Which MCU villain would make a better Captain America...

Which MCU villain would make a better Captain America... Apr 14, 2021 16:51:52 GMT Lord Death Man likes this

Quote

Post by ReyKahuka on Apr 14, 2021 16:51:52 GMT

Apr 14, 2021 16:30:10 GMT Lord Death Man said:

Apr 14, 2021 15:42:26 GMT ReyKahuka said:

It isn't illegal to be a smug prick, but when your attitude causes you to start committing war crimes, you become the villain no matter how honorable your intentions were at the beginning. Feeling inadequate isn't an excuse to go over the deep end. I would've endorsed the government giving Walker the serum (if they had it) from the beginning (but he shouldn't have taken the name Captain America), but taking an untested PED in the field because he got beat up by a couple of chicks is hardly a respectable decision.

Maybe he got a raw deal from the government, from Bucky and Sam, maybe he's desperate to live up to an ideal; But he still has to follow the rules of engagement. You can be the villain without realizing it; you can be the villain without being purely 'evil.'

This is a great debate, and it's what makes the show interesting.

Walker has disregarded the rules of engagement and committed a war crime.

He should have been given some iteration of the serum on day one. There was no way he could have been expected to cope with enhanced fighters in the battlespace without resorting to some extraordinary means. If that meant taking an experimental PED in the field, then so be it. Had he not murdered an individual in retreat shortly afterward, he would have likely been lauded for his quick thinking and adaptability by his commanders. You can't engage a superior enemy with one hand tied behind your back.

I'm not condoning what he did but, escalation of some kind was inevitable.

And let's not forget that Bucky and Sam are wholly off-the-books and unauthorized actors with no authority or jurisdiction to apprehend the Flag Smashers (let alone free an enemy agent from prison). I'm sympathetic to John Walker's cause to a certain extent, and I'd be lying if I said that I thought Bucky and Sam were entirely blameless in all of this.

Moral ambiguity abounds in this show. Walker mentions to Lamar (in not so many words) that the end justifies the means, this is exactly what Bucky told Ayo about Zemo. They broke a known terrorist out of prison to aid them in catching another one, but they frown on Walker's methods? The guy Walker killed we're supposed to have sympathy for because "It wasn't me!", but he previously told Karli he agreed with her methods-- which included killing people in that building she bombed, most of whom had nothing to do with whatever discriminatory practices the GRC as an entity may be intentionally or unintentionally guilty of.

As I said off the top in this topic, the audience loves Zemo and hates Walker, despite Zemo being far more morally corrupt than Walker. I've already mentioned Walker's entitlement, how about the Dora Milaje showing up and saying they have jurisdiction wherever they go? Or as you pointed out, how are Sam and Bucky even allowed to do this off the books under the Sokovia accords? Zemo complains that all superheroes are fascists, while in the same breath separating them from 'real people.' Zemo, who has made it his mission to decide who the 'real people' are, and thus who deserves to live or die, is talking about the other guys being fascists.

That's the stuff that makes this show so good. There's so much gray area to explore with every aspect of the story.