Work Text:
"Ah, they deserve it. Plus, it helps ease my conscience."
One of Tony's first lines in the movie. Now, there's nothing particularly wrong with this line per se, but how does funding a bunch of MIT student projects ease Tony's conscience? If we assume this is in reference to his guilt from what happened in Sokovia, why isn't he funding relief efforts in Sokovia or something similar? Wouldn't that make more sense?
Now, there certainly isn't anything wrong with funding these projects. But the fact of the matter is it shouldn't correlate in any way to Ultron or Sokovia. The only people benefiting from this are MIT students, most of which would be American.
There's been a lot of speculation around Tony being xenophobic, with a reasonable amount of evidence to support it. In the first Iron-Man movie, Tony publicly states, "I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them. And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero accountability." But what about the people outside of the U.S. being affected? If Tony could feel guilty about people in his own country being killed by his weapons, what about those outside of his country? If he willingly takes accountability for this, where is the accountability for people like Wanda and Pietro, whose lives were also torn apart by his weapons?
We'll come back around to this later.
~A~
"There's no decision-making process here. We need to be put in check! Whatever form that takes, I'm game. If we can't accept limitations, if we're boundary-less, we're no better than the bad guys."
Tony's use of "we" in this line bothers me. The movie pushes the idea that Charles Spencer's death is what gave him perspective on what happened in Sokovia and pushed him into agreeing with the Sokovia Accords. Secretary Ross uses New York, Washington, Sokovia, and Lagos as examples of the Avengers causing damage "recklessly."
But when it comes to New York and Washington, what were the Avengers supposed to do? Loki was still going to attack Earth. Hydra was still going to attempt to try to take over the world. Their fights may cause damage, but it is nothing compared to the damage that would have been done had they sat on their asses and done nothing.
As CaptainWidowSpring states in chapter two of Tearing Apart Captain America: Civil War, "A common misconception here is that Wanda threw Brock Rumlow into the building, but that is not what she did at all. The first thing Wanda did was get the bomb completely contained, and then she attempted to throw it into the air so that it would explode where no one would get hurt, as it was too much for her to just keep holding. Unfortunately, she was surrounded on all sides by tall buildings, and she ended up losing her grip before getting Rumlow and his bomb completely clear: so the resulting explosion ended up hitting a building."
Wanda quite literally had no choice in Lagos. It was either attempt to contain the explosion in whatever way she could or allow it to go off. The damage done in Lagos is quite literally nothing compared to what would have happened had Wanda not intervened. Of course, the lives that were lost are devastating, but blaming Wanda for them is ignorant and simply wrong. The movie tries its best to pin this disaster on Wanda, ignoring the fact that Rumlow was the one who set off the bomb in the first place.
Now, there is one outlier here: Sokovia.
I've seen a lot of insistence that Tony is not to blame for Ultron. Fingers are either pointed at Wanda or the mind stone or Loki's scepter.
What I think is exaggerated, however, is the vision Tony saw because of Wanda. It's important to note here that she wasn't manipulating him or making him do anything he didn't want to do. Tony was fully conscious of his own decisions.
As we see in Iron-Man 3, Tony was suffering from severe PTSD due to what happened in New York. This is where the audience learns that he is fearing an alien invasion. This paranoia (justified or otherwise) was what drove him to create Ultron. It's important to note that Ultron was already in development before the Avengers were attacked by Wanda and Pietro, as Tony himself tells Bruce in Age of Ultron. She did not make him create Ultron.
And if the visions given to the Avengers were meant to influence them and cause them to act out, what about Natasha? Natasha, who wasn't shown a vision of something that never happened, but was shown a flashback. A flashback, mind you, of her literal training and conditioning as an assassin. If Wanda's intention was to make the Avengers do things they wouldn't have done otherwise, why isn't Natasha running around murdering people? Slipping back into her nature as the Red Room's Widows?
Ultron was something Tony was going to make regardless of Wanda. The only thing that she might have influenced is his rush to do so. But again, that would be Tony's own fear and reaction to the vision, not Wanda herself.
Whether or not Tony hadn't hooked Ultron up yet, he fully intended to do so without telling the Avengers and without Thor's permission. As a matter of fact, he outright refused to tell them when Bruce brought it up. In his own words, "Right. That's right, you know why, because we don't have time for a city hall debate. I don't want to hear the "man was not meant to meddle" medley." He was going to use alien technology he didn't understand and was going to hide it from the other Avengers, regardless of if the mind stone had formed Ultron or not.
(It's funny, because this line isn't unlike the one above from Civil War. The only difference is that in AOU he's justifying taking it upon himself to make a decision the entire team deserves a say in, and in CW, he opens up blame to the entire team to again override them when it comes to making a collective decision. The hypocrisy here astounds me.)
With this information, it is hypocritical and just plain wrong for Tony to attempt to claim that the Avengers as a whole need to be put in check. The other Avengers haven't abused their power to terrorize the public. They were doing their best to save the world under impossible circumstances.
The only time someone abused power was when Tony created Ultron using technology he didn't have permission to use.
~A~
"She's not a US citizen. And they don't grant visas to weapons of mass destruction."
Back to Tony being xenophobic. What does Wanda not being a U.S. citizen have to do in this situation? This wasn't even brought up when Secretary Ross introduced the Accords. And if Wanda not being a citizen was a problem, why not set her up with a secret identity? Forge papers for her? Hell, attempt to sponsor her visa before the Accords were introduced in the first place? Tony certainly had the money to do it before Lagos and has had no problem throwing his money at less important problems. SHIELD and/or the Red Room must have done it for Natasha at one point, right?
My point is, there were so many alternatives to confining her to the Avengers Compound. Wanda isn't a weapon, she's a person. Tony locking her up was dehumanizing, not unlike the Accords as a whole. Would she have immediately been sent to the Raft just because she wasn't a US citizen, not even for her powers? Because treating someone as lesser than just because they're from a different country is inhumane.
What if Wanda had been American? Would Tony have fought a little harder then? Would he have had to fight at all?
Which brings me to another point. Tony clearly had insight into the Accords before they were introduced to the Avengers and before Lagos even happened. If that was the case, then why would he keep it to himself? Why allow the Avengers to be blindsided like this? Why not take the proper preparations to protect Wanda and at least warn the others instead of allowing them to be pushed into a hasty decision?
~A~
"Oh, yeah. It'd be great if we had a Hulk right about now. Any shot?"
Not too much to say about this, but it's gross that Tony would even suggest Hulk here. If he's such good friends with Bruce, he would know that Ross is the one that hunted Bruce down like a dog and treated him like government property. It's also implied in the first Avengers movie that Tony knew a good amount about Bruce, so I doubt that he's unaware of this.
Yes, he acknowledges that Bruce wouldn't be on their side, but there's no mention of how Ross treated Bruce. As Bruce's 'friend,' it was terrible that Tony even thought about getting Bruce on their side.
I do think this contributes to how little Tony considers his teammates. Their pain and trauma don't matter as long as he gets his way.
~A~
"Might be a little dangerous. Better tell Aunt Hottie I'm taking you on a field trip."
First of all, ew. Calling a woman "Aunt Hottie" to her teenage nephew is gross.
But more importantly, a ton of people have pointed out the issues with Tony recruiting Peter. I'm not going to go into too much detail since many authors have already done so, but my biggest issue is the manipulation. In the entirety of this scene and all their scenes together, Tony doesn't tell Peter one thing about the Accords. And this is a pretty big deal, considering how it affects Peter directly.
According to the Accords, "Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country" and "Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial." This would have effectively stopped Peter from being Spider-Man if he refused to sign.
And if he did sign, he would have been subjected to DNA and fingerprint registration, constant regulation, and tracking. Interesting how Tony never mentioned this. Peter didn't know why he was fighting Team Cap and had no idea what victory would mean for him after the fact.
It's pretty simple to see why Tony did this. He knew that if Peter did know about the Accords, Peter never would have been on his side. He would have been on Steve's side. It was better to keep Peter ignorant and in the dark and use him as Tony saw fit.
Peter deserved better than to be used as a tool for further Tony's goals. He at least deserved the decency of being informed of what was going on.
~A~
"Your judgment is askew. Your old war buddy killed innocent people yesterday."
No, Steve's judgment was not the one askew. Tony was the one who refused to listen. Tony was the one who helped coerce and guilt his teammates into making a hasty, split-second decision. Tony's judgment in the past has repeatedly fallen short, but to insist that Steve isn't the one with his head on straight is entirely incorrect.
The movie tries its hardest to imply that Steve is only acting out and resisting the Accords because of Bucky. But if we're being truthful, Steve would have done this for anyone he believed to be innocent.
And what about Bucky's innocence?
And according to the Accords themselves, "If an enhanced individual violates the Accords, or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial." If Steve allowed Bucky to be handed over, Bucky would have never had a trial let alone a right to an attorney. Once again displaying how unethical the Accords are and that Steve was right to refuse them.
Steve tried to tell Tony this. Tony refused to give him the chance.
~A~
"And you've been a complete idiot. Dragging in Clint. 'Rescuing' Wanda from a place she doesn't even want to leave, a safe place. I'm trying to keep . . . I'm trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart."
First of all, Steve never "dragged in" Clint. Clint made the decision to help Wanda because of Pietro. Clint was an adult who was consciously aware of the dangers and consequences of everything going on. Unlike Peter, who Tony purposely kept ignorant. Once again, his hypocrisy is showing.
(It's important to note that Scott was also told this as soon as Steve met him. Steve immediately keeps the members of his team informed and always leaves the choice to them while Tony repeatedly skates around the details, such as dodging the question when Rhodey asks how old Peter is).
And Wanda was never given a choice in leaving; Tony had Vision keep her confined to the Compound. For him to claim that she never wanted to leave was a blatant lie. She resigned herself to staying after Tony made her feel like a monster. Wanda left of her own accord, Clint didn't "rescue" her. She was the one who made that decision.
And if giving the people the chance to fight for their rights is tearing the Avengers apart, then the Avengers were never a team to begin with. Refusing to give up their human rights does not make Team Cap criminals.
~A~
"'We?' Boy, it must be hard to shake the whole double agent thing, huh? It sticks in the DNA."
In the story Ghost of Conversations Past author Gibbs_yeah points out, "During the airport fight, Natasha realized the world was in danger and let Steve and Bucky go. But she was willing to keep working with Tony, trying to help him understand that saving the world was more important than following the Accords. (Ironically, something Tony decided for himself later when he flew to Siberia without authorization.) But Tony didn't treat Natasha like a teammate. Instead he makes a comment that he KNOWS is extremely hurtful, given what he knows of Natasha's past."
Natasha understands that there are more important things than a disagreement. Stopping Zemo, who could have had access to five other super soldiers should have taken priority over anything. Whatever she's feeling, she's able to separate her emotions and look at the bigger picture. She even came to the realization that enforcing the Accords wasn't worth fighting the other Avengers.
Tony, unfortunately, refuses to see reason. It's interesting that as soon as his teammates disagree with them, he treats them like they're beneath him. He immediately goes for a blow below the belt, citing her traumatic past that he knows she isn't proud of. If Natasha or anyone else had ever brought up Tony's past as a literal war profiteer during a fight, there would have been riots.
Natasha didn't deserve to have that thrown in her face like that.
~A~
"I don't care. He killed my mom."
A common misconception here is that Tony was acting off emotion. That he was so overcome with grief and pain that he just had to attack Bucky, even though he fully knew that Bucky's actions weren't his own. No, that isn't what's going on here. Tony isn't in an uncontrollable rage. He is actively restraining Steve while making sure to hurt Bucky as much as he possibly can and conversing with Friday.
And this is without the directors' insight that Tony didn't attempt to kill Bucky to avenge his parents. He attempted to murder Bucky to punish Steve for not telling him the truth. That is psychotic.
(They also confirmed that Steve genuinely didn't know it was Bucky who killed the Starks, just that Hydra was involved. We can argue whether or not Steve is still at fault for this, but that anger and violence should have been directed at Steve if anything, not Bucky who was an innocent man)
The justification for Tony attempting to kill Bucky is so hypocritical (by both the movie and the fans) considering how much hate Pietro and (especially) Wanda get for hating Tony in Age of Ultron. Tony, was twenty-one when his parents died as opposed to Wanda and Pietro who were ten when everything they knew was decimated in an instant. Bucky, who was a slave for literal decades as opposed to a conscious war profiteer who knew lives were being ruined.
~A~
"That shield doesn't belong to you. You don't deserve it. My father made that shield!"
Reinforcing the point made with Natasha from earlier, Tony doesn't get to decide who's worthy and who isn't. Captain America stands for what America should stand for: freedom, equality, and justice. And throughout the movie, Steve proves that he lives up to that. Howard made that shield for Steve, Tony doesn't get to twist that just because it fits his personal agenda.
~A~
Honorable Mentions
Violating the Accords a total of three times: 1) Bringing a weapon into the Vienna International Centre, 2) taking Peter to Germany without registering him as an enhanced human or having him sign the Accords, and 3) going to Siberia (information courtesy of Gibbs_yeah).
Shooting Sam: The fact that this even happens in the first place is stupid. Rhodey was the one who made the call and Vision was the one who shot. What was Sam supposed to do, stay in place and get shot? And yet, he still went to check on Rhodey even though that blast surely would have killed him had he taken it instead. And Tony, once again taking his anger out on the wrong person, shoots him down out of spite.
Hitting on May just to get Peter alone: Again, ew. On all fronts.