Yes.

[Alschroeder]

THIS is what I come to Lightbringer for. To see him twisting in the wind, trying to keep his moral compass despite what the world says.

Well done, Lewis.---Al

[Sun tzu]

That is a large part of the character's appeal...
...but I don't think I agree with Sandy's reasoning here.
Unless I misunderstood something here, Lightbringer isn't being arrested for his powers, or for something he might do. He's being arrested for something he's doing - using his powers to fight criminals outside the law. And we've seen that he is willing to break rules the police abides by (Serpant, anyone?).
And the worst part is, Lightbringer was offered the opportunity to work for the police (the FBI, anyway), because he didn't want to have someone giving him orders.
...
It occurs to me that I'm mostly repeating myself from the other thread where I've explained at length why I thought Carter was in the wrong in this chapter. Oh well.

[Wandering Observer]

It will certainly be interesting to see how this resolves, that's for sure.

Lightbringer fits the Paladin stereotype very well, as Al says. But I like the concept of a Paladin who's moral compass puts him in a controversial light. I won't mind if Lighbringer ultimately finds a way to make things right in the end; that's what we've gotten from the series nine out of ten times. But to have Lighbringer stick to a straight-and-narrow that's a bit more ambiguous? That would be fantastic.

[Alschroeder]

It's interesting to see Lightbringer, who is in many ways the anti-Rosarch, echoing Rosarch's response to the Keene act's regulation of vigilantes. Let me hasten to say---other than uncompromising moral principles---that's the ONLY similarity I see between LB and Rosarch. Lightbringer constantly questions what he does, Rosarch doesn't. For LB, finding the right moral path is a constant search for him. Rosarch, at least in his own mind, has already arrived.---Al

[Sun tzu]

And so, our great and noble hero decides that his powers give him the privilege - nay, the duty - to break the law and ignore the elected government. Oh frabjous day.
Nice going, Carter.

[Wandering Observer]

It's mildly ambiguous, it certainly draws some dark parallels, and no one can argue it's standoffish.

I like this move, mostly because I'm not sure we're supposed to know Carter is doing the right thing here; it looks more like we're supposed to wonder. Choosing to sacrifice your closest crime fighting contacts (FCPD) and good standing in the government to keep your autonomy is mildly understandable. Throwing out your ability to testify in court, spitting in the face of Feds who've helped you, and sacrifice funding and intelligence beyond your wildest dreams to use to do good in the world? That seems a bit nuts to me.

[Alschroeder]

I dunno...I like the blonde girl's point. Why should LB be penalized for what he MIGHT do? Oh, don't get me wrong. I know how most police departments would react to someone meddling in their business. But from Carter's point of view, I think her arguments are persuasive.

The Fed offer was attractive, though. So was the deputization. ---Al

[Sun tzu]

I dunno...I like the blonde girl's point. Why should LB be penalized for what he MIGHT do?

You mean, like illegally torturing a perp to make him confess? Acting as a proxy through which the police can dodge the law? Acting as a vigilante without accepting the rules and restrictions that bind the police?
Lightbringer isn't in hot waters because he has superpowers. He's in trouble because he's acting above the law. And frankly...Remember how Ozymandias cared less about the world being saved than about himself saving the world? I'm starting to suspect that Carter cares less about Pharos city being protected than about himself being a superhero (or, possibly, about the world having superheroes).

[Alschroeder]

Welllll....and now you know why I have Mindmistress obey her own morality, and not a man-made one...but sooner or later, even the most law-abiding hero needs to ask themselves---do they obey the letter of the law, or the spirit? The early Superman (whom I have a great admiration for) did MUCH worse things than this, but he made sure justice, not the law, which was often corrupt-- was obeyed.

I think making a thug who was enslaving people think he MIGHT be dropped, in order to give up his boss' name, is acceptable. The only physical discomfort he endured was the blood rushing to his head. To my mind that makes it a little more acceptable than say, waterboarding, where you think you're drowning.---Al

[Sun tzu]

I think making a thug who was enslaving people think he MIGHT be dropped, in order to give up his boss' name, is acceptable. The only physical discomfort he endured was the blood rushing to his head. To my mind that makes it a little more acceptable than say, waterboarding, where you think you're drowning.---Al

As opposed to thinking you're falling to your death?
See, I do think of myself as a believer of "the ends justify the means", but one has to consider how it ends. Lightbringer broke boundaries in that scene, and set a dangerous precedent: he established that a crime-fighter - provided that he has superhuman powers and wears a mask - can do things to suspects that the police is not allowed to. We can say it was justified in order to bring down the Slavers, but...what next? Carter clearly believes that he is launching a bright new age of superheroism. I'm concerned the heroes who follow in his wake may place themselves above the law...without those moral conditions that still keep Carter a kinda-sorta-arguably good guy.

Welllll....and now you know why I have Mindmistress obey her own morality, and not a man-made one...but sooner or later, even the most law-abiding hero needs to ask themselves---do they obey the letter of the law, or the spirit? The early Superman (whom I have a great admiration for) did MUCH worse things than this, but he made sure justice, not the law, which was often corrupt-- was obeyed.

But that only worked due to author fiat. Early Superman threatened politicians' lives until they signed peace treaties, forced New Deal-esque policies upon Metropolis (and don't get me wrong, I like the New Deal)...The only thing keeping him from being "Emperor Superman" was that the writers decided he was going to stay a good guy.
Now, to be clear: I don't mind when Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man go out and fight crime in the same manner as Lightbringer. Sure, in the real world such vigilatism would raise a million legal and ethical questions, and would be a pretty bad idea all around...But within those comics, "superheroes are a good thing" is part of the premise. And if I can accept that Bruce Wayne can maintain his secret identity, then I can accept that premise, too. My issue with these recent events in Lightbringer is that they called that premise in question, and gave no satisfying answer (to me, at least). So I'm no longer certain if I'm supposed to accept Lightbringer as the unquestioned good guy, or actually listen to that part of my brain that tells me superheroes are not, logically, a good thing.

[Linkara]

Now, to be clear: I don't mind when Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man go out and fight crime in the same manner as Lightbringer. Sure, in the real world such vigilatism would raise a million legal and ethical questions, and would be a pretty bad idea all around...But within those comics, "superheroes are a good thing" is part of the premise. And if I can accept that Bruce Wayne can maintain his secret identity, then I can accept that premise, too. My issue with these recent events in Lightbringer is that they called that premise in question, and gave no satisfying answer (to me, at least). So I'm no longer certain if I'm supposed to accept Lightbringer as the unquestioned good guy, or actually listen to that part of my brain that tells me superheroes are not, logically, a good thing.

Yes, it's almost as if I'm keeping the actual morality of what he's doing up to question for readers to figure out while advancing the story in a way that makes sense given the characters. ^_~

[Sun tzu]

Now, to be clear: I don't mind when Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man go out and fight crime in the same manner as Lightbringer. Sure, in the real world such vigilatism would raise a million legal and ethical questions, and would be a pretty bad idea all around...But within those comics, "superheroes are a good thing" is part of the premise. And if I can accept that Bruce Wayne can maintain his secret identity, then I can accept that premise, too. My issue with these recent events in Lightbringer is that they called that premise in question, and gave no satisfying answer (to me, at least). So I'm no longer certain if I'm supposed to accept Lightbringer as the unquestioned good guy, or actually listen to that part of my brain that tells me superheroes are not, logically, a good thing.

Yes, it's almost as if I'm keeping the actual morality of what he's doing up to question for readers to figure out while advancing the story in a way that makes sense given the characters. ^_~

Oh, don't get me wrong; that's a perfectly valid (some would say superior) storytelling approach.
It's just that when I read Lightbringer, I'm usually expecting a soapbox.

[Alschroeder]

Oh, don't get me wrong; that's a perfectly valid (some would say superior) storytelling approach.
It's just that when I read Lightbringer, I'm usually expecting a soapbox.

He fooled us; this time it's the blonde lady with glasses who was on the soapbox. *Grin*
---Al

[Sun tzu]

Oh, don't get me wrong; that's a perfectly valid (some would say superior) storytelling approach.
It's just that when I read Lightbringer, I'm usually expecting a soapbox.

He fooled us; this time it's the blonde lady with glasses who was on the soapbox. *Grin*
---Al

That kinda bothers me, actually. I got the distinct impression that we're supposed to accept what Michelle said back there as the moral of the story or something. And, well, I think I've ranted more than enough on why the issues I don't feel this properly addresses.

[Wandering Observer]

Yeah, I find myself in agreement. When Michelle is doing her speech, as readers, we have no idea how valid anything she says is; we don't know how powerful LB is, and I'm willing to bet neither does she. Furthermore, I'm not a fan of her logic.

Louis, I know being temporarily ambiguous is good and all, but as readers, we need narrative cues to develop our own thoughts. To be honest, I can't even tell what moral issues we're supposed to be paying attention to, let alone what LB might be thinking.

[Celey]

Not only that... but I would argue... can we really care about what she says? Should Lightbringer care about what she says? I mean... Haven't seen all that much interaction between the two of them... They don't really seem all that close...

Michelle rather lacks in personality... so, it's really difficult to get a feel for her character...

[Sun tzu]

Not only that... but I would argue... can we really care about what she says? Should Lightbringer care about what she says? I mean... Haven't seen all that much interaction between the two of them... They don't really seem all that close...

Michelle rather lacks in personality... so, it's really difficult to get a feel for her character...

Well...she's a fan of the Romantic period of literature...a good, helpful friend to Hana...Bruised pride takes time to heal...Somewhat idealistic...
And obviously, Carter cared about what she said back there, since he went from "I'm not sure how to deal with this" to "you will take my law-breaking superhero lifestyle from my cold, dead fingers".

[Alschroeder]

I still think she had two excellent points:

Will you let them jail you for what you MIGHT do?

And

Will you let them tell you you CAN'T help people?

There's nothing keeping them from arresting LB for what he did to the Slavers, including dangling that one guy. But they're not trying to arrest him for that.

They're not justifying it like that.

They're saying, if you have special powers, we won't tolerate you using them to help others, no matter what good you've done in the process. That it's not allowed.

Both are excellent points, and persuasive ones.

Sun, you've got excellent points of reference for LB's past actions you find questionable. But he's not been outlawed for that. He's been outlawed for what he MIGHT do in the future.

That's---ethically a whole other realm.---Al

[Sun tzu]

There's nothing keeping them from arresting LB for what he did to the Slavers, including dangling that one guy. But they're not trying to arrest him for that.

They're not justifying it like that.

They're saying, if you have special powers, we won't tolerate you using them to help others, no matter what good you've done in the process. That it's not allowed.

Both are excellent points, and persuasive ones.

Sun, you've got excellent points of reference for LB's past actions you find questionable. But he's not been outlawed for that. He's been outlawed for what he MIGHT do in the future.

That's---ethically a whole other realm.---Al

That's not how I read it. Yes, he's being declared "enemy of the State"...but that's not because he has powers. It's because he's been using them as a vigilante.

I still think she had two excellent points:

Will you let them jail you for what you MIGHT do?

And

Will you let them tell you you CAN'T help people?

1)"Might" do? He's breaking the law right now. So far, he's breaking preventive law (i.e., law that's designed as a precautionary measure), but if you don't enforce that, then how long before more direct abuse? Regular policemen get in trouble when they don't follow proper procedure; no reason superhumans should be above that.
2)If he wants to help people, he can join the FBI. What he wants isn't just to help, but to do it on his own terms.

[Gear001]

The FBI may not be a bad idea. They could get him special permits to fight crime the way he does. Hell, all they would have to do is put a badge on him and say "Just don´t kill anyone" and it would work.
Over simplified? Yes. Would it work? I think yes.
Perhaps if he gets lucky, a super villian will take care of the mayor.