2009

I agree with the comment about event books spoiling mainstream comics, though. I hardly read any DC or Marvel anymore, and it's not because I don't like the characters or writers/artists involved. It's simply because I have no idea what the fuck is going on anymore. I've been forced to go look for good stories elsewhere. DC and Marvel have almost completely lost me.

So R.I.P. happened, it's just the case that R.I.P. had absolutely no impact on the Bat-mythos whatsoever.

All of this just to (of course) set up Smith's own baddie as a 'true' badass villain to be reckoned with even though he'll certainly be seen going back to occasionally harassing Ollie Queen when this thing is over.

And of course things will return to the status quo, unless we are told or expect they won’t.

The first Crisis on Infinite Earths was the one time where a grand event did not reset to status quo. Flash was dead, Supergirl was dead, entire fucking universes crumbled or combined in the blink of an eye and that’s how things stayed for 20+ years.

Like it or not, the term CRISIS holds a certain connotation to change everything and while we are being honest DC marketed FINAL CRISIS as doing likewise.

You want to tell me the entire earth is going to be controlled by Dark Sied from this point forward. Bullshit. Reinstatement of the multiverse? Thanks that happened a year ago in the build-up books.

I’ve said this before, I like the main FINAL CRISIS title and quite a few of the baby crisis tie-ins, however this should not have been called CRISIS. History dictates that CRISIS changes the entire universe in one synchronized effort.

Tehre are three DC universe right now, the Johns universe, the Morrison universe and everyone else. This is not creative; it is a dupe on the CRISIS front, a two year build up shill and lazy ass editorial.

Now, all this RIP talk seems like the old Marvel No-Prize to me. I believe(d) that the whole RIP happened after Batman got captured. I then read an explanation that he got captured after the helicopter exploded. Is there some basis for this somewhere? It is viable, but seems like the poster is trying to come up with an in-continuity "No Prize" explanation. I am still going with the whole thing being a delusion, more fun that way and I did like it well enough on those terms.

Perfect example of a single-issue series that has shown sustained quality: Jonah Hex. But I do agree that this should really be singl-story focus, not single-issue. My main beef with continuity is it created a LOT of never-ending stories. However, to keep fans, a title needs to have some sort of continuity, or it will lose most regular readers.

Finally, my biggest beef with comics in general the past few years is, at least to me, a lot of misogyny. Female characters seem to be less prominent, and are getting killed off in the regular universe, the Ultimate Universe, and look at poor Mary Marvel!

Finally, I hate most of what Loeb has written, including his TV work, but me like RULK! Me enjoy it very much.

Since then, I have read so many positive comments, as well as many who say it is so ridiculous it veers into camp, that I am definitely going to buy the trade when this is all over.

I guess every single fan of his movies must buy his comics for him to have this fanbase. I do appreciate his ability to write dialogue, but that is the ONLY thing he is good at. He really sucks at all other elements, including but not limited to, visuals/cinematography, character development and most of all...story/plot.

Personally, I love short one-and-two issue stories. Stern and then Gruenwald’s work on Captain America in the early 80’s is an example of this. They gave us a great premise, and then delivered in one or two issues. But what they also added was interesting subplots, foreshadowing and character development that carried over from issue to issue. Same thing Lee did with Spider-Man and with FF with Kirby.

As an example, look at Stern and Byrne’s run on Captain America. In a span of eight issues Cap fought Baron Strucker, Dragon Man, Machinesmith, Baron Blood and the team of Mr. Hyde and Batroc. He also thought about running for President of the United States and decided against it; recovered some of his missing memories; had a reunion with his British comrades during WWI; started a career as a commercial artist; and met and started a relationship with Bernie Rosenthal while still morning Sharon Carter. They showed how much action and character development you can have in such a short span.

But I also agree that some stories deserve longer runs, especially if they are supposed to be significant. Once again look at Roger Stern: on his run with the Avengers, he had a six-to-eight issue arc involving the new Masters of Evil, not including a couple of issues of foreshadowing. It was an epic story and deserved to be treated as epic. My problem with most comics now is that EVERY story or storyline is treated as part of some great big epic. Comics have always had one-upmanship, but at least they used to spread them out a little. Now it is like every year the heroes face a challenge, both physical and personal, worse than anything they have ever faced before. They have turned it up to 11, but the problem is that it is the law of diminishing returns. The more epic events and soul-changing things you have happen to a character in such a short span, the less they resonate with the reader.

Then I talked to a friend of mine who once was in prison and I asked him what was the worse thing. He told me the worse thing in prison was hearing grown men cry at night because they had been raped or new they were going to be raped. And the guys who were raped in prison were always the guys who probably least likely deserved to be there. He also pointed out to me that the people who most often make gay rape jokes or assrape jokes are the once who would most likely be a target in prison, or anywhere else. Call it a defense mechanism.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to pick on you specifically because everyone on this board is probably guilty of making a joke about it. But if making a joke about raping a woman is considered bad taste and offensive, why isn't jokes about men getting raped?

Plus, as DNA evidence has proven in a number of cases, the ones in prison are not always the guilty party. But an innocent guy in prison getting raped is ok, because it is funny when men get raped, right? Or how about the Christopher Newsome, who was kidnapped with his girlfriend by some thugs and then the two of them were both raped and sodomized. Is that funny? I mean, really? Because despite all you bluster, I can't imagine you being that heartless. I just think you like to be confrontational, so I would love to hear what you real answer is. And please don’t try to respond to this with a wisecrack or joke, I want a serious answer.

And just so I don’t keep unfairly focusing on Joenanthan (because like I said earlier he just happened to recently mention the subject but others here have made similar jokes before) I would like to ask the question to the guys on this site, how many of you could fight off a fucking animal intent on raping you? I mean, we all like to talk tough on this site, but honestly, do a lot of you think you could fight off three muscle bound convicts in prison intent on raping you? And if you can’t fight them off, why is it so funny to laugh at the misery of others? Maybe we like to laugh because we don’t want to admit it easily could have been us.

Let's be clear on this point: Batman RIP and Final Crisis are not really "tied together" the way you seem to be thinking. One happens after the other so they intertwine that way, and they're both Morrison stories so they both connect like all his DCU stories connect. But they're still meant to be seperate arcs.

A lot of those "dangling threads" you mentioned are part of the point of RIP. Normally Batman could figure out who Hurt really is, stop him once and for all, clear the Wayne family's name, and maybe stop a bank robbery all before breakfast. But because he headed off to deal with Final Crisis immediately after the events of RIP, and because he's apparently headed to his "final fate", all these loose threads are left, well, loose. If Final Crisis is supposed to be the story of a time when evil finally won, RIP is the story of Batman's last, unsolved case. Hence the whole Black Casebook (a book of all Batman's unsolved and unexplained cases) thing mentioned throughout Morrison's run.

As for Dick's dramatic scene, it was never meant to imply that Batman was dead, as many people interpreted it. Considering Batman was narrating the issue from some time afterward, I don't know where anyone got that idea. Interpreted properly the scene still holds weight, though. Notice when Batman stopped at the bat-cave in 683 (before leaving for Final Crisis) Alfred was there but Robin and Nightwing were not. Meaning the helicopter explosion may well be the very last time Dick ever saw Bruce Wayne before his "final fate".

I don't see where rewriting or "retro fitting" comes in, except for maybe the helicopter explosion which I could see being added at the last minute for extra dramatic effect. Morrison doesn't have Alzheimers, he knew what he wrote in Final Crisis and that it would inevitably have to link up with his Batman run.

But yes, the delays are harming these books. These two arcs will probably read a lot better once they're collected.

Many choices in our lives have potentially bad consequences. Smoking cigarettes leads to cancer, but doesn’t mean I don’t feel sympathetic towards those smokers who get cancer. Many other things are also avoidable by our choices, but it doesn’t mean we can’t sympathize or feel that it is unfair to happen to someone else. We used to blame women for getting raped by saying they acted or wore something to provocative or revealing, or that they shouldn’t have gone somewhere after dark or went out with such a person. A woman walking the streets at night has a chance of getting nabbed and raped; that is a simple fact, but it doesn’t mean it is something we should view as acceptable or appropriate. While a woman might make a bad decision that helps lead her into getting raped, I don’t think any of us here would consider the consequences to be equal to her bad judgment.

Plus, where does the “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” or “you reap what you sow” mindset end? A soldier in Iraq has a chance of dying, does that we shouldn’t feel sorry for him when he bites it? “Just part of the job”, or “if he wasn’t willing to die he shouldn’t have enlisted.” Or the fact that being homosexual in Iraq is punishable by stoning. Does that mean when we hear that two gay men have their heads bashed in, they have only themselves to blame?

I keep thinking of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables who basically got twenty-years for stealing a loaf of bread. A little excessive don’t you think? Maybe that book is why I have a different opinion on the matter with you, or maybe is it because I did 32-days in LA country for stealing car tabs and a license plate, and during that time I witnessed two stabbings in 24 hours and a bunch of racial fights. I also learned that the weakest guys in jail, the guys who most likely don’t deserve to be there, are the ones who have the harshest time.

A final note, this debate started because you were asking Millar to have Rick Jones ass-raped. In your original post you mentioned nothing of about it being in prison, just that you wanted some ass-rape in general. So your argument that prison rape is a different situation is not pertinent to why we started this discussion.

NOTE: Re-reading your post I know see that it may have been directed as sarcasm towards another talkbacker. If that is the case, I am sorry I missed the sarcasm and just assumed you were trying to be funny and crude talking about men getting raped.

Actually, I think I'll wait a couple of months until the buzz around it cools off and then see how people feel about it. Usually by then you know if something was worthwhile and made sense or if it was a complete and utter disaster. Hindsight is always a great advantage.

Honestly, though, Batman RIP is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. The real confusing part is why some people insist on interpeting it in radically off-the-mark ways. Try picking up the trades of Morrison's run (the RIP one comes out next month) and just be willing to read between the lines a little and you'll get an amazing, badass, creepy story in return.

Your All-Stare Age branding is just so perfect. Someone get Dan Didio one the phone.

His stories continually leave me scratching my head. I usually have to reread past issues to get current issues and even then, sometimes, that doesn't help. I realize that maybe he just isn't for me, yet somehow I find myself reading Final Crisis and Batman: RIP simply because they're supposed to be character-defining series and then, surprise, they're not. Maybe I just like my storytelling to be somewhat clear and his just always seems completely muddled. However, I don't remember Animal Man being hard to comprehend, just more cerebral. We3 wasn't hard to understand. Has he grown into an increasingly hard-to-track writer? Can he get away with being more obtuse and obscure now because he's GRANT MORRISON?

That's awesome we're in agreement, because on the whole 80's films were crap compared to all of the films today.

I didn't say EVERY comic was better today than EVERY comic of yore. Yes, Dark Knight Returns is still better than say the current Titans run. Stan Lee was a genius for his time, today though his style feels outmoded and almost a caricature.

Sort of the mantra of society, we take what was and provide fresh innovative spins for each new generation.

The world is changing. You can embrace that change or pine for a time that will never come again. Evolve or die old man.

I'm voting for the latter since you resorted to name calling instead of trying to have a discussion.

I will always hold reverence for the classics becasue we would not be where we are today without them.

As I said in my response to industry killer though, I believe today's current stable of writers (some, not all) have lifted the great elements from those pieces and changed them to meet the sensibiliities of our modern world.

Personally, no I can not read anything from the silver age these days. One, I have already traversed this material and two, it has been rehashed in some form or another over the subsequent years. When I pick up a piece I never read from that period I can usually find some way it has been lifted into a modern piece, with more improtantly a modern voice. I give the classics all the kudos for originality, but will hold firm to teh fact styles of storytelling die for a reason.

So, I'm sorry I lost credibility, but I believe firmly in the march of time and the excitement of fresh new ideas or new spins on old ideas.

On comics though, I think we agree...

I was a theater major in college and despised every time I had to perform something from the immortal bard. Could I understand it? Yes. Did I appreciate it for the time period it was written. ABSOLUTELY, considering 90% of the rest of the population could not read or was rolling around in feces. But did I like it? Hells no...Pretty and flowery prose just do not make for an engaging night of theater in this day and age.

I feel the same way about comics. I can absolutely appreciate what was done in the past, but I simply do not like it. If that discounts my opinion on a book printed last week, well I guess that's my cross to bear.

THAT SAID-- Yes, Ambush Bug, you are correct when you say R.I.P. is irrelevant. Yep, it sure is. And yes, R.I.P. actually ends BEFORE Final Crisis starts; fucking up any sense of suspense or dramatic timeline. That's been the main thing a reader has had to wrap his head around the past month-- that R.I.P. is irrelevant. Far from being some event that "shakes the bat-mythos more than anything else in its 70 year history", R.I.P. is simply a six-part Batman adventure; nothing more, nothing less. As such, it's actually pretty good, I think, with some damn cool moments. It's just, as you said, completely irrelevant. Particularly when Batman's true "final fate" is a product of final crisis and has nothing to do with R.I.P. So... I argue that it's easy to understand, because there's NOTHING to read into it. People seem to tie themselves in knots with this story by trying to make it symbolize all kinds of crazy shit. It doesn't. Just a six-part adventure where the villain remains nebulous to the end. The dissatisfaction with the story is due to Morrison the marketeer, I think, not Morrison the writer. He should never have built up R.I.P. as the most earth-shattering thing in Batman history. And, personally, I think Batman becoming a New God of the Fifth World or whatever will be damn stupid, no matter how it's written.

Plus I disagree with your assessment of evolve or die. It seems to suggest that comics and other art have moved up to a higher level, as if all evolution involves moving up the evolutionary ladder. That isn’t always true. In fact, I will say your line should have been “Adapt or die old man” because really what comics are doing is the same as nature; they are adapting to the current environment. And the current environment of the industry is that comics appeal only to a small, devout group of fans, people who read comics as a child and stayed with them.

In fact, all evidence seems to point that comics have “de-evolved” or moved down the evolutionary ladder. Less people read comics now then ever before, and while the influence of comics can be felt in other mediums, rarely is it the storylines, plots or characters that the current writers create that Hollywood uses. Most superhero films are using the older, classic stories as outlines for the film, and using the older depiction of the character as the template for the film character (with a couple of exceptions that prove the rule).

Adapt or die, yes. But adapting doesn’t always mean you have evolved.

Gooseud (and Others) – while I agree with you that modern movies are not the zenith and there have been better eras, I don’t think the 80’s are a good era to use as an example. Excluding the genre flicks, which I know is what you were highlighting, the 80’s were pretty void and very forgettable decade in films, especially compared to the previous period - the 70’s. Now that was a decade in film! It isn’t called the second Golden Age of Film for nothing!

For the record though, I don't hate the 80's or 90's stuff. There were some great titles. Specifically I LOVE anything Giffen wrote in that era. Primarily silver age and before is what makes me groan.

Point well taken on the evolve or die, but I think it depends on your perspective. If you think things are better today than before as I believe than evolve is the right word. I don't base my opinion on readership numbers, but how I feel about the titles. On the whole I prefer what is coming out today. Going back to my Giffen example I think Johns is an evolution of his style, but he has made it his own. Humor and heart where Giffen was more humor.

Unless I am mistaken, that pretty much fits my argument. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Yes, Incognito was fantastic, will teach me to put that in the first line from now on.

I really do abhor the silver age stuff. I appreciate those stories b/ we would not be where we are today, just not my cup of tea.

You can't possibly really feel that anyone in prison deserves to be raped. That is pretty hardcore. I can only think you've never used recreational drugs to take such a harsh stance. And I don't think telling me to stop smoking weed if I don't want to get raped is appropriate.

As someone who has been reading comics for about 32 years, I have to say that most anything written before the late 70's is pretty tough for me, and the Shakespeare analogy is pretty apt. I do still like some of my old comics, but they are mostly from the 80s. What has really come a long way is the art, generally speaking.

I mean, since we're loving the West Coast Avengers, I will jump aboard. Slutty Tigra was great, a very underappreciated character. The lovebirds were cool, Mockingbird letting Phantom Rider die, and of course the hilarious barbecue. But the art...geez! Wretched. No comic today is so poorly drawn. Silver Surfer by Marshall Rogers, OTOH, had some awesome art even back then.

Checking out the Marvel Essentials gives an interesting base of comparison. As far as bad times for comics, the early-mid nineties were generally bad, but there was a lot of good stuff happening. Same thing now, IMO, there is a lot of stuff I dislike (Such as bringing back mother-fing Barry Allen and the whole "dark Marvel" thing) but there is a ton that I love (too many to list here).

When I acquired each early issue at shows I did give them a read. I don't believe in buying any book you won't read, which is why I have major issues with the whole CGC lock-a-book away system.

I just don't dig them though.

80s and 90s stuff is way more tolerable for me because that's what I grew up with, but even some of that when I traverse my long boxes I read -- and then I groan.

A great set of books that still hold up IMHO are the stories from Valiant. I truly consider those books ahead of their time and a true gateway for where we are today.

Hell yes he was in full costume PLUS the chef's hat and apron. God, this never gets old. I had forgotten the drinking though the helmet thing, which is also hilarious.

The worst thing about WCA was that Byrne disassembled Vision, made him a white robot and started the Wonder Man/Scarlet Witch romance, which I always hated so very much. Vision and Wanda are my number one all-time favorite comics couple. I even loved their cheesy miniseries when Wanda was pregnant. If everything resets, when will Wanda and the Vision exist again and become a couple?

At some point you'll stop acting like a troll pointlessly baiting people smarter than you to feel clever.

Or not.

Unless you want to be ass-raped OUTSIDE of prison.

One of the advantages that Frank Miller, or Ellis for Iron Man, had is hindsight and the ability to see what works and how to make it more economic. When Bob Layton and David Michelinie where doing Iron Man in the late 70’s and early 80’s, they had to come up with this stuff completely on their own. They didn’t have the luxury that Ellis and other later writers had of seeing that Tony Stark being an alcoholic is an interesting character trait, or how he developed into a person who hates building weapons post-Viet Nam war. No, Ellis could pick and chose what to use, and had the luxury of polishing the best character traits as something that existed from the beginning. These are not traits they created, but instead something that existed in Iron Man before hand and that they only highlighted.

This isn’t to knock Ellis or Miller or others who update previous characters. I mean, Cronenberg’s Fly is just an update of the original Vincent Prince one, and many of the elements in the remake existed in the original, but Cronenberg managed to highlight those elements and make them new and interesting, while adding a couple of unique elements of his own.

My point with superhero movies is that the majority of elements are still from an older era, and most often from that comics first couple of years. The writers and filmmakers have only presented these elements in a manner that a modern audience would appreciate, not discard them or completely change them. In fact, Christian Bales’ Batman is more like the Golden Age one then Frank Miller’s. Like the Golden Age one, he is dedicated to fighting crime but he isn’t completely obsessed with it. Like the Golden Age Batman, Bale’s is not brooding or cruel and vicious. And also like the Golden Age Batman, Bale’s Bruce Wayne worries about his love life and sharing his life with someone he loves: Julia Madison for the Golden Age, Rachel Dawes for Nolan’s version.

As for Two-Face, he might act more like the modern interpretation, but the modern version is very much the same Two-Face from the 40’s. If you read the Golden Age Two-Face, you see that he is essentially a tragic character; so is the modern one.

He also helped take Wonder Man, a character also running the risk of becoming stagnant, and added something more to him with something that made perfect sense in hindsight. If the Vision's mind was based on Simon's brain patterns, wouldn't he be attracted to the Scarlet Witch as well?

Finally, he made Hank Pym an active hero again; had super-patriot become Ultimate Captain Amer-er, I mean U.S. Agent; and introduced the Great Lake Avengers.

...But he also did Acts of Vengeance, which I admit was a big mistake...

Sometimes you wonder how certain villains got to be labelled 'evil GENIUS"?

The reason many of us take offense to what you say isn't because we are "sensitive about our butts", to paraphrase you, is because we are sensitive to our fellow man and believe in concepts think fairness, compassion, and justice. In fact, I bet many of us learned about those traits for the first time by reading comic books. We people in an enlightened Western society don’t go around hacking people’s hands off for stealing because that is an excessive punishment, just like we don’t go executing people who commit adultery or whip someone for disrespecting their elders. Those punishments are considered barbaric, and rightfully so.

As a person who believes in the Enlightenment, and in our own Constitution and Bill of Rights where it says we should be protected “from Cruel and Unusual Punishment”. I find the idea that just because someone makes a mistake that they should run the risk of being tortured and humiliated to be horrifying. I mean, shouldn’t being sent to prison by itself be punishment enough? Yes, people should be punished for their transgressions, but being sodomized because you sold some weed or even helped transport some cocaine is downright excessive.

And yes, I do believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe in the saying “there but for the grace of God go I.” Many poor immigrants try to come here illegally, should they be treated as hardcore criminals as well just for wanting a better life for themselves? Many teenagers run away from home, should they be subject to being molested or forced into prostitution for making a bad decision about leaving home? Many people make bad business mistakes or decisions, should they be forced into indentured servitude for that? Just because you are “perfect” doesn’t mean you should be passing judgment on the decisions of others. While not a Christian, I still firmly believe in the adage “He who is without sin should cast the first stone.”

I once asked you if you ever read Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”, and I ask that question again. In it, the protagonist Jean Valjean is sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread and ends up serving 20 years, and then is chased by Javert, a relentless police officer. It is Hugo’s masterpiece about the difference between the Law and Justice, and how by being blinded only with punishing the guilty do we fail to see their humanity.

I also think of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s quote: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but how it treats its criminals.”

PS – I will add it is hard not to hang out with the Mongols when you work as a mechanic at a bike shop. Its not like your boss is going to tell them, hey man, don’t come around here anymore.

I could easily have seen Victor Hugo adding a character that is sent to prison for a minor offense and then is raped. It would fit in perfectly with the already established themes.

My mind is made up, and no amount of reason is going to change it.

And to Joenathan, you have literally made my day as I have repeatedly found myself visualizing the WCA BBQ and laughing to myself. Sincere thanks for that.

The thing with Joenat, is that he is the most eloquent defender of the status quo in modern comics that has crossed this board yet. Joe, you're completely in line with the policies of modern comic book publishing, which appears to be pro-change but is actually opposed to change. It's not meant as an insult in anyway, believe me, because I used to be the Don Rickles of AICN.

I gotta say, I've never been a big fan of superhero teams playing softball or going bowling or whatever they did. Unless it was PURPOSELY played for laughs such as when Lee and Kirby had the FF go Christmas shopping and only the Thing wondered why everyone was looking at them. But one thing WATCHMEN did that it wasn't credited for was to sum up the kind of personality that would be a superhero if superheros existed: they'd be anti-social, only banding together for a specific purpose before turning on each other like mating cats.

Last night I read the Libra one-shot since I had no idea who he is and he seems important to FC and that book got a pretty good pass here. But it was lame and useless, a waste of my money.

I understand Joenanthan will never change his opinion, and I am willing to accept that just like I hope he will accept the fact I don’t agree with him (I’m sure it doesn’t eat you up inside Joenathan or cause you to loose any sleep). I don’t expect people to change their minds based on my arguments, or them to change my mind but I hope to at least exchange ideas and present my side of an argument. In that spirit I will say a couple of things and then go back to arguing over really important things: like why super-heroes need pockets and why older comics are better then modern comics.

Joenanthan, said people have to accept personal responsibility for your actions and that if sometimes those decisions have unintended consequences, they have to accept them. If you CHOOSE to do something like deal drugs, you very well might get arrested and sent to prison and get raped there. You have to ACCEPT the fact that is a possible consequence. Well, I agree with you, but I would also add that all the examples I mentioned earlier also all have possible consequences for their actions. A runaway can be forced into prostitution, a girl walking alone down a dark street can get raped, and an enlisted soldier in war can get killed. All of those are potential consequences for those people’s decisions. You stated that those were specious comparisons. I ask how so? All those people made a decision, something that they can only hold themselves responsible for. The runaway didn’t have to leave home just because she argued and fought with her parents; it is her own fault for being taken in by a pimp. The woman didn’t have to walk alone from work in a dark alleyway or wear such provocative clothing; it is her own fault for getting raped, the slut! No one forced the soldier to enlist in what some would say in an unjust war; good riddance, the baby-killer got what was coming to him! And the guy chose to sell or ship weed; it is his own fault for getting raped in prison!

Your argument that those are bad examples because the above people never did anything wrong is completely moot. What you were arguing was taking responsibility for you actions and facing the potential consequences. Well, all the above examples have potentially bad consequences, and that doesn’t mean we should just act blasé about it. We can still feel sorry for people and believe they don’t deserve such harsh treatment for what we consider a bad decision. The same the drug dealer; his bad decision got him into prison, that is an acceptable consequence, but him getting raped is just as excessive as a girl forced into prostitution, a woman being raped, or a soldier killed.

But I can hear people saying, “None of those people broke the law!” True, but let me quote Raymond Chandler, “The law isn’t justice. It’s a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be.” The law is a device to keep social tranquility and order. Sure we punish certain crimes that many of us consider immoral and inhuman, but it also punishes things that some of us consider harmless or at the very least only harmful to the user and willing participants. But your argument has always been based on personal decisions and responsibility, not the morality of the act. The fact that one bad decision involves an illegal act and the others involve their own personal safety is beside the point: it is the fact that they all made bad decisions and all those decisions have potentially dangerous consequences.

But if you are saying a prisoner is different because he did commit a crime, then you are advocating additional punishment because someone doesn’t obey the same moral code as you or me. Fine, but the question raised is when do we cross the line? An illegal immigrant by his very definition is illegal, so should a man trying to find a better life here in America be allowed to be shot at the border or even put into a prison where he might be raped? I mean, it is his personal responsibility for breaking the law by illegally entering the country, no matter what reasons, so he should have only himself to blame if a Minuteman shoots him or while in a holding cell real hardcore criminals rape him. It is his own fault so let us be completely indifferent to his plight. Or what about the Iranian example? Should we feel no sympathy and mock the gay men and prostitutes in Iran who are stoned to death because of the crimes they committed? But “no one is sentenced to ass rape. Its not inflicted upon people by society, its inflicted upon them by their fellow innocent prisoners…” True, we don’t sentence people to be sodomized, but we are still responsible for them, or at least the State and Government is. When someone is imprisoned he loses many of his rights but in turn the State becomes responsible for him and his security. Article IV, Chapter B, section 22 states that “All prisoners have the right to the strict and unerring protection of the state.” That is why when a prisoner dies do to medical neglect or abuse from the guards or negligence his family can sue: the government is responsible for him until he is released. And part of that responsibility is that we must guarantee their protection while they are incarcerated, especially those who are weaker from the stronger, more violent prisoners. Hence, when you allow prison rape to occur or if the State acts indifferent to it, it is “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” The purpose of prison is to inflict a punishment fitting to their crime, not to create a jungle where the strong get to pray on the week. In an earlier post I quoted Dostoevsky; well now I will use a quote that both Churchill and Gandhi used, “A society should be judged not by how it treats its weakest members.”

This debate all started because Joenanthan made a sarcastic joke towards another talkbacker regarding a man getting raped. I protested that I don’t find that funny, and gave the scenario about a friend of mine in prison. Your response, I quote, was “So fuck your prison friend, fuck him right up the ass.” You can understand why that would upset me a little, and how I would find that offensive. Later on you stated that even though he made a bad choice, he doesn’t desert to be butt raped, but he did make the choices that put him there. While I might disagree with such a cavalier attitude, I find it much more acceptable than saying getting raped in prison is some form of karma and that they deserve it.

Secondly, you said a woman getting raped is horrid, a man getting getting raped in prison is funny. By that logic, a female prisoner getting anally raped by a guard must be downright hysterical.

I remember when the Avengers first fought the human Zodiac armed with the Zodiac Key (the one where Scorpio turns out to be Nick Fury in disguise and Rick Jones and Captian Marvel guest starred), and before the villains showed up the Avengers were holding a meeting. They were all seated around this cool table with a big A in the center (just like the old Avengers logo’s A with an arrow for the center line) and they all were sitting in custom chairs with their own logos: Captain America had an “A” on his, Thor had a hammer sign, Yellow-jacket had his yellow bee insignia, and Vision had a diamond symbol like the one on his forehead.

We also noticed that while Yellow-jacket and Wasp were sitting in normal sized chairs, Goliath (Clint Barton at the time) had this gigantic chair. We were wondering why he didn’t have a normal-sized chair, when suddenly I remembered something. “I know why he is always in giant-sized. Him and Hank Pym have mentioned that there is a strain on your body when you grow big. They stay big when they grow so they aren’t constantly straining themselves.”

We also wondered why the Avengers always met in costume, especially when so many knew each other’s secret identities. But another comic explained that (I think it actually was in West Coast Avengers) when one hero explained that because some members didn’t no each others identities and because they didn’t want to make someone feel like they were forced to reveal it to feel included, they always met in costume.

Yeah, I know, dumb reasons. But as a kid I felt like, “wow, this is so REALISTIC.”

Superman: As chairman of the JLA I need to call a vote about if we should stop defending Ivy Town. Ok, we need an unanimous vote here. Anyone opposed raise your hand!

(Only Atom has his hand up but he is blocked behind Green Arrow's cup of coffee)

Superman: No one opposes. Vote passed.

Atom: Hey!

Of course, do you blame someone for feeling inadequate when they are ANT-man in a team composed of the Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man. I was always surprised they even knew he joined.