I believe the webcomic Strong Female Protagonist actually dealt with the question of what constitutes a super-ability and what constitutes just normal exceptional talent, the specific example being someone who had eidetic memory. I can't recall exactly but i believe that the answer given was that for lower level stuff like that, enforcement isn't as strict, but she should register anyway, since registering came with some perks like access to certain government aid or support groups and such, which would be helpful even to an un-powered person.
My general thought on how a registration act would work would be similar to the argument for car insurance. It's only needed and people only really bother to check when you get into an accident, but God help you if you get into an accident and don't have insurance. So for superpowers, my reasoning is that if your power is so small/insignificant; or you just don't plan on ever using your power, sure, feel free to not register. But if you're ever caught abusing your power or utilizing it in a public space, prepare to be severely punished for not being registered.
I reckon the very need to discuss regulations only arose after the post-Watchmen trend of focusing on superheroes as influential in their own right, rather than as responders to street-level crime or larger-scale supervillainy. Because in those terms, superheroics are already mostly covered by existing Good Samaritan laws, give or take an ordnance license or two. It's only after writers decided to have superheroes as full-on independent investigators or global justice enforcers, that their already shaky relations to civil authorities and society started growing toxic. The idea of differently powered individuals is fascinating in its own right, but it does not in itself entail vigilantism as an inevitable expression of such abilities. In their most basic form, superheroes need not be much different than an archetypal Great Detective, only substituting physical prowess for analytical skill.
To that effect, I'm interested in what kind of supervillains exist so as to require the intervention of caped crusaders, rather than specially trained soldiers or Men in Black. For all the musings of whether the world needs superheroes, the issue gets suspiciously vague regarding just what the world would need superheroes for.
Baby dango
In my setting, the first official superhero and not masked vigilante is created by the government during WWII as a propaganda figure and super soldier. During the cold war, a superhero arms race happened along with the nuclear arms race, since the former doesn't really scare the populace as much. People with superpowers that stayed hidden also become inspired, while the more megalomaniacal people chose to become supervillains, with some choosing to just be normal criminals with powers. As such, it's not that the world need superheroes, but it just became the norm.
Also, any registration CANT be enforce in the same way, why? because super come from very diferent backgrounds and it need specilize care in each one of them.
I mean, Spiderman? sure, Clark? Well kind off, he already a citizen aside from is power so...but let said guys like thor who is the prince of IS OWN NATION, outside of earth, how the hell did you enforce a registration act without pissing Asgard?.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Easy - you nuke'em twice and send troops to drill for oil promote freedom and democracy.
As I've noted before, when it comes to the Appeal to Force, it's really only that appealing when it's the "good" side that benefits from it... otherwise it's just "might makes right", a fairly common villainous philosophy. It's even endemic among the superheroes themselves - imagine, for instance, a setting that lacks the creator provincialism of the major publishers, meaning the biggest hitters in the world likely don't share one's culture and worldview. Where local heroes still exist, but even they have to take heed of their foreign counterparts - and without commonly accepted guidelines, that's a lot of external pressure. It's rather telling that one of the more popular dystopian "bad Superman" alt-fics doesn't have him as evil, but merely "good" in a way more agreeable to the Eastern side of the curtain. How do you go about regulating that? (With a well-worded sentece, as it turns out, but I imagine not every hero would be so gracious.)
In the two settings I have that are closest to superhero verses - a BPRD-style weird science bit, and a Deadpool-meets-Judge Dredd post-cyberpunk action fest - enhanced abilities are generally due to advanced technologies, mutagenic green rocks, or vaguely explored psychic techniques with no hard boundary as to who may learn them (and usually the need to be enhanced and the possibility to be replicated by technology). As such, the abilities themselves are seen as side effects, incidental rather than inherent in some people, and regulation is applied similarly to the CDC Biosafety scale, levels 2 and above. The closest thing to superheroes are freelance mercs, private eyes, and the occasional eccentric scientist, all of which stick to their area of expertise and don't try and fight for great justice or what have you. In that regard, they are regulated simply by being treated in the exact same manner as everyone else, with licenses based on training in a particular field, rather than with respect to some inherent ability.
edited 25th Apr '18 9:37:46 AM by indiana404
Speaking of the one rule, that's another thing I find to be oft-abused when trying to separate the grain from the chaff, so to speak. As lethal results can theoretically arise from any violent conflict, the notion that most people shouldn't get involved lest they kill someone, is a pretty cheap way to maintain the exclusivity of the staple capes. Same goes for the disdain of common firearms, while any superpower or expensive gadget is As Lethal as It Needs to Be - the unspoken message being that unless you're granted supernatural ability by birth or happenstance, or are rich enough to afford next-gen technology or exotic martial arts training, you're basically confined under a glass ceiling... Though strangely enough, when some characters do break out from such restrictions - such as Deadpool, for instance - they resonate far stronger with general audiences than the self-styled symbols and bigger men.
It's for the above reasons that I'm generally in favor of both civil oversight on more powerful heroes, and various means and initiatives for volunteers to join the force, as it were. Even without all the unfortunate implications, I find no need for the superhero genre to separate people into inherent haves and have-nots, whether in terms of physical power or social privilege. If anything, it's the villains that usually espouse such views, and the heroes are the ones to oppose them.