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

[Biomega]

Death is reversed all the time, both legally and medically.

That's incorrect.

Legally, the DECLARATION of someone's death is reversed. That doesn't change nor touch upon the facts or definitions of death.

Medically, if it's reversible they didn't die. They may have erroneously have been declared dead, but much in the same as above, it's that declaration that is reversed. The facts or definitions of death are untouched by this.

None of these have bearing on what constitutes "death" in a legal sense.

People die and get resuscitated literally all the time.

Wrong. This is a common misconception arising from metaphorical use of "death" in the vernacular. "I died during surgery" "I died on the table" etc. are purely conversational tropes that we employ for dramatic effect. They are not medical terminology per se, have no medical or legal meaning, and are NOT employed in the context of resuscitation (again, outside of common parlance for shorthand or dramatic effect). If you get resuscitated then you were never dead, by definition.

Neither does it cover apparent death due to e.g. hypothermia or tetrodotoxin poisoning (some cases of which made it all the way to autopsy before being discovered), except metaphorically (same as above).

Maybe maybe maybe is not an argument.

You don't want that. Because then all we have is him literally saying "I was legally dead". That's the only SURE thing we have. Maybe he lied, you say? OH YEAH, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE

He doesn't break anything. Legally dead is irreversibly dead.

I assume you don't mean "legally dead" which is very much not that (as you yourself have pointed out, someone can have been declared legally dead and then have that declaration reversed) but "legally speaking, dead means irreversibly dead"?

That's a problem in the MCU, because how do you KNOW? We know people can get resurrected in the MCU years after they died. It happened. What if, say, all the people who died over the last, say, 200,000 years all come back to life in 50 years because Dr. Strange screws up something? Does that mean they're currently not dead? It would have to mean that, because they COULD get resurrected, which means their deaths ARE reversible in principle, even if they're not actually reversed in practice. And that creates a lot of legal problems, because you can't just put all legal claims in abeyance while someone is dead, then resume them if and when their deaths get reversed and they are no longer dead. That would create a massive undue burden on the legal system - what about inheritance, contracts, criminal charges, etc. Do they just pause for everyone, just in case their death wasn't actually permanent? And if you DO stop things on what you THINK is irreversible death (even though it might turn out not to be), then why isn't Mr. Immortal off the hook for the same reason?

The fact that he can survive things other people can't has nothing to do with that.

That depends what you mean by "survive". One may well argue that he in fact does NOT survive, he just comes back from death. Same problem as above - it requires a lot of legal fine-print and interpretation to get right. You can't just gloss over it with a word like "survive" when the law is involved. Every detail matters.

"Legally dead" is the status of anyone who fakes their death successfully, no matter how many laws they broke in the process. I don't know why you guys are obsessed with refusing to understanding this and forcing me to repeat myself 500 times.

Because we don't know MCU laws. We know OUR laws, but we don't know if they work the same. And we also don't know if our laws as they are written would, in fact, apply that way to someone like Mr. Immortal, if he really existed. As I've pointed out several times, there exist a multitude of possible legal arguments he could make against this. Whether or not they'd be successful in a court is another matter, but he could at least make a case for it. It's far from simple and obvious, because he breaks the a-priori assumptions of many legal definitions.

Legal death means irreversible death.

It also involves "common medical consensus", usually. This is a necessary prong in the definition because what is and isn't "reversible" has changed historically, and is likely to keep changing. You could easily demonstrate to a judge that something like e.g. getting decapitated would indeed fall under "common medical consensus" of death. And then Mr. Immortal could just do that.

The law lives and dies with details. Those are of great importance in jurisprudence, and they can change outcomes dramatically.

Faking your death by recklessly endangering other people and then forging fake identities is illegal.

You're creating something that doesn't exist. Reckless endangerment is a crime, as is forgery (usually). Whether or not faking your death is involved in it is immaterial. And as I said, those could well be past the statute of limitations by now, depending on the exact circumstances. Or could be technically crimes, but too difficult to prosecute to ever bring to trial (e.g. because it's too long ago, because you can't find witnesses, because evidence has been destroyed, etc.).

[Raisei]

Clearly your presenting one article as if it were some grand proof of your point. You linked it. I could care less about it’s existence. It’s just one opinion amongst 1000s.

It isn't grand proof of anything. Except that you are unable to read my friggin words. It is so frustrating to talk to a person that just twists what you say until they fit their agenda. If they even do you that curtesy and don't just call you a liar.

Discussing things in this thread is really pointless. If you make a point that the mob can't refute then it is lie, if you interpret something differently then the mob would like then you are wrong and there is not even any point to talk about why. You are just wrong.

Really, it is pathetic. If you people are so uninterested in the quality of shows, why do you even spend energy on it? Just so you can defend this trainwreck out of spite for "incels"?

Meanwhile, your the one ranting about a show you hate making false claims about the creative teams agenda. A more sensible person would’ve stopped watching weeks ago.

None of my claims are false. You just don't want them to be true and you choose to ignore everything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

What is your goal? To defend a writer that doesn't give a crap about you and in fact is making tons of money from your blind acceptance of her lazyness?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

Yes, you (and those like you) are doing a great job telling Marvel they should never again deliver a show like She-Hulk by adding to their viewing numbers every week. "Hate-watchers" might prove to be the very thing that pushes She-Hulk over the line in terms of it getting renewed for a second season.

[NineSpine]

That's incorrect.

Legally, the DECLARATION of someone's death is reversed. That doesn't change nor touch upon the facts or definitions of death.

Medically, if it's reversible they didn't die. They may have erroneously have been declared dead, but much in the same as above, it's that declaration that is reversed. The facts or definitions of death are untouched by this.

None of these have bearing on what constitutes "death" in a legal sense.

Wrong. This is a common misconception arising from metaphorical use of "death" in the vernacular. "I died during surgery" "I died on the table" etc. are purely conversational tropes that we employ for dramatic effect. They are not medical terminology per se, have no medical or legal meaning, and are NOT employed in the context of resuscitation (again, outside of common parlance for shorthand or dramatic effect). If you get resuscitated then you were never dead, by definition.

Neither does it cover apparent death due to e.g. hypothermia or tetrodotoxin poisoning (some cases of which made it all the way to autopsy before being discovered), except metaphorically (same as above).

You don't know what you are talking about. "Clinical death" is absolutely the real medical term and it is something people are resuscitated from.

You don't want that. Because then all we have is him literally saying "I was legally dead". That's the only SURE thing we have. Maybe he lied, you say? OH YEAH, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE

I didn't say he lied. He said he was categorized as legally dead, and he would be... just like someone who committed a murder and then faked their death to avoid the police. That person would be "legally dead" too, but that doesn't magically make their actions not illegal.

I assume you don't mean "legally dead" which is very much not that (as you yourself have pointed out, someone can have been declared legally dead and then have that declaration reversed) but "legally speaking, dead means irreversibly dead"?

Legal death is when you are declared to be irreversibly dead.

That's a problem in the MCU, because how do you KNOW? We know people can get resurrected in the MCU years after they died. It happened. What if, say, all the people who died over the last, say, 200,000 years all come back to life in 50 years because Dr. Strange screws up something? Does that mean they're currently not dead? It would have to mean that, because they COULD get resurrected, which means their deaths ARE reversible in principle, even if they're not actually reversed in practice. And that creates a lot of legal problems, because you can't just put all legal claims in abeyance while someone is dead, then resume them if and when their deaths get reversed and they are no longer dead. That would create a massive undue burden on the legal system - what about inheritance, contracts, criminal charges, etc. Do they just pause for everyone, just in case their death wasn't actually permanent? And if you DO stop things on what you THINK is irreversible death (even though it might turn out not to be), then why isn't Mr. Immortal off the hook for the same reason?

That depends what you mean by "survive". One may well argue that he in fact does NOT survive, he just comes back from death. Same problem as above - it requires a lot of legal fine-print and interpretation to get right. You can't just gloss over it with a word like "survive" when the law is involved. Every detail matters.

Since legal death is irreversible death, coming back means you are not legally dead and having the designation is invalid.

Because we don't know MCU laws. We know OUR laws, but we don't know if they work the same. And we also don't know if our laws as they are written would, in fact, apply that way to someone like Mr. Immortal, if he really existed. As I've pointed out several times, there exist a multitude of possible legal arguments he could make against this. Whether or not they'd be successful in a court is another matter, but he could at least make a case for it. It's far from simple and obvious, because he breaks the a-priori assumptions of many legal definitions.


It also involves "common medical consensus", usually. This is a necessary prong in the definition because what is and isn't "reversible" has changed historically, and is likely to keep changing. You could easily demonstrate to a judge that something like e.g. getting decapitated would indeed fall under "common medical consensus" of death. And then Mr. Immortal could just do that.

The law lives and dies with details. Those are of great importance in jurisprudence, and they can change outcomes dramatically.

You're creating something that doesn't exist. Reckless endangerment is a crime, as is forgery (usually). Whether or not faking your death is involved in it is immaterial. And as I said, those could well be past the statute of limitations by now, depending on the exact circumstances. Or could be technically crimes, but too difficult to prosecute to ever bring to trial (e.g. because it's too long ago, because you can't find witnesses, because evidence has been destroyed, etc.).

He has numerous wives there who are not that old. Statute of limitations does not run out that fast. For fucks sake he jumps out of the window and smashes someones car and walks away RIGHT IN THE EPISODE. That is reckless endangerment too.

[Ivanstone]

It isn't grand proof of anything. Except that you are unable to read my friggin words. It is so frustrating to talk to a person that just twists what you say until they fit their agenda. If they even do you that curtesy and don't just call you a liar.

Discussing things in this thread is really pointless. If you make a point that the mob can't refute then it is lie, if you interpret something differently then the mob would like then you are wrong and there is not even any point to talk about why. You are just wrong.

Really, it is pathetic. If you people are so uninterested in the quality of shows, why do you even spend energy on it? Just so you can defend this trainwreck out of spite for "incels"?



None of my claims are false. You just don't want them to be true and you choose to ignore everything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

What is your goal? To defend a writer that doesn't give a crap about you and in fact is making tons of money from your blind acceptance of her lazyness?

Then why did you post it? Did you think the opinion of one person could be used as a shield against the woke mob?

Hi, Victim Card. How’s it going?

I am interested in the quality if my shows. I am defending a show I like.

You’ve yet to make a truthful post. It’s just the usual whining about how woke Hollywood is out to make men look bad. Seriously, your arguments were so predictable they were written into the show months ahead of time.

Citation please. The only backlash I see is the usual gang of idiots. Hell, we’ve already seen one sock puppet account in this thread. Wasting energy on things you hate is a terrible way to live your life. Two and a Half Men got 12 seasons which sounds like a huge waste of time but some people evidentially enjoyed it. I never went into any Internet forum demanding it be cancelled. I just didn’t watch it mostly.

As previously stated, it’s a show I like. If the usual gang of idiots didn’t insist on lying about it I mostly wouldn’t bother defending it.

[Biomega]

You don't know what you are talking about. "Clinical death" is absolutely the real medical term and it is something people are resuscitated from.

I'm not sure who's the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here.

"Clinical death" and "death" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. That's why an adjective is added. TO DISTINGUISH THE TERM FROM ACTUAL DEATH. "Clinical death" isn't just a subset of death, it's a very specific thing, i.e. the cessation of circulatory and respiratory function ONLY. Only that. It has a very narrow definition and very specific use, and it's not just a synonym for "death" because it has that in the term somewhere.

What's next, are you saying I die every time I jack off because orgasm is "la petit mort"?

Geez, man.

I didn't say he lied. He said he was categorized as legally dead, and he would be... just like someone who committed a murder and then faked their death to avoid the police. That person would be "legally dead" too, but that doesn't magically make their actions not illegal.

Not other crimes, no. But faking your death has no bearing on that anyway. In fact, it could be used in SUPPORT of his case - arguing that the courts actually recognized that he DID die, because the actions he took were not in and of themselves intended to only create the APPEARANCE of death. By the reasonable-person-standard usually employed, one might well argue that any reasonable person would unequivocally consider someone going through those events to have died. The fact that he was then alive again would require different consideration.

Legal death is when you are declared to be irreversibly dead.

That's a very wrong statement in several ways. Irreversibility is ONE prong of many (and not all) legal definitions of "death". It's not the sole criterion, and in the case of the MCU it quite obviously CAN'T be, since as I pointed out, ~4bn people's deaths were, in fact, reversed.

Since legal death is irreversible death, coming back means you are not legally dead and having the designation is invalid.

You're just repeating the same vapid and legally shaky phrase. I gave very detailed explanations as to why it's not that simple. Why not engage with that? I went through the trouble of typing it out, and all. Just for you.

He has numerous wives there who are not that old. Statute of limitations does not run out that fast.

Depends on the jurisdiction. Non-violent crimes can easily expire in only a few years in many jurisdictions. Non-violent felonies in Connecticut expire in 5 years. Anything but murder, kidnapping, and sexual violence expire in 6 years in Michigan. Felony fraud in California expires in 4 years. And so on.

Did you not even google this before replying?

[NineSpine]

It isn't grand proof of anything. Except that you are unable to read my friggin words. It is so frustrating to talk to a person that just twists what you say until they fit their agenda. If they even do you that curtesy and don't just call you a liar.

Discussing things in this thread is really pointless. If you make a point that the mob can't refute then it is lie, if you interpret something differently then the mob would like then you are wrong and there is not even any point to talk about why. You are just wrong.

Really, it is pathetic. If you people are so uninterested in the quality of shows, why do you even spend energy on it? Just so you can defend this trainwreck out of spite for "incels"?



None of my claims are false. You just don't want them to be true and you choose to ignore everything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

What is your goal? To defend a writer that doesn't give a crap about you and in fact is making tons of money from your blind acceptance of her lazyness?

Marvel has already decided that the whiny victim complex incel crowd can fuck off. There's like seven of you in the grand scheme of things. You are just incredibly loud and obnoxious. Nobody cares what you think, and all the things you hate will keep being hits whether you like it or not. You don't represent some mass movement. You represent a tiny cell of crybaby, terminally online losers. Marvel doesn't care. Amazon doesn't care. Nobody cares. Accept it.

[Darththeo]

Again. If she pulled her punch, how did Jen fly several meters backwards? The force necessary for that would have shattered her jaw or skull, depending where it hit.

How did Tony survive crashing the Mark II armor in the first Iron Man? How did Tony all the stuff that happened in the first avengers?

If we are talking physics, it isn't possible for Tony's suit to dampen that much damage. He should be paste.

How did T'Challa survive the fall off the waterfall in Black Panther? He should have been dead.

How did Thor when stripped of his powers by Odin survive being hit by a car without major injuries? He didn't have the powers he normally has.

How did Bucky survive the fall in the first Captain America movie? Why did Captain America survive his crash?

If you are arguing PHYSICS here, that is a huge deal. Why doesn't Ant man pierce his opponents when he punches them small? It is the same force as his normal size on a smaller point? Why do these questions not need specific answers for you but She hulk needs to explain to you?

If we are going by the established Hulk lore, she should have automatically transformed immediatedly after. Just like Bruce did seconds after landing on the Bifrost.

If we are not going by those rules then we open more questions: Why did she not die? Is her body invulnerable even in Jen form? If so, why does she even have to transform?

It is shown that altered mental states affect the Hulk transformation and reversion for Bruce as well. The Hulk for Bruce is a safety net. She-hulk may not have the same thing.

This is what I mean when I am complaining about the writing. I just know 100% that Jessica Gao never even thought about these things and probably wouldn have cared if she did.

Just because you lack the ability to suspend your disbelief for She-hulk doesn't make the writing bad. You have done it for the MCU before, but for some reason can't for She Hulk. I am not saying the writing is good, but saying it is bad because you can't believe it isn't a good argument.

Given me an in movie explanation for the question above, no out side MCU sources like "That's just how it is in the comic books." How is it explained in movie, because they are not all explained.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

Just because a group is loud, doesn't make them right. Often the loudest group are the minority opinion. Most people who don't like a show simply do not watch, they don't care for it. Most people who like a show tend to watch it and may talk about it to a small group of friends. The loud minorities on social media are just that ... loud minorities which is why views are often what they use to measure things by.

[eschatological]

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".

From a legal standpoint, I guess the question is, if he's irreversibly medically dead, even for just a second, is that legally dead? Like, he falls out of a window, he hits the pavement, he's irreversibly medically dead (in re: to any medicine known to humanity).

But then, by some superpower that can't be measured, replicated or known, he comes back to life.

It would be an interesting legal question for sure. I once had a friend debate me after a Torts class whether Frodo was civilly liable for the deaths that occured after he refused to throw the One Ring into the fire. I argued lack of capacity, so he wasn't responsible, he argued a "but-for" proximate cause, with malice, to assert grievous harm. That's basically what nerd-dom comes down to, edge cases.

[NineSpine]

From a legal standpoint, I guess the question is, if he's irreversibly medically dead, even for just a second, is that legally dead? Like, he falls out of a window, he hits the pavement, he's irreversibly medically dead (in re: to any medicine known to humanity).

But then, by some superpower that can't be measured, replicated or known, he comes back to life.

It would be an interesting legal question for sure. I once had a friend debate me after a Torts class whether Frodo was civilly liable for the deaths that occured after he refused to throw the One Ring into the fire. I argued lack of capacity, so he wasn't responsible, he argued a "but-for" proximate cause, with malice, to assert grievous harm. That's basically what nerd-dom comes down to, edge cases.

Its no different than someone declared legally dead in absentia and then turning out to be alive later

[Biomega]

It would be an interesting legal question for sure. I once had a friend debate me after a Torts class whether Frodo was civilly liable for the deaths that occured after he refused to throw the One Ring into the fire. I argued lack of capacity, so he wasn't responsible, he argued a "but-for" proximate cause, with malice, to assert grievous harm. That's basically what nerd-dom comes down to, edge cases.

I'd love to hear his justification :P Not just no diminished capacity, but with malice? Geez, give a hobbit a break.

Honestly, this discussion really makes me wonder if there is a space, somewhere somehow, for a show that DOES get into stuff like that. Like, it doesn't have to be Daredevil or whatever, but I'd love to see some more grounded superhero stuff that examines what'd ACTUALLY happen in a world with superpowers, and how we are so not ready to deal with that in so many ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Its no different than someone declared legally dead in absentia and then turning out to be alive later

It's very different, because that doesn't touch upon the actual definition of "death" at all. They were never dead, they were only PRESUMED dead, and that presumption is easily questioned and reversed.

Whereas with Mr. Immortal there's the presumption of course, but there's ALSO the fact of death to consider. He didn't create the APPEARANCE of having died, he actually died. Which is why it matters how death is defined and applied, legally, to that case whereas it doesn't really matter in your run-off-the-mill faked death.

[eschatological]

Its no different than someone declared legally dead in absentia and then turning out to be alive later

Except those people never actually go through an event which is lethal. They're fraudulently hiding themselves and declared death on the assumption that something happened to them.

Mr. Immortal can literally point to his physical death. He could, if he wanted, stay on the flattened car for a minute to "assert" the reality of his death, and then get up.

What's interesting to me is the time period - he's instantly resurrected. What if, like Jesus, it took him 3 days to rise from the dead as himself, uninjured? I think we'd all say, in those 3 days, he's both legally and medically dead once he jumps out of the window. That he comes back from the 3 days is literally an "act of god," which, while normally not applicable in declarations of death, do come up as mitigating factors in contracts against enforcement. He could argue that by an act of god, he's now alive 3 days later and his establishing of a new identity is not fraudulent or criminal. And as we know, legal death absolves one of their debts, so he would no longer owe child support.

But now the question is - if all this is true for a 3 day resurrection - why would it not be true for a 3 second resurrection? Or a 3/10ths of a second resurrection? He dies an irreversible death....but by an act of god comes back.

I mean, that's what I'd personally argue, but I've never been a civil lawyer, so torts and all that is out of my wheelhouse.

[Biomega]

But now the question is - if all this is true for a 3 day resurrection - why would it not be true for a 3 second resurrection? Or a 3/10ths of a second resurrection? He dies an irreversible death....but by an act of god comes back.

That was the point I made earlier. We already have a 5-year window to resurrection in the Blip. We KNOW death is at least in some instances reversible. We have no idea who of the people we now consider dead might in fact be resurrected in the future. Maybe someone else grabs the Infinity Stones, whatever.

We can't just put every legal matter in abeyance indefinitely just in case someone comes back from the dead. And if we continue to absolve legal ties after death - then why does it matter how long one is dead.

EDIT: Which reminds me... I wonder how the Blip was handled, legally. Like okay, people died. Other people inherited their property, etc. etc. life went on. So what, now I come back and someone bought my house, what do I do now? Everything I had and owned passed into someone else's hands, to do who knows what with. Do I have any rights at all to that stuff? And yeah, what about debts?

[eschatological]

ETA: Opposing counsel would probably argue that, sure, he may not owe child support for the 3 days he was dead - but he is back as substantively the same person (how you'd argue this would be another interesting argument), therefore he has the same "identity" and his legal obligations can be restored. I'm sure there's been a few of those drowning-hypothermia "dead for 8 hours/wake up on the autopsy table" cases that might touch on this sort of thing. In the MCU I'm sure this is probably what Blip returners faced as well.

[NineSpine]

Except those people never actually go through an event which is lethal. They're fraudulently hiding themselves and declared death on the assumption that something happened to them.

Mr. Immortal can literally point to his physical death. He could, if he wanted, stay on the flattened car for a minute to "assert" the reality of his death, and then get up.

What's interesting to me is the time period - he's instantly resurrected. What if, like Jesus, it took him 3 days to rise from the dead as himself, uninjured? I think we'd all say, in those 3 days, he's both legally and medically dead once he jumps out of the window. That he comes back from the 3 days is literally an "act of god," which, while normally not applicable in declarations of death, do come up as mitigating factors in contracts against enforcement. He could argue that by an act of god, he's now alive 3 days later and his establishing of a new identity is not fraudulent or criminal. And as we know, legal death absolves one of their debts, so he would no longer owe child support.

But now the question is - if all this is true for a 3 day resurrection - why would it not be true for a 3 second resurrection? Or a 3/10ths of a second resurrection? He dies an irreversible death....but by an act of god comes back.

I mean, that's what I'd personally argue, but I've never been a civil lawyer, so torts and all that is out of my wheelhouse.

Legal death is by definition irreversible.

[eschatological]

Legal death is by definition irreversible.

So you'd argue, if Jesus was real, he never legally died?

[NineSpine]

I'd love to hear his justification :P Not just no diminished capacity, but with malice? Geez, give a hobbit a break.

Honestly, this discussion really makes me wonder if there is a space, somewhere somehow, for a show that DOES get into stuff like that. Like, it doesn't have to be Daredevil or whatever, but I'd love to see some more grounded superhero stuff that examines what'd ACTUALLY happen in a world with superpowers, and how we are so not ready to deal with that in so many ways.

- - - Updated - - -


It's very different, because that doesn't touch upon the actual definition of "death" at all. They were never dead, they were only PRESUMED dead, and that presumption is easily questioned and reversed.

Whereas with Mr. Immortal there's the presumption of course, but there's ALSO the fact of death to consider. He didn't create the APPEARANCE of having died, he actually died. Which is why it matters how death is defined and applied, legally, to that case whereas it doesn't really matter in your run-off-the-mill faked death.

The way death is defined legally is IRREVERSIBLE.

[Endus]

Legal death is by definition irreversible.

So what happens in a setting where magic like the Infinity Stones can clearly reverse literally any death that occurs? Do we just declare that nobody can ever legally die? They're just temporarily un-alive?

Literally all deaths in the MCU are "reversible". It's a matter of resources.

[NineSpine]

So you'd argue, if Jesus was real, he never legally died?

Jeuss is generally considered to have died, ceased existing, and been reabsorbed into God. So yes, that's death.

[Biomega]

The way death is defined legally is IRREVERSIBLE.

I think we went over why that doesn't hold water in a universe fresh out of a GLOBAL REVERSAL OF DEATH.