Remove ads

Pound the Table | An X-Men Self-Insert

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
Cobalt-60 said:
And an entire NHL team isn't going to shut down cause one guy might be a mutant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The issue is that it isn't One Guy, it's Any Guy.

If one previously mediocre player starts having a hot streak, traditionally that's great for them, but if this hadn't been shot down then that would have been grounds for Mutant Accusations and being thrown out of the league.

And from there, you either start as an All Star or you carefully stay in mediocrity so you don't lose your job.

This case had Significant Precedents set for sports in Marvel, and it would have either way about it.
 
I enjoyed seeing the five 'impossible' tennis shots you ended up using; and when Jacques picked Noa up in an embrace and spun her around, it was so adorable. Also a bit of suddenly-movie-type magic maybe due to her shattered glamor providing a rainbow sparkle visual effect in real life.

I'm not familiar with how courtrooms usually act during/after verdict readings—like how much they are allowed to emote now that the jury has already decided—, but it was nice to see Jacques' reaction, and then Noa's as well. Actually, Jacques was surprisingly delightful to me; great 'guest star', wouldn't mind seeing him again.

And oh boi, turns out one Mr. Peter Parker is gonna be a recurring guest star. With Noa's ties to JJJ, I can see in hindsight how this arc has been, at least partially, set up. I also appreciated the return of Saint John's case, and that the parallels there and part of Noa's motivation were both stated explicitly because I would not have cottoned on to that.

I'm even more curious on why Hank had such a bad impression of Noa: is she too closely connected to someone he dislikes? Did Noa win legally on something that was wrong morally? Did Noa prioritize something differently, as a mutant or lawyer, than he would as a mutant doctor? Has someone been harmed due to what Hank perceives to be Noa's failure? I have questions, and I love having questions on future things because I get to be surprised :D

Thanks for writing!
 
It could be anything. A lot of the basic genre conventions of superhero comics are things that would be illegal in real life for very good reasons. It's an old joke that Batman is "rich white guy beats up the mentally ill to cope with his childhood trauma", but it's only a lot of the genre rules that keeps it a joke.

Law enforcement by unaccountable untrained people with the equivalent of military firepower is a very, very bad idea.

Getting into specifics, Professor X's school is basically training teenagers to fight and makes Hogwarts look like a model of good educational practice and a safe environment. There are lots of other things that any competent and honorable lawyer would object to.
 
Walliseatscheese said:
The issue is that it isn't One Guy, it's Any Guy.

If one previously mediocre player starts having a hot streak, traditionally that's great for them, but if this hadn't been shot down then that would have been grounds for Mutant Accusations and being thrown out of the league.

And from there, you either start as an All Star or you carefully stay in mediocrity so you don't lose your job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not to mention that accusations of a player being a mutant wouldn't have to go public to be damaging. It's almost tailor-made as an intimidation tool for free agency negotiations; if a player hits a hot streak right before they're due to sign a new contract, the franchise can just imply they might have "suspicions" about the player got that good that fast, but they're not going to push the issue if the player doesn't try to push for higher pay.

Even the mere threat of this would be enough motivation for the various players' associations to declare a strike. The MLBPA especially; baseball as a sport is notorious for owners engaging in illegal tactics to keep player salaries low, and they'd absolutely jump at this new method to do so if given half a chance.

On another note:
October Daye said:
"Just got a call that the check for my Yankees season tickets was being shredded, and I may need to write a new one for next year," Sam Lieberman's voice greeted me from the other end. "You know, if you were going to ruin sports for the year, a little warning would've been nice? I had two hundred on the Yankees to win the World Series this year."

"You make that same bet every year, Sam," I told him, leaning back in my chair as I played with the phone's spiral cord. "And need I remind you that my Mets won more recently?"

"We don't talk about Eighty-Six," Sam said.

"The year the Bad Guys won," I said with fondness. "That was a good year."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wasn't even born in '86 and I still had flashbacks reading this. Thank you so much for that. :V
 
Last edited:
SoaringJe said:
I'm even more curious on why Hank had such a bad impression of Noa: is she too closely connected to someone he dislikes? Did Noa win legally on something that was wrong morally? Did Noa prioritize something differently, as a mutant or lawyer, than he would as a mutant doctor? Has someone been harmed due to what Hank perceives to be Noa's failure? I have questions, and I love having questions on future things because I get to be surprised :D
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It could simply be that she's known (to the X-Men) to be a friend of Magneto and associate of Mystique, and therefore 'tainted' as part of the Brotherhood. Or at some point she ended up on the opposite side of a legal battle to one or more X-men/their associates.
 
October Daye said:
Judge Nolan's full written verdict in the Canter case set a very important precedent: to use plain language, if you want to make an accusation of using a mutant power for your personal benefit, you had best have the proof to back it up. Two months after they shuddered to a dead
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This might actually make Nike(and other corporate sponsors hit) not contest the verdict too much. In their shoes I'd view it as the cost to get athletes back to performing right, because they were probably bleeding money in lost sales of sporting goods and licensed merch in the run up to the trial.

$40M is a big ad campaign back then. But if people aren't buying team jerseys because the players are all sandbagging, stadiums aren't filled, and TV ratings are down, fuck that shit. Restore confidence.

Walliseatscheese said:
Because suddenly this feels tremendously like a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" situation, and while favor trading is just how the business is done in politics Nora doesn't feel nearly as hesitant about this as I think she should I think, even considering the personal relationship already involved here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Correct. The judge probably should have recused himself with her as a lawyer, outside relationship. Wheeling and dealing after makes it just that much worse, even if this specifically is for a good cause.

There are probably reasons why they met in a spot where the judge would never normally go in clothing he'd normally never wear.
 
Last edited:
Firethorn said:
Correct. The judge probably should have recused himself with her as a lawyer, outside relationship. Wheeling and dealing after makes it just that much worse, even if this specifically is for a good cause.

There are probably reasons why they met in a spot where the judge would never normally go in clothing he'd normally never wear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, given he was a teacher at a legal college, you know, the sort of job judges, currently serving and retired, tend to be desired, it'd be likely if a sizable fraction of New York's practicing lawyers studied under him.

Of course, the everything afterwards is, ehm, complicated. Not that it'll ever go anywhere if challenged. Too many vested interests interested in maintaining the newly established status quo of the verdict.
 
I am not a lawyer, but the quick google I made regarding Additur and Remittitur says that the judge should have been asking the *defendants* for permission to invoke Additur, not the plaintiff. (The rules were changed by a Supreme Court case in 2019 to be *both* plaintiffs and defendants need to give their consent). "Adversely affected party" has the ability to deny Additur or Remittitur, which forces a new round of "how big is this award anyway".

Also, how often are lawyers actually surprised by the amount in a trial like this? I'd figure they'd have a really good idea as to what the state guidelines are for assessing both compensatory and punitary damages, and would be able to ballpark where the awards would end up, barring a runaway jury.
 
Winchester said:
Also, how often are lawyers actually surprised by the amount in a trial like this? I'd figure they'd have a really good idea as to what the state guidelines are for assessing both compensatory and punitary damages, and would be able to ballpark where the awards would end up, barring a runaway jury.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I believe this was covered by Noa's reactions:
October Daye said:
we the jury find the defendants liable for all counts of the complaint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
October Daye said:
Across the aisle, Boris Becker deflated and slumped down into his seat, while the attorneys looked wholly unsurprised.

All evidence had been in the record before the trial began. We all knew how this was going to go. The only reason it hadn't settled was that Jacques refused to let this go quietly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Finding fully in favor of the plaintiff on all counts was expected.
October Daye said:
Our complaint had listed that much as the top end we asked for, but I had assumed that we would never get anywhere even close to that! I expected something closer to five million, maybe ten if we got lucky…
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Noa had a good idea of how much juries normally award, but seems to have underestimated how strongly the jury would feel about a bitter, poor-sportsman using a life-ruining accusation out of the blue in order to steal a win... and that this meant sports all over the country died. The jury wanted to send a message, so they went for the maximum they thought was possible.
October Daye said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, if the penalty for such gross misconduct is a fine, then it only serves its purpose if the fine is substantial. A mere two percent of one of six parties' projected yearly revenue is not substantial enough. And I will not disrespect this Court by leaving its judgments as simply 'the cost of doing business'."

My eyes went wide. Was… was he…?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And then the Judge decided he was going to make that point even more firmly because Nike, a ridiculously wealthy company that would have shrugged it off casually, was one of the defendants.
 
Winchester said:
I am not a lawyer, but the quick google I made regarding Additur and Remittitur says that the judge should have been asking the *defendants* for permission to invoke Additur, not the plaintiff. (The rules were changed by a Supreme Court case in 2019 to be *both* plaintiffs and defendants need to give their consent). "Adversely affected party" has the ability to deny Additur or Remittitur, which forces a new round of "how big is this award anyway".

Also, how often are lawyers actually surprised by the amount in a trial like this? I'd figure they'd have a really good idea as to what the state guidelines are for assessing both compensatory and punitary damages, and would be able to ballpark where the awards would end up, barring a runaway jury.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Additur is how a defendant avoids a second trial for a higher amount, which is why consent is normally needed as it is effectively a method for a defendant to avoid a plaintiff appealing an inadequate judgement for an even higher amount and instead opting to let a judge and NOT a potentially angry jury come up with an amount.

The problem for Nike and the rest is that the cat is now out of the proverbial bag and they know they CANNOT win the case in any court.

However Additur is also a generally unused motion for Judges to take, and the "reasonableness" of the judgement taking into account Nike's annual earnings makes it far more likely that a new civil trial would have a potentially worse result and just extends the lock out and harms further PR for the individuals involved.

Did the judge technically jump the gun? Maybe, but that's was post-trial motions and the official written opinion of the court are for clearing up.
 
I wonder if Becker's going to be forced to retire. I'm certain he was unpopular in the tennis world after the accusations (bad sportsmanship AND insulting his opponent AND putting a cloud over every other upset). And his sponsors are...upset. With the stink of this hanging around him, going somewhere sunny for a LONG time would be recommended. Or he'll become a vocal anti-mutant "activist." I wonder; did he hate mutants, or was the sting of losing to a nobody that bad? Or both?
 
Cobalt-60 said:
I wonder if Becker's going to be forced to retire. I'm certain he was unpopular in the tennis world after the accusations (bad sportsmanship AND insulting his opponent AND putting a cloud over every other upset). And his sponsors are...upset. With the stink of this hanging around him, going somewhere sunny for a LONG time would be recommended. Or he'll become a vocal anti-mutant "activist." I wonder; did he hate mutants, or was the sting of losing to a nobody that bad? Or both?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most likely he hates mutants as much as the average person and it was an easy salve for his ego. So both.
 
Last edited:
Hey, have a small preview of next chapter.

"I know what I said then," I replied. "But no. I do not believe Spider-Man is a criminal. He's a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think he's a criminal."

"Y-you don't?" Peter asked, face slack in confusion. Most likely, he wasn't expecting to have the opposite of what he expected thrown at him. In that case… perhaps some elaboration.

"Mr. Parker, when I am in the courtroom, I am doing my job," I told him, tapping my pen against my notepad as I spoke. "And half of that job is framing the story how I want the jury to see it. I had a point to make, and given the situation, that was the best way to bring them around to the point I needed. Even though it was, yes, at Spider-Man's expense."

Peter was quiet for a moment, though he gave me a funny look. I had a feeling he was trying to reconcile the 'courtroom Noa' he'd seen on TV with the 'out-of-court Noa' in front of him.

Which was fair. Entirely so.

"... so, um," Peter said, rubbing his hands together and pursing his lips expectantly. "What, uh, is your opinion on Spider-Man?"

I put my pen and notepad down on my lap, clasped my fingers, and just gave him a look, followed by a long, slow, blink.

"Mr. Parker," I started. "Peter." I looked up and gestured idly to his closet – and more specifically, to his laundry basket. "If I were to get up and look through there, what are the odds I find Spider-Man's costume inside?"

Peter gave me a blank look, before he gave a small chuckle. When my facial expression didn't change a bit, the nervous grin fell off his face, and he started to go a bit pale.

"W-what—" Peter cut himself off as he stood, wetting his lips as he raised his hands out in front, as if to ward me off. "T-that—"

"Mr. Parker," I stopped Peter. "I spent more than twenty years hiding that I'm a mutant. You're not very good at this."

"Oh… yeah, right, you're uh… yeah, you're that. Uh…" Peter paced around his room, hands behind his head and running through his hair. "You, uh… you're not gonna tell anyone, right?" he asked, turning back towards me.

"That depends," I said, pointing at his bedroom door. "Does your uncle know?"

"Y-yeah," Peter said, sitting back down on his bed. "He does."

"Then no," I told him. "I'm not going to tell anybody. Especially since your little secret is covered by the attorney-client privilege."

"It is?" he asked, somewhat incredulous.

"Mhmm," I nodded. To be fair, it was... with a generous interpretation of the rules of ethics, courtesy of Peter still being a minor, and his legal guardian being my client. "Now. Can we get back to the initial point of our conversation?" I asked. "Your recounting of events?"

"U-um…" Peter flushed a bit, in embarrassment. "S-sorry."

"It's okay," I said, picking up my notepad and pen. "Now, last I checked, you were telling me when you noticed Harry wasn't with the rest of the debate team anymore…"
 
Interesting that Uncle Ben knows. Usually he tries keeping it a secret from Aunt May as long as physically possible. Did Peter tell his uncle, did something force it out in the open, or did Uncle Ben figure it out on his own like Aunt May is known to do, just without her habit of letting Peter continue to think that he's successfully keeping a secret?
 
Reconciling in-court personas and out-of-court personas of lawyers is a hard thing sometimes.

I've seen lawyers in court who played ridiculous verbal hardball while arguing, to the point of nearly reducing others to tears or frothing rage, while being absolutely pleasant and friendly while out of court, and the latter was genuinely not an act. The opposite applies too: a lawyer can be superficially polite and friendly while in court, but you can tell it's an act and not genuine, especially when things don't go their way. And then there are other lawyers who are constantly friendly and polite no matter what happens, and they use it like a weapon when they appear in court.

It's a skillset you hone. Some lawyers are good at the in-court skills, others are not. Lots of acting involved. And then there are times when it's appropriate to play verbal hardball, and other times when it's overkill. It really depends.

In my experience, most lawyers are not a stereotype, but a mix of things. Some lawyers are better at adapting than others. And some lawyers are legal geniuses that fail to read the room, or just flat out bad at their jobs.
 
Last edited:
As someone who grew up with an entire half of their extended family being lawyers or judges, I'm thoroughly sick of the Lawyer jokes.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top