How would a Super Registration Act work?

I'm writing a superhero story, and later on in the series we get to a Super Registration Act proposed by the United Nations after a catastrophic event that levels an entire city, which they feel the heroes were partially to blame. Obviously, this was inspired by the SHRA from the Civil War event in Marvel, though I'm hoping to execute it better.

The SRA (working title) makes it so that all superheroes must register with the government and become agents of the United Nations. The UN proposes that they form a new sector dedicated to handling superheroic actions. Over 100 nations around the world agree to this bill, and it gets put into effect.

I want to make sure the bill is well-defined so the writing is consistent. Here are some ideas of what the bill entails:

1. All individuals possessing superpowers must register with the government. These include those who acquired their powers by birth, those who acquired their abilities through science or magic (accident or otherwise), and even those who don't technically have powers in the strictest sense but possess technology to make them into WMDs (for example, having an alien suit of armor grafted to your spine).
2. This also includes superheroes and technical civilians who have powers. Basically, if you powers, you will be conscripted into joining the government as an agent.
3. Even those without powers but are superheroes will be required to register (for example, a Badass Normal human who fights crime without being part of a government entity will be forced to sign).
4. Those signed to the act will be considered government agents, and can only operate when the UN sees fit.
5. Any heroic actions without approval by the UN is a criminal action.
6. All heroes must be approved by UN, which requires passing through mandatory training.
7. Those with secret identities must reveal them to the UN or cease operations.

Naturally, this causes a split down the middle for the many heroes of Earth. They get divided into two camps: Pro-Reg and Anti-Reg.

The Pro-Reg side believes the act is necessary in order to keep those with power in check, and the Anti-Reg view it as a complete violation of civil rights, and a chance to turn heroes into government pawns.

This leads to a civil war between both sides. The Pro-Reg are trying to hunt down the Anti-Reg side and force them to sign, or be put in prison, while the Anti-Reg side are trying show the Pro-Reg side that they're in the wrong and the act needs to be repealed. Neither side is actively trying to kill members of the other, as not only would it be wrong but it would also be a bad image for their faction.

So, how do you think a bill like this could be passed, and enforced? I imagine it being kind of hard to enforce this worldwide law. Obviously they'll meet resistance when trying to conscript powered individuals into being government agents, and people could get hurt or worse, killed. I find it a very interesting idea to think about, and the ramifications of this will be explored when I get there.

The idea here is that Both Sides Have a Point. The people with power do hold responsibility, and should be put in check for their actions because of their destructive potential. At the same time, forcing them to work for the government and turning them into pawns for people who potentially have agendas of their own may not be the best course of action.

This was presented well in Captain America: Civil War, and I wanted to do my own spin on it with my characters, on a much larger scale. Is there anything you would suggest regarding something like this?

If you have powers, are you automatically constripted?

If yes, there will be many people who resist, as not all people with powers will be heroes or villains and will certainly resist the idea that they have to become soldiers (even if it's for the UN).

If it's only heroes and mad scientists that are conscripted, that's less of a problem.

However, the UN wants to know, under any circumstances, who has what kind of powers (and this will be not negotiable, 'cause you want to know who's a teleporter if one has robbed a bank). This, of course, leads to the situation that somebody gets/develops powers, and keeps them absolutely secret and never uses them.

As for enforcement: The Pro-Reg side and police would handle that, at least in the countries that support the charta, leaving the Anti-Reg side with the option of going into exile, which in turn can lead to the situation of countries pressuring others into supporting the charta.

Also, it might be a good idea to change "action needs approval by the UN" to "action needs approval of the country it happens in", as the UN isn't really famous for making fast decisions, even when it's needed (and countries don't like loosing any part of their sovereignty if it doesn't benefit them).

Yes, basically.

The world governments want to be sure that the ones with powers can be kept under control, that they won't run the risk of terrorizing the innocent. Granted, this would be tricky because not only would people with powers but no desire to risk their lives resist this, but like with Marvel/DC there's no "one way" to get a power. This means that someone who specializes in finding "enhanced" (basically mutants) may not be able to find someone who got their power in another way (such as a Mass Super-Empowering Event or Functional Magic).

Naturally, a good way to get them to reveal themselves is to introduce a hefty punishment for accidentally hurting someone with superpowers they can't control because they didn't register.

While those with no technical powers or alternative means of having them are exempt from conscription, those who want to be superheroes with their skills and training and not part of a more "traditional" way of heroics, still have to register under this program. For example, I have a hero who's "superpower" is being damn good archer, and another who has various gadgets and martial arts abilities to fight crime. They would have to register. Of course, in the story, both of these people oppose the act and fight for the Anti-Reg, but you get what I mean.

The part about the technology turning them into a WMD basically covers heroes who have an advanced suit of armor at their disposal, or a suit that allows them to shrink, as another example. Basically, someone who gets heavy power from an external source, such as a special suit or whatever else, falls under this program. They must either register or completely forfeit their external power. The one with the "alien suit of armor" falls under this, and since he can't remove it without risking death, he must sign — or illegally oppose it, which he does.

So as you can see, the top priority is to keep the lives of the innocent safe at all costs, because they don't want another incident like the city destruction again. Many heroes were involved in that event, and the Pro-Reg feels like they need to stay in-line and control what happens with potentially dangerous individuals. Meanwhile, the Anti-Reg points out that they should be in charge of their own decisions, because handing the right to choose to someone else could potentially make for a worse outcome.

The last part makes sense. I'll think about that.

Anyways, I hope this makes everything clear. If there's any more questions, let me know.

Really, the only way to do a story 'super hero registration act' story like Marvel's Civil War better is to not do it at all.

By which I'm not saying Marvel did it best, because good grief did it ever not, but that any story that focusses on that kind of thing isn't going to be all that great.

And that's because any story that involves a 'registration act' and the heroes divide across a pro- and anti- side where it isn't all secretly a plot by some villain, but a legitimate act from the government, is ultimately not going to be a super hero story, but a political drama that just happens to involve people with powers.

The whole 'acting outside the law to handle things the system can't deal with' thing is one of the cores of any super hero story. Which is why even super hero organisations that are nominally part of, supervised by or working for a government, like World War-era Captain America, the Avengers and SHIELD, still tend to have extremely high levels of autonomy and lack of oversight and tend not to have the kind of rigid procedures and checks and balances that real life government agencies and employees have to contend with.

Actually, there are some examples of heroes being regulated without the registration being seen as something bad.

@Strange Thoughts I don't know how I forgot to say it, but you should really look into My Hero Academia. There, most of the population does have powers and they all have to tell the government what kind of powers they have. However, they aren't conscripted. I think it would be a good idea to have the Anti-Reg side fight for a system like that, because like I said, you want to know who has teleportation powers if one has robbed a bank (even traditional heroes want to know that). It would also (probably) allow heroes to work better together with law enforcement.

That was my problem with Civil War: The Anti-Reg side didn't have any arguments against the act besides "it limits our freedom", while neglecting their responsibilities as super powered individuals. So, if you don't want your Anti-Reg side to look irresponsible, give them a good reason to fight against the act (e.g. forced conscription).

There were a lot of issues with the Civil War. For one, they never properly explained what the act fully entailed because the writers didn't even think it through, they just had a vague understanding of it. Another is that they had both sides acting out of character and extreme for the sake of shock value.

I'm trying to do what the movie did and have it be a clearly defined act with both sides being in-character and making valid points for and against the registration.

For the Pro-Reg side, the points are:

1. It gives heroes responsibility for their actions as opposed to getting a pass for all the damages.
2. It allows for people with powers to control them like the law enforcement needs training with weapons.
3. It could potentially minimize the risk of civilian casualties as the heroes have to follow strict guidelines.

For the Anti-Reg side, the points are:

1. It forces heroes to ignore innocents in danger because some politician said they can't save them.
2. It violates civil rights by forcing people to give up their ability to chose their actions and become pawns.
3. It turns heroes who have risked their lives saving the innocent into criminals for not wanting to play ball.

Both sides bring up these points because they are all valid.

I'll keep that in mind, and I might look into that series for inspiration.

edited 1st Aug '17 7:01:06 AM by StrangeThoughts

By virtue of being under government control, they would be considered actual law enforcement. This means everything that can go wrong with a police force is now applicable to them, such as letting the obviously corrupt evil bastard go because of the law, but also gives them actual legitimacy in handling crimes beyond just beating up criminals. The thing about vigilantes is that they are power fantasies, when in real life Spiderman just going around tying criminals up and handing them to the police would only end in the criminals going free. They can't just deploy superheroes to foreign countries for the same reason they can't just decide to send the military to get rid of dictators. Now, natural disasters and similar issues can be handled easily, as well the times when Darkseid or Brainiac attack Earth, but Lex Luthor can hide way more easier now by bribing someone here and there. Imagine Superman needing a warrant. Not to mention the public opinion on the issue, where the government is going to look way more shady with their own superpowered task force.

I mentioned this before but under Posse Comitatus a police officer can deputize any able bodied citizen of the neighborhood or county to execute a warrant. Deputies have the same rights and protections as cops do but are subordinate to officers. This does add some police drama to the superhero formula which can be a good thing. Wearing The Cape actually does this and it turns out alright.

Vigilante activities aside, I'm generally not in favor of blanket superhuman registration acts... unless writers go full retard and have the abilities themselves be inherently dangerous to oneself and others. That said, I'd imagine the actual most realistic starting point would be for them to fall under various unknown pathogen quarantine acts already existing in real life. I mean, Spider-Man once mutated into a horrible monster - who's to say it's not contagious or something? In turn, government registration would provide assistance and insurance should similar situations arise for those (un?)fortunate enough to possess unusual abilities.

Same goes for various technologies already being in the restricted substances lists - in that regard, being a master archer wouldn't warrant legal action, but carrying a bunch of trick arrows would, and using them beyond situations covered by Samaritan laws would be prosecutable, as it is in real life.

By the way, what's the situation with supervillains in the setting? In general, I find that in-universe discussions over the powers and responsibilities of superheroes tend to ignore the actual necessity thereof, as that is usually only presented by similarly empowered criminals, mercenaries and warlords. Or better yet, entire countries using superpowers and advanced technology in a new arms race, with no particular nation being designated as inherently heroic or villainous for it.

edited 1st Aug '17 3:24:43 PM by indiana404

#5

Yes, but the whole 'regulated super heroism' in My Hero Academia, One Punch Man and other such works operates on a 'the regulatory board assesses and trains heroes, but once they're on the street, they operate with autonomy and more or less police themselves' basis.

There may or may not have been a 'Civil War' type fight over registration in the past of those settings, but regardless of whether or not there has, it doesn't actually factor into the story and the registration aspect is more of a 'you should probably get a license if you want other supers to know you're a hero and avoid confusion' than some Draconian 'you must work for the government or we'll hunt you down' type of deal.

And if you set a story during an actual 'Civil War' type plot, you pretty much need to make the registration act at least somewhat Draconian and unreasonable, else your anti-registration side will come off as a bunch of whiners just going 'but muh freedums!'.

Of course it needs to be more draconian to make the story work. That's why I said that the act should entail at least a forced conscription, and I also said that such a system should/could be the end goal of the Anti-Reg side.

Though the analogy doesn't come from me, it can be useful to think of powers as of guns: you have the right to have them (especially in the case of mutations, as you cannot not have them), but you still have to tell the government that you have them. And that's why I love My Hero Academias system: it just does that.

So, when you say that everyone who has powers was conscripted it's, by analogy, basically the same as saying that you conscript everyone who owns a gun (even if it's just a handgun for selfdefense). But for dramatic purposes, you want to do just that.

For that matter, what is the endgame of the Anti-Reg side? Everyone with superpowers or advanced weaponry to be able to enforce "justice" as they see fit, picking and choosing their targets regardless of legal warrants? Authorities turning a blind eye whenever such people fight each other on the street, as so often happens these days?

The essential problem with demanding freedom in this context is that it would apply equally to both Captain Righteousness the Pristine Paragon of Propriety, and Billy-Bob the Nuclear Klansman, whose idea of justice is to torch illegal immigrants with fireballs from his eyes and lighting from his arse. As much as the abilities themselves are best left alone by legislation unless inherently dangerous, there's gotta be some set of regulations regarding their use, and proper policing thereof.

That's why I usually focus more on the villains in these settings. Perhaps reinstating the bounty system and offering private licenses for criminal apprehension might be a suitable framework. Really, whenever discussions arise regarding the government supervision of superheroes, monster hunters, ghostbusters etc., somehow people almost always forget the private sector.

edited 2nd Aug '17 4:02:18 AM by indiana404

Actually, one of the main arguments of the Anti-Reg side is that the government will be picking and choosing targets for them. They wouldn't be able to save innocent people in need of saving because some politician said they can't for some arbitrary reason. They also don't want to be told by the government who the supervillains are, and that they must fight them. That could easily mean "someone who isn't a supervillain but is a political opponent of mine", or worse, a fellow hero.

Granted, the whole Civil War thing kind of made it so that the heroes are fighting each other anyways. But that's going to be pointed out. There will be a line saying "We risked everything to save you, and you're turning us into criminals because we don't want to be your pawns?".

Then of course, there's the conscription of superpowered individuals. The Pro-Reg side say they hold unique powers and it's their responsibility to use them well, the Anti-Reg says it's discrimination and a violation of their rights. As you can expect, those with powers but don't want to be conscripted do their best to hide them from everyone else.

Another thing, how would the media react to such an event? I imagine the sides being pretty split. Many will look at it as an exciting story that unfolds before them. People will side with Pro-Reg because they think it's right that they have accountability, or the Anti-Reg because the people should be able to choose (plus, everyone loves an underdog story). You can imagine the press wouldn't want the war to end anytime soon, as the whole thing would just print money and ratings for them.

Folding into existing law enforcement seems like it tackles both problems simultaneously. On one hand, superheros now have a set code of laws and ethics they need to uphold. On the other, a superhero can refuse orders on the grounds that it violates these laws and ethics.

This does, however, force superheros onto the defensive as you can't attack the supervillians without a warrant, just respond to their crimes in progress.

Hence my proposal for a bounty system - a wanted criminal need not be currently engaged in a crime in order for a licensed hero to try and apprehend them. And like I said, nothing guarantees that the targets that heroes choose for themselves wouldn't be every bit as biased, even outright self-serving. Never mind the slew of legitimate reasons for official law enforcement to restrict attacks on known and suspected criminals - anything from long-term sting operations to clandestine infiltration may be easily compromised should some spandex-clad gloryhound decide to crash the party. There are simply very few situations where superheroes are more useful than traditional investigators and spec-ops teams with advanced equipment.

That's the thing, this isn't the real world where superheroes aren't a thing or aren't useful. It's clear in any story with superheroes. In this setting, superheroes are the norm because they existed since before World War II. In fact, it was a team of superheroes that were responsible for defeating the Nazis. People are used to superheroes. They know aliens exist, that magic exists, that there is an underwater city called Atlantis etc.

You can't bring "the real world" into a situation like this. I'd like to see a spec ops team try to handle a cosmic entity or a angel of death called Abaddon leading an army of demonic locusts against Earth. The teams are trained for normal guys with guns, not that stuff.

...Sounds like Shin Megami Tensei to me.

I'm curious on how this will be defined:

Does this mean that, unless you have the approval from the UN, you're not allowed to do anything that can be considered heroic? You're not allowed to rescue kids from a burning building, save someone from being murdered, stop a plane from crash-landing and potentially killing a whole bunch of people, etc.? How is "heroic action" being defined here?

edited 2nd Aug '17 5:58:13 PM by dragonfire5000

Basically, typical superhero stuff like stopping villains, criminal operations, and organizations without approval. That would need to be defined by various politicians or government officials as necessary. As I mentioned, the Anti-Reg side doesn't want to be told who they can save and stop, and being forced to ignore evil deeds because they aren't legally allowed to act.

For that matter, if one is not supposed to bring real world logic into it, then... why bring real world logic into it? The thing that kills registration plots in established comics is that writers are contractually obligated to maintain the status quo, so the way they explore the matter is fundamentally disingenuous. They don't ask how superheroes would function in a more realistic setting, but instead, just how twisted and unrealistic the setting would have to be, in order for them to function as they always have.

If the lowest requirement for being a superhero is to bring your own bow and arrows, the most likely overall result is for those superheroes who favor registration to be the spec-ops forces with advanced equipment, making the Anti-Reg side obsolete. In turn, the Anti-Regs would probably be declared as ideological terrorists, since that is what you do with people who assault others with no legal warrant and supervision.

What happens if an Anti-Reg superhero attacks and kills an innocent? If the "evil deeds" in question were nothing more than the paranoid suspicions of a wannabe celebrity acting on a whim? Because that's also a thing that happens frighteningly often when legislation is ignored. Simply put, power does not equal providence, and the ability to punch a guy through a wall doesn't mean you know which guy to punch.

edited 2nd Aug '17 9:37:39 PM by indiana404

Actually, it was a Multinational Team consisting of three Americans, two Brits, a French, an Egyptian, a Russian, a Chinese, and a German — the latter of which being Jewish and having fled Nazi Germany when he was able. This team today is regarded for having been ahead of its time in terms of working across creed and culture in a time when racism was at a high point.

Anyways, that's besides the point. I don't think realistic and fictional are mutually exclusive, as you can be unrealistic and have realism factor in the story. Such as to explore what a world of superheroes truly would be like and how the world would evolve with this being established over the decades.

Also, the Pro-Reg side has advanced equipment, obviously, but they don't rely on guns (not most of them, anyways) to get the job done, nor do they seem themselves as "spec ops". The Pro-Reg, with the backing of the government, has access to the Bases of Operation around the world, the special tech, and vehicles. Meanwhile, the Anti-Reg hides in countries that haven't signed the Act, and use what resources they can.

And as I said, the act turns people who have saved the lives of countless innocents at the risk of their own a number of times into criminals and "terrorists" because they don't want to give up their freedom and the freedom of others and become blindly obedient to politicians with their own agendas. This is the point the Anti-Reg side makes in the war.

And like I've asked, what happens if their judgment turns out to be worse than that of the government? The impression from modern comics notwithstanding, superhero does not automatically mean politically-correct and morally infallible activist. If the political landscape this year hasn't been clear enough, individuals wielding vast and unrestrained power can be much more destructive than civil institutions.

I'd be interested in exploring how a world with differently powered individuals would function in the long term, even if it doesn't always match reality as we know it. It seems to me though, that this particular setting is deliberately biased so as to read like Bob Parr's nostalgic fantasies, rather than have a stable framework in its own right.

Actually, I want to write it so that Both Sides Have a Point. I'm not trying to side with the Anti-Reg, but the Pro-Reg arguments make them out to be completely in the right when they have faults too. I'm actually worried that it'd be too easy to portray the Anti-Reg as being the unambiguous good guys who show the Pro-Reg the error of their ways. I like how Captain America: Civil War did it, where there were no easy answers and sparked a lot of discussion. At the end, neither side really "won".

Thing is, the conflict there only seemed balanced because the Pro-Reg side was stuffed with every strawman possible, from Ross being the official liaison, to the whole of S.H.I.E.L.D. being recently revealed to be a Hydra pawn all along. Effectively, neither side had a point.

The very idea of conscription as a form of control is also far-fetched, as it exaggerates both the utility and more importantly the survivability of superheroes. It's one thing to have a Dr. Manhattan rip-off invulnerable to all mortal means - that's a bonafide cosmic horror story if played right. But otherwise, there's little reason governments would be interested in controlling rebellious superheroes, as opposed to just putting two in their skulls and calling it a day.

And of course, there's also the matter that even if a bunch of superheroes go out and "defeat" a villain, unless the guy is currently rampaging in the middle of downtown, their efforts will be entirely superficial without a government to legitimize their actions and imprison him. The alternative is for them to apprehend or kill him themselves, but again, that really is just kidnapping and assassination with ideological motives, the very definition of terrorism.

If the problem is that government would prevent action against confirmed criminals, then that's a problem far more serious than merely with regard to how it affects the spandex brigade. Such a government would itself be operating illegally. Consequently, expecting it to even consider legitimizing actions outside its agenda is like expecting a dictatorship to recognize the legality and political identity of an underground resistance movement.

All in all, there are simply cases where justice doesn't mean law, but the catch is, people acting in defense of the former have to make do without the acknowledgement of the latter. I like my Punisher stories just fine, but I'd never vouch for any document actually legitimizing what he does, or that his combat skills inherently elevate him above ordinary people. If anything, I reckon half his appeal comes from him being an ordinary person in a world of gods and monsters, able to make a difference nonetheless. (The other half, of course, comes from the simple pleasures in his life... like chrome-plating a drug smuggler or throwing a mob soldier in a woodchipper. It's the little things that count, y'know.)

edited 3rd Aug '17 1:41:52 AM by indiana404

Pretty much this.

For any scenario like this to work as you want it, the Pro-Reg side has to behave just as stupid as the Anti-Reg side, meaning that they have to ignore basic rights one has to wonder how the law even passed. If you want the reader to even remotely understand why the law was put into effect as it was (the least you'd want to go with is forced conscription and long prison sentences if resisting) your heroes would need to severely fuck up more than once.

And again, if you don't want to paint your Anti-Reg side as completely unresponsible you'll want them to fight for a system where they HAVE to register their powers but are NOT conscripted just because they've got powers.

By now I think that, as long as there weren't several truly outrageous instances of What The Hell, Hero?, the sides of this kind of conflict are either Lawful Stupid (Pro-Reg) or Chaotic Stupid (Anti-Reg), depending on how severe the law is and on what the Anti-Reg side wants to accomplish.

I mentioned before that the story has an Alternate History where superheroes have existed for decades. These heroes have worked with the governments in the past, but were allowed operate separately because they have proven time-and-time again that the world is in need of heroes. In fact, the UN has actually created an initiative for superhero teams in the past in times of crisis.

However, after a catastrophic event that the people feel the heroes were partially responsible for, the world powers make the decision to create the SRA to make sure they can be kept under control. The Secretary of State goes and informs the heroes about it, telling them that this is the best compromise. They say they can "no longer live in a world where those who hold power have no supervision".

I know this isn't true to life, but let's be real here, it's not supposed to be. It's a different world that diverged from our own with the existence of magic, super-science, and superheroes altering the course of history over many years. It's exploring what would happen in these scenarios, where the powerless live in a world where it seems like anything is possible, and they want to gain some power over that. There are those who agree, and those who say that the cost is too hefty.