1. #1981
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #1982
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  3. #1983
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  4. #1984
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,876
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Endus; 2022-09-26 at 07:33 PM.


  5. #1985
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.

  6. #1986
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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".
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  7. #1987
    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.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  8. #1988
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.
    /spit@Blizzard

  9. #1989
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    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.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  10. #1990
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,876
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.


  11. #1991
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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?
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  12. #1992
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    You are just being pedantic now.
    When it comes to details of the law?

    Imagine that.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    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.

  13. #1993
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  14. #1994
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    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.

  15. #1995
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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?
    This already happens in the real world. People are declared legally dead incorrectly and it has to be reversed.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  16. #1996
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    He. Is. Not. Dead.
    Not currently.

    But as we've established, the extant law as written doesn't really deal with that kind of situation well. A lot of the subsequent stuff is contingent on a ruling on that.

    As was pointed out by others, all we have, currently, is his statement that he did die, and was considered to have died, legally. Whether that's conjecture on his part, an outright lie, or reference to a previous ruling on the case, we do not know. We can only take information as it is presented to us. But even aside from that, you could, as I have pointed out, make some very interesting arguments for extant law as written to fail to properly account for this case. Which could very well open up a lot of legal avenues.

    You are trying to bring common sense into matters of law. Big mistake ;P

  17. #1997
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post

    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.
    At the very least it creates a situation where a court would have to decide if his "death" actually counts before he could be charged with reckless endangerment. I imagine that the court would rule against him...but until it does...it's in a state of legal limbo.

    But, that's not the situation that his lawyers were currently dealing with. They were dealing with, for lack of a better term, "divorce settlements". And if that case were to go tot trial the matter of his "deaths" would have to be sorted out...and that would not be in the best interests of their client.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    This already happens in the real world. People are declared legally dead incorrectly and it has to be reversed.
    Kinda contradicts your whole "irreversible" point though does it not?
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  18. #1998
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Not currently.

    But as we've established, the extant law as written doesn't really deal with that kind of situation well. A lot of the subsequent stuff is contingent on a ruling on that.

    As was pointed out by others, all we have, currently, is his statement that he did die, and was considered to have died, legally. Whether that's conjecture on his part, an outright lie, or reference to a previous ruling on the case, we do not know. We can only take information as it is presented to us. But even aside from that, you could, as I have pointed out, make some very interesting arguments for extant law as written to fail to properly account for this case. Which could very well open up a lot of legal avenues.

    You are trying to bring common sense into matters of law. Big mistake ;P
    The law does deal with this. Legally dead is defined as "irreversibly dead". When he "dies" it is a temporary status, and therefore not irreversible. This is no different than someone dying during surgery and being resuscitated which happens literally every hour of every day across the country.

    Anyone who fakes their death is considered "legally dead". That doesn't mean their actions in attaining that status were not illegal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Kinda contradicts your whole "irreversible" point though does it not?
    That's like saying that we cant say anyone is guilty of a crime because sometimes convictions are overturned
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  19. #1999
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post

    That's like saying that we cant say anyone is guilty of a crime because sometimes convictions are overturned
    No, it's like saying that when someone's conviction is overturned...they were never, legally speaking, guilty.

    The point being made here is that the Mr. Immortal's case is unique and there is no real legal precedent for his particular condition. That is going to be a thing with Superhuman Law...it's going to set a lot of new precedents. That's the reason The Law Firm created a Superhuman Law Department and why they specifically wanted a Superhuman lawyer to head it. In this case, they want to avoid creating a new precedent...because the most likely outcome would not be in the best interests of their client.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2022-09-26 at 08:24 PM.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  20. #2000
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    You specifically said they were better. The book isn't always better than its adaptation.
    Considering how much the show is propped up in this thread BECAUSE it adapts these comics one should hope they are excellent, because otherwise you just deprived several of your colleagues here of their argument. Me? I don't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    You're confusing one person's opinion for reality.
    Never said that I believe this to be reality, you are just lying and making things up again.

    The fun bit about it is that this commentator is clearly influenced by and using woke language (the "straight white men" strawman f.e.) to complain about a book that is supposedly the inspiration for this show. So the show clearly wants to be for women and the woke crowd but is proudly based on a book that some woke people are calling misogynistic. There is a joke in there somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    People like to fuck. There's nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn't our art reflect real life?
    Again, that is not my opinion. It is the point of a person claiming to understand how to write women better then Dan Slott. I have not written the article. Personally I think women should be as promiscuos as they like. Men too. The times where we judge people by their sex life should be long over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Again you're seeing something that isn't there.
    Interesting. Considering you are clearly imagining that the article speaks for me, which it does not, like at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •