[TV] She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (*SPOILERS*)

[Svifnymr]

No. This is a common mistake - when someone said "I died during surgery" or whatever, that is common parlance only; it's NOT a legal "death", and it's not a medical "death", either. It's simply vernacular shorthand for certain functions stopping temporarily (measurable EEG/EKG usually) but it's not "death" under any strict definition.

Mr. Immortal's case is special because it's outside the norm - the things he went through kill EVERYONE save for him and potentially a few other superpowered individuals. Laws have to be universally applicable, or make specific accommodations for exceptions. You can't just go "yes it's true for everyone EXCEPT this one person" under most legal doctrines.

Right, that's what I mean though. If you died on the table, but they brought you back to life (or however you want to frame it), they don't file a death certificate and you walk out and adopt a new identity or whatnot. It's just not that complicated. Mr Immortal's case is special, in theory, but since he was doing it via identity theft/fraud/whatever, it's not like MCU-Court has ruled on it.

They didn't actually argue any of that in the show either, they just bargained with the spouses and paid off the hush money.

[NineSpine]

Oh and I forgot: Avoiding child support by pretending to be dead is... wait for it... a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Rewatched the scene: His lawyer explicitly states "you forged multiple fake identities".

Case closed, I was right.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When he says "legally dead" he is using it to distinguish from "medically dead". You are treating it like it is to distinguish from "illegally dead". Its no different than saying "Well, morally the car isn't mine, but I forged the paperwork so well that legally it is".

Actually, he stops short of saying "I forged the paperwork" in this case. Were his lawyers to dig into that...they would likely find that he did, in actual fact, "forge the paperwork"...but they don't dig into that...because that would not be in the best interests of their client.

His argument was that when he "died"... all of those marriages were terminated. Now, if the case were to go to trial, that argument would be challenged and he would, in all probability, lose that argument and all the details about him creating false identities would come forward. Hence why the settlement was so important.

[Endus]

Again, he doesn't say that it is legal as opposed to illegal, he said that he is legally as opposed to medically dead, which is no different than saying that the stolen car is legally mine (as in on the books mine) versus morally mine.

A stolen car isn't "legally yours". If you have a valid legal registration, it's not stolen property. Whoever's claiming it is, is wrong.

For the eightieth time: Legally dead means IRREVERSIBLY dead.

Now define "irreversible" in context with precisely how Mr. Immortal is immortal.

To draw a comparison, imagine we could "upload" minds to a computer and "download" them into a new body. The first patient undergoes this, downloading into a new clone body that is biologically 20, to replace their 90 year old original body.

That original body then dies a natural death. Legally and medically dead, in every way. The new person who sits up in the bed, the cloned body, is that the same person? Everything suggests yes. But they definitely legally died. Even if they're not currently dead. If Mr. Immortal's dead bodies decompose and a new body's created to replace it, rather than it being a rapid healing factor (which it was in the comics; I'm engaging in hypotheticals), it would be directly comparable to that example. We'd need to know the exact specifics, and that's what court cases challenging his "deaths" would involve. We just haven't had that, so I don't see how it's possible to challenge his assertions.

[Biomega]

Again, legal death is defined as irreversible, so the fact that he comes back to life is a moot point.

No. Because you could well argue that they'd have to prove other people dying actually IS irreversible first. It's ASSUMED to be irreversible, because we have no evidence to the contrary. But in the MCU, they do - not just Mr. Immortal, but also the Blip. Which means it's not a self-evident fact anymore, it has to be proven. If we have examples of reversible death, then irreversibility cannot be the criterion - or, conversely, you'd have to prove that there IS irreversible death, and redefine it based on that. Given that Mr. Immortal is said to be around until the end of the universe, even that wouldn't fly.

The law AS WRITTEN doesn't quite account for this case. It'd have to be ruled on as precedent, and/or require a rewriting of the law. Wouldn't be the first time death definitions have changed in the law. Wouldn't be the last, either, most likely.

What is illegal is using it to defraud others, which he did.

Sure, but those are tort claims. Agreeing on a settlement so they don't bring civil charges against you is completely legal. Hence he's not conspiring to further/commit a crime with his attorneys, they're just settling a civil case.

There's also a whole second issue, which is that he indicates committing crimes to fake the deaths, such as "walking into traffic" on purpose, which is very clearly and unambiguously a crime, and he then escapes consequences for it by faking his death.

That's a tricky matter. The most likely charge would be reckless endangerment, however most cases of this require that the substantial risk be "to another person", and you'd have to show that. It also runs into problems with the usually applied reasonable-person standard, since you'd find it hard to argue any reasonable person would risk the principal injury to themselves rather than others; again Mr. Immportal being outside of the norm here. It should also be noted that in most US jurisdictions, suicide is not a crime. Since successful suicide precludes prosecution for acts committed in concert with the suicide against the person who committed suicide (as opposed to e.g. survivors who assisted) there isn't really much legal precedent here.

Though of course it also depends on the first issue - did he die, and if so, did he commit suicide. And if not, was it a suicide attempt even if he knew he couldn't die?

Lots of murky waters owing to the fact that real law never actually encounters this situation. So we don't know the outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, that's what I mean though. If you died on the table

My point is, you DIDN'T. We just use the word here for dramatic effect, but we use it (technically) incorrectly. There is no "dying on the table" if you come back. You didn't die and it was reversed, you never died in the first place. Under both legal and medical definitions. We only use that phrase in the vernacular, but it's not an accurate representation of fact.

[exochaft]

Legal definitions of death usually include "impossibility of resuscitation". Does Mr. Immortal's power count? Or is it something else? We don't see the actual effect. It's a fun legal question, at least.

I think we can all safely agree we're probably putting more thought into this show than the writers did, because fun questions like this could've been the focus of the show... but they're usually just forgotten, lamp-shaded, or just not addressed. That's quite the irony of how they're doing this legal show, because all the legal stuff Jen's been doing, despite being part of a specifically super human legal division, could've been done by any other normal lawyer as their powers and implications don't even really factor in.

In Mr. Immortal's case, the nature of his super human power isn't even a factor as it's just brushed off like someone faking their death versus what's actually going on. The shapershifter in the previous episode has tons of implications that could shake up legal precedent and laws, but again it's just played off as maybe an average identity theft (and that's giving the show way more credit than it deserves, as the impersonating a judge and actively trying to sabotage the preceedings should open up a helluva lot more legal questions). Heck, Wong was actively breaking even normal laws using his supernatural powers, yet the show just doesn't address them and uses them as 'jokes'. Guess the Accords are just not a thing anymore, or they'll only come up when the writers remember them or need to use them in name only.

I keep seeing the defense of what goes on the show as basically the in-universe rules and laws, not our own. However, they're (poorly) demonstrating that they're just using our rules and laws because nothing about super human powers ever factors into anything. If anything, that's the show we should be getting: how do the existence of super human powers change and affect how we legally view and tackle things.

In general, the writers made and advertised a premise for She-Hulk, but the show barely qualifies as any of them... probably because they even admit they aren't good at it. If anything, each episode is just a writer self-insert of their personal blog or rant, that's it. Can only imagine the state of the show if it didn't get delayed and replaced in the schedule by Ms. Marvel, because even Disney thought it wasn't palatable at that point in time. Although I am rather curious how bad the show was when those working on the show at that point in time basically described it as a trainwreck.

*edit* - I am kind of curious if they even had any lawyers or legal consultation when coming up with premises for this show or to go over the writing when it comes to legal aspects. While even standard network prime time legal shows still highly stretch the truth of what goes on, She-Hulk just feels like the writers just watched legal shows then based it upon what they saw from memory. I can only imagine how anyone in the legal profession can't snap when seeing whats going on, as I assume it's pretty similar to when I see media/show portrayals of nuclear science/climatology/physics and cringe for dear life at the inaccuracies that could've been solved by just asking someone with knowledge.

[NineSpine]

A stolen car isn't "legally yours". If you have a valid legal registration, it's not stolen property. Whoever's claiming it is, is wrong.

Now define "irreversible" in context with precisely how Mr. Immortal is immortal.

To draw a comparison, imagine we could "upload" minds to a computer and "download" them into a new body. The first patient undergoes this, downloading into a new clone body that is biologically 20, to replace their 90 year old original body.

That original body then dies a natural death. Legally and medically dead, in every way. The new person who sits up in the bed, the cloned body, is that the same person? Everything suggests yes. But they definitely legally died. Even if they're not currently dead. If Mr. Immortal's dead bodies decompose and a new body's created to replace it, rather than it being a rapid healing factor (which it was in the comics; I'm engaging in hypotheticals), it would be directly comparable to that example. We'd need to know the exact specifics, and that's what court cases challenging his "deaths" would involve. We just haven't had that, so I don't see how it's possible to challenge his assertions.

Irreversible means the same thing for him that it means for everyone else. He isn't a clone. He isn't uploaded. He is just like anyone else that medical dies and then comes back to life, which is to say not legally dead.

[Svifnymr]

My point is, you DIDN'T. We just use the word here for dramatic effect, but we use it (technically) incorrectly. There is no "dying on the table" if you come back. You didn't die and it was reversed, you never died in the first place. Under both legal and medical definitions. We only use that phrase in the vernacular, but it's not an accurate representation of fact.

Hence the "or however you want to frame it", you're not really dead, just mostly dead. But Mr Immortal's plummet had him "without biological function" for less time than most of these "near death experiences". Just as a parallel to illustrate that the closest thing we have in real life would not treat him as dead in any real legal sense. As I mentioned though, they never really addressed it in the show at all, I'm not even sure how the spouses KNEW he was dead since he wasn't dead long enough for anyone to be notified.

[NineSpine]

No. Because you could well argue that they'd have to prove other people dying actually IS irreversible first. It's ASSUMED to be irreversible, because we have no evidence to the contrary. But in the MCU, they do - not just Mr. Immortal, but also the Blip. Which means it's not a self-evident fact anymore, it has to be proven. If we have examples of reversible death, then irreversibility cannot be the criterion - or, conversely, you'd have to prove that there IS irreversible death, and redefine it based on that. Given that Mr. Immortal is said to be around until the end of the universe, even that wouldn't fly.

The law AS WRITTEN doesn't quite account for this case. It'd have to be ruled on as precedent, and/or require a rewriting of the law. Wouldn't be the first time death definitions have changed in the law. Wouldn't be the last, either, most likely.


Sure, but those are tort claims. Agreeing on a settlement so they don't bring civil charges against you is completely legal. Hence he's not conspiring to further/commit a crime with his attorneys, they're just settling a civil case.


That's a tricky matter. The most likely charge would be reckless endangerment, however most cases of this require that the substantial risk be "to another person", and you'd have to show that. It also runs into problems with the usually applied reasonable-person standard, since you'd find it hard to argue any reasonable person would risk the principal injury to themselves rather than others; again Mr. Immportal being outside of the norm here. It should also be noted that in most US jurisdictions, suicide is not a crime. Since successful suicide precludes prosecution for acts committed in concert with the suicide against the person who committed suicide (as opposed to e.g. survivors who assisted) there isn't really much legal precedent here.

Though of course it also depends on the first issue - did he die, and if so, did he commit suicide. And if not, was it a suicide attempt even if he knew he couldn't die?

Lots of murky waters owing to the fact that real law never actually encounters this situation. So we don't know the outcome.

- - - Updated - - -


My point is, you DIDN'T. We just use the word here for dramatic effect, but we use it (technically) incorrectly. There is no "dying on the table" if you come back. You didn't die and it was reversed, you never died in the first place. Under both legal and medical definitions. We only use that phrase in the vernacular, but it's not an accurate representation of fact.

Fraud is criminal law.

If you think that walking into traffic would not be considered to be at least reckless endangerment, you are crazy.

[Endus]

Irreversible means the same thing for him that it means for everyone else. He isn't a clone. He isn't uploaded. He is just like anyone else that medical dies and then comes back to life, which is to say not legally dead.

And yet, they established he is legally dead when he "dies". All the equivocations you're trying to make are attempts to ignore that point.

You might think that's silly, but it's what they established.

This all feels really weirdly similar to the "how could Jen survive a Titania punch without being Hulked up" shit.

[Biomega]

Fraud is criminal law.

That's not true. Fraud can be either civil or criminal (under US law). And defrauding a marriage partner by faking your death is practically guaranteed to be a civil claim, not a criminal offense.

If you think that walking into traffic would not be considered to be at least reckless endangerment, you are crazy.

But that's... the first thing I said was most likely. Why would you imply I wasn't considering it?

The problem is that no one is charged with reckless endangerment if they go into traffic and kill themselves. This would be a problematic case for various reasons, but I agreed from the onset it's not an impossible charge. Though depending on how long ago it was and the jurisdiction, it may well be past the statute of limitations at this point and/or too cumbersome to prosecute.

[NineSpine]

That's not true. Fraud can be either civil or criminal (under US law). And defrauding a marriage partner by faking your death is practically guaranteed to be a civil claim, not a criminal offense.

It is established in the show that he dodged child support and created fake identities. These are criminal offenses.

But that's... the first thing I said was most likely. Why would you imply I wasn't considering it?

The problem is that no one is charged with reckless endangerment if they go into traffic and kill themselves. This would be a problematic case for various reasons, but I agreed from the onset it's not an impossible charge. Though depending on how long ago it was and the jurisdiction, it may well be past the statute of limitations at this point and/or too cumbersome to prosecute.

You are just being pedantic now. If you walk into traffic with the intent to get hit and fake your death, you have clearly and obviously committed at a minimum reckless endangerment. If I throw a rock into traffic I could get reckless endangerment.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet, they established he is legally dead when he "dies". All the equivocations you're trying to make are attempts to ignore that point.

You might think that's silly, but it's what they established.

This all feels really weirdly similar to the "how could Jen survive a Titania punch without being Hulked up" shit.

They established no such thing. His lawyers never said he was in the clear.

Let's say someone fakes their death to avoid being charged with a crime. That is clearly and unambiguously illegal. That person's designation would be "legally dead". It wouldn't be "illegally dead". Their paperwork would say that this person is "legally dead". You are acting like this confers some kind of immunity or something. This is exactly what would happen to a criminal in real life who faked their death. They would be declared LEGALLY DEAD. That doesn't mean that they didn't commit a crime.

The definition of "legally" here being used is "From a legal perspective" not "as opposed to illegal".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We should take a moment to consider what "legal death" even is in the MCU now.

~5 years ago...half of the planet was erased from existence. Legally, these people would have been declared dead..until 5 years later...all ~3.5 billion of them return...exactly the way they were when they vanished. Let's take a moment to consider what kind of legal clusterfuck that would be.

[Fabinas]

Legal death is defined as being irreversibly dead. You can't be legally dead if you are alive.

False. In certain countries, if you disappear with absolutely no trace of you for years, you can be declared legally dead, even if you're alive and well, but hidden.

[NineSpine]

False. In certain countries, if you disappear with absolutely no trace of you for years, you can be declared legally dead, even if you're alive and well, but hidden.

That ruling would be based on the court presuming that your absence indicates that you are irreversibly dead.

[Endus]

It is established in the show that he dodged child support and created fake identities. These are criminal offenses.

Did he have a court ruling obliging him to pay child support? Or did his ex think he was dead?

Child support's only a legal obligation if a court's declared it to be so. If a woman gets pregnant and never tells the dad, he's not guilty of a crime for not paying child support.

They established no such thing. His lawyers never said he was in the clear.

He literally said it outright. If you can show me an in-universe refutation, I'll accept it, but not comparisons to real-world law, which is just as invalid as trying to argue Titania's punch should've killed non-Hulk Jen outright.

Let's say someone fakes their death to avoid being charged with a crime. That is clearly and unambiguously illegal. That person's designation would be "legally dead". It wouldn't be "illegally dead". Their paperwork would say that this person is "legally dead". You are acting like this confers some kind of immunity or something. This is exactly what would happen to a criminal in real life who faked their death. They would be declared LEGALLY DEAD. That doesn't mean that they didn't commit a crime.

There's no fraud, here, no faking (around the death, at least). You keep inserting that, and you don't have a legitimate justification.

He legally dies, even if medically, he's alive. That's what he's saying. Everything else is your insertion.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That ruling would be based on the court presuming that your absence indicates that you are irreversibly dead.

What of the people that "died" in the snap? Were those people "legally dead"? And if so...what does that mean about the "irreversible" condition?

[Biomega]

It is established in the show that he dodged child support and created fake identities. These are criminal offenses.

Maybe, but there's still no indication he's trying to buy off his spouses to escape prosecution. This is about them feeling they deserve money because of their marriage.

You are just being pedantic now.

When it comes to details of the law?

Imagine that.

If you walk into traffic with the intent to get hit and fake your death, you have clearly and obviously committed at a minimum reckless endangerment.

Which is why it was the first thing I mentioned as a possible case. The problem being, what if you die while doing so. There's likely no precedent of someone doing this, dying, and then being prosecuted. Which may well leave you a good argument for why Mr. Immortal shouldn't be, either.

[NineSpine]

Did he have a court ruling obliging him to pay child support? Or did his ex think he was dead?

Child support's only a legal obligation if a court's declared it to be so. If a woman gets pregnant and never tells the dad, he's not guilty of a crime for not paying child support.

If you think someone can just hide and avoid the court and then claim they didn't know about child support, I don't really know what to tell you. That's not how the law works.

He literally said it outright. If you can show me an in-universe refutation, I'll accept it, but not comparisons to real-world law, which is just as invalid as trying to argue Titania's punch should've killed non-Hulk Jen outright.

Let's see if you can answer a simple question:

Steven murders his wife.
Steven fakes his death to avoid prosecution.
Steven is declared by the court to be "legally dead".
Does that mean that Steven did not break the law when he faked his death?

There's no fraud, here, no faking (around the death, at least). You keep inserting that, and you don't have a legitimate justification.

He legally dies, even if medically, he's alive. That's what he's saying. Everything else is your insertion.

His lawyer explicitly states that he created fake identities and should be facing criminal charges.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, but there's still no indication he's trying to buy off his spouses to escape prosecution. This is about them feeling they deserve money because of their marriage.


When it comes to details of the law?

Imagine that.


Which is why it was the first thing I mentioned as a possible case. The problem being, what if you die while doing so. There's likely no precedent of someone doing this, dying, and then being prosecuted. Which may well leave you a good argument for why Mr. Immortal shouldn't be, either.

He. Is. Not. Dead.

[Adamas102]

And don't get started with the obvious "But that's how MCU and comics work", "Don't expect real life physics in your superhero genre" etc. It's still shit.

No. If you can’t suspend your disbelief for something that is extremely common across the series of MCU movies and shows then that’s a personal problem, not an issue with this particular show.

Tony Stark is by far the biggest offender of “things a human body should not be able to survive” moments, and he’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you can’t get past that then your really shouldn’t be watching any MCU fare at this point.