I don't even know what someone can say to defend Civil War story wise. Thematically and artistically it was fairly solid, but Millar was a bad choice for writing duties. He can do big and "Oh shit" events, but few of his stories have shown substance, and none where he was given close to free reign.

Can anyone really say that Civil War can stand alone on its own, when in the span of an issue Spider-man and Tony are suddenly at each others throat? This was over hyped, and the ending defines how poor the storytelling was. Readers were forced to side with Captain. All pro-reg books had a taint of corruption or coercion, of some ulterior motive. Road to Civil War had Iron Man faking an attack in Washington to gain votes for his side. There was cloned heroes, warmongering, government sponsored villains, drafting of all "paranormal" beings into super armies. Consider that this was the side with all genius level people. Reed, Tony, Hank. Guys who can't even make security measures to counter Skrulls just to make this hackneyed story work. And suddenly Captain finds his side wrong. Suddenly, after planning to dump a mass superhuman fight in the middle of Manhattan, he realize his side was wrong.

I figured that out as soon as the lines were drawn. But was making the other side bad really the best way to make the ideological war "even"? No. But apparently that was the best the minds at Marvel could think up.

And what was up with Daredevil? Was that Danny Rand or Matt Murdock?