“Heroes in Crisis” Limited Series by Tom King & Clay Mann to Start in September

[numberthirty]

Whomever is sending Lois the videos is not the killer. In issue 1, we saw that the killer wrote "The puddlers are all dead" on the wall. In issue 2, the letter sent with the video of Arsenal was signed "The Puddler". Based on what we currently know, the killer and the informant are 2 seperate entities.

That's if you trust what was written on the wall.

[cranger]

To me it's absurd. Nobody involved has a source to protect.

I think some words get thrown around in the conversation and get latched on to that are not really material to the story. Lois never says she is protecting sources. Neither does Superman. Superman says the reason he did not bring this to them earlier is because he only found this out because Lois told him, as a wife and a fellow reporter.

Again, we don't know if Lois knows about the murders. There is a very good chance Superman has not told her for reasons that work within their relationship. Based on her brief conversation, and the fact that Superman says her story will only detail what Sanctuary is, the role it performs and how it works, without naming names but no mention of not mentioning the murders, is pretty supportive of Lois not knowing what happened.

So it only comes down to Superman weighing the options. And let's be honest, while a tragedy occurred there is no indication that there is any further risk to anyone else, immediate or otherwise.

[Talon1load]

This is your context, you were talking about them not being truthful about where they get stories or everything they know, not about killers. The sources are themselves.



See above.

Nothing you said makes any sense. They are their own sources? Get out of here with that bullshit.

[brettc1]

If folks want to ignore that to see whatever, their call.

Regarding the Lois splash page that Bleeding Cool has dubbed “fan service”

People can compare the images and judge for themselves.

Clark...


Attachment 75856

Lois...

Attachment 75857

For me personally? That is a normal way for a guy to lie in bed. That is NOT a natural way for a woman to enter a room. Leg propped up, maybe. Pulling her tee shirt down tight across her chest at the same time?

That’s just outright provocative; my wife comes in the bedroom looking like that, I know it’s not to discuss deep moral issues.

[Talon1load]

I think some words get thrown around in the conversation and get latched on to that are not really material to the story. Lois never says she is protecting sources. Neither does Superman. Superman says the reason he did not bring this to them earlier is because he only found this out because Lois told him, as a wife and a fellow reporter.

Again, we don't know if Lois knows about the murders. There is a very good chance Superman has not told her for reasons that work within their relationship. Based on her brief conversation, and the fact that Superman says her story will only detail what Sanctuary is, the role it performs and how it works, without naming names but no mention of not mentioning the murders, is pretty supportive of Lois not knowing what happened.

So it only comes down to Superman weighing the options. And let's be honest, while a tragedy occurred there is no indication that there is any further risk to any, immediate or otherwise.

You must be pretty limber by now because you’re doing a lot of stretching to get this to make any sense.

[cranger]

Nothing you said makes any sense. They are their own sources? Get out of here with that bullshit.

It is a bit tongue in cheek, but the whole jab at Superman because he can sleep at night knowing he (or his wife) writes stories about himself who he really knows the identity of (because it is himself) is pretty flimsy in the first place.

[Doctor Bifrost]

The Harley Quinn part of this story really makes no sense to me. She shouldn't have been in Sanctuary in the first place, and the way the Trinity before and Batgirl treated her here just feels confusing. Treating a criminal who has willingly done horrible things like a lost child is baffling.

Can anyone explain to me who and what Harley Quinn is in the world of the DCU?

I read Suicide Squad, and there she seems to be a sociopathic killer who enjoys smashing people's skulls in, is controlled by Amanda Waller by a brain bomb implanted in her skull, and whose "redeeming feature" is that she seems to care about some of her teammates. (Also, she shows a lot of skin and has big breasts, and is quick with a clever quip, which can be a lot of fun for many readers but is not a "redeeming feature" with respect to her crimes within the setting of the story.)

I don't read her own comic. When I've glanced at it, it seems to be out of continuity. Or maybe Suicide Squad is out of continuity. Or maybe there is no continuity.

In a Batgirl story about a year ago (and forgive me, I don't have it in front of me, so I may get some of the details wrong), Waller let Harley out on a one-day furlough - with no guards or handlers, and no evidence of close, real-time surveillance, which struck me as absurd. (See: "sociopathic killer.") Harley immediately attacks some evil techbro with a lethal virus, which could also, of course, kill thousands of innocent people. (Hey, guess what, Amanda, you let out a sociopathic killer!)

Batgirl and her friends, prompted by clues from Harley, go on a search for the antidote, which, after much excitement, they find Just In Time. Then Batgirl lets Harley wander off, and makes some comment about how she'll check with Waller to see if Harley got back. (And if she didn't? What will you do then, Barbara?)

Of course, Harley being so clever and unpredictable and cute, it's not really clear in the story whether Waller let her out (or she just got out), whether the virus was really lethal, whether she would have let it kill thousands if Batgirl and friends didn't find the antidote, etc. Ya just can't tell, can ya?

But what's weird is that Batgirl - hero of Gotham and Burnside, protector of the innocent, upholder of justice, and so on - simply doesn't seem to care about any of it. Maybe she saw a killer allowed to roam free by a U.S. government agent. Maybe she saw a mass murder attempt. But it doesn't prompt much of a reaction from her, or concern for Harley's (and/or Waller's) future actions. Batgirl and her friends treat the whole Christmas adventure like a lark, smiling and giggling. "Maybe we'll do it again next year!"

And here in Heroes In Crisis, Barbara is Harley's savior, her best friend. "You're... hurting. They don't know how good you are. Or could be." Let's handle this without "people who think they know us not knowing us."

What other murderous villain gets this kind of compassionate consideration? In what world does this relationship between Batgirl and Harley Quinn make any sense?

Also: Poison Ivy could do better.

[numberthirty]

What other murderous villain gets this kind of compassionate consideration? In what world does this relationship between Batgirl and Harley Quinn make any sense?

Also: Poison Ivy could do better.

Any world where Barbara has been through what "This" Barbara has.

[Nite-Wing]

Not sure why you guys are reaching so much to excuse Lois and Clark
That whole conversation they had in the bedroom is pretty bad.
As Superman later said they have known about this for days
Lois wants to tell a story and keep the videos flowing to her to prevent the source/murderer from going to someone else instead who will apparently reveal everything(Secret identities,traumas, etc) instead of just talking about the facility.


"Every day a new confession, From a new hero comes in all from this puddler" Okay the guy who's name is written in blood at the crime scene is sending lois videos. Its been a couple of days into the investigation
Lois and Superman have this info that Batman and Flash can be investigating and using to catch the murderer.
No they decide to tell a story because they want to be first to break the news

[cranger]

Not sure why you guys are reaching so much to excuse Lois and Clark
That whole conversation they had in the bedroom is pretty bad.
As Superman later said they have known about this for days
Lois wants to tell a story and keep the videos flowing to her to prevent the source/murderer from going to someone else instead who will apparently reveal everything(Secret identities,traumas, etc) instead of just talking about the facility.


"Every day a new confession, From a new hero comes in all from this puddler" Okay the guy who's name is written in blood at the crime scene is sending lois videos. Its been a couple of days into the investigation
Lois and Superman have this info that Batman and Flash can be investigating and using to catch the murderer.
No they decide to tell a story because they want to be first to break the news

Maybe some of us keep "defending" Lois and Superman because we are reading the story differently?

For starters, Lois keeps getting lumped in with Superman but she very, very likely does not even know there were any murders. A point I have brought up several times but no one who keeps going on about Lois have information about murders has ever bothered to address why they think Lois knows about murders.

[Nick Miller]

To me it's absurd. Nobody involved has a source to protect.

Journalists make deals with their sources. "This is off the record. This is on the record. I won't reveal you as the source if you do not want me to. If you indicate a plan to commit a violent crime in the future, I will have to go to the police. But if you..." Terms are agreed to, within the bounds of journalistic ethics.

If an unknown party, who the journalist did not solicit in any way or make any agreement with, sends information to the journalist, there is no relationship, no terms, no agreement. The journalist has no obligation whatsoever to keep the information or how it was obtained secret.

(Now, if they want the information to keep coming in, or they want a "scoop" and so won't leak the information, even to the police, that's their decision. It may or may not be legal in some cases. But in any case it is entirely self-serving, and not a matter of journalistic obligation.)

We have cases like this in The So-called Real World™. In San Francisco, when the Zodiac Killer, who had never been apprehended and was still considered a threat, sent letters to the San Francisco Chronicle (or perhaps it was someone pretending to be the Zodiac Killer), the Chronicle went to the police with the letters. Of course. They had made no agreement with any source, so they had no obligation not to. And they could help the police find a killer.

While Batman, the Flash, Superman, and Wonder Woman were investigating the brutal murders of a number of their friends and colleagues at what was supposed to be a highly secret, entirely secure facility called the Sanctuary, Lois Lane received - totally unsolicited, and with no agreement between her and the sender - videos from that very place. They might or might not be from the killer, but they are from someone who was willing to expose the secret of the place, and had broken its supposedly fool-proof security. Obviously this could provide vital clues to the investigation. The fact that Lois and Clark didn't turn over the tapes to the Greatest Detective in the World immediately is simply an obstruction of the investigation, an insult to their friends, could possibly lead to more deaths, and is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. And if Clark kept it a secret because it was "confidential information within a marriage," you're still stuck with the fact that Lois must have asked him to keep it a secret - which is simply her obstructing the investigation and putting her husband's friends at continued risk.

(This is all separate from the question of whether she is obligated to go public with them, which is a different issue. But, you know, if she's not obligated to go public with Superman's and Batman's secret IDs, why is she obligated to go public with anything dealing with the personal lives of superheroes? But that's a different discussion.)

In fact, Lois has to go to another source, to verify. Whoever feeds you info, you can’t just publish it. Lol. That’s journalism 101.

[HandofPrometheus]

Can anyone explain to me who and what Harley Quinn is in the world of the DCU?

I read Suicide Squad, and there she seems to be a sociopathic killer who enjoys smashing people's skulls in, is controlled by Amanda Waller by a brain bomb implanted in her skull, and whose "redeeming feature" is that she seems to care about some of her teammates. (Also, she shows a lot of skin and has big breasts, and is quick with a clever quip, which can be a lot of fun for many readers but is not a "redeeming feature" with respect to her crimes within the setting of the story.)

I don't read her own comic. When I've glanced at it, it seems to be out of continuity. Or maybe Suicide Squad is out of continuity. Or maybe there is no continuity.

In a Batgirl story about a year ago (and forgive me, I don't have it in front of me, so I may get some of the details wrong), Waller let Harley out on a one-day furlough - with no guards or handlers, and no evidence of close, real-time surveillance, which struck me as absurd. (See: "sociopathic killer.") Harley immediately attacks some evil techbro with a lethal virus, which could also, of course, kill thousands of innocent people. (Hey, guess what, Amanda, you let out a sociopathic killer!)

Batgirl and her friends, prompted by clues from Harley, go on a search for the antidote, which, after much excitement, they find Just In Time. Then Batgirl lets Harley wander off, and makes some comment about how she'll check with Waller to see if Harley got back. (And if she didn't? What will you do then, Barbara?)

Of course, Harley being so clever and unpredictable and cute, it's not really clear in the story whether Waller let her out (or she just got out), whether the virus was really lethal, whether she would have let it kill thousands if Batgirl and friends didn't find the antidote, etc. Ya just can't tell, can ya?

But what's weird is that Batgirl - hero of Gotham and Burnside, protector of the innocent, upholder of justice, and so on - simply doesn't seem to care about any of it. Maybe she saw a killer allowed to roam free by a U.S. government agent. Maybe she saw a mass murder attempt. But it doesn't prompt much of a reaction from her, or concern for Harley's (and/or Waller's) future actions. Batgirl and her friends treat the whole Christmas adventure like a lark, smiling and giggling. "Maybe we'll do it again next year!"

And here in Heroes In Crisis, Barbara is Harley's savior, her best friend. "You're... hurting. They don't know how good you are. Or could be." Let's handle this without "people who think they know us not knowing us."

What other murderous villain gets this kind of compassionate consideration? In what world does this relationship between Batgirl and Harley Quinn make any sense?

Also: Poison Ivy could do better.

DC took Harley out her costume and away from Joker but absolutely had no idea how to use her after that. Yes, they put her on the Suicide Squad but she was acting no better than Joker. Like, she killed kids and thousands of people by blowing them up.

Her solo book was honestly non canon stories. Nobody ever referred to it when writing her in any other title.

[Arsenal]

I'm of two minds how King handled Batgirl in #4.

The first is the booth session. Its another tie back into TKJ, and in a way it shows how Babs has become stuck as a character since she was returned as Batgirl. The only trauma or mental issue that is around for her is TKJ, this despite that Mairghread Scott makes clear in her run that even if the people around her still think about TKJ all the time, Babs doesn't. Babs is basically the single DC hero who should be a poster child of handling mental trauma and overcoming it, and probably the DC hero who is most aware of their feelings and issues short of Wonder Woman.

She uses her empathy well to connect with Harley Quinn. But I never had the feeling that Babs had particular connection with Harley Quinn. Poison Ivy, yes, but not Harley. Instead, from what I've read and seen it's Batman who has been trying to find and connect to Harleen Quinzel behind the Harley Quinn mask. But I appreciate Babs showing her empathetic side, and being ready to critique Batman. Here it echoes back to Oracle: Year One, which makes it even more frustrating that King fails to move Batgirl beyond TKJ.

Maybe my memory’s messed up, but I thought it was made pretty clear in one of the recent Batgirl issues that it still bothers her. Maybe not the experience itself but about how she was treated afterwards.

[byrd156]

What does journalistic integrity matter to either of them? They both write stories about Superman all the time, I doubt either of them are putting disclaimers that Clark is Superman or that Lois is married to him.

That's not the same thing as protecting a source, like at all.

[byrd156]

I don't think a character's origin needs to be spelled out every time they appear.

I do think a character - especially a significant character whose relationships to other characters (the O5 Teen Titans, Wonder Woman) should have an origin, one that makes sense both narratively and thematically for the character, and is tied into her overall characterization over the years.

In The So-called Real World™, the historical details of Troy - which are still little-known and contested - don't have to have much effect on how we read the Illiad. But when we read the Illiad - almost certainly as fiction - we (in the way of readers of fiction) treat the details in the story as if they are "true" within the fictional setting of the story, and those details matter to how we experience and appreciate the story.

If an historian says, "well, there's evidence that most of this didn't happen, and what actually happened was more like this..." (or, "of course there are no such thing as Greek gods"), well, that can lead to interesting discussions about the relationship between history, literature, and fiction.

But if, in the pages of the Illiad, Prince Paris were to say to Helen of Troy, "Exciting, isn't it? Of course you and I don't really know if our love affair actually takes place or is just made up, do we, Helen, or if the battles and deaths taking place outside the gates of the city are really happening, or even if we're in a city..." - that would be very different, something of a post-deconstructionist joke in what is otherwise a poetic epic. It's one thing for readers to acknowledge the fact that what they are reading about isn't actually factual (although the readers will treat is "as if" factual for the purposes of enjoying the story itself). It's entirely another thing for the characters in the story to question the factuality of their lives. That creates a whole different tone, and set of questions and issues.

And if Donna is actually talking about herself here (rather than Tom King using Donna as a mouthpiece, rather than a character, to lecture us all) then that's what we have here. And I think Donna the character deserves better.

For years - decades - writers have been increasingly screwing up Donna Troy's origin, backstory, and history (often in ways that are not really good for the character). And instead of saying, "Oh, look, here [Infinite Crisis, or Rebirth, or whatever] is an opportunity to fix our mistakes!" they instead seem to be saying "Let's make the fact that we always screw up her origin the defining factor of Donna Troy - her origin is that her origin is always messed up!"

Which, for me, might be fine in normalman or Rick & Morty, but when you're going to be writing stories in which the characterization, relationships, conflicts, dangers, and stakes are meant to be taken more or less seriously (and certainly Heroes In Crisis puts itself forth as a story taking place in a narrative universe where stories are meant to be taken that way), it's not really good for the character or the story, and something of a disappointment who are tired of seeing Donna Troy's continuity treated like a joke practically every time she appears.

But I'll emphasize: that's just me.

(And I'll add: Not that the other O5 Teen Titans aren't saddled with their own mistreatments. What is it with that?!!?!)

Very well said.