The Empire is thousands of light years across...wouldn't they have millennia to evacuate? NO natural event can exceed the speed of light!

Those series still exist you know. Abrams' Star Trek won't be deleting the DVDs out of existence any more than the crap series and films that followed them in the same continuity did.

I think Bendis' popularity has had more to do with the novelty of his style than his skill as a storyteller. Like a writerly Leifeld, he presents things in a new way, a way that might catch the attention of blockhead teenagers, but which is actually short on fundamental skills-- a story structure that creates the surface effects of tension, suspense, excitement, momentum, etc., coupled with characterization that layers deeper effects like emotional involvement.

The best thing I can say about Bendis is that good writers are often able to do great things with his ideas, but he doesn't offer much else. I think, in 10 years or so, people will look back on him as a fad, like a Leifeld or McFarlane-- who were at the forefront of the time when artists became the stars of the show, even though neither qualifies as a good artist, really. It's fan art. Bendis is at the forefront of the time when writers are the stars of the show, and it's fan writing. As an example of all the things Bendis can't do, you can look at Ed Brubaker, at the way he structures stories and delivers characterization.

I don't think you can even compare Morrison and Bendis. Morrison has been writing great, groundbreaking comics since the early-80s. He still writes the best dialogue in comics, without any self-consciousness, and he's often more successful than anybody at welding the 'big idea' to effective drama. Does it always work? No. But the guy's lifetime batting average has got to be one of the all-time greats.

Not a good idea to fuck with the big picture, but I'm repeating myself.

Nothing else to discuss this week.

That's like saying, I was about to throw a molotov cocktail, which would incinerate the planet.

Only worse.

So it should read "The Romulan Empire’s sun is about to go nova and decimate their solar system"

To which I would say, so fucking what? If Washington DC disappeared it wouldn't mean the end of the USA.

Ult. Spider-Man, Alias and Powers (when it comes out) have been some of favorite titles over the years.

I view him as a Wheedon light. Do the characters sometimes get involved in a little too much snark, sure they do. But if it’s good snark I’ll let it pass.

Would I want every comic written in this style, hell no. But do I enjoy it for what it is? Absolutely.

Dark Avengers: Really? You enjoyed a multi-page conversation between Osborne and Sentry? Really? Well, diff'rent strokes...

The latest X-Factor was pretty underwhelming, IMO. I find myself quite bored with this book, contrary to popular opinion. It is just full of itself and I have grown weary of Madrox.

The listed events of Bendis are mostly reasons I stopped liking him as much as I used to. While Scarlet Witch did need some freshening up, I really don't like what happened to her. The Wasp's death was equally underwhelming. And Daredevil...he made me drop that book. I was cool with the "outing" of Murdock, but then he seemed to backtrack and it all became very tiresome. I have found New Avengers to be consistently entertaining, though, despite my initial refusal to buy it due to the presence of Wolverine, Marvel's most over-exposed character.

I shall pick up Invincible due to this review when I hit the LCS later today.

Last week I basically just got a bunch of X-books (x-Factor, X-Men, Wolverine Origins, X-Force). I was disappointed by all four of them. Origins had the characters behaving idiotically in order to advance the plot, X-Men continued to make Colossus boring. X-Force was the best one, and it wasn't all that great. I am getting X-ed out, I think.

With the week I was having at work though, I'm just glad spell check didn't give me desecrate as an option.

“Have you been a bad little Romulus? You have, haven’t you? Take that you dirty filthy naught planet. Yeeeeeaahhhhh….

My zenith of Douchosity comes out when I really hate a book.

Sign this petition to make a "Sandman" motion comic!!

All I knew of Kirkman was his stuff for Marvel and Walking Dead, and never cared for any of it. But between this and Astounding Wolf-Man, I think the guy's probably some type of prodigy.

Personally I liked it from page 1, but that's just me.

I watch, but I just don't get it.

I do wonder how Bendis will hold up. My feeling is Morrison holds up better, but that is because I like Seven Soldiers and Animal Man considerably more than Powers, going back and re-reading these works.

I can't imagine Bendis will ever become a Rob Liefeld (or Fred Durst in music) type of Pariah that no one will ever admit having liked, but I don't think his stuff will be sought out either. I think he'll be, say, a Claremont.

You have created an impregnable shield against any criticism or difference in opinion. If I don’t like Bendis or Millar because of their storylines, plotting, dialogue, etc., but that makes my opinion invalid because that is based on personal opinions (as if there is some sort of mathematical formula to determine what is good or bad, and not subjective view point); and if sales is the sole indicator of success, than does McDonald’s have the most delicious food in the world, or just the best marketed and have the best business model? And for the amount of time people talk about him, hell, Uwe Boll most be Martin Scorsese considering the amount of discussion going on about him on this site.

But I have to admire your strategy: no one can criticize your favorites because it is only because of personal reasons they don't like your favs, and sales proves that you are right (even if they too are a nebulous thing).

We can debate endlessly who will stand the test of time, but we won't know for awhile will we?

However, here and now I want to know why some consider FINAL CRISIS brilliant.

I really wnat to know. All I hear from the fans to the detractors is "you're too stupid to understand." Then please enlighten the masses.

It was very ambitious, trying to re-invent the whole New Gods. I don't think it was a success (I prefer the old New Gods to the new New Gods) but it was an interesting attempt.

And I don't see how anyone can deny that FC was kind of a mess. But I've read it twice, unlike Secret Invasion, which I initially loved but then grew bored with.

One big defense of Bendis is that two of his favorites are also my two favorite MU characters: Spider-Woman and Luke Cage. I actually quite like his dialogue, but there is nothing I can point to and say "this is awesome" that he has written. Whereas, even with Claremont, I can point out the Dark Phoenix Saga and say "this rocks! Even today!"

I also did not like the Invisibles, so I think when GM gets too "out there," he loses me.

Sector, I wouldn't say it is "undecipherable" but I would say all the parts don't really come together. The easiest example is the very last page of the whole series. I consider myself bright and am definitely well educated. But I don't know WHY Batman was there in the cave. This doesn't bother me that much, though. I don't feel like I have to fully understand every single thing that happens as long as I get the gist of it.

Spider-Man is a character I simply can't get into. But I did love GM's Superman, and Supes was another character I never thought I'd find interesting.

I will give Alias a try.

Is a blockbuster film a better story than indie films? No, but they appeal to the bubblegum part of our brain versus the caviar connoisseur portion. Sometimes entertainment should make you think and sometimes it’s a lot of fun to just go into coma mode.

OK back to FC.

Sector, I appreciate that you consider the piece art. Now let me throw a fancy college term back at you – Freytag’s Pyramid, the formation of a story.

Call me a purist, but I need it. I want the exposition (which I think was actually a strong point of the series), but then it was all just rising action to the abrupt, confusing and lackluster denouement.

The New Gods and the Monitors are not the centers of the DC universe. There are three people that are and they were sidelined.

Again, I totally appreciate where you are coming and as I’ve always said I never hated the series. But to call it CRISIS was a sham and a “head-fake” by DC to suck nostalgia dollars from our wallets. It was not a CRISIS, it was a series of interesting moments strung very loosely together.

Look at other posts in this TalkBack -- we are speculating as to the meaning and reality of the events even still. I’ll save my art for the canvas, please just keep giving me stories in my comics.

1) You ever seen the website hot chicks with douchebags? Just curious.

2) If you are looking at FC as a dramatic work, it qualifies as a tragedy: it ended in catastrophe for the readers.

Of course, I freely admit, that I believe even art should have some appeal to the masses (why make something if the only one who is going to enjoy it is you). But I prefer to make something I personally look at as good, instead of trying to turn out crap. If I wanted to do that, I would have gotten a job working on Tool Academy or Rock of Love or some crappy reality show. They pay good but the money doesn't offset the crappiness of the product.

And even if some people do like watching it (which ratings have proven people do) doesn't mean I have to be a party to it. I prefer to take my money and my brain cells somewhere else.

Sorry for the confusion before, I actually thought the exposition was well thought out. The Green Lantern archeological dig, the entrapment of Turpin, I was there. Right up until when Barry Allen returns. Sorry, I just wanted more epic.

I'll fully admit, I was never a New Gods fan, so that's probably where a part of my apathy comes from. If I never saw Orion again it would be too soon.

Yes, the Monitor was part of the last Crises, but again he WAS the Last Crises. Here we had two Hallmark moments to book-end the piece.

Consequences, I guess. The universe was not drastically shooken up until almost book six.

And I will admit I hold editorial responsible for not getting the reset-quake that's happening right now through all of the other titles. Yes, I'm going to sound like an old bastard, but with the first Crises, the resets in the other titles happened along with each Crises release. They did it this time but three months afterward.

I know that's my context, as for Grant Morrison, I don't know -- I'm not him.

On the next-to-last page... In the flashback the Winter Soldier busted into Chin's big warehouse, and there were what I can only assume were tanks filled with blue goo and human bodies. I blew past that panel, and it wasn't until reading the book for the third time that it hit me that we were supposed to be shocked by a "big reveal" in that panel. And then I spent the last couple of books playing mental catch-up when I realized Chin was experimenting on people. But the story/dialog left the art to explain that, and it didn't do it clearly. At least, not for me.

The problem with the shooting of Darksied is it had to happen during a forgettable storyline. Final Crisis will be like Marvel's Secret Wars II - an apparently mega-event that left people disappointed and will probably be soon pretty much ignored and forgotten save for an occasional mention.

I've defended Millar's FF, but it's not even fucking winter any longer.

Just wanted to bitch about that.

In movie terms, one was I Spit On Your Grave and the other is Jean Luc Godard's King Lear.

As for Bendis, I also find him overrated. Other's might like his style, but to me he is to obvious. I can see the artifice. I prefer Brubaker and Slott (although his current run on Mighty Avengers is just awful so far).

Likewise, his entire run of Doom Patrol. In fact, everything the guy has ever done is still in print.

Alright, alright. I was here at the beginning yesterday but then missed everything.

I'm expecting to get some substantial mileage out of Final Crisis once it's fully collected, with the Superman Beyond Interludes, and the way it was mis-marketed and falsely promoted is long behind us. I have a feeling I'll have a new fondness for it as 'Cracked-Out-Superhero-Opera-B ugaboo'.

I also really, really, really love The Filth. That series doesn't get enough love, but read it closely in collected form. Great art. Lots of action. Big ideas, and one hell of a cathartic emotional payoff.

It just isn't Batman's character, it's Miller's fantasy of his character, which speaks more to Miller's personal issues than any issues inherent in the character itself.

I prefer my Batman as Sherlock Holmes+a ninja+James Bond. To that end, I've really enjoyed the characterization provided by Dini and Morrison over the last couple years.

I couldn't have put it better myself. The ending was the crap cherry on the Sh!t sundae that was the series. I will never, ever read anything by Meltzer in my life.

I actually liked Infinite Crisis, though. Again, that's just me. It had some corn and some violence, and was entertaining (but not art).

I am ordering the first GN of Invisibles today, since so many people have convinced me to do so. Also going to see if I can order a TP of Alias.

But I looove Mighty Avengers so far, although the art is merely ok. It is my kind of thing.

The others have powers? Not all of them. And a great number of heroes didn't have powers who were created at the same time as Batman. That's why I used Daredevil as an example. Yeah, he might have 'radar sense', but we all know Daredevil's power is that he's an ace ninja. You don't have to be a twitching psycho-fascist to will yourself to a standard of human perfection-- at least not in fiction. So, I say there's a world of difference between 'noirish touches' and 'Miller's Batman'. Miller is a very unhealthy, troubled little man.

Lots of non-powered heroes aren't jibbering fruit-cakes. That's my point. Is the Lone Ranger a jibbering fruit-cake? Is Sherlock Holmes? Is James Bond? Nyet. Having resolve and being driven isn't the same thing as being a jibbering fruit-cake.

I'm going to work now. Have fun being unhappy about something completely inconsequential to anything else in life, or even serving as a valid complaint for anything.

More like LOSERHEAD. Tee hee. ;)

Have fun at work. I make a nice living writing books.

Since I died.

The bullet is silver in the moonlight, like the spangled garter-belts of pre-pubescent Japanese girls.

Jocko Boy is running the Cavendish gang now. Got something special for him.

I'll use my hands. Silver is my horse. My mother. My lover.

Good job with the bold text, btw.

That show is the greatest thing to happen to science fiction since the original Star Trek, and frankly I think this new movie will probably ruin science fiction as well as the Trek franchise. JJ Abrams is an over glorified hack.

A comic like the Avengers needs someone with more serious style. I'm not saying they should be written like the Punisher, but I expect a team of elite, professional heroes to be treated with a little gravitas and not be so silly.

But I am not a Slott apologist. Much of his second run on She-Hulk was inferior. The Thing was also just too dorky and cornball. I knew that one would be quickly cancelled, and even his Spider-Man tended toward the overly-retro. GLA, now that was awesome but not for everyone's taste.

Sector, I do have an FC Question: It regards the Female Furies. What was the deal with them? I was actually confused all along if it was supposed to be the actual WW, Catwoman, etc, or some evil doppelgangers. I know it was revealed that it was indeed the actual heroes, but where did that come from? Also, the art was for sure messed up since the mask of FF WW was inconsistent.

This is not a question, just an observation: The new Forever People were an interesting group but they never developed much and all of a sudden it was like "I'll save you Lola Canary" and we never really knew much about her. Not that it bothered me, but I think that is the sort of thing people bitch about.

I was just thrown by the new heroines corrupted version, it seemed to come out of nowhere. And I use the Lolita Canary thing just because the Forever People were tossed out there and didn't really go anywhere. In fact, I am kind of hoping there will be a mini of them, or something. I actually love the Fourth World and would love to see the Fifth World developed. I am still pissed that Barda (and Knockout) are gone.

While I think both series where over-hyped and horrible, I will grant that Identity Crisis is more cohesive and makes more sense. Each series suffered it’s own, radically different problem. A scene in a story involves two elements – content and context. Final Crisis was all about content – what the scene is about and what is it’s underlining meaning, without having giving the audience any real sense of relationship and reference. Identity Crisis was all about context – what is actually happening physically and where is it happening – without giving the audience any real sense of what it is about thematically.

Sure Identity Crisis made sense and you could follow the story, but it felt unreal and out of place, like watching characters being forced to march through a plot instead of watching people actually living a real story. They were mannequins, not people, being used as props in a salacious story.

FC characters at least felt alive and real – but God or Morrison only knows what the hell was happening. It felt like I was channel surfing and catching snipplets of what looked like a great movie on TMC: sure it has all the elements of greatness – acting, direction, cinematography, dialogue – but I have absolutely no clue what is going on so I can’t invest anything into it.

While I don’t think Melzer out wrote Morrison, but I don’t have a problem with those who do. Martin Scorsese is a vastly superior filmmaker than Kevin Smith, but I can say with a straight face that Clerks is better than Bringing Out the Dead. Every dog has his day.

As for gooseud comments about IC, I have no problem that you liked it but for me it was juvenile, and I don’t just mean the idiotic ending. Yes, the rush to save Robin’s dad was well done, but the overall plot and story was just ridiculously stupid and soap operatic. And the use of Dr. Light to rape Sue Dibney was just the writer’s attempt to be intentionally offensive and shocking.

You can try to ret-con it all you want, but Dr. Light has never been displayed as any sort of sexual predator. He has always been the classic power hungry super-villain. His transformation into serial rapist was just a bad attempt at being shocking. If you wanted a villain to sexual assault a character and have it be believable to me, you might as well make it the Joker. He has a long track record of disregarding any sort of social norms and being psychotic. But of course, they could never have an a-list villain do something so cruel or evil (but they can have him murder people every month in grisly detail without him ever paying a higher price).

"Nag nag fruitcake-like jibberish."

I was playing Devil's Advocate more than anything. I can totally see the argument against Miller's Bat, but at the same time, a similar formula works in things like Batman: Year One. And taken in the context of the story and all, it just never really bugged me.

I thinks things started to change in the early 80’s when Marvel had characters like Thor and the Hulk get rid of their mortal personas (at least for awhile); characters like the Punisher who didn’t need a secret identity; and groups like the X-Men pretty much only hanged around with themselves, being very reclusive and secluded from the rest of the Marvel universe (at least in terms of dealing with normal people). Fans started saying secret identities were not realistic, and DC believed it. I mean, as much as I like a lot of the things Perez did with Wonder Woman post-Crisis, I think getting rid of her Diana Prince identity was a huge blunder. Without that other persona, she is unable to interact and meet normal people like Steve Trevor or Etta Candy or General Phil Darnell, but instead has a rotating cast of supporting characters because it becomes unbelievable for a superhero to want to hang around normal people. Instead she now only interacts with other members of the superhero “community”, just like pretty much every other hero out there.

In fact, it is this idea of “superhero community” that has robbed much of the fun out of comics for me. Sure secret identities were not realistic, but at least the made sure heroes interacted with the normal people like us, so we could relate to them. Now heroes are just an annoying clique of good-looking and popular kids in High School who hang out together and don’t have time of day for any of the other students; and no clique is more annoying than the DC heroes, because they also always are wearing their club jackets to rub your nose in the fact you can never join their group. It is no surprise that Spider-Man and Superman still are two of my favorite heroes (although not two of my favorite comics) because they have at least retained their secret identities and have made their personal lives just as important as their costumed hero lives (although I will admit, I like Batman for opposite reasons, because I imagine to become good enough to be an actual costumed vigilante would mean having to give up any sort of social life).

An artist’s job is to express an idea or a feeling. When the audience fails to recognize or see those ideas, the fault might lie with the artist more than the audience. Certainly, some forms of art are more challenging than others and require the audience and viewer to spend more time understanding it; and some pieces of art require extensive knowledge about a subject for an audience to truly appreciate it. But guess what? Those usually are not pieces of art aimed at a mass audience but only a small crowd of aficionados. FC was advertised as the comic event of the year.

So should Morrison have “dummied it down” for the masses? No, but that also doesn’t mean he has to create something indecipherable and inaccessible. I am a huge film fan and work in the movie business, but my friends are always surprised when I tell them I don’t like Wender’s “Wings of Desire.” “You just don’t get it” they tell me, as if by explaining it will make me appreciate it more. Damn right I don’t get it! Art is a subjective medium, and there is nothing in my background or personal experience to make me relate to that story. It is pure pretentious drivel in my opinion. But to others it touches a nerve and is very profound.

You say that the content of FC mirrors its story, about how time is falling upon itself. Great idea, but completely useless if a large number of the audience don’t recognize that. Does that make those people dumber than those who do recognize it? No, that just means they are people who grew up reading comics and art in a different way than others. Even highly intelligent and talented people can have different taste and opinions. The great director Ingmar Bergman considers Citizen Kane to be an overrated piece of trash – I disagree with him but it doesn’t make his opinion wrong, just his opinion.

Plus, just because Morrison wrote it doesn’t make it great or mean that all of his ideas work. Sometimes an interesting idea is lost somewhere in translation. Going back to the theme of how time is shattering and how some people didn’t recognize that, I once told a director friend how I loved how Sydney Lumet uses the camera to tell his stories thematically: the camera going lower and tighter in 12 Angry Men to show how the jury is trapped; how in the Prince of the City the picture gets darker and darker as Treat Williams sells more and more of his soul; and in Network how the film’s lighting changes to appear more like a tv commercial as the film progresses to show how TV has corrupted everything. Well, my friend loved that idea and he shot a movie influenced by what I said, then showed it to me: as the movie progresses, the film gets more and more out of focus. My friend said this way to show how his protagonist was becoming more and more confused; I told him the audience is just going to think you had a shitty cameraman and this is all an accident. Well, needless to say, the film was not picked up or accepted by any festivals.

My point is simply this – that everyone perceives the world differently, so saying someone doesn’t get something is an obvious and pointless argument.

b

test

I am using a < bold > tag, test test

As for Miller, I was not defending him. I too believe he is a washed up, over-exposed pale mockery of his old self. However, it's revisionist history to say he hasn't produced some interesting comics over the years. '300' was visually interesting, and I like some of the Sin City work. He's no more a one trick pony than Bendis, for example.

I agree about 'Mighty,' it is blowing chunks so far. There is too much going on and as I noted earlier, the return of the Scarlett Witch with so little explanation is just clunky.

New Avengers needs some stability at this point. Too many changing members, no sense of what their purpose is or why they work together. The talky-talk is OK at times, but the book has lost focus except for a playground for Bendis to masturbate to his favorite characters.

Last, I would like a petition to start for Bendis to stop writing Spider-Man is such a fucking pussy. that is all.

It's revisionism, sure, but revisionism based not on an author's later work, but based on the advent (finally) of the audience's maturity.

I mean, during his tenure on DD not only did he change Matt Murdock from perennial B-list hero into major A-lister, but also took a second tier Spider-Man foe, the Kingpin, and transform him into one of Marvel’s major villains and a living embodiment of the evils of organized crime (why someone can’t do a similar thing with the Penguin is beyond me).

And while I agree, Captain America has been written better (Stern’s work Cap’s own title and the Avengers stand out as the best depiction of him for me); Miller did write some of the best examples of another hero reacting to the greatness of Cap. And I don’t mean the Busiek style of having some young hero stare eye-struck at Cap like he was his favorite movie star. No, I mean we actually saw why Captain America is held in such reverence in the Marvel universe.

When Captain America orders Thor to create a storm to put out a fire, Miller writes (and I am paraphrasing),“He hears a voice that could command a god…and it does.” That spells out Captain America’s natural leadership and presence better than any other comic I have read (although Thing mentioning in Secret Wars how when Cap orders you to do something, you just feel like you can’t let him down gets an honorable mention).

And when Captain America figures out Matt Murdock’s secret identity, follows him into the church (without DD noticing until than), and than races by DD wearing “40lbs of chainmail and carrying a shield” without even changing his breathing rate or heart rate, we realize the same thing that DD does – that despite both of them are considered part of the “non-powered” class of heroes (along with heroes like Moon Knight, Punisher and the Black Widow), Cap completely outclasses him. It must be what it was like when a NBA All-Star like Chris Mullen of Reggie Miller finally met Jordan during his prime– they thought they were pretty damn good and hot stuff until they experienced what he could do. And Miller did all this without having DD & Cap fight in a stereotypical superhero fight.

But I will go on the record as saying the ninja hooker on the roller skates is as dumb as they come. That is just damn childish.

JoeN, the scene with Vicki Vail was just the most eggregious of the books offenses for me. I just don't want Batman to be that character, I don't like Robin being such a punk. It's just an ugly book for me.

What is interesting is that I do like anti-heroes at times, and I do like gritty books (Walking Dead, The Authority to name a few), but something about the total package of ASBAR just made me drop it after issue 2.

That is why I wrote this response in advance because I am pretty sure I know how you’ll reply. Despite the fact that I laid out a well thought out argument why I think Stan Lee is not a thief, I am sure you’ll skip over the logic and reasoning and instead make ad hominem arguments, personal attacks and use character assassination. You’ll say that I am stupid and uneducated about the subject or comics, and despite the fact that I was polite and respectful in my reply, you’ll constantly throw out personal insults and childish remarks supposedly “destroying” whatever argument I make by avoiding confronting it or blatantly misinterpret what I said. At the same time you’ll boast about your own knowledge and superiority in the subject, and question how anyone could think differently on a subject as you.

But you know what you won’t do? You won’t actually back up anything you say with evidence or an explanation how you reached that conclusion. No, everything will be treated as if it is common knowledge or that you’re not required to supply evidence to support your argument. Sector is obviously one of the great comic book experts in the world and his word is all that matter: Stan Lee is a thief and a huckster, and the fact that you say so is evidence enough - at least in your delusional world.

But the truth is Sector that even “experts” are required to supply evidence and explanations why they believe what they do. I don’t claim to be an expert but just a fan, and I could very well be wrong about something and don’t mind be corrected. If you truly have any useful insight into a subject, present it in a logical manner and supply evidence or statements that back it up.

But the truth is you are not an expert. You are just tiny, pathetic dick, a douchebag, a loser. The real sad thing is that you probably get a kick out of this, as if you somehow have some sort of power or standing on this site. “Look at me everybody!” That is why you constantly cry out, demanding that people have to reply to your circular “arguments.” Just pathetic.

I get no pleasure in these "debates" with you, Sector. While I might throw out a joking barb once in awhile, I am a firm believer in trying to be amicable and polite. And hopefully the rest of the people on this site have found me fair and somewhat pleasant, something I am sure few people here can say about you (Buzz, Ambush, JoeNathan, Homer, Psynapse, Goose, who haven't you annoyed?) The truth is, Sector, I could give a shit less about you or what you think. I can easily ignore you and your comments, and forget about you as soon as I look away from the site. You are like a pile of shit I accidentally stepped in; annoying when it happens, but you just scrap off your shoes and move on without ever thinking back on it.

And I don’t care what you say about me, or even another TBer. You are rude and obnoxious and slightly unhinged, but I can just use a little willpower to ignore you are your insignificant attacks. But the baseless attacks on Stan Lee are just disgusting. To quote Joseph N. Welch when he was talking to another person you loved to label and demonize people without any evidence, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

But we know the answer to that is no, don’t we Sector? Prick.