Loki Appreciation 2019

[Raye]

The thing about "the god of outcast" role is how that applies so much to the larger Marvel Universe. Like with being the god of stories, it seems like it could apply to a wide range of things if Cates went far enough.

I explained on the previous page how I really like the God of Outcasts thing, and yeah, a large part of that is because it is quite a broad thing that does apply to a lot of situations, and can motivate him and act as a moral foundation. I like it a lot better than God of Stories, because God of Stories does not give him much to DO, no personal mission, no goal to chase, or moral foundation, and can only really be used in solo stories. It's more of an outlook or method kind of thing.

But as I said above, I see the Outcasts thing and the Asgardian roles as separate things, Outcasts is personal, it embodies his personal motivation, formed by experiences unique to Loki, but isn't a 'role' in the same way as the Asgardian roles, where there are fixed roles/jobs and different gods need to fill them in some kind of cosmic hierarchy. So I think he can do both at the same time. Like, Thor's always going to be the 'God of Thunder' regardless of what job he's doing in the Asgardian hierarchy, because that is a title he carries due to his personal brand of power, the Asgardian role isn't the 'thunder' bit, (even tho things get a little fuzzy with Mjolnir in that regard, where the enchantment on the hammer means that becoming worthy of the cosmic role also means you tap into Thor's Thunder deal) it's what he does with that power. The same can be said of Loki with the Outcasts thing. As Loki himself said, this has been something that's been a part of him for a long time, kind of informing a lot of what he's done, for good or ill, it's just that he's looked at his past and realized a common motivation for a lot of things he's done, and kind of formalized it with the new title and mission statement, and he's decided to stick up for outcasts other than just himself. He can act on those beliefs and at the same time fulfill the requirements of one of the cosmic hierarchy type roles, since there is potential overlap, but they are also separate.

Basically Role in this sense equals the Asgardian hierarchy thing, the roles are jobs that fate ensures are always filled, so that the universe continues to function and keep it's shape, and they may not have a concrete title associated with them, which means it is sometimes a little hard to refer to them without just referencing the current holder of the role, the 'sword' and the 'sharpening stone' as Loki put it as he was dying, regarding his and Thor's roles, but they tend to become associated with the current holder of the role, which makes things a bit fuzzy, so it's easy to think of the God of Chaos or Sharpening Stone as 'Loki's role' but it isn't necessarily one he specifically has to fill, he's just occupied it for so long that it's become associated with him, the same way Thor's role has become associated with him, and Odin's role with him etc. but these roles can change hands, and have done so before.

the 'God of Outcasts' or 'God of Thunder' is not a 'role' in that sense, it is more like a title representing abilities and/or personal motivations, it may motivate them, or say something about what they do or how they do it, but it isn't technically part of the hierarchy that fate governs.

[Rosebunse]

I guess I'm behind on things because I was just nervous how the book would end. I'm a bit out of the loop here.

I don't know, the book was pretty good and I'm still surprised it only lasted five issues, but as I've said before, I still think it has rather a lot to do with whatever Cates has planned. One thing to consider is that even if Cates is keeping Thor and Venom separate for now, we have a lot of things happening in the MU that seem to be leading to something again. We have Ewing and Hickman seemingly in the driver's seat with Cates close behind. **** is going to be getting very weird.

[Raye]

I kind of assumed you had wandered away for a bit because of the Morbius book

I know that post was more than your post was probably going for, I know i ramble and go on tangents and probably go into more detail than needed, but I use this thread to kind of analyze and fine tune my thoughts on what I'm reading. so...

And yeah, there was an interview linked a bit back that... well, it didn't confirm that it was cancelled due to Cates' plans, but it did kind of lend credence to the idea that it was at least a factor, because he pretty much wants to deal with the same themes that Kibblesmith was doing, but applied to Thor rather than Loki (or maybe Loki as well, it wasn't too clear on that point). But that plus the fact that it was cancelled so soon, I mean 5 issues in and the sales while not massive were above the usual cancellation danger zone, and remained there until the end, i mean, it had to be cancelled before they even really knew how well it was going to do long term, like around when issue 2 came out, or thereabouts.... I do think Cates' plans probably did contribute. Hopefully they are good for Loki.

[Prof. Aegis]

I'm truly disappointed and sad there isn't any significant Loki comic or appearance out this month or the foreseeable future. Yes, I know he appears in Thor next month, but I'm not expecting much as it is Thor's book and his new series. Ah well.

[Karabaja]

I somehow got the vibe from Cates interview that Loki will be a significant factor in his book, and that his motivations will be unclear, similar to what we had in WOTR . I just hope he'll be less mopey. We'll see

[Raye]

Well, there is this: https://www.serialbox.com/serials/thor I have not given it a listen yet, so i dunno if it is good or not, but it's new and has Loki, even if it's not a comic....

And yeah, while we can't say for certain if Loki has a significant role in Cates' run, the interview seemed to imply he'd have at least SOME part to play. Also, that teaser trailer thing Marvel did one of the guys (I think the editor? not sure) just said 'and Loki's in it' which i somehow doubt he would have said that if his part in the story wasn't somewhat important, especially since no other Asgardian besides Thor got a mention like that. On the other hand, Cates also seemed to indicate in both the interview and the trailer thing that things would be pretty rough for all the characters, so I dunno if Loki being in it is necessarily a good thing, he's probably going to be having a pretty rough time.

As for his motivations, I mean, if his Dr Strange story is anything to go by I think he'll be leaning less 'dark' than under Aaron. Cates' Loki in Dr Strange was still pretty sympathetic, kind of hit a middle ground between Ewing (and also Kibblesmith, who was sort of similar to Ewing's take) and Aaron's Loki. He lied, and manipulated the situation, lost his cool a couple times, and you couldn't quite be sure what his motivations were at the time, but he also was very kind to Zelma, clearly felt bad about Bats and tried to make that right, and pulled off a big damn hero moment, so... on balance, i think he came out of that looking pretty good.

[Raye]

so I gave the Serial Box thing a go, since episode one seems to be free to draw people in. Honestly not as good as I was hoping, but could be fun in future episodes, and I think i could see myself dropping 10 bucks on it.

Still a bit unclear if it's using the comics continuity, movie continuity, or something new. The 'cover' art seems to say comics, as does the inclusion of Lila Cheney, tho there's no saying she doesn't exist behind the scenes in the MCU, especially now that Disney owns Fox, so.... Nothing else in the actual story really gives an indication either way, and they may be actively trying to keep things vague there. I do think the addition of a Korean goddess is interesting since we haven't seen that pantheon in the comics very much.

And I find it hilarious that Loki had inadvertently created a Hair Metal band, (...? or goth? honestly, it seemed kind of muddled in that regard. edited to add - thinking about it, the closest i can think of musically, with both synth, heavy guitar focus, and gothic elements, to what was described is probably Lord of the Lost, which is actually a band i used in that playlist i made, aside from the fact that Chris Harms has a wonderful voice, unlike the singer in the story. But that is Gothic Metal, and that genre wasn't really in existence in 89, probably getting it's start with Lacuna Coil and similar artists around 95 or so, tho maybe you could kinda fudge it. same deal with maybe some of the industrial stuff like Marilyn Manson or NIN, has a lot fo the same elements, but again, too soon. another similar one is Ghost, which is... hard to classify and more hard rock than metal, but very recent, and of course their aesthetic is nothing at all like what was described, they're... unique in that regard. but I do think Loki would like a lot of the themes of their music, even tho it's all Satan this, Satan that. But the fashion seemed a bit more Hair Metal, but gothic metal and hair metal were anathema to each other, like oil and water. there was a schism in the metal scene and they were on opposite sides. Goth was always underground, so would not have had the fame this band had, and Hair Metal did hit extreme fame heights, but was beginning to decline by 89, after briefly overtaking Thrash. But regardless, the band turning heavier is kind of backwards, since the death metal that followed in the 90s was a) not mainstream so it wouldn't have had this kind of reaction, tho yeah maybe the crown helped there, and we may end up with a Dethklok situation b) it grew out of the Thrash that fell by the wayside when hair metal rose to prominence, before hair metal was smacked down for good by Grunge. With a loss of mainstream appeal, many artists felt more freedom to be experimental and daring, getting heavier and and more unusual to the point of being unappealing to many people, since they weren't going to appeal to the mainstream anyway. Not being mainstream was kinda the whole point. They were doing it more for the music than the fame/money (many metal acts don't actually make a lot of money, Metallica aside, a lot of them have day jobs. one of my favorite metal bands Avatar, the lead singer is a kindergarten teacher, or was until fairly recently, even as they were putting out well selling by metal standards albums. Much like comics, you don't do metal for the money, or the fame, (a lof of them actually hide their identities, Ghost's identities, or that of the singer anyway, were kept secret until a lawsuit outed him) you do it cus you enjoy it.) during the 90's onward, which led to the roughly half a million metal sub-genres we have today. But a lot of hair metal bands were motivated more by fame than anything. ok metal historian tangent over. but basically, not really sure the writer knows much about the subject.) Um that was a very long tangent... so created hair metal band but he hated, it, and while I am sure this new character Zia will play a part, other than that, the whole scene didn't seem to contribute a lot? but maybe Sylvain and his crown will be back.

I just thought the beginning lacked some oomph, and was hoping for a more solid ending hook for the future direction, and for Loki and Thor to join forces early, see what that was like. it kinda left both Loki and Thor hanging, where it's not really clear what the story will actually be.

I was fearing from some initial teasers that Loki would be leaning more into.... well... fandom characterization, rather than comics characterization. By that i mean there seems to be this trend among a large chunk of the fandom to make Loki more effeminate, more fluffy, younger seeming, huge focus on him being queer, and pushing him more to the 'middle' of the spectrums there, or even way over to the other side, (I don't have a problem with those aspects being there, i just don't want them to overshadow the rest of him, and as i said before, i think the idea that 'oh he's bi so he has to be totally equally interested in both men and women' or whatever is kind of a form of erasure for people who are more on the cusp) and just generally flanderize him into what is, imo, less of a character, by focusing on certain traits to the exclusion of others, jumping through hoops to justify some of his bad actions, and kind if ignoring a lot of his rough edges. I don't like it very much. If you do, sorry, but it's just not my bag. I know I like anti-hero Loki over villain Loki, but that doesn't mean i want him totally defanged. like how he is in the comics right now, more or less, what we've got in the comics IS the Goldilocks zone for me, or close to it, and fluffying him up too much more would cause him to lose some of his appeal. I think it strikes a nice balance between where he came from, and him trying to do the right thing. I want him to try and be a good guy, but I want him to struggle against his inner nature, and don't want him to be completely defanged in the process, I like there to me some real meat to the stories with him, not just fluff, and I want there to be more to him than be fetish fuel.

and while there was a bit of that, I think it still kept him with an edge, which I liked, but I think the real test will be seeing him in the present day, interacting with Thor, which sadly was not in the first episode at all

[Pallux]

I checked out the serial box link, and tbh I can't really concentrate atm so I couldn't properly follow and I didn't finish the whole episode. But so far it hasn't really grabbed my attention. I might give it a fairer shot later, or I'll wait for some more reactions/reviews.

And I liked your tangent. Learned something new today

About your worries for his characterization: I guess that's just not something I worry about, what with how much I worry about something like what happened with Duggan lol.
The Duggan mishap type of characterization is also something I feel is more likely than the other thing to influence other writers and damage Loki('s reputation) in future stories, especially wrt making it even harder to convince readers(/writers) that Loki is and should be out of evil Dbag territory. Which. I'm trying to let go and relax but dammit, I'm still anxious haha... But I get you.

(I feel bad singling out Duggan; my fear is really not exclusive to how he wrote Loki, but hopefully you get my example)

[Pallux]

Oh also, hi everyone. I'm back, if anyone even remembers me! I was gone super long because life reasons, and honestly it's not realistic for me to be online consistently for long periods of time, though I'd like to to keep up with all the excitement and theorizing.
But I'm up to date on Loki land, broken heart and all (just when we had Verity back!!!!! What about DRRF!!!!!!) :'(


So the last thing I read was King Thor, so I guess I'll share my thoughts on that. To be honest, I could never find it in me to be all that interested in this future stuff for some reason, so unfortunately this whole thing isn't very interesting to me (except that I'm VERY interested in why on earth Loki had to be bad again! But I'll hold my judgement until it's concluded and twisted all it's last twists.) Nor was I super pleased with how Aaron handled Loki (character wise and story wise) or the WotR plot in general? I'm not bashing it; there's a reason I followed the whole thing after all. So I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that I actually kind of really enjoyed this future Loki once he was himself again. Just superficially his voice/attitude you know? It's actually kind of funny (YMMV ofc) whereas I felt that was lacking in TMT. Or maybe it just jumped out at me bc of the large amount of Epic Language the future story has had.

Anyway, I'm just saying that even if I don't get a lot out of this story at least I enjoyed Loki being crucified or whatever and being peeved that he was being prayed to

I am pretty curious about the conclusion, though. From the beginning I was thinking that maybe letting the universe die would be the right thing to do, because it's the natural order of things, everything must die eventually. And such. This has nothing to do with my hopes for Loki or predictions or anything, that was just my instinct about the whole problem. But idk maybe a spectacular and heroic and inspirational rescue will dazzle me and change my mind.

[charliehustle415]

Gods Damned can Aaron write Loki.

Holy Hell what an amazing ending for not only Loki but the entire Asgardian pantheon.

If you love Loki you couldn't ask for a more fitting end.

[Karabaja]

I was sad.
I liked the ending itself, but it wasn't enough. I didn't like everything that lead up to it, that he was turned into a big baddie again in order to make a grand sacrifice in the end.
Also, the entire Thor story felt jumbled up and unnecesarily complicated.

[Raye]

I checked out the serial box link, and tbh I can't really concentrate atm so I couldn't properly follow and I didn't finish the whole episode. But so far it hasn't really grabbed my attention. I might give it a fairer shot later, or I'll wait for some more reactions/reviews.

And I liked your tangent. Learned something new today

Well at least someone did. It's just.... this is my jam, and you know, while i do try to keep things open and listen to a variety of things, metal is what I listen to the most, and it didn't quite line up, and that bugged me. I just think that if you are gonna open with a depiction of a particular music scene, you should try and get it right, there are reasons for musical trends, and this came off as a kind of muddled handwave instead. Basically what happened was in the 80s Hair Metal got super popular, got a lot of play on MTV and blah blah. the old school metal fans saw this as selling out, that they were not genuine, fame and money motivated, and they reacted by going in the other direction, darker, heavier, more brutal. It created two distinct camps of metal fans, and is what led to some of the cringey elitism you see in some circles (particularly around Black Metal) and while there are a couple bands that did start out glam and moved heavier (Pantera being the biggest one) the motivations weren't 'oh this will make me way more popular' because going brutal was kind of an anti-mainstream statement, by doing it you were playing to an inherently smaller and more underground base of fans.

I mean, as I type that out, I can totally see how that could be applied in a sort of meta way to the comics industry and fandom, but I don't think this is going there.

About your worries for his characterization: I guess that's just not something I worry about, what with how much I worry about something like what happened with Duggan lol.
The Duggan mishap type of characterization is also something I feel is more likely than the other thing to influence other writers and damage Loki('s reputation) in future stories, especially wrt making it even harder to convince readers(/writers) that Loki is and should be out of evil Dbag territory. Which. I'm trying to let go and relax but dammit, I'm still anxious haha... But I get you.

(I feel bad singling out Duggan; my fear is really not exclusive to how he wrote Loki, but hopefully you get my example)

Oh i don't want Duggan's take either, that's kinda failing in the other direction, I really did not care for Duggan's take. And yeah, that is probably more of a risk than the other way around in the comics. Like i said I think the current comics depiction is my goldilocks zone, (that aside) not too dark, not too light, it's just right. But particularly most of the solo stuff, some parts of Aaron's, though Cates' take in Dr Strange is probably the top sweet spot for me, part of why that is still my avatar (also, just too lazy to bother changing it) and hopefully that will continue in his Thor run. I want to keep things open for more character development, I realize that stagnation is not good, but I think there is a balance that can be struck.

Anyway, yeah, it was bland, but I still have some hopes that it can improve.

Oh also, hi everyone. I'm back, if anyone even remembers me! I was gone super long because life reasons, and honestly it's not realistic for me to be online consistently for long periods of time, though I'd like to to keep up with all the excitement and theorizing.
But I'm up to date on Loki land, broken heart and all (just when we had Verity back!!!!! What about DRRF!!!!!!) :'(

I really hope Cates follows up some of the threads there, I can't see how including Drrf would be too much of an issue in is run, especially if he does show Loki doing King of Jotunheim things to contrast Thor doing All-Father things.

So the last thing I read was King Thor, so I guess I'll share my thoughts on that. To be honest, I could never find it in me to be all that interested in this future stuff for some reason, so unfortunately this whole thing isn't very interesting to me (except that I'm VERY interested in why on earth Loki had to be bad again! But I'll hold my judgement until it's concluded and twisted all it's last twists.) Nor was I super pleased with how Aaron handled Loki (character wise and story wise) or the WotR plot in general? I'm not bashing it; there's a reason I followed the whole thing after all. So I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that I actually kind of really enjoyed this future Loki once he was himself again. Just superficially his voice/attitude you know? It's actually kind of funny (YMMV ofc) whereas I felt that was lacking in TMT. Or maybe it just jumped out at me bc of the large amount of Epic Language the future story has had.

Anyway, I'm just saying that even if I don't get a lot out of this story at least I enjoyed Loki being crucified or whatever and being peeved that he was being prayed to

My take on Aaron's Loki is... complicated. I don't have a big problem with most of the broad strokes (well, in the present day, at least. the Dark Bifrost thing aside, that one just baffles me) or his voice, I actually really liked Aaron's voice for Loki. I really liked the story of Thor and Loki in Hel. If we could have just had that forever i would have been happy. But I think he played too heavily to the mystery aspect in terms of of what he was doing. I kinda get the temptation to do that with Loki, but I think he went too far. I think a lot of it would have landed a lot better if we had some concrete explanations for what Loki was trying to accomplish and why. But we were left to piece it all together ourselves, and while it can be pieced together in a pretty good way, we don't actually know if that was what was intended or not. He either didn't want to explain, in order to keep it mysterious, or he just didn't have an explanation. I mean just because Loki is all secretive and sneaky doesn't mean absolutely everything he does has to be shrouded in mystery for the readers, you know? I would have appreciated some insight into what he was thinking, besides just making him all mopey. and I think what he went through inside of Laufey definitely deserved a lot more panel time and, again, explanation. I like piecing things together to an extent, but I also like to be told if i was on the right track or not when it's all done.

I am pretty curious about the conclusion, though. From the beginning I was thinking that maybe letting the universe die would be the right thing to do, because it's the natural order of things, everything must die eventually. And such. This has nothing to do with my hopes for Loki or predictions or anything, that was just my instinct about the whole problem. But idk maybe a spectacular and heroic and inspirational rescue will dazzle me and change my mind.

I was thinking that a death and rebirth was the right thing to do as well, that's what the MU has already established has happened several times, and putting it on life support preventing the rebirth seemed like the wrong call to me. Honestly, it still does. I was all prepared for Thor and Loki to create the seeds of a new universe, But it seems it's not to be this time, or at least we got something kinda halfway in between.

I also thought some of the 'future Thor' stories were.... a bit much. I get it, he's kinda saying anything can happen no matter how crazy, and then they snap back to his core kinda thing, but... I mean.

I guess Balder is the new Norn King now so that's his role, (to be fair, that bit does make sense for him as well) so I may have to let go of that bit of speculation but on the other hand, I can't see why the two roles can't be linked, it's not as though Karnilla was never a thorn in Asgard's side.

[Pallux]

Oh, I messed up. I said Aaron's Loki voice but really I think it might be more of an art thing. I completely adore Dauterman's art, don't get me wrong. imo TMT is one of the most visually beautiful comics I've ever seen. It's just in all of Loki's recent appearances I've noticed that for me, the way his expressions and body language are drawn is a big part of how "Loki" he feels. (Obviously this should go for every character but I think Loki is especially...vulnerable to this.) And possibly more serious/realistic art styles tend to work a bit less? Dauterman never drew anything where I was like "wtf was THAT" but he's also not hugely comedy or expression focused. The funny dialogue bits felt... not out of place but a little less than they could've been? And as soon as Del Mundo came on that changed for me. Eventhough he has a really painterly style, his faces and poses etc are stylized and dynamic in a way that lets characters be both very fairytale and cartoonishly expressive looking. And in my eyes the latter is good for Loki. I've also noticed that some more realistic-ish artists draw his Mischievous Loki Smile and it always looks really evil and creepy, while some others, usually less detailed would draw it more like... impish? Truly Mischievous (TM). Which is what I am about. Like I know the smile is MEANT to be creepy but a lot of the time I think something else would be more appropriate.

(Which is why I was really pleased with Bazaldua's art, btw. he doesn't have my favorite style ever or anything, and I don't always understand all the art choices he makes, but I thought his simpler style and the more laid back, subtle expressions he used worked great. And his sense of... whatever the comics equivalent of comedic timing is... is solid. Like, panel-choices and everything.)

Oh my god I sound like THE WORST nitpick! All this stuff really isn't something I was mad about or anything! Just an observation I made on why some Lokis work better for me than others!

BTW that art-acting and panel-choices thing, I'm sure there's a better word for it but I don't know it, were part of the problem with Duggan's Loki I think. I know his lines were definitely way off, but I think visual reactions could've changed how some of it came across. Sometimes I thought Loki could've said some bitter bitch thing he said, but with an unconcerned or amused sort of expression it could've come across as some joke-sniping or something. Instead of all the hissy anger. or w/e. And just you know, his general 'tude. and not just loki, the whole event had stuff that I thought would've worked better with different panelling and expressions.

PS I FORGOT What this was originally a response to and instead rambled about my art theories! But yes, agreed about the secrecy. When I say I'm not 100% happy with Aaron's Loki story what I primarily mean is that I have no idea why much of the stuff he was doing even happened. And granted, there's probably a lot that I just forgot bc I haven't reread it, so I might sound real dumb for the next few seconds. But I don't know why he set the Shi'ar on Thor. I don't know why he helped Dario Agger in the way he did. I don't know why he helped with the dark bifrost. I don't know why he gave Laufey the casket of ancient winters. All the plans he seemed to be laying to presumably work against Malekith were never revealed to actually... be plans? At least I can't remember seeing something come to fruition like a plan ought to. If i can't point to something and go "aha, that's where that one sketchy looking thing he did paid off and sabotaged the enemy" aside from just fitting in, what was the point of all that? If I'm super wrong here and missed something huge please feel free to correct me, I might just be being dumb.

And if all that was the point, that it was that he was slipping into evil again bc he stopped working against the war/started helping for real... like... why would he. I can see him playing things the brutal way, even if for the greater good, would be a slippery slope. But in the end it looked like he didn't really do anything or I didn't look right. I mean, I'm willing to ignore much of this bc I'm just that grateful for the Laufey eating Loki thing lol. But yeah.


[EDIT: Thor & Loki & the Bros in Hel was AWESOME and an ABSOLUTE DREAM and I shall cherish it forever]

[Raye]

Oh, I get it. When it comes to comics, i think you kinda have to push the expressions/body language a bit past what would technically be realistic for clarity's sake. I'd rather have good 'acting' and storytelling to pretty, and though Dauterman's art is very pretty, and while he wasn't bad with expressions, there wasn't really any case where i felt the expression was plain wrong for the situation or really confusing or anything, but his expressions were sometimes a bit lacking or unclear because his style would kinda look weird if they were broader. And yeah, I think Loki in particular needs some broader expressions than some other characters because he is very talky as opposed to action focused. I think Nic Klein will be pretty good in that regard, from what I've seen of his work. His style is loose-ish, a bit sketchy looking, and he's not afraid of using some pretty broad expressions and body language when called for, but it still looks nice. you're right that expression and acting can have a huge impact on how a line comes across, is it said sarcastic or straight, sad or happy, it can make a world of difference. and i think a lot of comic artists, at least the ones that are popular with mainstream superhero stuff, are sometimes a bit lacking in this regard because the ability to do big action and the ability to keep to a deadline are favored.

With some of those plot points I also feel like some things were dropped. the Shi-ar thing, i think it was just to appease Malekith and convince him he was on his side, but like, it never really went anywhere after that, and we never got any followup to the teases about his parentage maybe not being Laufey, he asked Agger for a church to be built but again nothing came of it... so I think some plot points with Loki were simply dropped which led to a lot of counfusing moments. Maybe he just ran out of room and Loki was lower on the priority list for panel time, i dunno. I hope with Cates Loki's part is important enough that he doesn't end up with all these apparently dropped plot threads.

[Raye]

Solicits are out: https://www.newsarama.com/48336-marv...citations.html

Not mentioned in the solicit for Thor, but Loki is apparently still in Star, but things not going so hot for him:



STAR #3 (OF 5)
KELLY THOMPSON (W) • JAVIER PINA (A)
Cover by Carmen Carnero
Variant cover by RAHZZAH
THE FIGHT FOR THE REALITY STONE IS ON, AND WHO CONTROLS IT...CONTROLS THE WORLD!
The universe is Star’s command...IF she can figure out how to control her powers. And the race is on - because the galaxy’s greatest hunters are hot on her trail. The Reality Stone is one of the most powerful weapons in this or any world, and currently, the only way to obtain it…is to kill the woman called Ripley Ryan.
32 PGS./Rated T+…$3.99

tho, Strange thought Zelma had to be killed to extract that spell from her and Loki figured out a third option there, so... I'm guessing the solution will be to try and get her to turn face, considering all the ex-villains in the book, but from the looks of things that's not going so well.