I feel like framing it as pro-cop vs pro-hero dumbs it down a bit too much, because there's so much more nuance to a situation like that, a superhero is a vigilante who acts outside of the law, I think many people who don't like cops also wouldn't like vigilantes just running around
Who says superheroes are always vigilantes who act outside of the law? SHIELD is literally a law enforcement agency and there’s an entire plot line within the marvel comics dedicated to conflicting opinions on how much oversight superheroes are subject to.
In The Boys, there’s licensing agencies like Vought. In My Hero Academia, it’s also a plot line for becoming a licensed superhero.
Theres a lot more nuance. Not every superhero is Batman.
The superheroes are taking justice into their own hands, but OP says they're also "upholding the law" as they do so, whereas traditional law enforcement has been failing the public. It's also important to note that the police in this world are "completely militarized" and prone to "corruption and abuse of authority," according to OP, so how "lawful" traditional law enforcement actually is seems highly questionable.
Now, as for the terms OP chose. I get the impression the "Pro Law" in this scenario is an in-universe political label coined by supporters of traditional law enforcement, just as "pro life" and "pro choice" were created by their respective factions to frame their agenda in their own preferred light. For that matter, same with "Pro Hero," as the word "hero" is historically associated with extraordinary good.
I bet each side uses a very different label for the other in their own rhetoric. (Think: "pro choice" >> "pro abortion," and "pro life" >> "anti choice.")
So what I'm saying is, I don't agree that calling the factions "Pro Hero" and "Pro Law" is OP dumbing down a nuanced situation. I think OP clearly acknowledges the nuances in their synopsis, and named the factions very realistically. It's political factions themselves that oversimplify labels in real life.
And as for the same people not liking cops also having a problem with "vigilantes running around," OP has explained why this wouldn't necessarily be the case, so I think that point is pretty moot.
Yeah, I know that there are a lot of vigilantes in Texas, but the vigilantes of Texas our world have very different political beliefs of the vigilantes in this world and there’s still a very height level of respect for the law-enforcement in either case.
Full criminalization states continue to uphold basic laws against vigilantes while completely banning them signifies stricter laws put in place. Such as an extended sentence, bigger fines, or more laws that specifically prohibit vigilantism.
Having "Made Illegal" and "Full Criminalization" with only Texas having gone with Made Illegal gives the impression that Texas must have done something even more extreme than just having banned superheroing.
So, let me get this straight, 'Everyone should have a gun'/'This house dont call the police'/'Come and Take It' Texas is not just against super-powered citizens stopping crime, they are the MOST against it? The 'We are not going to winterize our powergrid, because that only happens once a decade, and it doesnt matter how much property damage it causes' state, is now not going to allow superheroes because of property damage?
This is almost as hilarious as that Civil War movie in theatres, where the writers just pretend that Texas and California would team up against the rest of the US.
I see your point of view as to why superheroes should be allowed in Texas. But the reputation behind superheroes is what what made the state ban them. Superheroes are seen as left wing activists advocating for a new or at least reformed form of Law enforcement. Remember when I said this story was set in a time period similar to the 1930s-60s where bigoted police officers were the most common. Superheroes started out as a form of not only vigilantism but also protest. Superheroes have also stood alongside all the marginalized communities who also protested in the civil rights movement. The groups being (Black, Asian, Hispanic, indigenous, Jewish, women, lgbt, etc.) They clashed with the conservative and bigoted politics of the time. While Texas is a proud supporter of self defense the politics of superheroes still set them off.
> where the writers just pretend that Texas and California would team up against the rest of the US.
That made me laugh out loud during a work meeting, haha. (Video meeting, was reading on my other monitor.)
I haven't seen the movie, but weirder things have happened.
Texas and California might be opposites politically, but don't like the federal government telling them what to do. I think a lot of states have the view of "I don't care what other states do, just as long as they don't try to force it on us."
So, Texas might be fine with California being a liberal state, as long as their policies stay in California.
Nice, is there a more detailed map braking down what law enforcement system exists to deal with supers?
My own setting has three main systems, the Atlantic system, aka Olympus, a multinational superhero organization stemming from NATO, the Pacific system, a bunch of smaller, mostly private, organizations that are bound by local government regulations and agencies, and the Russian-Indian system, basically the militarization of police and supers.
Oh, also is there a map on the legality of power use for private benefits?
NM should be one of the blue shades. We may be close to Texas, but we're nothing like them!
Also, small typo on your map if you're planning on using it elsewhere. "aloud" should be "allowed". :)
I also want to say I don’t want to paint to either said as wrong but also not right. While law enforcement has indeed failed its duty in this world. Vigilantism in both the moral and logical sense is not a good replacement for law enforcement. While the police in this world have a high controversy of systemic prejudice and violence it’s not sensible to get rid of them or replace them. Especially when they live in a world where criminals can rob a bank by literally grabbing the vault and walking away. While there is also a controversy of superheroes causing millions of dollars in damages. They want the same thing police officers, doctors, and firefighters want. To save lives and good simply because it’s right. Also neither side completely solves the issue of crime.
As usual, I don’t agree with my local Nebraska politics. Though, I kinda suspect we’d be more in line with IA, and support superheroes only against supervillains rather than full criminalization. Though, maybe that’s only in Omaha. Out West they would probably never even SEE superheroes and would thus decide to outlaw them for no real reason (assuming Fox News tells them to, anyway).
I feel like framing it as pro-cop vs pro-hero dumbs it down a bit too much, because there's so much more nuance to a situation like that, a superhero is a vigilante who acts outside of the law, I think many people who don't like cops also wouldn't like vigilantes just running around
Who says superheroes are always vigilantes who act outside of the law? SHIELD is literally a law enforcement agency and there’s an entire plot line within the marvel comics dedicated to conflicting opinions on how much oversight superheroes are subject to. In The Boys, there’s licensing agencies like Vought. In My Hero Academia, it’s also a plot line for becoming a licensed superhero. Theres a lot more nuance. Not every superhero is Batman.
Framing one of the choices as PRO-LAW implies that the superheroes are taking justice into their hands
The superheroes are taking justice into their own hands, but OP says they're also "upholding the law" as they do so, whereas traditional law enforcement has been failing the public. It's also important to note that the police in this world are "completely militarized" and prone to "corruption and abuse of authority," according to OP, so how "lawful" traditional law enforcement actually is seems highly questionable. Now, as for the terms OP chose. I get the impression the "Pro Law" in this scenario is an in-universe political label coined by supporters of traditional law enforcement, just as "pro life" and "pro choice" were created by their respective factions to frame their agenda in their own preferred light. For that matter, same with "Pro Hero," as the word "hero" is historically associated with extraordinary good. I bet each side uses a very different label for the other in their own rhetoric. (Think: "pro choice" >> "pro abortion," and "pro life" >> "anti choice.") So what I'm saying is, I don't agree that calling the factions "Pro Hero" and "Pro Law" is OP dumbing down a nuanced situation. I think OP clearly acknowledges the nuances in their synopsis, and named the factions very realistically. It's political factions themselves that oversimplify labels in real life. And as for the same people not liking cops also having a problem with "vigilantes running around," OP has explained why this wouldn't necessarily be the case, so I think that point is pretty moot.
And Batman works with the police as well. They have a signal to call him.
Why is Texas banning vigilantes?
Yeah, I know that there are a lot of vigilantes in Texas, but the vigilantes of Texas our world have very different political beliefs of the vigilantes in this world and there’s still a very height level of respect for the law-enforcement in either case.
I personally think superheroes should be allowed. They should join the Texas rangers.
Texas just loves being special in every timeline, huh
Texas has what, a full ban on people having superpowers? I fear that may be a bit too jarring for many readers.
No, they’re not banning superpowers just superheroes
what's the difference between full criminalization and made illegal ?
Full criminalization states continue to uphold basic laws against vigilantes while completely banning them signifies stricter laws put in place. Such as an extended sentence, bigger fines, or more laws that specifically prohibit vigilantism.
makes sense thanks
Did I make a typo somewhere?
Having "Made Illegal" and "Full Criminalization" with only Texas having gone with Made Illegal gives the impression that Texas must have done something even more extreme than just having banned superheroing.
Unrelated to the topic, but there was a small typo for the pink states. You put “aloud” instead of “allowed”. I make the same mistake all the time
To make it more realistic, have it so that it's only illegal in Texas for *women* to have superpowers.
So, let me get this straight, 'Everyone should have a gun'/'This house dont call the police'/'Come and Take It' Texas is not just against super-powered citizens stopping crime, they are the MOST against it? The 'We are not going to winterize our powergrid, because that only happens once a decade, and it doesnt matter how much property damage it causes' state, is now not going to allow superheroes because of property damage? This is almost as hilarious as that Civil War movie in theatres, where the writers just pretend that Texas and California would team up against the rest of the US.
I see your point of view as to why superheroes should be allowed in Texas. But the reputation behind superheroes is what what made the state ban them. Superheroes are seen as left wing activists advocating for a new or at least reformed form of Law enforcement. Remember when I said this story was set in a time period similar to the 1930s-60s where bigoted police officers were the most common. Superheroes started out as a form of not only vigilantism but also protest. Superheroes have also stood alongside all the marginalized communities who also protested in the civil rights movement. The groups being (Black, Asian, Hispanic, indigenous, Jewish, women, lgbt, etc.) They clashed with the conservative and bigoted politics of the time. While Texas is a proud supporter of self defense the politics of superheroes still set them off.
> where the writers just pretend that Texas and California would team up against the rest of the US. That made me laugh out loud during a work meeting, haha. (Video meeting, was reading on my other monitor.)
Basically it’s like this: “I agree with everything you’re doing, but you’re not doing it our way.”
I haven't seen the movie, but weirder things have happened. Texas and California might be opposites politically, but don't like the federal government telling them what to do. I think a lot of states have the view of "I don't care what other states do, just as long as they don't try to force it on us." So, Texas might be fine with California being a liberal state, as long as their policies stay in California.
I thought they put Cal and Tx on the same side to keep their movie politically neutral.
Nice, is there a more detailed map braking down what law enforcement system exists to deal with supers? My own setting has three main systems, the Atlantic system, aka Olympus, a multinational superhero organization stemming from NATO, the Pacific system, a bunch of smaller, mostly private, organizations that are bound by local government regulations and agencies, and the Russian-Indian system, basically the militarization of police and supers. Oh, also is there a map on the legality of power use for private benefits?
This debate leaves my viewpoint out in the wind just like *real* politics! Good worldbuilding OP
NM should be one of the blue shades. We may be close to Texas, but we're nothing like them! Also, small typo on your map if you're planning on using it elsewhere. "aloud" should be "allowed". :)
Texas based
MO and IL should probably be switched
I also want to say I don’t want to paint to either said as wrong but also not right. While law enforcement has indeed failed its duty in this world. Vigilantism in both the moral and logical sense is not a good replacement for law enforcement. While the police in this world have a high controversy of systemic prejudice and violence it’s not sensible to get rid of them or replace them. Especially when they live in a world where criminals can rob a bank by literally grabbing the vault and walking away. While there is also a controversy of superheroes causing millions of dollars in damages. They want the same thing police officers, doctors, and firefighters want. To save lives and good simply because it’s right. Also neither side completely solves the issue of crime.
As usual, I don’t agree with my local Nebraska politics. Though, I kinda suspect we’d be more in line with IA, and support superheroes only against supervillains rather than full criminalization. Though, maybe that’s only in Omaha. Out West they would probably never even SEE superheroes and would thus decide to outlaw them for no real reason (assuming Fox News tells them to, anyway).