Invisible Woman #3

[Michael Watkins]

Scans! Scans or we're pushing him out!

there's a picture in the second post in this thread. that's the best he looks in the book. Sue takes him down pretty quick.


anyways, i must admit to feeling a sense of satisfaction at seeing someone actually doing something to physically effect Sue, for once. she's usually portrayed as invincible; a possible overcorrection on her early days as a damsel in distress.

[Crimz]

there's a picture in the second post in this thread. that's the best he looks in the book. Sue takes him down pretty quick.


anyways, i must admit to feeling a sense of satisfaction at seeing someone actually doing something to physically effect Sue, for once. she's usually portrayed as invincible; a possible overcorrection on her early days as a damsel in distress.

Yeah every hero should have weaknesses, Sue's are sonic attacks and light attacks. She could defend against them, but she has to know they're coming.

[danielsan52]

I certainly wouldn't push that Argent fella outta bed.

I would.... he looks like [old] Tom Waits.

[kjn]

I liked the idea of having Sue operate in a spy adventure, and I think Waid has managed to characterise her decently enough (with only some few missteps on the way). But the plotting here is just abysmal. I know the comic book medium is not that suited for complex plotting, but here we have all the bad habits of spy thrillers on display: fallen foes carrying the clue to the next point of interest, leading to the next foe with the next clue. Or misrepresenting the world of smoke and mirrors as a place with constant double-crosses. Or the absolutely atricious technobabble.

[Agent Z]

I liked the idea of having Sue operate in a spy adventure, and I think Waid has managed to characterise her decently enough (with only some few missteps on the way). But the plotting here is just abysmal. I know the comic book medium is not that suited for complex plotting, but here we have all the bad habits of spy thrillers on display: fallen foes carrying the clue to the next point of interest, leading to the next foe with the next clue. Or misrepresenting the world of smoke and mirrors as a place with constant double-crosses. Or the absolutely atricious technobabble.

Since I don't know much about how intelligence work is like, how exactly is this inaccurate?