Although Yinsen had remained vigorous with his ablutions,
Stark had let himself go. This had nothing to do with any sense of giving in to
misery or despair, as might have once been the case. Instead, for Tony Stark,
this was business as usual. In the normal course of his normal life, once Stark
became caught up in the throes of creation, personal hygiene went out the
window. It usually fell to the disembodied promptings of Jarvis, or failing
that, the corporeal prodding from Pepper, to remind Stark that he should think
about changing the clothes he’d been wearing for three days or maybe run a
razor across the bushy growth that was accruing on his face.
After the first day or so, Yinsen had simply taken to
staying the hell out of Stark’s way. He had even stopped asking Stark if he was
hungry since he tended not to receive answers. Instead, every so often, he
would just put out food for Stark, who would - sooner or later - eat it without
looking at it or even noticing that he was doing so.
Tony and Peter sharing the same sentiment on why they do what they do, they both blame themselves for not doing enough, and feel the responsibility to do more and better, to protect the people and the world they love and care about (inspired by @knightinironarmor [x])
Why Tony was right about the Sokovia Accords - a political perspective
are trying to be historical about the Sokovia Accords, I might as well add my
two cents to the discussion (having studied the UN during my degree).
Avengers are basically meant to be a crisis-response unit, right? The truth is
that the UN does not really have one as of now, so there is a good likelihood
that the Avengers would be governed by different rules than the rest of UN
military intervention is only permitted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
and needs to be authorised by the Security Council (UNSC). However, the Charter
pertains to UN Member STATES. The Avengers are not a state, so it is possible
that they could escape the inefficiency
and politics of it all.
because they would be governed by a new ‘panel, not the UNSC. The UNSC is
notorious for its inability to do things because of a) veto power, and b) the
fact that it reflects the post-WW2 balance of power. The UN is massively
ashamed of this, and pissed off that they can do nothing to change the situation;
they are really worried about things like the Rwandan genocide happening again
because of the UN’s inability to act. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that they would try to avoid the UNSC’s inefficiencies when devising the panel. The Avengers have to respond quickly – it’s
not like they’re humanitarian intervention: they go in, deal with stuff, and
then leave. Otherwise they’re useless, so the
UN must have designed the panel in a way that would allow the Avengers to act
Secondly, the support of people such as T’Chaka
indicates that the panel is far less politically convoluted than the UNSC.
Most of UNSC’s problems arise because the US and Russia/China keep throwing
shit at each other, and smaller countries (a lot of them African, like Wakanda)
sit at the back and get angry at the big countries. I think that T’Chaka’s
support for the Accords is an indication of their quality, and the fact that
they are based on expertise, not just politics (like Steve was worried).
the Avengers are essentially a private organisation (largely funded by Tony).
As far as I know, the UN does not have
the right to just intervene with private actors as it pleases, especially
if they operate inside the borders of a sovereign Member State (theoretically
they are US-based). They looove
sovereignty (Article 2 of the Charter, anyone?) so I imagine that the Accords
would be framed like something similar to a public-private partnership. This
would have to leave the Avengers some wiggle room – they are not the Blue
Helmets (i.e. effectively part of the UN from the start) so the structure of
their responsibility would have to be different. (Especially given the fact
that it would be very difficult to actually capture them if they misbehaved.)
I also need
to clarify Tony’s comment about amending the Accords if necessary, which has
been (unsuccessfully) rebuffed by #teamCap. The Accords could be amended easily, because an awful lot (if not most)
of UN legislation is. Each resolution ends with something likes “we decide
to remain seized on the matter”, so that the UN can react to its previous
decisions if they had been the wrong ones, so don’t tell me that ‘duh, you can’t
just ament UN legislation, Tony is stupid blah blah’.
that Steve is scared that another HYDRA might be hiding behind the Accords (let’s
admit it – Ross is a creep, and Steve did have a good point with that), but you
are forgetting something else. Tony
Stark is a genius, like…a proper, certified genius. The kind of a genius that
Einstein was. This means that he wouldn’t let anyone make him sign complete
bullshit, even if he was grief-stricken, and even if he had little time to
understand what he was signing. The likelihood is that the UN would have known
it as well – the Avengers is a bunch of
geniuses, spies and ex-government employees, and you can’t bullshit those people. Therefore, the UN wouldn’t
have tried to pass a totally bullshit version of the Accords, because they
would have known that no one would sign them then.
stop complaining about how little time they had to read it, and how politicised
the whole process was. Yes, the Sokovia
Accords is a political issue, but not necessary one harmful to the Avengers
and/or their work.
Does anyone have a ‘MCU Tony Stark is a villain and/or bad character‘ argument that doesn’t:
A) Blatantly ignore or contradict the MCU canon
B) Completely ignore Tony’s motivations - or in some cases that he was manipulated by a third party (looking at you, Wanda)
C) Also ignore that Tony has PTSD and probably abandonment and trust issues
D) ignores/forgives other characters for making mistakes just as bad, if not worse than Tony’s (again, looking at Wanda ‘I made the Hulk attack a city full of innocent people and suffered no consequences for it‘ Maximoff)
E) Refuse to acknowledge that Tony is not meant to be a ‘perfect‘ character and that making mistakes and trying to make up for them is a huge part of his identity and appeal. (which is also why he works as a mentor for Spider-Man better than any other MCU character BTW)