關於 made by人名 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

（轉）

【有關司法機構被官營媒體攻擊的聲明】

《人民日報》於2020年12月27日發表一篇抨擊香港法院在一宗涉及知名人士的案件中批准被告人保釋的評論文章，而文章發表的時候該獲准保釋的決定已進入上訴程序，我們就此表示嚴重關注。文章攻擊法院的判決，並形容《蘋果日報》創辦人黎智英「惡名昭彰，極度危險」，以及是「亂港禍首」。該報斷言在黎智英案中，不准保釋須是前設的常規，並要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」。文章又認為已經有足夠證據顯示黎智英已觸犯國安法第55條，該條訂明某些案件可以移交中國大陸審訊。當上訴委員會將於2020年12月31日就政府申請上訴許可召開聆訊，由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登該篇評論文章，令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義。

作為致力守護長久以來珍而重之的法治和司法獨立的法律執業者，我們認為有責任提出以下關注，並以個人名義僅此聲明：

1、 官營媒體對司法機關毫無基礎的攻擊應當停止

在數位親建制人士及官方控制和營運的媒體 － 包括《文匯報》及《大公報》－ 要求「司法改革」及嘲諷「黃官」的日益壓力下，出現上述評論文章，我們深表憂慮。我們注意到司法機構自今年9月以來，已就對其日趨激烈的攻擊發表了四份聲明。

誠然，公眾有權討論及評論法院的裁決及其根據的事實及法律，惟討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑，或企圖向法院就某些案件的裁決施加壓力，否則公眾對司法機構的聲譽、專業和獨立勢必受到嚴重破壞。特別是《人民日報》刊登的評論文章，會被視為明顯地向法院將要審理的案件施加壓力，此舉可以是違反審理中的案件不應評論的原則，以及有損公平審訊。這些攻擊應當立即停止。

我們亦呼籲律政司採取行動，維護司法機構免受官方控制或營運的媒體作出毫無基礎和不實指控。正如高浩文法官在其判詞中指出，「在普通法司法管轄區，例如香港，傳統上法官和司法機構是不會公開地就針對其裁決和個人而作出的不公平和不適當的批評為自己辯護，而傳統上負責律政的官員則有責任反駁錯誤的指控，以維護司法機構和個別法官。」

2、 公平審訊及無罪假定

不論如何解讀，香港特區政府有法律責任保護每一位香港居民的基本權利不受侵犯，包括公平審訊的權利。我們質疑一旦涉嫌觸犯國安法第55條下，該等權利是否仍然受到保障。理由有兩方面：第一，我們質疑中國大陸在刑事審訊的程序中，對公平審訊是否有足夠的保障，那是由於中國尚未落實《公民與政治權利國際公約》，這亦是長久以來為人詬病。第二，12名香港居民於2020年12月28日在深圳鹽田法院受審的案件，沒有公開審訊，他們亦沒有權選擇他們委託的法律代表，令人質疑香港特區政府有否履行其法律責任。

上述關注，反映國安法無法為被告人提供足夠的基本人權保障，並在法律上存在很多不確定性。正如英國最高法院院長賓漢（Lord Bingham）在其著作《The Rule of Law》中說明，法治的核心是在一個地方裡，所有不論屬公共或私人的個人和機構，都必須受法律的約束及保障，而法律必須是公開和預先頒佈，以及由法院公開執行。因此，我們促請有關當局嚴格遵守法治原則，自我約束，以及謹慎運用國安法賦予的權力。

帝理邁
林洋鋐
彭皓昕
蔡頴德
黃耀初

2020年12月30日


【Statement on Continuous Attacks on the Judiciary and
Art. 55 of the National Security Law】

We note with grave concern that on 27 December 2020, l the People’s Daily published anr editorial piece criticizing a decision in respect of a bail application that is currently subject to an ongoing appeal. In attacking the judicial decisions in Apple Daily founder, Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-yin’s case, the People’s Daily has labelled him as a “notorious and extremely dangerous” and an “insurgent”. It added that the presumption against bail should be the norm in cases such as Lai’s and urged the judiciary to “make the right decision”. The commentary further claimed that there were sufficient grounds in Mr Lai’s case for invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law (NSL) - which allows certain cases to be transferred to Mainland China for trial. This type of commentary appearing in a newspaper run/controlled by the Central Government, when the Appeals Committee would soon be hearing the Hong Kong Government’s application for leave to appeal on 31 December 2020, is particularly worrying and borders on an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.

We, the undersigned, in our personal capacity and as lawyers committed to safeguarding the Rule of Law and the independence of judiciary, we feel duty bound to draw attention to the following matters:

(1) Unfounded attacks against the judiciary by state-run/controlled media should cease

The above-mentioned commentary was made amid intensifying calls for “judicial reform” and deriding “yellow judges” from various pro-establishment figures and state-run/controlled media, including Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po. To that end, we note that the judiciary has had to issue a total of four statements since September this year, in light of the intensifying attacks mounted against it.

Whilst members of the public have the right to discuss and comment on court rulings for reasons grounded on fact or law, such discussion should not cross into bare assertions, imputations of political bias, or attempts to put pressure on the Judiciary to decide specific cases in a particular manner. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity, professionalism and independence of the judiciary would be seriously undermined. Notably, the commentary published by People’s Daily, could be perceived as putting pressure on the judiciary to decide a pending case in a particular manner, which breaches the sub judice rule and could prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. These attacks should cease immediately.

We also call on the Secretary of Justice to take action to defend the Judiciary against unwarranted accusations led by state-run/controlled media. As Judge Russell Coleman noted in his judgment, “it has been the traditional view that Judges and the Judiciary do not speak out in defence of their decisions or to defend themselves against unfair and inappropriate criticism [...] in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong, it was the tradition that the minister responsible for the administration of justice has the duty of defending the Judiciary or individual Judges against wrong accusations”.

(2) Concerns about fair trial and presumption of innocence

The Hong Kong Government has the legal obligation to protect any Hong Kong residents, whose rendition is sought, from violation of his/her fundamental and non-derogable rights, including the right to fair trial. We question whether such rights can be guaranteed upon invoking of Article 55 of the NSL. The reason is two-folded. First, we question whether China has adequate protection on the right to fair trial during the criminal process, as mainland China has not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has been long criticised on such. Second, the fact that the 12 Hong Kong residents who stood trial at Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court on 28 December 2020 were denied the right to open trial and the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, casts considerable doubt on whether the Hong Kong Government can fulfil its legal obligation.

These concerns reflect that the NSL lacks adequate protections to safeguard an accused’s fundamental human rights and lacks legal certainty. As Lord Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law, at the core of the rule of law is the notion “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”. Accordingly, we urge the authorities to uphold strict adherence to the rule of law and exercise restraint and caution in invoking its power under the NSL.
Mark Daly
Michelle Tsoi Wing Tak
Kenneth Lam
Davyd Wong
Janet Pang Ho Yan

Dated this 30 December 2020

小編快報
《柏林脈動》（The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。

這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。

今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題，作者有五位，分別是：
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使，現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson，以及台灣的龍應台。

德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表，提問是：「面對中國，你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益，即使犧牲經濟利益？」
答案：贊成 76%
反對 19%

小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文，跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好，那那那，那表示你英文很好，你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來

反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天，我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的，用問句來表達自己的悲觀，譬如，「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的，用黑色幽默來表達樂觀，譬如，「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了，沒時間管台灣。」

跟德國一樣，台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差，在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國，中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而，隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張，反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續，而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。

和歐洲一樣，台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時，很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」，當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時，很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是，中國兩者兼備。後果就是，台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。

如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的，你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命，一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨，不管你說它是自願還是被迫，放下了政權，分享權力。沒有流血，昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後，政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。

台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主，時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位，但是，就如同當年對於德國，美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是，在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時，中國也宣布，它在台灣海峽及其領空，要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。

所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅，這個威脅，往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅，卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本，刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功，對台灣的民主制度和機構本身，是個真實的危險。

國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人，其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價，很大的代價，而得到今天的成果。這個成果，太珍貴了，不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。

德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了，如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護，一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解，一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰，又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由，德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員，德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力，發揮最大的影響力。

但是，歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?

首先，如果沒有台灣模式，全世界大概就都得接受一種說法，就是，儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的，而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事：未必如此。

第二，台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯，如果中國是一艘航空母艦，那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員，就人口論，台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國，比波蘭稍小，但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看，台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以，歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?

23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future

Lung Yingtai

On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”

Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.

As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.

Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.

Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.

However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.

Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.

Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.

But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?

The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf

【有關懷疑於荃灣警署發生的強姦案之刑事調查】

我們代表近日向警方報案、指控數名警員於荃灣警署強姦她的少女X。
少女X在預期警方會公正、保密並尊重她的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。由始至終，她也並未就事件作出公開評論，也沒有打算以任何方式公開事件。

令人遺憾的是，負責調查少女X一案的警員似乎有系統地抹黑少女X以及她的投訴。警方刻意洩露有關案件的資料的舉動，會令任何客觀的旁觀者相信此舉是有意公開抹黑少女X並影響未來的起訴。

就警方近日洩露有關資料的行為，少女X希望透過我們發表以下聲明：

在2019年10月的某日，少女X鼓起勇氣，就她在荃灣警署內被強姦一事報案。她循正規的途徑報案，並在稍後向警方說出事情的詳細經過，亦回答了警方鉅細無遺及具侵略性的問題。一如警方所要求，她接受了法醫的檢查。她亦接受了終止懷孕的手術並容許法醫從胎兒取得DNA樣本作檢驗，以辨別至少一名施暴者。

在整個調查過程中，少女X重覆向警方查問案件的進度，但有關的調查隊伍拒絕向她提供任何詳情。

在2019年11月4日，少女X得知警方在沒有她的事前知悉或同意下，取得一份搜查令以檢取她的私人醫療紀錄，包括那些遠在案發之前的紀錄。該搜查令亦允許警方從她私人醫生的診所取得案發數日前後的閉路電視紀錄。

香港警務處發出的《罪行受害者約章》保障刑事案件受害者的私隱和尊嚴會在任何時候被尊重。而在強姦受害人不知情和沒有同意的情況下索取其私人醫療紀錄一舉完全侵犯了她的私隱權。此舉等同濫用警權，實在令人髮指。

少女X立刻訴諸法庭挑戰搜查令。2019年11月5日早上，發出搜查令的裁判官，經被詳細告知事實後，立刻命令暫緩執行搜查令。裁判官更頒下匿名令予少女X，禁止任何人(包括傳媒)不論直接或間接識別少女X的身份。違反匿名令可能被視為藐視法庭。

在過去數天，少女X為有關此案細節在網上洩漏一事感到憂悶。警察公共關係科及不具名的「警方消息人士」選擇性地透露疑似有關案件調查的細節，並對證據作出負面評價，此種種行徑會令任何客觀的旁觀者相信此舉是有意公開抹黑少女X並影響未來的起訴。

少女X認為，任何警方試圖貶損性暴力受害人名譽以及對證據作出負面評論的舉措是相當令人不齒以及具冒犯性的。此等行為應予最強烈的讉責。

毫不意外地，少女X無法信任香港警察可以公正地調查她的指控，又或任何與警員有關的指控。

少女X要求警方立即停止他們不合法且極不專業的資料披露，以及停止評論有關她的案件。她期望她的私隱能夠被尊重。

Criminal Investigation into Allegation of Rape inside Tsuen Wan Police Station.

We represent Ms X, a young Hong Kong female who recently filed a criminal complaint alleging that she was raped by a number of police officers in Tsuen Wan Police Station.

Ms X made her complaint to police in the expectation that it would be investigated with impartiality, in strict confidence, and with respect for her privacy and dignity. She has made no public comment about the case and has not sought publicity in any way.

Unfortunately, the police investigating Ms X’s case appear to have systematically worked to discredit her and to undermine her complaint. Police have deliberately leaked supposed details of the case in a manner which any objective observer would be driven to conclude, were directed at publicly discrediting Ms X and diminishing any prospect of a successful prosecution.

In light of the recent leaks and statements by the police, Ms X wishes us to issue the following statement.

On a date in October 2019, Ms X took the courageous step of filing a report to police about her rape inside Tsuen Wan Police Station. She filed her report through the proper channels. She subsequently gave a detailed account of the events to police, answering extensive and highly invasive questions. As requested by police, she underwent a forensic medical examination. Ms X further underwent a termination of the ensuing pregnancy and has permitted the taking of a DNA sample from the aborted foetus to assist in identifying at least one of her assailants.

Throughout the investigation, Ms X has repeatedly asked police for updates on the case but the investigating team has refused to provide her with any details whatsoever.

On 4th November, 2019 Ms X learned that police had, without her knowledge or consent, obtained a search warrant to seize her private medical records, including those long pre-dating the allegations. The warrant also allowed police to seize CCTV footage from her private doctor’s clinic for a period of several days before and after the date of the alleged rape.

The Hong Kong Police Force Victims’ Charter guarantees that the privacy and dignity of criminal complainants will be respected at all times. To seek to obtain a rape complainant’s private medical records without their knowledge and consent is a gross invasion of privacy. Such action was an outrageous abuse of police power.

Ms X immediately went to court to challenge the search warrant. On the morning of 5th November 2019, the issuing magistrate, having been properly apprised of the facts, immediately suspended the search warrant. The Magistrate further granted an Anonymity Order, which prevents any person (including the press) from identifying Ms X, whether directly or indirectly. A breach of the Anonymity Order may amount to a contempt of Court.

Over the past few days, Ms X has been deeply distressed to see alleged details of her case leak onto the internet. The Police Public Relations Bureau and unidentified ‘police sources’ have selectively released supposed details of the investigation, along with adverse comment on the evidence, in a way which any objective observer would be driven to conclude, were directed at publicly discrediting Ms X and diminishing any prospect of a successful prosecution.

Ms X considers that any attempt by police to publicly discredit a rape victim and adversely comment on evidence in an on-going investigation is despicable and offensive. Such attempts should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Unsurprisingly, Ms X has formed the view that the Hong Kong police force cannot be trusted to impartially investigate her allegations or indeed any criminal complaints relating to police officers.

Ms X demands that the police immediately cease the unlawful and grossly unprofessional leaking of information and comment about her case. She asks for her privacy to be respected.

迪士尼年底大公開! 讓你一次看懂漫威三大電視影劇!

團購企業家486先生當年以寫部落格起家，透過實際的使用、評測及分享，累積了大量的粉絲。從早期的開團銷售模式，成功轉型為電子商務平台。如今，486團購為台灣家電類網購平台領導品牌。

點進下面連結，陪我拜訪大哥吧!
「486先生」臉書粉絲團: https://www.facebook.com/KK486/
「486好物與開箱」臉書粉絲團: https://www.facebook.com/MR486Communit

FB(有各種影視迷因): https://www.facebook.com/tessereq/
加入會員:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Q-...
如果你剛來，請看這裡: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZj5p...
諾蘭電影全解析: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv3pZ...
=====================================

剪輯: Bruce Lu
腳本: Jason Liu
監製/編輯: 黃豪瑞 (Jasper)

歡迎來到超粒方，一個主要探討影視作品的頻道，在這裡，你可以看到各種電影和影集的觀點解析，從熱門大片道經典老片到必看的冷門電影! 有時也會探究時事。還有迷因，非常，非常多的謎因


All videos on my channel are only used for commentary.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.



最後一部要解析的，我相信也是大家最期待的壓軸影集——史上最性感的反派...洛基

明顯可以看出這是終局之戰後，洛基所另外創造的時間軸.

第一個畫面，我們就看到在復仇者聯盟4中洛基拿走空間寶石偷跑的畫面
但接到下一幕的特效卻是阿斯嘉彩虹橋的特效，
接到下一幕，看到躺在沙漠中的洛基時，
他嘴巴與手上的鐐銬都不見了，更重要的是空間寶石也不見了。
接著我們看到洛基來到了TVA，也就是時間管理委員會。
時間管理委員會是由羅志祥創造的組織。
是漫威宇宙中管理多元宇宙秩序以及時間的一個組織，
他們甚至有權利可以修剪掉過於危險的多元宇宙，
但他們在時間軸上不是無敵的，之後將會出現在蟻人與黃蜂女3之中的征服者康
就是一個TVA無法處理的例子。
TVA還有一個特點，就是其中的特工都是不斷地由自己的上一代基因所製造出來的複製人，
這樣才能確保效率以及品質。
洛基可能就是因為擾亂時間線，而被這個組織逮捕，被迫幫忙出任務來贖罪。
而洛基身旁站的白髮老頭是Mobius M Mobius，
(不知道這邊Owen Wilson還會不會說他的招牌: WOW)
他是TVA的中階主管，特別想以TVA的法律將驚奇四超人繩之以法。
所以他的出現，也有可能會接到之後的驚奇四超人電影。
他們所在的電梯內可以藉由選擇不同樓層前往不同的多元宇宙。
這裡我們看到時間警察走入一個帳篷裡，
從帳篷的縫隙中可以看到外面的人穿著都十分復古，這幕可能是發生在比較古老的時間線。
這邊出現了一個穿著連帽斗篷的人，
可能是由Sophia Di Martino所飾演的女版洛基，或者是漫威最有名的斗篷人物-
驚奇四超人的大反派末日博士。
這裡洛基被帶到法庭準備受審，
後面的三個頭像可能是正義和平、正義之愛、以及正義善意，對，剛剛那三個都是人名。
都是TVA的重要成員，前兩位是探員，第三位是法庭保全。
或者，也有可能是「生命法庭」，
也就是超越一切，維護多重宇宙平衡的存在。
洛基這裡似乎是看到了自己的時間線，
他也有可能看到了在原本的多元宇宙中自己的死亡。
因此，洛基在《無限之戰》對索爾說的「老哥，太陽會再度照耀在我們身上」
可能就是因為他看到了另外一個自己還活著
這裡我們看到了時間特工們與洛基正在進攻一間大賣場，
畫面旁邊的橘色方框可能就是他們穿越多元宇宙所用的傳送門。
有趣的是這裡的招牌寫著Roxxcart，
而在漫威的主宇宙之中，Roxxon是一個著名的化學公司，
在許久之前，漫畫之中甚至設定是這個公司派人殺害了鋼鐵人的父母。
而Roxxon在這個宇宙之中可能變成了類似家樂福的大賣場公司，才會叫Roxxcart。
這裡洛基看起來受到了衝擊，
他有可能是想逃脫TVA結果失敗了，也有可能是在接受成為特工的測驗，
因為可以看到旁邊有另一個員工正在紀錄。
在這個畫面中可以看到Möbius把某個東西給了一個小女孩，
這個小女孩可能就是之後會出現的女洛基，
而後面彩繪玻璃上紅色臉孔的惡魔也神似在汪達與幻視中提到的梅非斯托。
這一幕中出現了看起來很像黑寡婦的人坐在瓦礫上，但他亦有可能是前面所提的女洛基。
你們想要黑寡婦回歸嗎? 我是覺得一直復活會讓漫威角色的死變得挺廉價的啦

這裡洛基從很明顯是毀滅後的紐約站了起來，
後面可以看到倒塌的復仇者聯盟大樓，可能是復仇者聯盟徹底失敗的一個宇宙。
飛機的這一幕致敬了有名的一個劫機事件，劫匪叫做Dan Cooper，
亦被稱為D.B. Cooper。

他於1971年11月24日狹持了一架波音727型的飛機，
並要求20萬美金的贖款，在拿到錢後穿戴降落傘跳下飛機，就此失蹤。
這裡影集讓洛基作為D.B.Cooper，並在跳下飛機時被彩虹橋接走，
不禁讓我們期待漫威會不會利用各種懸案玩出不同的花樣。
最後我們可以看到這群人身上都帶著洛基參選總統的徽章，
這也是取自於漫畫的一條分支故事，
而且可以看出他們身上的裝備質感有點像是玩具而非真正的防具。
同時也聽到洛基對索爾與海姆達爾說話，所以幾乎可以確定他們的出現。