How would a Super Registration Act work?

I'll get my guillotine.

The biggest and most essential necessary weasel of the genre is the idea of power as inherent in some people, with no way to counter or replicate it otherwise. In tangentially related settings, this has been often used as allegory for disparities in social status, from high school antics to adult anxieties. But this can only be taken so far, before the ordinary people in the setting simply invest in an arms race to match the capes, and universal open carry laws that would make them obsolete. Thus, the matter of how the "powerless" would regard the "powerful" loses any physical basis, becoming an arbitrary philosophical problem with no substance. Again, if the matter isn't supposed to be true to life, then you might as well not bother with any logical justification for the conclusion you've already decided on.

---

I'm sorry if I seem to be coming down too harsh; it's just that in this day and age, poorly handled superheroes can seem less like idealistic underdogs challenging an oppressive system, and more like autocratic one-percenters loath to being subject to the same laws as the little people... and frequently just as eager to suppress heroic efforts that don't match their agenda. Mainstream comic settings are the only place where defending yourself and others with a firearm will get you in more hot water with the local designated hero than any legal authority. So that's another angle to consider - what happens if superheroes themselves argue about what is permissible, and in lieu of actual legislation to stand on, the only basis for their arguments is sheer brute force?

For that matter, that's a pretty good summary of superhero legislation in general: the moment laws are re-written around certain people based entirely on their power, is the moment power becomes the only law that matters.

edited 4th Aug '17 8:47:53 AM by indiana404

I think some of these questions are answered (or at least explored) in works outside the Big Two, namely the comics Powers by Bendis and Oeming, the long-running Wild Cards series edited by George R.R. Martin and Melinda Snodgrass, and John Ridley's novels "Those Who Walk In Darkness" and "What Fire Cannot Burn."

edited 14th Aug '17 9:45:22 AM by Trike

"Three wheels good, two wheels bad." - Geo. Orwheel

To try and spin out of the usual spiral, I've been thinking - what if the superheroes themselves were to write and sign a voluntary, non-legally binding manifesto of how they believe superheroics are to be conducted, and also serving to express their blessing for anyone willing and able to abide by it. A Cape Constitution, if you will. Like I said, the reason I'm generally skeptical of them openly shunning the law is that they're often just as aggressive in enforcing their worldview on lower-profile vigilantes with less resources. As bad as official legislation can get, rule by sheer force is a far worse alternative, so there still should be some standard all heroes would try and meet.

The solution in One Punch Man (it's late, I'm not linking anything) was to simply pay the Heroes and/or provide for basic needs. Not much, but enough that they could work full-time as Heroes.

The one thing that's reliable in US superhero comics is an existential cynicism, as though Good is an aberration and Bad is what pays the bills. It started out as a weirdly religion-derived worldview, where everything is judged as black and white, and has approached BPD in recent years (the fact that characters have nuance should not be surprising, each and every time it comes up). The big flaw of Civil War was that they tried to apply rules to a setting that rejects them, forcing teamwork onto a hundred unguided missiles already in the air.

On the flip side, it worked for Secret Wars (the first one) because the goal was vague and the setting was more or less built around the rules.

Long story short, a bill like that would define targets; there's no way to comply with Paragraph 7 and also be certain that your loved ones won't get killed in their sleep, for example. Paragraph 6 basically gives the deciding body too much power and creates a gray zone for those who can't pass the training; Paragraph 5 would define 'heroic actions' in a way that would include natural weather phenomenon; Paragraph 4 ties hands anytime China and/or Russia don't want to save the world; Paragraphs 3 and 2 would require a Neopolis to house the heroes (read Top Ten for another take on the idea!); and Paragraph 1 would presumably penalize anyone who doesn't know they have powers and has built a life around this ignorance.

Any one of those Paragraphs might work on their own. Combined, in a setting where characters have their own motivations and reasons for getting up in the morning, it's a mess. Moreso than Civil War.

I'd say it's closer to self-aggrandizing yet pointless martyrdom - modern superhero comics have focused too much on superheroes as a phenomenon in itself, virtually unrelated to the matter of supervillains or as part of an overall take on differently powered individuals. To that effect, when you define "good" as "the privilege to beat up random criminals or just people you disagree with, and violate every privacy and public safety law in existence" - then yeah, the world might seem rather dark for not accommodating such ideals.

However, I'd say the real turning point was that, while superheroes became shackled by the status quo rather quickly after their inception, it's only for the past few decades that writers have gotten a bit too insistent on the idea that the status quo sucks. And consequently, superheroes turned from just people with regular lives who are still great to have around in emergencies, to obsessive violent activists in a perpetual masochistic struggle - not exactly an attractive lifestyle. More to the point, a lifestyle often clashing with both official authorities and the general populace. This is another situation where any choice would be functional, but not both at the same time. It's one thing to assist the authorities with matters most people are better off not knowing - it's iffy, but it can work. It's one thing to challenge civil institutions in support of the will of the people expressed directly - that ain't no picnic either, but it's sometimes necessary.

However, the existential cynicism of modern superhero comics stems from trying to take on both the government and the people at the same time, never mind the gall of claiming it's for the latter's own good. It's about the artificial separation of designated heroes from society, regardless of their actual physical abilities or resources. And then complaining when said society isn't all too eager to relate to their problems or tolerate their activities. What can I say - in this day and age, when firearm ownership is greater than ever, while fighter jet scramble time is measured in mere minutes, people just aren't keen on Holding Out for a Hero as they used to be.

edited 15th Aug '17 4:53:32 AM by indiana404

" 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"."

nobody really one because nobody really engage in a meanifull debate, it was a drama story with trapping of registration arc.

I will said the real issue with arc registration story is that means they have to see the issue of comic words...and let be honest that CANT work....well it can but they dont like it because it goes into to unfamiliar territory for their liking, Comic are based in the status quo,even if they want to shaked it.

or to quote tony star jr(aka Ultron) "You want to save the world....but you dont want to change it"

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

I'd say there's no problem with having a status quo in place - check out Defenders of the Earth or any other eighties cartoon for how you can have a team of heroes fight all sorts of villains with implicit government approval. No, the problem is that the status quo modern comics have settled on seems to promote attacks on government for its own sake... by a bunch of people Too Incompetent to Operate a Blanket, especially in terms of communication and emotional maturity. Not an attractive proposition for five bucks an issue, now, is it?

Mind you, it would be pretty hilarious if a setting were to treat superheroics (but not superpowers by themselves) as the real world treats firearms and WMD's. Meaning, everyone but the Americans sees no problem registering with their local governments, while American heroes have entered a perpetual state of weeping and gnashing of teeth now that Iran and even the Norkels have at least a couple of powerhouses they can unleash if attacked. Oh, and Dr. Manhattan is Russian. Suddenly, registration woes and general existential issues don't seem half as bad, eh?

The Civil War film engaged with the concept of superheroics quite accurately. What it depicted with the Sokovia Accords is exactly what would happen in real life. That's meaningful and quite refreshing.

edited 19th Aug '17 12:47:57 AM by Gault

yey

In that regard I agree. After brushing off two high-profile hearing committees and then being pretty much entirely responsible for the Ultron crisis and the numerous deaths therein, it's only expected that world governments would simply present the Avengers with an ultimatum rather than keep giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Still, I do believe a workable framework can be established, so long as the setting is tweaked as a whole. I found myself inspired by how Duke Nukem's exaggerated humor works so well precisely because it's exaggerated, but in his world, it's actually the norm; "authentic" as the creators put it. So I figure, what if this was applied to superheroes - as it already is in the big two publishers, hence why it's all those registration woes that look out of place. What if the world is already used to having differently powered individuals, masked vigilantes, mad scientists and so forth - kinda like how a standard fantasy setting sees nothing strange about dragons and wizards duking it out with warriors and rogues.

In such a world, although it is surprisingly similar to ours, superheroes have existed from time immemorial, featuring the likes of Robin Hood, the Scarlet Pimpernel, and Ishikawa Goemon. In the modern times, however, most societies have learned to function around rules rather than rulers, and while the capes are given considerable leeway for their operations, so too are they held under much greater scrutiny for going overboard. Kinda like Texas Rangers, really. While they are normally free from government meddling, they have their own Code - with rules open and known to every citizen - and violating that Code is worse than breaking the rules of the Continental. Everyone is out to get you then - authorities, civilians, other heroes, even supervillains - who have a Code of their own - will abandon whatever evil schemes they're currently running in order to take down a bad cape.

Essentially, it's a heightened reality where the rules aren't quite as they are in our world, but that doesn't mean there aren't any rules altogether. Even without government registration and supervision, heroes are subjected to actual responsibilities rather than merely the cheap platitudes of their own hyperactive guilt complex. And I find such terms and conditions serve as a rather nice litmus test to differentiate between actual interest in safeguarding justice, and mere power-trips where one's fantasy projection is free to smash whatever and whoever they dislike with no fear of retribution. Because if that's the actual reason behind superheroes' pathological aversion to authority, then registration is by far the least measure to be taken.

edited 25th Aug '17 9:53:09 AM by indiana404

Indeed, one of the reasons that the Civil War storyline in the Marvel comics was so badly received was that it was handled very poorly and unrealistically, all for the sake of creating controversy and setting up an equally bad plotline as basically an excuse for the good guys to fight each other. The reference to John Wick is an apt one, as the Code of Assassins, and their agreement with law enforcement agencies, is very similar to what I suppose an actual superhero/villain code would look like, but with perhaps more government oversight/enforcement.

So I wanted to explore my own ideas regarding Superhero registration and didn't want to start a new thread. Unlike the OP, I disagree with the idea of basically forcing every superpowered individual to work under the government. However, threats of superpowers are things I also don't want to Handwave because the counter-example is literally right there in the form of supervillains.

• 1. All super-powered individuals have to report their powers and personal information to the government. This includes individuals who don't possess powers in the strictest sense, but are in possession or are capable of replicating WM Ds, alien technology, future technology or technology otherwise currently unable to be replicated by modern science.
• 2. All super-powered individuals are to include their powers into their personal documentation, such as when applying for a job, loan, insurance, entering a school, buying a house and etc.
• 3. All super-powered individuals are required to undergo a series of testing to experiment on certain limits of their powers, though all tests have to follow ethical guidelines for human subject research.
• 4. After going through the first three steps, if necessary, individual may go through relocation to avoid discrimination or endangering others with their powers. This information would be highly classified, but the transportation process would be monitored by high ranking UN agents. Countries who have done so are required to submit physical evidence to prove they have not done harm to the individual.
• 5. If individual is willing, they may go through training to obtain their superhero license. Any superhero without a license is treated as performing vigilantism. Depending on circumstances, value and damage done, first-time offenders are offered the chance to go through training and become official superheroes.
• 6. All official superheroes will be treated as government agents, with authority to make an arrest, but also subjected to said countries laws and restrictions in terms of making an arrest.
• 7. Deployment of superheroes over C-rank requires extra clearance from person of appropriate authority.(S-rank, being individual WM Ds, require president clearance) This does not apply to natural disasters.(unless there's somehow ways to endanger people that I'm unaware of)
• 8. Deployment of superheroes overseas requires clearance from the government of the country they wish to enter, unless during war or first response to natural disasters.
• 9. Forced conscription or experimentation of super-powered individuals is illegal. Enforced by the International Union for Super-powered individuals, a committee formed from superheroes who has proven their morals from heroics before the registration act was in place, heroes who are voted in by the public, human right defenders, aliens, and representatives from the UN. Exceptions for situations such as alien invasions do exist.
  • Depending on severity of the issue(As in North Korea levels), all discovered and recorded super-powered individuals are transported to a neutral territory under the control of the union.

Aliens and magic heroes have their own sets of rules since the former are subject to alien laws while the latter have their own government, though they both cooperate with the UN on most situations.

I kinda like it. The one thing I'd change is the disclosure clause, so that only abilities with potential for severe harm and/or conventionally untraceable effect would have to be publicly registered. Things like low-level super-strength or the ability to fix a refrigerator by blinking may be filed on the government level, but as far as society in general is concerned, some privacy may be more effective at alleviating potential conflicts. Naturally, this exemption would not apply to criminal offenders and registered superheroes.

Otherwise, the superhero regulation framework looks great. I'd only add my own supervillain bounty system to the mix, as well as the legal permission for baseline humans to train and arm themselves with gear equivalent to superpowers, being subject to the same restrictions.

Now, one of the problems of most superhero registration acts including mine would be where is the threshold that actually divides superpowers and regular talent? Lifting twenty tons and flying would definitely be, but how about something like twice the stamina of the average human being? What about running 10% faster proportionately to someone who train as much? Some people definitely have some of their accomplishments based as much as on their genetics as their hard work. Especially intelligence. It's pretty much the go-to for non-superpowered characters to be super smart or super skilled in certain areas to beat the big dumb guy with super strength. Would it be easy to detect who has superpowers if the range is so big? Would geniuses like Einstein be classified as having superpowers? Would anybody that are naturally talented be discredited by claiming that they have superpowers? Now most of this can be milked for drama and story potential, but I do have to wonder where the boundary lies?

That's the very reason for my proposed lax regulation on lower-level abilities. Ideally, the rules would function like extensions of real world health standards, focusing on abilities that are either inherently harmful, or dangerous beyond the user's control, similar to disease carrier quarantines in real life. Same goes for inventions violating hazardous materials regulations. Feats like extraordinary strength or intelligence would not by themselves fall under that category.

Mind you, if possible, I'd rather avoid any drama stemming directly from the abilities themselves. It's already iffy to use such phenomena for social commentary - you either get the social justice crowd treating walking nukes as akin to oppressed minorities, or the Harrison Bergeron types decrying any limit to their super-speshul talents. Beyond that, unless you're exploring a particular meta-origin in the vein of Heroes, focusing on the abilities themselves tends to result in increasingly inane explanations as to why only some people have them, how they function etc.

For my part, after trying to reconcile the entertainment factor of colorful heroes with extraordinary abilities, with the egalitarian conventions of modern society, I ultimately settled on a Deadpool-style framework where the actual heroes are akin to mercenaries and Wild West bounty hunters working on call or acting in emergencies. Most importantly, there's no direct link between superpowers and superheroics - plenty of people with unusual abilities simply live their lives as normal as they like, while ordinary folks wanting to make a difference can join a public or private team and fight the good fight with more conventional means. I find such a framework would avoid the more unfortunate implications of the genre, where the superheroes are inherently elevated not just with regard to legal regulations, but society in general as well.

That last part is kind of inevitable for human culture. Just look at how we treat pop stars and famous actors. Multiply that a hundred folds with superpowered heroes. I do agree with the idea that superpowered people don't have to become superheroes and vice versa, because forced conscription is one of the reasons the Anti-Reg side try to add to make the argument "balanced". My registration act is basically the culmination of the public wanting responsible and professionally trained people to trusts their life with, accountability for both superheroes and government, rights for superpowered people and protection for both the super and the public against each other if the former can't control their powers or their powers being dangerous by nature. Being civil people, they discuss it over a live audience with superheroes leading the charge and make compromises with each other, which allowed the formation of the International Union for Superpowered Individuals and the super registration act be enforced between them and the governments of the world.

I like that concept; a sort of social contract between the heroes and the rest of society. Far too often, the argument against registration and civil accountability is built around superheroes, for lack of a more suitable term, "knowing better" than everyone else; their personal judgment regarded as all but infallible in terms of when and why they should act.

Instead, my starting point with superheroes as freelance fighters who act on their conscience rather than for money, enabled me to explore the nature of superheroics in and of themselves. Historically speaking, the initial trappings of the genre were rather family-unfriendly in their message, with even true-blue capes like Batman and Superman explicitly acting against the law, going after criminals ignored by the legal system, rather than the later more fanciful supernatural threats. They fought villains that traditional authorities were unwilling, rather than unable to deal with. Now, as much as such actions may on occasion be necessary in society, it's obvious that no government would ever legitimize them - it would basically be admitting its own corruption.

Subsequently, we're still left with the concept of superheroes as quasi-legal law enforcers whose abilities allow them to be effective in emergencies - something that can be regulated... and which can also dispense with some of the more toxic elements of the genre, such as the aforementioned glorification of personal judgment over social consensus. If anything, it makes for a nice litmus test, presenting the question of whether superheroes are valued as emergency responders, risking life and limb for the safety of others... or as anti-establishment activists, telling society what's what and finding excuses to beat up anyone who disagrees.

edited 9th Apr '18 3:32:32 AM by indiana404

Who vets the heroes for blackmail angles?

I'm not sure that I understand the question.

essentially, if a candidate can be easily blackmailed they don't get security clearance.

It depends on how powerful the average super is in your setting, and also how many there are.

In a Cape Punk Alternate History story I'm working on, a Super Registration Act is presented as something that would be a good idea if it was actually feasible. You see, in this world, there are tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of "Demigods", and they range in power from Joe down the street, who can do nifty things like detach his eyes from his head or bend spoons with his mind, and probably isn't really worth registering when compared even to your average psychokinetic, to godlike beings who can decimate cities, like Surtr (no, that isn't his actual name, he's just a delusional Omnicidal Maniac who just happens to be immensely powerful and thinks he's the fire giant because, having been a Human Popsicle from the viking age, that was the most "reasonable" explanation his delusional mind could come up with) or Imperium (again, not his actual name, but a title his advisers suggested for him to make him sound less like a man and more like a force, like their previous God-Emporors), who do what they want, regardless of what a measly power like the U.N. has to say about it.

Umm... so, I was here, I guess. If I wasn't, someone hacked my account. So, yeah.

I'd say the process of vetting heroes is a general issue in its own right. More to the point, I find the major superhero universes leave a rather lopsided impression, since they have to keep their flagship capes operational, even after a number of spectacular blunders. The inadvertent message is that, once someone makes it to the hero roster, they get a blank check to do as they please, accountable to none, and functionally immortal to boot.

Instead, it may be wise to show a number of heroes who've been retired, either by civil authorities or sustained injuries on the job, making the case that they're neither invincible nor infallible - which is precisely why civil oversight exists in the first place. And again, it's also a fairly self-evident way to weed out the more blatant anti-establishment power fantasy aspects of the genre - once the resident superpower lottery winner gets Macrossed out of the sky, you'd be surprised how fast the tendency for fauxlosophical Beware the Superman-style plots will drop.

edited 23rd Apr '18 4:40:08 AM by indiana404

Depending on how powerful the hero in question is, sometimes the only people who can forcefully retire a hero is another hero, or a group of heroes, who may or may not agree with the verdict. Not to mention what to do with them after they retire, whether they engage in vigilantism if they really like being a hero, some of the heroes feeling threatened or calling people Ungrateful Bastards(which is often something comic book fans uses to defend mistakes of their favorite character), the people calling others Ungrateful Bastards or even if they fall under the jurisdiction of Earth, like the Green Lantern Corps. Superheroes are celebrities, and they are notorious for escaping punishment, getting defended for rabid fans and being Easily Forgiven. While it's easy for street-level heroes to be retired, I wonder how civil authorities will retire Superman, who would probably comply until he hears a crime happening.

Frankly, this is the most difficult part of realistic superheroes, namely handling consequences. Arresting superheroes for breaking the law is easily enough, but just forbidding a hero from superheroing by threatening arrest is not going to work as well.

edited 23rd Apr '18 7:17:13 AM by Ikedatakeshi

Even Superman has weaknesses, and can be imprisoned or even killed with the proper equipment. Instead, I'd rather wonder as to when the notion became so pervasive that top tier superheroes should not only be more powerful than ordinary people, but just about all the armed forces of the world combined. It's mostly a leftover from the Silver Age - when Superman could juggle planets while Batman always had magical plot-solvers in his belt - but I find it's now become toxic to the genre, putting heroes not so much against villains, but civil authorities and society in general. It's one thing to have them as emergency responders for situations the law sometimes isn't fast enough to handle, but nowadays they're regarded as all but irreproachable autocrats who don't care for the law altogether, save for when it follows their own views. I reckon the temptation for the current crop of writers is too great to use popular mainstream heroes as invincible avatars, but like I noted, this doesn't have to be the case for original works.

To be fair, though, the problem only grows that toxic when the top tier capes themselves start imposing their wordviews on others, including less powerful heroes. Batman being dismissive of the Gotham police is one thing; Batman regarding Gotham itself as "his city" and trying to control every other hero operating in it - that's where things turn sour. Though again, that's another mentality now endemic in the big two publishers, where writer anxieties about competitors are transplanted in-universe to the heroes under their care.

edited 23rd Apr '18 7:47:54 AM by indiana404

I'm aware of such issues, which is why their is only 12 superheroes in my setting that can handle the entirety of Earth's armed forces combined by themselves. It's kind of necessary since alien invasions by themselves should and would easily curbstomp Earth, not to mention other threats like demons, A.I takeover, Lovecraftian monsters or doomsday weapons like a supernova bomb. However, I avoid allowing them to influence or imposing their worldviews through a few Handwaves, either being not on Earth, bounded by their own rules or just plainly doing the work not out of sense of justice, but a job, and would listen to the government most of the time.

In batman and superman...yeah is more a desire to make them symbols and so far tey need to be bigger than man in a way.

Overall, the more powerfull one person is, the more dificult is to bind to anything and any check and balance become more a gentlemen agreement with them.

In fact, I exceptic to the idea there can be any democracy with powerfull beings like Superman.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"