Thanks for the explanation, Joshua. That makes perfect sense the way you're explaining it. But if someone is going to tell a story that somehow has social, political, or even moral relevance, that story can't change the rules of the basic message to fit its universe. If that happens, the relevance goes out the window. Sure, if the police are perfectly good, infallible, and beyond reproach in their thoughts and actions, they don't need oversight. So what? In what way is such a statement relevant to anything other than a world with flying men from Krypton? Perfect is perfect? Thanks for the pointless tautology, comic books. And #TeamCap defenders, by the way. :)
At least, that's my opinion. This is especially true with the Marvel Civil War storyline in the movie, where what little I know about the source material made it sound like Mark Millar (yech) had tried to set up the sort of nuanced (again, yeech, Millar nuanced?) conflict where you could understand both sides. Because if it's an argument about gun control, I can sort of understand the idea that the government controlling the power of the people is something to be wary of (although I think the NRA crowd is founded on absolutely idiotic arguments). And I can certainly understand it if its an argument about the erosion of civil liberties in the face of panic about terrorism. But when it's about collateral damage inflicted by people with no oversight, no accountability, and no legal framework, I see no nuance whatsoever. #TeamIronMan or GTFO!