Of all the parallels we've seen so far, I think this one best demonstrates the difference between John Walker and Steve Rogers.
Steve easily could have killed Tony at the end of Civil War. In fact, Tony seemed to expect it; he raised his hands to protect his head from what he probably thought was the inevitable.
But Steve wasn't like that. Even in the midst of pure rage, he could never kill someone unnecessarily- good moral standards were at the core of every decision he made, regardless of his own emotional state.
John Walker is different. When he gets angry, morality is not his priority because ultimately he isn't a man of the people, he's a man who centres his own desires, no matter the cost. He doesn't stop to question himself because his ego won't let him.
Where Steve Rogers was measured, John Walker is impulsive. Where Steve Rogers looked out for everyone's best interests, John Walker looks out for his own.
Where Steve Rogers showed self-restraint, John Walker takes the kill strike.
14K notes · View notes