2006's Civil War event forever changed the Marvel Universe, but according to a Marvel writer on the project, the ideological battle between Captain America and Iron Man was always meant to have a "right" side - and it isn't the side that fans chose. Tony Stark and Steve Rogers' disagreement erupted into a massive conflict between nearly every superhero in the world, and tragically ended with the latter's death. But Marvel writer Mark Millar suggests the story's ending wasn't bittersweet; Iron Man was always the real hero of the story.
A battle between the New Warriors and a group of villains ended tragically when the villain Nitro detonated, killing hundreds of civilians in the process. In response, the United States government championed the Superhero Registration Act (the Sokovia Accords in the MCU): a set of laws governing exactly how superheroes could operate within the country. Among other restrictions, all superheroes were to register with the government, receive mandatory training, and reveal their secret identities to the government. Iron Man stood by these laws, but Captain America opposed them, creating a rift that eventually led to the titular Civil War.
The readership was as divided as the heroes; some believed that the Superhuman Registration Act was a justified response while others believed it was government overreach in the extreme. Both heroes occasionally acted out of character, which led to some confusion and criticism among the Marvel faithful. For his part, Civil War writer Mark Millar set the record straight in an interview with Gamesradar.com: Iron Man was always meant to have the morally correct point of view:
"Weirdly, some of the other writers would often make Tony the bad guy, which I thought was a strange choice because I was actually on Tony’s side... In the real world, if somebody had superpowers, I’d like them to be registered in the same way that somebody who has a gun has to carry a license. But a gun can kill several people while a superhero can kill several thousands of people, so on a pragmatic level I’m 100% on Tony’s side. Maybe on a romantic level, Cap’s position makes sense but I don’t think anybody in the real world would really want that."
Was Iron Man Right The Whole Time?
Millar's comments go against the majority of Marvel fans who believed that Captain America's stance was correct, and the superhero community ought to keep their masks and their autonomy. Though the reasoning is sound - those born with superhuman abilities aren't always born with the ability to control said powers - Millar's stance puts pragmatism over enlightened idealism. Captain America's death at the end of the event certainly seemed to add credence to Iron Man's (and Millar's) point of view: that superheroes who answer to no authority are inherently dangerous and will ultimately lead to tragedy.
Note that Millar is exclusively talking about the comics version of the story (Civil War is quite different in the MCU and has nothing to do with secret identities, merely government control over super-powered individuals). Even so, the fact that Civil War was intended to have a "right" and "wrong" point of view went over the heads of other writers on the project, who had different opinions about which superhero was more morally-correct. Over fifteen years after the event was published, Civil War continued to be a focal point in discussions regarding superheroes, morality, and which character had the moral upper hand: Captain America or Iron Man.
Source: gamesradar.com