Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[Ascended]

Don't bring writing proverbs into this because then I gave up bring up "is this the most interesting part of your character's story, and if not, why aren't I reading that?"

In a medium of retcons and reboots and trying to use one another to correct each other, you can't even trust everything on the printed page. We're always doing some mental gymnastics to fix mistakes or correct aberrations.

Oh gods now *I'm* getting flashbacks of professors grilling me on my writing! Okay, you're right, let's leave the college lessons alone!

And applying lit analysis to comics is indeed a weird ass challenge. Not only do you have the continuity problems you mention, but also the change of eras. How do we interpret something from, say, the 50's? Maybe it was progressive then, but is regressive now. Do we read it with the intent of the original authors, or do we read it against modern values?

Half the reason I still love comics, I think, is because it's so hard to nail stuff like this down.

The only one of these that I'd say is objectionable was Lex and as you said, that was beyond his control. Clark wasn't in a position to raise Kara himself. The thing with the Amazons is weird due to Jeph Loeb but Clark did know about them through Diana.

Clark had a steady, well paying job and housing, which is more than a lot of real parents can say. He was absolutely capable of taking Kara in. He decided to leave her with foster parents he barely knew, or a bunch of Amazons, of which he really knew only one of them (who didn't even live there).

Clark didn't dump the kid on someone else because he was never his responsibility, at least until they found out he was cloned from Clark. Kon was initially just a science experiment who wore Clark's symbol.

Letting the kid wear that symbol and use the name makes him, at least partially, Clark's responsibility. Let's be real here, we have seen Clark save children and spend more time and effort finding their families than he spent ensuring that Conner was being taken care of properly. He left Conner with a dude who looked and acted like a greasy porn star from the 80's trying to cash in on any quick trick he could lay his hands on. I'll concede that originally Conner had no biological ties to Clark, but the amount of f*cks not given are astounding.

I don't what would be objectionable about this depiction here.

I'm not saying anything was objectionable. I don't recall the story well enough to say.

[SiegePerilous02]

Let's not forget Hal too.

Hal's weren't really forgotten, even after the (much needed) Parallax retcon.

It's definitely a different scenario to Harley, and he's not nearly the repeat offender Batman is

[Gaius]

Let's not forget Hal too.

Hal actually faced something resembling consequences for his actions with his time as the Spectre and in John's run.

Quinn's entire existence (in every version of her whereas Parallax was a comics thing) is predicated on two things:

A) Getting "cred" for being the Joker's partner and

B) Avoiding any and all of the consequences of that would actually mean while still pretending we should feel sorry for her.

[Robanker]

You can say Harley Quinn, we all know that's her raison d'être.

It'll be okay to call her on it if her sales slip, but not before.

Just like how Bruce killed/is responsible for the death of more people with Brother Eye than the Joker may have in his career, but uh, DAE Wonder Woman bad for killing one villain?

[witchboy]

It'll be okay to call her on it if her sales slip, but not before.

Just like how Bruce killed/is responsible for the death of more people with Brother Eye than the Joker may have in his career, but uh, DAE Wonder Woman bad for killing one villain?

I was always 100% Team Wonder Woman on killing Maxwell Lord.

[Robanker]

I was always 100% Team Wonder Woman on killing Maxwell Lord.

I wasn't, but I would prefer traditional (non anti-heroes) not kill and instead find a better way. Before anyone tells me that's unrealistic, they throw tanks for sport and nobody has ever thought to shoot Bruce in the mouth. They're superheroes. Don't drag them through the mud because your feeble adult mind can't process that not everything exists by the same rules of engagement that we do and that realism is relative to the world it is being applied to.

That said, having Bruce or Clark ostracize her was absolutely mental considering:

A) Clark had taken lives and wrestled with it in that very continuity, so he knew what it did to a soul who crossed that line and would have tried to help her.

B) Bruce is friends with Gordon (who has killed) and sees Alfred as a surrogate father (who may have depending on his backstory) and his own hands are drenched in blood over the Brother Eye debacle.

But DC couldn't think of any reason for them to get mad at Diana so they just made both come across as tools for Diana making a mistake they either already themselves made (directly or otherwise) and had forgiven/absolved themselves over. Infinite Crisis needed a contrived reason to split them up, so it made one, hence why Bruce got to tell Clark the last time he inspired anyone was when he died and nobody in the room replied that Bruce himself inspired a kid to get killed. Oops. I guess only Bruce is allowed to doll out low blows.


Diana killing Max Lord was emblematic of a larger issue that is decidedly not what I want from superhero comics. The end message of that book kind of pointed DC in a better direction, but they circled back to it so fast you'd be forgiven for thinking they didn't learn anything.

[marhawkman]

It'll be okay to call her on it if her sales slip, but not before.

Just like how Bruce killed/is responsible for the death of more people with Brother Eye than the Joker may have in his career, but uh, DAE Wonder Woman bad for killing one villain?

Yeah, it's weird. Dozens of nameless innocent victims? no one cares. One named villain? gotta avoid killing him at all costs.... even to prevent him from killing someone else.... even a named character.

I wasn't, but I would prefer traditional (non anti-heroes) not kill and instead find a better way. Before anyone tells me that's unrealistic, they throw tanks for sport and nobody has ever thought to shoot Bruce in the mouth. They're superheroes. Don't drag them through the mud because your feeble adult mind can't process that not everything exists by the same rules of engagement that we do and that realism is relative to the world it is being applied to.

That said, having Bruce or Clark ostracize her was absolutely mental considering:

A) Clark had taken lives and wrestled with it in that very continuity, so he knew what it did to a soul who crossed that line and would have tried to help her.

B) Bruce is friends with Gordon (who has killed) and sees Alfred as a surrogate father (who may have depending on his backstory) and his own hands are drenched in blood over the Brother Eye debacle.

But DC couldn't think of any reason for them to get mad at Diana so they just made both come across as tools for Diana making a mistake they either already themselves made (directly or otherwise) and had forgiven/absolved themselves over. Infinite Crisis needed a contrived reason to split them up, so it made one, hence why Bruce got to tell Clark the last time he inspired anyone was when he died and nobody in the room replied that Bruce himself inspired a kid to get killed. Oops. I guess only Bruce is allowed to doll out low blows.

Diana killing Max Lord was emblematic of a larger issue that is decidedly not what I want from superhero comics. The end message of that book kind of pointed DC in a better direction, but they circled back to it so fast you'd be forgiven for thinking they didn't learn anything.

Let's not forget context. WHY did WW do it? Max had murdered Blue Beetle. (not sure if WW knew about that) Max used his powers to forced Superman to nearly beat Batman to death.... both Batman and Superman knew this because they were there. WW gave Lord an ultimatum, "stop mind controlling Superman or die", Max chose death.

It doesn't make sense for anyone to fault her for it.

[I'm a Fish]

I wasn't, but I would prefer traditional (non anti-heroes) not kill and instead find a better way. Before anyone tells me that's unrealistic, they throw tanks for sport and nobody has ever thought to shoot Bruce in the mouth. They're superheroes. Don't drag them through the mud because your feeble adult mind can't process that not everything exists by the same rules of engagement that we do and that realism is relative to the world it is being applied to.

That said, having Bruce or Clark ostracize her was absolutely mental considering:

A) Clark had taken lives and wrestled with it in that very continuity, so he knew what it did to a soul who crossed that line and would have tried to help her.

B) Bruce is friends with Gordon (who has killed) and sees Alfred as a surrogate father (who may have depending on his backstory) and his own hands are drenched in blood over the Brother Eye debacle.

But DC couldn't think of any reason for them to get mad at Diana so they just made both come across as tools for Diana making a mistake they either already themselves made (directly or otherwise) and had forgiven/absolved themselves over. Infinite Crisis needed a contrived reason to split them up, so it made one, hence why Bruce got to tell Clark the last time he inspired anyone was when he died and nobody in the room replied that Bruce himself inspired a kid to get killed. Oops. I guess only Bruce is allowed to doll out low blows.


Diana killing Max Lord was emblematic of a larger issue that is decidedly not what I want from superhero comics. The end message of that book kind of pointed DC in a better direction, but they circled back to it so fast you'd be forgiven for thinking they didn't learn anything.

With Gordon and Alfred, they are normal human's who can't block bullets.

Still some BS Bruce was mad at Diana, though. Like the reason you mentioned in A, Bruce wasn't mad Clark killed but is mad Diana did?

[SiegePerilous02]

Rucka's original plans for the neck snap and how Batman and Superman would be used in relation to that were a thousand times better than what we got once it got hijacked by Max Lord and Infinite Crisis.

DC's stance on ignoring the Brother Eye thing is 100% the right call because it's a terrible idea to have one of your flagship heroes be responsible for that. The problem was never doing that for Batman, it was not doing it for everyone else. Diana still can't shake the Max Lord garbage and it took 10 years for Hal to get rehabilitated.

[Stanlos]

Yeah, it's weird. Dozens of nameless innocent victims? no one cares. One named villain? gotta avoid killing him at all costs.... even to prevent him from killing someone else.... even a named character.Let's not forget context. WHY did WW do it? Max had murdered Blue Beetle. (not sure if WW knew about that) Max used his powers to forced Superman to nearly beat Batman to death.... both Batman and Superman knew this because they were there. WW gave Lord an ultimatum, "stop mind controlling Superman or die", Max chose death.

It doesn't make sense for anyone to fault her for it.

People faulted her for it because to their eyes she killed a helpless captive. They also don't care that she was the only person capable of making the call due to the Lasso, and both the Eyes and Wisdom of Athena. Unfortunately the themes to be explored from the first act never were thanks to the silliness of DiDio who reneged on terms having a disastrous impact to WW (which Byrne, ever the sage, had predicted) and reframing--read: tradhing--Amazons Attack.

The last element affecting our realworld fellow fans is fan stuff. While the book makes it clear that Max felt the only options were for Diana to kill Supes or for Supes to kill Diana resulting in the elimination of one of the two greatest threats to humanity and his plans regardless I have read a lot of posts where people come up with all kinds of random scenarios not present. WWs peculiar set of attributes enabled her to see a course Max had not considered which upset his plans.

I wish we could have seen it play out as originally plotted but oh well. Hopefully one day we willl now that we have Omniwhatevs.

[Robanker]

With Gordon and Alfred, they are normal human's who can't block bullets.

Still some BS Bruce was mad at Diana, though. Like the reason you mentioned in A, Bruce wasn't mad Clark killed but is mad Diana did?

Gordon and Alfred deal with threats appropriately scaled to them, as do Clark and Diana.

I imagine to a regular human being, a lunatic with a gun is around the same level of needing to be put down as "guy who can mind control Superman to commit genocide" is to Diana, or "intergalactic tyrant seeking to enslave/destroy the human race" is to Clark. Bruce drawing a line between any of them (and this is BEFORE we talk about Jason) is hypocritical as all hell (yes, he considers superheroes to hold themselves to a higher standard, but BROTHER FUCKING EYE, BRUCE)... But Batman has long since been an ethical hero.

Bruce has been playing favorites with who can take lives for a while now and it makes zero sense, but Batgod's a mess for a litany of reasons.

Maybe he gave Clark a pass because the latter, in his view, ran away for a bit of a cry and sulk, which Bruce (master of brooding and sulking alone) can respect emo game. Diana being able to rationalize it and move on probably offended him more than the murder did, or he was deflecting his responsibility for Brother Eye to Diana.

I may still be salty about Brother Eye being his Harley Quinn in Injstice getting away with it all nonsense.

[marhawkman]

People faulted her for it because to their eyes she killed a helpless captive. They also don't care that she was the only person capable of making the call due to the Lasso, and both the Eyes and Wisdom of Athena. Unfortunately the themes to be explored from the first act never were thanks to the silliness of DiDio who reneged on terms having a disastrous impact to WW (which Byrne, ever the sage, had predicted) and reframing--read: tradhing--Amazons Attack.

The last element affecting our realworld fellow fans is fan stuff. While the book makes it clear that Max felt the only options were for Diana to kill Supes or for Supes to kill Diana resulting in the elimination of one of the two greatest threats to humanity and his plans regardless I have read a lot of posts where people come up with all kinds of random scenarios not present. WWs peculiar set of attributes enabled her to see a course Max had not considered which upset his plans.

I wish we could have seen it play out as originally plotted but oh well. Hopefully one day we willl now that we have Omniwhatevs.

I disagree with the idea Max was helpless. If he was Diana wouldn't have needed to kill him.

[ermac]

What's the "Brother Eye thing"?

[king81992]

What's the "Brother Eye thing"?

An AI Batman created to monitor metahuman activity all over the world, it went rogue and started turning people into cyborgs/ killer robots who could copy metahuman abilities.

[John Venus]

I've brought this up before and it feels worth talking about again: the plotline they gave Maxwell Lord in Sacrifice and Infinite Crisis would have worked much better if it had been Snapper Carr instead. Rucka's version of Snapper Carr can always be retconned into a clone or random dude brainwashed into thinking he was Snapper.

Snapper has betrayed the League before, he tried to reform and become a hero but is such a background character that you could easily expand upon it to say that he took a darker turn while the heroes forgot him. He is also an inherently better foil for Ted than Max.