What's the point of making a Heroes vs Heroes event if one side is completely indefensible? I literally cannot think of one action Captain Marvel took in this event that anyone would agree with, and Bendis doesn't even attempt making both sides see justified in their actions.
What's the point of making a Heroes vs Heroes event if one side is completely indefensible...
Liam Cooper
Austin Nguyen
So pretty much just like the first Civil War event?
Juan Reyes
In the first Civil War book, both sides have an understandable point of view. Cap's side have no coherent or reasonable plan for achieving their goals, and Tony's side keep doing things that make them look like villains, but you can at least see what both sides are fighting for and why they want it.
In Civil War 2, Tony's side don't have much of a plan, but Carol's team's goal is getting people arrested or killed for things they haven't done, it's impossible to take their side.
Adrian Richardson
MCU did Civil War better. Come at me comicfags
Ayden Lee
You mean Civil Skirmish?
Landon Price
That skirmish>>>>>>>>>>>>>The entire run of Civil war
Connor Wood
Honestly I felt so cheated by the final issue of the comics. One page of cap fighting for his life, to the next page he's surrendering, and afterwards it feels like there's no real consequences. Best thing to come out of Civil War was Back in Black, but that was immediately followed by OMD the worst thing to come out of Civil War.
Jeremiah Kelly
Marvel zombies brought this on themselves.
They are the ones justifying all those heroes vs heroes storied with shitty reasons like "a hero killing another hero makes them more flawed, and thus more relatable". All Marvel does is catter to relatablefags, and if heroes killing each other is the best way to go, so be it.
Ryder Gutierrez
Carol did nothing wrong and Tony was a moron.
Matthew Walker
Carol does everything wrong and Tony is a moron.