There’s a difference between villain and supervillain. He never engaged in direct evil, only secondary and tertiary evil.
This is how lawyers IRL justify the evil they create – compartmentalise it and call it a lawyer’s duty, making it okay to make society worse because they’re just playing their role. The role they chose, of course, but that never enters into their logic.
I’ll have to disagree on Captain America. Serum gave him super powers, they’re just low key super powers, and I’d argue he’s gone beyond peak human strength.
Even if at peak human, he’s peak human without all the bulk of peak human strength or the skinniness one sees with runners. Etc etc.
Agreed. Cap is 100% Super-Human and even in the heavily watered down MCU pulls off feats far beyond peak human. Mind you so does Batman but he’s apparently got some weird bat god looking out for him so I’ve given up on that one.
I think you mean “prosecution”, but given the state of the US “justice” system, “persecution” isn’t completely wrong. And out here in what passes for the real world, prosecutors are, if anything, more likely to abuse “regular joes” precisely because they lack the resources to fight back.
Everyone has the right to representation so as to prevent them from being wrongly convicted. If they’re guilty, and the lawyer gets them off on a technicality, that is not the justice system functioning properly.
This also applies to straight up lying, hiding evidence, manipulating and deceiving the jury or the public – there’s lots of things lawyers do in service to the “duty” they have that by any objective measure is unethical.
Not all of that is illegal, and with good reason. Defense or prosecution, an attorney’s job is to convince a jury. Like it or not that is manipulating them.
Withholding evidence is a BIG no-no in a lot of cases, but some of it is protected by attorney-client privilege. Else you basically say “Taking the 5th? Go ahead, we’ll just make your lawyer tell us.”
Seeing people get off on technicalities sucks. But that is a check against misconduct or incompetence on the part of the prosecution.
No justice system can avert being flawed. Do you want to err on the side of convicting the innocent or letting the guilty go free? Pick your poison, but be aware of the downsides of either and do *not* make the decision lightly.
You’re right, those things are illegal for a reason. You’re right, they’re a check on irresponsible use of power by the authorities. You’re right, that is a lawyer’s job, and attorney-client privilege is important.
None of that actually impacts whether an individual lawyer has done good in the world, or contributed to making it worse, by exploiting those facts. None of that makes it right. That’s just a rhetorical shield they cower behind.
I am a believer in that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent person. But that doesn’t mean letting ten guilty men go free is in and of itself a good thing – it is a morally wrong thing, and to do it knowingly and intentionally, as a lawyer who knows his client is guilty would, is an immoral act, regardless of whatever systemic consequences there would be if we simply outlawed it with a different justice system.
I say again, even if a different system would lead to more tragedy of a different kind, it is still morally incorrect to cause an injustice, directly through your actions, and calling it a lawyer’s duty does not absolve them of that act, nor absolve society of the consequences of that act.
It being legal doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
On the issue of technicalities, society can only expect people to adhere to the rules as stated or you end up with justice becoming a game where you hope the judge/jury has the same moral preferences as you and doesn’t have any prejudice based on how you look or what they’ve heard.
And there’s already quite a bit of flexibility in that regard when it comes to court cases.
I 100% admit I thought it was probably her. Like on one level I wondered if maybe it was him, like if only as a subversion, as seen here, but I dismissed that for how I honestly figured this was gonna be her finally getting her due respect for her petty mischief and villainy against Eva.
Unless you’re the lawyer from the ‘Religion vs Good Girl’ story arc. True he looked like a demon but he was apparently given legal authority by religions so I’d say argue can be made he was decidedly holier than thou.
I don’t think having the backing of worldly religious authorities makes him holier than thou when the “thou” was Good Girl, who seems to have a more literal divine blessing.
A comment by my brother: “Lawyer lives in a superferoic world, and he gets surprised when his seven-foot-tall super-swole client names ‘Sinistros’ turns out to be a supervillain? You could have hidden a house under the huge red flag!”
*what a twist*, yeah I was thinking her with her villain cred, but being the lawyer who aided a super villain keeping them out of prison is a big one you don’t see often enough.
Dude, you’re going on about your wife being a villain and your forgot you’re a lawyer?
There’s a difference between villain and supervillain. He never engaged in direct evil, only secondary and tertiary evil.
This is how lawyers IRL justify the evil they create – compartmentalise it and call it a lawyer’s duty, making it okay to make society worse because they’re just playing their role. The role they chose, of course, but that never enters into their logic.
Also he doesn’t have superpowers like she does.
She doesn’t have superpowers, she’s just doing magic.
Lots of superheroes and supervillains don’t have superpowers.
Do you say Batman isn’t a superhero? How about Green Lantern? Captain America? Iron Man?
None of those have superpowers.
“For the record, I don’t have powers, pottymouth. IT’S THE STAFF.”
-Stargirl, Justice League Unlimited
I’ll have to disagree on Captain America. Serum gave him super powers, they’re just low key super powers, and I’d argue he’s gone beyond peak human strength.
Even if at peak human, he’s peak human without all the bulk of peak human strength or the skinniness one sees with runners. Etc etc.
Agreed. Cap is 100% Super-Human and even in the heavily watered down MCU pulls off feats far beyond peak human. Mind you so does Batman but he’s apparently got some weird bat god looking out for him so I’ve given up on that one.
Green Lantern has a superpowered ring that doesn’t count as not having powers.
Even the biggest psycho has a right to representation so that if convicted, it’s for something they actually did.
If persecution was allowed to do anything to a villain, how long until they do it to regular joes.
There are asshole lawyers, but don’t lump them together
You mean what already happens to regular joes who can’t afford lawyers.
I think you mean “prosecution”, but given the state of the US “justice” system, “persecution” isn’t completely wrong. And out here in what passes for the real world, prosecutors are, if anything, more likely to abuse “regular joes” precisely because they lack the resources to fight back.
Would you rather be persecuted by a geek in a suit using the law to beat you up, or a ganger in a track suit playing “hide the knife”?
Everyone has the right to representation so as to prevent them from being wrongly convicted. If they’re guilty, and the lawyer gets them off on a technicality, that is not the justice system functioning properly.
This also applies to straight up lying, hiding evidence, manipulating and deceiving the jury or the public – there’s lots of things lawyers do in service to the “duty” they have that by any objective measure is unethical.
Not all of that is illegal, and with good reason. Defense or prosecution, an attorney’s job is to convince a jury. Like it or not that is manipulating them.
Withholding evidence is a BIG no-no in a lot of cases, but some of it is protected by attorney-client privilege. Else you basically say “Taking the 5th? Go ahead, we’ll just make your lawyer tell us.”
Seeing people get off on technicalities sucks. But that is a check against misconduct or incompetence on the part of the prosecution.
No justice system can avert being flawed. Do you want to err on the side of convicting the innocent or letting the guilty go free? Pick your poison, but be aware of the downsides of either and do *not* make the decision lightly.
Also: HAH. Lawyer joke.
You’re right, those things are illegal for a reason. You’re right, they’re a check on irresponsible use of power by the authorities. You’re right, that is a lawyer’s job, and attorney-client privilege is important.
None of that actually impacts whether an individual lawyer has done good in the world, or contributed to making it worse, by exploiting those facts. None of that makes it right. That’s just a rhetorical shield they cower behind.
I am a believer in that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent person. But that doesn’t mean letting ten guilty men go free is in and of itself a good thing – it is a morally wrong thing, and to do it knowingly and intentionally, as a lawyer who knows his client is guilty would, is an immoral act, regardless of whatever systemic consequences there would be if we simply outlawed it with a different justice system.
I say again, even if a different system would lead to more tragedy of a different kind, it is still morally incorrect to cause an injustice, directly through your actions, and calling it a lawyer’s duty does not absolve them of that act, nor absolve society of the consequences of that act.
It being legal doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
On the issue of technicalities, society can only expect people to adhere to the rules as stated or you end up with justice becoming a game where you hope the judge/jury has the same moral preferences as you and doesn’t have any prejudice based on how you look or what they’ve heard.
And there’s already quite a bit of flexibility in that regard when it comes to court cases.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
Talking about her supervillainy associations and he forgot all about getting Evil Masterminds off the hook!
I do think Stevie’s sleeping in the bathtub tonight …
Oh that’s if he’s lucky. You forget…his wife is a witch. One little spell and someone gets to mope in a terrarium as a toad!
I always enjoy a good burn on lawyers.
Everyone thought it was about her – just admit it. :)
I 100% admit I thought it was probably her. Like on one level I wondered if maybe it was him, like if only as a subversion, as seen here, but I dismissed that for how I honestly figured this was gonna be her finally getting her due respect for her petty mischief and villainy against Eva.
Hah! I asked about whether it was her invitation or not in the comments on the previous page.
Can’t play the “holier than thou” card when you’re a lawyer.
Unless you’re the lawyer from the ‘Religion vs Good Girl’ story arc. True he looked like a demon but he was apparently given legal authority by religions so I’d say argue can be made he was decidedly holier than thou.
I don’t think having the backing of worldly religious authorities makes him holier than thou when the “thou” was Good Girl, who seems to have a more literal divine blessing.
A comment by my brother: “Lawyer lives in a superferoic world, and he gets surprised when his seven-foot-tall super-swole client names ‘Sinistros’ turns out to be a supervillain? You could have hidden a house under the huge red flag!”
And this is why you should never make accusations founded entirely on speculation or assumption.
*what a twist*, yeah I was thinking her with her villain cred, but being the lawyer who aided a super villain keeping them out of prison is a big one you don’t see often enough.