Marvel Comics Lawyers Argue That Mutants Are Not Human

By on December 30, 2011 in News 8

God Loves, Man KillsBullpen Bulletin! A “real world” conflict based on the bottom line has infringed on the civil liberties of our uncanny “fictional” heroes, who have lately made a ton of dough for their corporate creator. Grant Morrison has tread this ground in Animal Man to explore the dynamic between the creator and the creation, but sans the grand mega-corporate, economic drama. (Probably need to see Seaguy for that: I wonder if Mickey Eye is behind the actions of Marvel’s Law Defense Team!)

The folks at io9.com do a great job of explaining how the map is not the territory in this collision of “realities.” As Meredith Woerner explains (and check out the Radiolab Podcast):

Mark this up as one more blow to human-mutant equality. Marvel lawyers are putting up a fight to prove the mutants aren’t the same as humans after all. Unleash the Sentinels!

This strange piece of news comes via the Radiolab Podcast, which uncovered a weird saga of legal wrangling and tariff shenanigans.

Toys manufactured in various countries and later imported to the US have to be taxed. And the taxes for each kind of toy vary, depending on the description. Specifically, “dolls” are toys that represent some sort of human, and “toys” are representations that are non-human, such as robots or animals. And it turns out, the non-human toys are taxed at a much lower rate than the human ones, 6.8 percent versus 12 percent. Hence, two Marvel lawyers are arguing that Mutant action figures are not actually human — and therefor shouldn’t be taxed as much. And thus unknowingly unleashing the age-old Mutant debate that has long been a part of the X-Men’s world.

Read More: Meredith Woerner on io9.com

, , , , , , , ,

  • DeepCough

    Not Mutant Taxation without Mutant Representation!

  • Anonymous

    Not too rain on anyone’s parade, but is this really news worthy? I don’t understand the whole point of these lawyers arguing because of 2 reasons. 1) They’re talking about comic book characters, not a group of thugs who robbed a bank. 2) Why do lawyers have to be involved in this? As far as I can see, no laws have been broken.

  • Ceausescu

    MOAR PROFITZ

  • Mr Willow

    They are only trying to follow the doctrine of the Church of Capital: 

    More profit than the fiscal-quarter previous shall be the whole of the Law.

    If having more profit means declaring the plastic likeness of the entirely fictional character Beast—who, in his fictional universe is both anthropomorphic and more intelligent than any (other) human in his immediate vicinity (save, perhaps, when the also entirely fictional bald, psychic wheels his physically crippled, but still incredibly human, form into the same room), but, given his also entirely fictional mutation, his outward appearance resembles something akin a big blue cat/ape/ogre (depends on the fictional era/timeline and artist)—is a creature of some sort, instead of the human he is in his, again, entirely fictitious universe, then you do it, lest you become a sinner or heretic. 

    That is, of course, the most extreme example considering he is certainly the most non-human character within the (again, entirely fictional) X-Men Universe, except Nightcrawler. 

  • Anonymous

    This also illustrates the very real issue of the profit mongers being able to define ‘human capital’ in percentages that are devoid of the factors of inate human rights.  And it is these definitions that define humanity in today’s world far more than any noble decleration or inalienable self sovereignty.

  • Peanut

    I thought this was already established in the Toy Biz v United States case of 2003, where Toy Biz won the ruling in favor of X-Men being treated as non-human “toys” as opposed to “dolls”

  • Simiansink

    “Unleash the Sentinels!”

    Except, now, sentinels and mutants are both considered ‘toys’ not ‘dolls’ & therefore allies.

  • FufuKooo

    Fuck Stan Lee!

    That is all.