Mavericks don't consider themselves a private police force, as said they only accept funds from people they trust. It's mutually beneficial, the Mavericks get money, and the funders feel safer from threats.

They may not consider themselves to be one, but they are one. They will enforce what the guy who signs the checks want enforced, or he won't sign the next check...

Hence my suggestion they appropriate the funds of whatever villains they eliminate. Which leaves the matter of the villains themselves...

The way I see it, superheroes serve one of two functions: handle threats that traditional authorities couldn't; or deal with criminals the authorities wouldn't - and as I mentioned, that doesn't mean the police refusing to round up the crooks. The former has become rather unconvincing given the firepower carried by modern armies and even police forces. The latter is a fairly universal vigilante trope, but it's pretty difficult to pull off without getting real dark, real fast, what with the overall implications of judicial corruption and the necessity and effectiveness of vigilantism in its own right.

Either way, the question is still what kind of villains the Mavericks were organized to fight. The concept of going rogue and acting outside the law is all well and good, but on its own, it's a solution in search of a problem... and as @Belisaurius implied, none too far from becoming a problem in itself.

edited 6th May '17 1:06:04 PM by indiana404

I think part of the problem here, no offense, is not knowing the full reason that a lot of these kinds of rules exist in real life. I'm not the best one to describe it, but ultimately, those rules are actually there to protect the innocent. It's just that it's a lot easier to notice when an obviously evil person gets off on a technicality and feel like it's not working. Thanks to a lot of psychology and human nature, it's way easier than it sounds to be convinced that an innocent person did something wrong, even to the point of getting them to confess, than most people assume. Also, pretty much everything does something "wrong" in their life at some point, but most of those things are ultimately harmless. In other words, a lot of laws and requirements for enforcing them seem counterproductive, because they're actually there to stop good people from being hurt or from saying Then Let Me Be Evil.

That all said, while the rules are well-meaning, it is certainly possible for a villain to get off clean (pretty much by definition, people who want to break rules are going to be more used to them than people that they're rarely relevant to, and thus they can find loopholes and technicalities more easily). Also, every once and awhile there is someone who is going to have some sort of diplomatic immunity (whether as an actual legal thing, or simply because of their connections, like holding back a power vacuum).

These are prime targets for vigilante characters without making them look evil. However, it's still often going to be morally ambiguous, especially in a world where legally sanctioned superheroes exist. Even if the audience will agree that the guy needed to be taken down, it can be a dangerous precedent, like the aforementioned power vacuum.

edited 5th Jun '17 7:48:10 PM by Jokubas

Speaking of protection of the innocent, the matter of collateral damage, including actual casualties, is not exactly enticing for ordinary people to keep obeying the law themselves, knowing that a) their neighborhood can become the battleground for any wannabe hero's pet project; and b) said wannabe hero would at most get a slap on the wrist out of it. Following the example of my beloved personal creation, the hero Gun-Man, what's to stop anyone from just starting their own cape corps and wailing on whoever they perceive as a villain? Despite all the fluff about superheroes being larger-than-life, almost mythical figures, the actual requirement for the job is "bring your own domino mask" and leave plot armor to take care of the rest. If superheroes are tolerated for not obeying any law they disagree with, why should anyone obey the law at all?

A frequent criticism of superheroes working for civil authorities is that they might be sent where they shouldn't be, and prevented from going where they should. The respective question however is just what would grant the heroes themselves the providence to always intervene where they are most needed, as opposed to bashing the nearest group of acceptable targets? And never mind the possibility of them going after framed innocents outright.

Remember that Posse Comitatus is still a thing in the US where a law officer can deputize any able bodied man to help with law enforcement.

So a superpowered individual can become an ad hoc police officer if the county sheriff deems it necessary.

Maybe you should re-evaluate the entire purpose of both of these organizations. It seems more plausible to me that since the civil authorities are limited to prosecuting only those against whom they can find enough evidence, a vigilante organization is more likely to go after villains that are obviously guilty, but are too skilled to leave evidence behind. These are most generally your "behind the scenes" types of criminals, not people smashing things up in public. There are any number of real life international criminal organizations that fit that bill.

In that case it's more like a CIA black ops group than a renegade band of vigilantes. In practice it's much the same but you occasionally get funding from a "mysterious source" and sometimes need to attack groups that aren't necessarily bad so much as in your benefactor's way.

It would probably be important, if The Mavericks aren't adhering to any nations laws, that they have some kind of formal code or charter to which all their members have to adhere. It's likely that the members might not agree among themselves what is just and right in every circumstance, so it'd probably be important that they have some kind of rules of operation. Of course, you could probably milk a lot of drama out of it if they didn't have any such rules, and if they did frequently fight among themselves about what was right, but that would also possibly limit their effectiveness as a group.

Historically, vigilante organizations spring up in regards to a single cause about which they agree ("We need to hang that no-good rustler Will Williams because the wimpy courts only gave him life in prison" or the KKK, who are of pretty much one mind about what should be done in racial matters), Your group, if I understand you correctly, will be addressing a whole host of different injustices in different circumstances. It'll be hard to maintain unity. But, again, there's likely to be drama in that.

edited 6th Jun '17 12:49:12 PM by Robbery

To reiterate my question, just what would happen if the Mavericks - or any other superhero organization for that matter - really do attack, hurt, perhaps even kill an innocent person; not by accident, but out of acting on little more than paranoid suspicion? If there's one good reason for all that red tape, it's the fact that innocence until proven guilt is still considered the best system of crime assessment and consequent reaction; and in turn, why vigilantism isn't exactly praise-worthy in real life.

Now, the Protectors already operate on government sanction, so, bar faulty orders from up top, it's not too likely for them to have to deal with such an incident. And I reckon Division-6 is already officially disavowed, meaning they get no legal protection to begin with. What of the Mavericks, however? How do they pick and choose their targets, and what consequences are there if their judgement of character proves faulty?