RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Infinite Crisis: greatest comic book event in the history of comic book events?

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

But his animosity towards Hal could have been diminished at least subcounsciously. Then we have a couple of other crossovers, like Rebirth and a recent issue of GL, where Bats makes progressively starts getting along with Hal, and finally in IC #6 they're able to shake hands. This is called progression. You could say this was a coincidence, if three of the four meetings I just referenced weren't written by the same guy.

---

That is not called "progression", its called "forced", especially how DC has been portraying Batman as even more paranoid over the last few years

Rebirth may have retconned away anything bad that Hal did, but he still punched Batman to the ground. If anything, that worked against their relationship, not for it

You may be able to buy it, but I can't, nor ever will be able to accept that he just forgives the guy who participated in his mind-wipe, especially considering how DC have been playing up his paranoia with Brother Eye, and how he was monumentally pissed about the mind-wipe

---

Are you talking about the Brother Eye that Batman built and uploaded all of his data on metahumans into? The same one that he lost control over? The very same Brother Eye responsible for the deaths of several innocent superhumans? That Brother Eye?

Sometimes the most important reading is reading between the lines.

---

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

But his animosity towards Hal could have been diminished at least subcounsciously. Then we have a couple of other crossovers, like Rebirth and a recent issue of GL, where Bats makes progressively starts getting along with Hal, and finally in IC #6 they're able to shake hands. This is called progression. You could say this was a coincidence, if three of the four meetings I just referenced weren't written by the same guy.

---

That is not called "progression", its called "forced", especially how DC has been portraying Batman as even more paranoid over the last few years

Rebirth may have retconned away anything bad that Hal did, but he still punched Batman to the ground. If anything, that worked against their relationship, not for it

You may be able to buy it, but I can't, nor ever will be able to accept that he just forgives the guy who participated in his mind-wipe, especially considering how DC have been playing up his paranoia with Brother Eye, and how he was monumentally pissed about the mind-wipe

---

Are you talking about the Brother Eye that Batman built and uploaded all of his data on metahumans into? The same one that he lost control over? The very same Brother Eye responsible for the deaths of several innocent superhumans? That Brother Eye?

Sometimes the most important reading is reading between the lines.

---

Don't blame me. I wasn't spoon fed such a concept through reviews or playing a video game.

---

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

But his animosity towards Hal could have been diminished at least subcounsciously. Then we have a couple of other crossovers, like Rebirth and a recent issue of GL, where Bats makes progressively starts getting along with Hal, and finally in IC #6 they're able to shake hands. This is called progression. You could say this was a coincidence, if three of the four meetings I just referenced weren't written by the same guy.

---

That is not called "progression", its called "forced", especially how DC has been portraying Batman as even more paranoid over the last few years

Rebirth may have retconned away anything bad that Hal did, but he still punched Batman to the ground. If anything, that worked against their relationship, not for it

You may be able to buy it, but I can't, nor ever will be able to accept that he just forgives the guy who participated in his mind-wipe, especially considering how DC have been playing up his paranoia with Brother Eye, and how he was monumentally pissed about the mind-wipe

---

Are you talking about the Brother Eye that Batman built and uploaded all of his data on metahumans into? The same one that he lost control over? The very same Brother Eye responsible for the deaths of several innocent superhumans? That Brother Eye?

Sometimes the most important reading is reading between the lines.

---

Don't blame me. I wasn't spoon fed such a concept through reviews or playing a video game.

---

---

Funny how I was still right about that whole Punisher and his War, though. I even went back to that thread after reading the Punisher books to explain how he was fighting the war and yet still accomplished nothing

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

But his animosity towards Hal could have been diminished at least subcounsciously. Then we have a couple of other crossovers, like Rebirth and a recent issue of GL, where Bats makes progressively starts getting along with Hal, and finally in IC #6 they're able to shake hands. This is called progression. You could say this was a coincidence, if three of the four meetings I just referenced weren't written by the same guy.

---

That is not called "progression", its called "forced", especially how DC has been portraying Batman as even more paranoid over the last few years

Rebirth may have retconned away anything bad that Hal did, but he still punched Batman to the ground. If anything, that worked against their relationship, not for it

You may be able to buy it, but I can't, nor ever will be able to accept that he just forgives the guy who participated in his mind-wipe, especially considering how DC have been playing up his paranoia with Brother Eye, and how he was monumentally pissed about the mind-wipe

---

Are you talking about the Brother Eye that Batman built and uploaded all of his data on metahumans into? The same one that he lost control over? The very same Brother Eye responsible for the deaths of several innocent superhumans? That Brother Eye?

Sometimes the most important reading is reading between the lines.

---

Don't blame me. I wasn't spoon fed such a concept through reviews or playing a video game.

---

---

Funny how I was still right about that whole Punisher and his War, though. I even went back to that thread after reading the Punisher books to explain how he was fighting the war and yet still accomplished nothing

---

Quote:

---

no, you weren't. apparently you still have problems with reading and with comprehending what you're reading.

---

Quote:

---

Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:
Nice to know. Still got my point across though

---

Yes, the point being that you were contradicting yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When Hal was Spectre, nobody remembered meeting him after he left. So, if Bats forgave him, he wouldn't have remembered the actions that led to that afterwards...

---

Elaborate

---

Since you weren't even nice enough to ask, I'll just repeat the same thing I said in caps, hoping this time you read it with more attention: WHEN HAL WAS SPECTRE, NOBODY REMEMBERED MEETING HIM AFTER HE LEFT.

---

Thanks. The second time you said it, it made so much more sense

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That is not called "progression", its called "forced", especially how DC has been portraying Batman as even more paranoid over the last few years

---

Again, it may be hack writing (Rebirth certainly is), but it's not really forced if it did take place over the course of FOUR separate meetings. That's progression any way you look at it.

---

Rebirth may have retconned away anything bad that Hal did, but he still punched Batman to the ground. If anything, that worked against their relationship, not for it

---

Yeah, and the whole "I didn't really do it, it was a space parasite and now I'll help you defeat it" thing counted for nothing? Like everyone else, I don't like the space parasite thing, but realistically, Bats opinion of Hal's morality should have bettered in some level after learning that, even if their personal interaction still sucked.

---

I agree, his opinion should have changed greatly, but he still seemed dead set against Hal. Nothing changed in the JLA 5 parter, and then suddenly he's up for forgiveness in the GL issue and IC thing youproceed to reference.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You may be able to buy it, but I can't, nor ever will be able to accept that he just forgives the guy who participated in his mind-wipe, especially considering how DC have been playing up his paranoia with Brother Eye, and how he was monumentally pissed about the mind-wipe

---

Again, there is progression within Infinite Crisis and the events preceding it showing the consequences of Bats' paranoia not just to the reader but to himself. The issue where he contacts Nightwing and has a tender moment asking him to round up other heroes, is him realizing he can't work alone after all. He needs so much help bringing down Brother Eye that he even calls guys like Ollie and Hal to help him do it: that's a great step for him. This is what IC is supposed to do, leave the dark period behind and make everyone friends again (for better or for worse).

This is simple stuff here buddy, it's not explicit but it's laying in plain view. It's not like this is Watchmen. I can't believe you didn't get any of it.

---

I didn't miss it because I havn't got that issue yet. [we ain't been talkin' 'bout IC 'cept Sboys death] Nice to know things are reasonably explained.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Also a monumental coinsedence seen as the Superboy rights were being contested and now all DC has to do is revive him under a new name and they have full reign over his comics interpretation

---

Geek paranoia, big destroyah.

---

Believe what you want, its too big of a coinsedence for me to ignore considering DC knew 2 years ago that the rights would most likely be contested

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Comic Book Resources said:

Finally, as readers of today’s "Infinite Crisis" #6 can attest, DC has suddenly found itself short a character named Superboy. I'm certainly not suggesting that this necessarily has anything to do with the copyright infringement case, but please note that if Conner Kent were to return later, sans any Superboy connection (as in, a brand new name), then DC will have successfully avoided the copyright issue with Superboy. In addition, here’s an even trickier situation – DC currently still owns a trademark on Superboy, so no one can publish a comic using the name Superboy, even if they owned the copyright to the character! Therefore, DC can simply rename Conner Kent something else until the Siegel’s copyright runs out, at which point, they can return Conner (or whatever other character is introduced between now and 2023) to the name Superboy. In addition, as Time Warner has been quite willing to settle the case (in fact, one of their claims in the past involves their insistence that the Siegels already did settle, but decided to break the settlement agreement and therefore, the Siegels should be bound by the terms of the original settlement), this certainly does not hurt Time Warner’s negotiation position. In any event, it will be interesting to see what path this case takes in the future, as it could have a real impact on the comics we read and the TV shows that we watch.

---

So, uh, ONE article convinced you this was absolute truth? Huh, ok...

If this was really the case, then DC would have simply renamed him. That's what usually happens with quick fixes: you can tell it was improvised because it doesn't fit the story. This does fit the story, as I've said before: the Superboy subplot begins in IC #1 (even before that if you look at Teen Titans) and finds a resolution here. This didn't come out of nowhere.

---

I never thought it came out of left-field, just that it was linked to the law-suit. If I ever go back and read that TT Superboy solo issue im sure I'll see that he was prepped for death

All im saying is that they knew it was coming and decided to make the most it by killing him off in a dramatic fashion and referring to Supergirl in COIE, except they will most probably jump the gun and return him too soon

I dont believe a name change would have fully fixed things. Im not absolutely sure, but he'd still be Kon-El and they'd have to draft a riduclous story where he changes his name. Instead DC made a meal of it and killed him. The cloning procedure could quite easily count him as another person aswell, with a slight DNA change he's suddenly not the same character [fully] and is fully owned by DC with no room for debate

The CBR article didn't convince me this is the absolute truth, its what I believe, just too much of a coinsedence in my book. You go on believing Didio and his used car-salesman tactics, its clear im not going to change you're mind

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The 1st Teen Titans issue OYL has Robin already trying to re-clone Superboy. While im sure it won't happen immediately, he WILL be back in the next couple of years.

---

1. "Trying". You said he's already back.
2. He's not using Superboy's blood, he's mixing Superman's blood with Luthor's. If he does succeed in creating a clone, it would be nothing like Superboy; in fact, comic book logic tells us that since Superboy was more like Superman, this clone should be more like Luthor, like an evil twin of the dead Superboy. With a superpowered Luthor in his hands, Robin would have to accept that what he was doing was wrong, and finally come to terms with Conner's death. I think this character wouldn't last more than one story arc (or even one issue): he would die in the end, or turn into a bizarro and fall apart.
3. "Trying".
4. In any case, I believe the subplot here won't be the return of Superboy, it will be Robin coming to terms with his death and realizing it's wrong to try to make him come back from the death.

---

You believe that, and I'll believe that Johns will have him back in Teen Titans within a few years. Robin may learn that lesson somewhere down the line, but Superboy, or whatever his new name will be, will return, and you know he'll somehow regain all his old memories in some contrived way

I didn't say he IS back, but that he WILL be back eventually

Quote:

---

The 1st Teen Titans issue OYL has Robin already trying to re-clone Superboy. While im sure it won't happen immediately, he WILL be back in the next couple of years

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, 'spose that would make sense, I never got 'round to reading the final issues in the trade because of the awful 4 parter about him going rogue

I still think it has a connection to the law-suit, it's just too convenient that DC would kill him off just when his rights are being questioned. I'm already bored with digging up information about the law-suit for this post, so I can't be bothered to see when the law-suit originally started. My basis there would be that DC knew the Seigel's would be contesting the rights [the Seigel's have known since 2004 that they could get them back] and were already prepping him for death to make it seem COIE inspired

---

Wait, wait, so even if this was planned long ago, it's a genuine part of the story and not a "quick fix" as you suggest, whatever the editorial motivation behind the death may be.

---

I meant a 'quick fix' in that they would get out of the law-suit and probably bring him back, not anything last-minute like a re-write, you've already explained how it was built up before hand. I can see how you interpretted what I said here, but that wasn't what I was going for. Sorry 'bout that

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When was the LOSH cartoon started? There's already fierce speculation that the cartoon is on hold while the law-suit and the rights are finilised. Depends how far along they are and if they believed the new cartoon would be challenged [from what little I know of it, it just started as a spat over Smallville]

---

I read a plot synopsis they released recently, and it mentioned Superboy prominently. Since the synopsis was probably written recently for a press release, I think it would have avoided mentioning Superboy if they thought it was a point of conflict. I'm not sure if there's a release date yet, but it doesn't seem to be taking more than these things usually do.

---

All I know about this cartoon is that its been speculated that a re-write would be in order. Thats it. I dont know if this 30th Century[?] Superboy is even included in the Seigel law-suit [Smallville's likeness and the comics version have, so I dont know why a cartoon version wouldn't]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What am I missing here? I've been reading the Superman titles and Teen Titans and he hasn't come back. Are you taking geek speculation for granted again?

---

"again"?

---

The lawsuit thing. I see a pattern here. Not everything you read in message boards or see in video games is true.

---

The Punisher thing again?

Im not taking message board rumours as quotes here, im saying his return has already been hinted at in TT. This could quite easily be as you speculate, a lesson for Robin, or it could quite easily gestate into Superboy's return under another name

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He hasn't come back yet, but DC are obviously pushing the idea of his re-cloning.

---

"Obviously pushing his idea of his recloning". Heh. And you got that from ONE page in Teen Titans? I suggest you look up Didio's DC Nation column about Superboy's death and see how, if anything, DC is pushing for this to become another iconic death like Barry Allen's or Supergirl's.

---

He's being re-cloned, I'd say thats "pushing the idea of his return", even if it does end in a tear-jerking moment with Robin crying the the corner having failed. DC can push his death all they want, but I really can't buy into the idea that he won't return, I just don't give the current DC Powers That Be enough credit to hold off on his death for so long. Maybe you do, but I don't..

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I highly doubt it's all a charade, the character has already become a corner stone of Johns' TT, and we both know what he's like as far as perverting characterisation and comic-book death to get what he wants [example: Kal-L's evilness or stupidness in IC to suit his story]

---

Johns IS capable of doing that, but given the big deal they're making about it I doubt he will. Johns never brings back characters he killed himself or that were killed recently, it's always guys like Jericho or Raven, who've been dead for years, so he brings em back for nostalgia purposes.

---

Point. Maybe thats one of his only comic-writing morals 'Dont bring back characters I killed myself'

I dont know what it is, but something just tells me that Superboy will return.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The basis of you're whole arguement is going on what was said at the DC Column. Did you really expect Didio to admit that they were killing him off to avoid the law-suit?!

---

No, but you're missing a big point here: he wouldn't have made such a big deal about it if he was planning to bring him back right away. Wait, did you say right away or in a couple of years? I feel a little retcon coming now.

---

More like an over-exaggerration than a retcon He would have made a big deal out of it, because Didio is paid to flog anything, just like that piece of shit about Jason Todd, how he got out of the coffin, and how he decided to blame everything on SBP's punches. The bigger the deal they make out of his death [and the character did deserve a decent send-off], the more money they rake in

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're going on what you believe is true, and me what I believe. Theres no point argueing this as we are both going on unreputable sources. You: Didio. Me: The convenience of it all

---

Actually, it's more like Me: Common sense and You: Something you read somewhere.

---

Yeah, I read about the law-suit, how it would have effected the comics, and how Superboy's rights came into question in 2004. You're going on how Didio hyped it and how his death was pre-meditated, even though it all started after 2004. I wouldn't quite label that as common sense when you're effectively believing the word of a man who would try to sell you fieces if he though you'd buy it

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How am I blaming Morrison for something that accured outside his run?! im not debating the Mutant de-population here, I've already established that that was a crock of shit. Im debating the folly of Morrison killing off Magneto and thinking it would stick

---

AGAIN: Morrie didn't bring him back. Marvel brought him back. You're blaming Morrie because Marvel brought Magneto back OUTSIDE Morrie's run, when he had nothing to do with it. Once more, you're reading too much into it (though ironically you bypass simple understatements in IC).

---

Im blaming Morrie for KILLING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. He is a good writer, but should have known the death of Magneto would never stick, Marvel editorial should have caught it aswell, unless they actually planned to blame it on another villain completely

Quote:

---

Morrie's run is Morrie's run, and it works on its own regardless of what happens afterwards. This may not be the case with most writers of big franchise books, but it is the case with Morrison. I insist: he's said he doesn't care if they reverse his changes outside his run as long as they don't make HIM do the changes. Since he only thinks inside his run, when he killed Magneto he wasn't expecting him to come back since HE wasn't planning to bring him back. That's all that matters. For those of us who will read Morrie's run and skip the rest, Magneto will stay dead.

---

I see you're point, but Morrison killing him even knowing Marvel would immediately bring him back and try to sweep it under the carpet isn't much better. That'd be like Johns killing Luthor then quitting DC, saying he knew DC would bring him back but he did it because he wanted to

This whole arguement stemmed from

Quote:

---

Doc said:
Remember when they killed Magne........................................ He's back too, huh?

---

and me calling Morrison killing him "ill-concieved". It seems I am referring to Marvel comics at large and how it was a bad move to think his death would stick, while you're argueing Morrison's case because he never gave a shit for Marvel comics at large, he did it for those who would read his run and then leave. We're argueing different points

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I still refuse to believe that Magneto can use magnetism to amp his strength up to Colossus level, or use the magnetic spectrum to become invisible, or open up dimensional worm-holes for instantaneous transportation. Fuck the explanation behind him also developing healing powers, Marvel have already gone out of control with Magneto and his assorted abilities

---

Well, you're just being the comic book geek that complains that they changed Wolverine's hairdo in the movie here.

---

They are giving Magneto far too many powers, the power to heal aswell is taking the piss, especially seen as he barely ever even uses most of this assorted powers. Morrison can have explained how magnetism or drug-use relates to healing powers any way he wanted, I wouldn't have bought into it, and rightfully so seen as it turned out not to even be Magneto [atleast according to Marvel, not Morrison ofcourse....]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He's also not the type to become an addict. I can't say I care how Morrie justified it, its just not in Magneto's character to me, just like Luthor becoming a Kryptonite junkie isn't either

---

I think our problem here is that I'm trying to use logic, while you're trying to use comic book message board logic. Both things don't go together well, you know?

---

So keeping characterisation in mind is "trying to use comic book message board logic"? How so? This is like how Johns turned Superboy prime into a psycho villain against how Wolfman established him as a hero, except Morrison turned Magneto into a junkie instead. Alright if he just planned for it to be reversed as soon as he's gone as you say, not so good in the long run for the squirming to erase it

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

no, you weren't. apparently you still have problems with reading and with comprehending what you're reading.

---

So you say again that he wasn't fighting the war and was doing it for sadistic reasons, or whatever you and Doc's arguement was?

Been a while since i read them, and it was clearly because he enjoyed it, but there was still an elements of war and a battle against crime in there, hence the reason I started up that whole thread, something along the lines of 'Why don't the mobster's know when to quit, and why hasn't Punisher ever accomplished anything in the long run'. Without getting too deeply into it again, he should have accomplished something, just like other marvel titles move along, however slowly it is. maybe we will see tangible results in the new series he's getting where he actively interacts with the other heroes/villains

---

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

no, you weren't. apparently you still have problems with reading and with comprehending what you're reading.

---

So you say again that he wasn't fighting the war and was doing it for sadistic reasons, or whatever you and Doc's arguement was?

Been a while since i read them, and it was clearly because he enjoyed it, but there was still an elements of war and a battle against crime in there, hence the reason I started up that whole thread, something along the lines of 'Why don't the mobster's know when to quit, and why hasn't Punisher ever accomplished anything in the long run'. Without getting too deeply into it again, he should have accomplished something, just like other marvel titles move along, however slowly it is. maybe we will see tangible results in the new series he's getting where he actively interacts with the other heroes/villains

---

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
this thread takes a long time to read, damnit.

---

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
I didn't. Somebody give me a synopsis of Flaming Swordie's post.

---

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

Since you weren't even nice enough to ask, I'll just repeat the same thing I said in caps, hoping this time you read it with more attention: WHEN HAL WAS SPECTRE, NOBODY REMEMBERED MEETING HIM AFTER HE LEFT.

---

Thanks. The second time you said it, it made so much more sense

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, and the whole "I didn't really do it, it was a space parasite and now I'll help you defeat it" thing counted for nothing? Like everyone else, I don't like the space parasite thing, but realistically, Bats opinion of Hal's morality should have bettered in some level after learning that, even if their personal interaction still sucked.

---

I agree, his opinion should have changed greatly, but he still seemed dead set against Hal.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Geek paranoia, big destroyah.

---

Believe what you want, its too big of a coinsedence for me to ignore considering DC knew 2 years ago that the rights would most likely be contested

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I read a plot synopsis they released recently, and it mentioned Superboy prominently. Since the synopsis was probably written recently for a press release, I think it would have avoided mentioning Superboy if they thought it was a point of conflict. I'm not sure if there's a release date yet, but it doesn't seem to be taking more than these things usually do.

---

All I know about this cartoon is that its been speculated that a re-write would be in order. Thats it. I dont know if this 30th Century[?] Superboy is even included in the Seigel law-suit [Smallville's likeness and the comics version have, so I dont know why a cartoon version wouldn't]

---

Quote:

---

This whole arguement stemmed from

Quote:

---

Doc said:
Remember when they killed Magne........................................ He's back too, huh?

---

and me calling Morrison killing him "ill-concieved". It seems I am referring to Marvel comics at large and how it was a bad move to think his death would stick, while you're argueing Morrison's case because he never gave a shit for Marvel comics at large, he did it for those who would read his run and then leave. We're argueing different points

---

Quote:

---

THE Bastard said:
I

---

Quote:

---

never

---

Quote:

---

learned

---

Quote:

---

to

---

Quote:

---

read

---

Quote:

---

...

---

Quote:

---

Grimm said:
he can't understand what he reads. he's like a child who wanders in during the middle of a story.

---

Resorting to slander already. How becoming.

I didn't read one-book [IC #5], because i didn't know it related to the debate, and regarding The Punisher: think whatever the fuck you like. I saw the war in his actions and that at some points he did seem to care rather than doing it for a twisted sense of vengeance/justice. I couldn't care less if you didn't see that, and don't really give 2 hoots that you debate my interpretations like they're wrong. You're outcomings regarding the Punisher, whether they be the same as Doc's, or anyone else's here, aren't the be all and end all

The political angles of Infinite Crisis have not gone unexamined in this era when even the pulpiest microcultures are thoroughly inspected for larger meaning. "On the surface, this appears to be a straightforward Superman story," says Booklist in its review, "but the underlying treatment of such issues as misplaced deification, human rights, and terrorism give the story depth." But all that herniated analysis sheds some light on how the culture war produces Bizarro bedfellows.

As storytelling, Infinite Crisis could be a confusing and headachy mess even if you knew most of the characters and their backstories, and didn't find phrases like "trapped in the Speed force" or "summon the Green Lantern Corps" or "drag him through the Red Sun" merely confusing, meaningless, or off-putting.

But it is of enduring interest to anyone sniffing around for signals about politics that two of the biggest fan-geek epics of the 21st century, this and the second Star Wars trilogy, can be read, or even demand to be read, as sly, dark takedowns on George Bush and his imperial and world-saving visions.

The whole Infinite Crisis brouhaha began with another political metaphor, a moral dilemma touching on vital differences between libertarian and modern liberal viewpoints on the nature of the self and the proper way to treat anti-social actions. Batman grows to mistrust and hate his fellow superheroes when he learns they have magically mindwarped some villains into forgetting the heroes' secret indentities—and then mindwiped him to make him forget they had done it, violating Batman's C.S. Lewis/Anthony Burgess sense of traditional morality. It's OK to beat the shit out of villains and punish them, because this involves respecting them as autonomous moral beings; but it is always wrong to "rehabilitate" them through force, because this does violence to their very being and identity, by removing the most important choice of all—to be good or evil.

Quote:

---

Flameswordsman said:

Quote:

---

Grimm said:
he can't understand what he reads. he's like a child who wanders in during the middle of a story.

---

Resorting to slander already. How becoming.

I didn't read one-book [IC #5], because i didn't know it related to the debate, and regarding The Punisher: think whatever the fuck you like. I saw the war in his actions and that at some points he did seem to care rather than doing it for a twisted sense of vengeance/justice. I couldn't care less if you didn't see that, and don't really give 2 hoots that you debate my interpretations like they're wrong. You're outcomings regarding the Punisher, whether they be the same as Doc's, or anyone else's here, aren't the be all and end all

---