Superman has been thrown off his own book. This isn't Superman.

But do these books have to have a message?

The honest answer is "no" egon.

Yes they do. Superman represents that message. And its a good one. Great review Hex

@Ming and @ egonnn Don't all books have a message? A reason to be written and read? Just because you don't agree with the message or whatever doesn't mean that it shouldn't be written. That is true censorship which is another subject this series looks to be dealing with. Even if you don't agree that THIS is Superman, the original still stood for a lot of the same things his son does. His son is more brash and inexperienced in the world. He will make mistakes and has already done so.

@Hex "Just because you don't agree with the message or whatever doesn't mean that it shouldn't be written" - that argument is so disingenuous. If the "message" was about something You don't agree with or whatever you'd sing a different song.

You could always disassociate yourself with the book's message, and just judge it based on its merits. Whether the art looked good, if the plot made sense, and if the pacing was solid. There's plenty of media out there with incredibly shitty messages that, at the same time, is extremely well done. You don't have to agree with everything you read. I feel like most people, if they thought about it, have some form of media they enjoy that they also find very problematic.

It's hard to disassociate yourself with the book's message when it's very on the nose and in your face. As for the other merits of the book, there's a reason why I haven't rate the book as one. The problem is, all those merits get overshadowed by the writer's attempts at preaching to the reader.

I guess it might be hard, but it's still possible. It looks like, from your review, you are almost solely focused on the message and just want escapism in your comics. Sorry to say, that's not really a thing, and hasn't been for a long, long time. Comics have always been political in nature.

Yes, of course. Sure...

Okay so we agree that the majority of your criticism for the issue is non-criticism.

Read it however you like, there's no point arguing with you.

Dennis O'Neil run on Green Lantern never existed then...

Or literally anything from Marvel comics. "The world outside your window" wasn't just a saying.

I feel this is the way politics is written then I'd believe most of people won't have problem.

Molesting children is wrong. I asked you TWICE if you had something to say about the comic in the comments section or if you planned to keep spamming. You didn't answer, just kept blabbing on. That's why I blocked you. Next time if you have something useful to say do so instead of rant on about things that have nothing to do with the comic.

Wow, you're very quick to tell on yourself.

I see that you're still babbling on so I made the right decision blocking you. I recommend you seek mental help, for real, I'm not kidding. You're not right in the head, even your username shows that. Either way, until you get better you're still blocked, if you stop with this insanity I will unblock you.

@Merlyn I recommend that you do not do it, the type of mental illness that this guy has was not cured more than with a lobotomy and the only thing that can come out of this guy's mouth along with his other personalities is garbage.

LOL how many alts are you going to make to back up pedophilia?

Hold up, lobotomies are fucking terrible and almost never done today. How old is fear? 60?

It doesn't surprise me that a white nationalist is also a pedo sympathizer. Most of them are. Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, Ethan Van Sciver, Merlyn, the list goes on.

Why are you lying like a total dibshit, Psycamorean? If I'm a pedo sympathizer, you're a Nazi and a murderer. Why? Because I said so. Seems to me like this is how it works for people like you and the degenerate who wrote this review.

You're also a rapist, an incestuous piece of shit and a cannibal. I could go on.

In hindsight I should've known better than falling for the lowest of baits, i.e. lying about people without absolutely no real basis because this gives wackos like you an insane amount of satisfaction. But there could've been people who read all these lies and actually believe them. You can go back now to writing all your reviews about my reviews since that's your main shtick. It does give me some satisfaction, though, seeing you stoop so low to parrot the lies of the most demented user here.

Well, I know you're a Trump supporter, and he was best buds with Jeffrey Epstein, and they were both known for liking young (read: underage) women.

So yeah, you are pedo sympathizer. You're just too braindead to think about it for a second. That's the same reason you like fascism, hate gays and want to oppress minorities. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're just a moron incapable of understanding the parroted rhetoric you spread, and not outright a terrible person. Take the benefit of the doubt.

Epstein was best buds with the Clintons, not Trump, sorry. You can keep lying but it doesn't change the facts.

And you're also a child rapist and a molester.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/jeffrey-epstein-and-donald-trump-epic-bromance

@Psycamorean It's so sad that these people like Merlyn and fearUhavemeisenough (probably the same person) will go so far to defend raping children. This is what happens when people don't get vaccinated.

:)))))) Take your pills, man.

@EthanVanSciverHiresPedos They aren't the same person. fearUhavemeisenough is part of a group of people on this website who all sort of circle around this piracy guy. I'm pretty sure it's Brazilian based, hence the terrible English. When people don't get vaccinated, more people suffocate to death alone in hospital beds. Not sure how that pertains to defending pedophilia, beyond the average anti-vaxxer also supporting politicians who engage in pedophilia. Not shocking since they lack morals.

hahaha! x2 his pedophile, racist, xenophobic boyfriend also requires.

Another example of the broken English. ^

You do realize how insane you and the demented user are when the discussion has moved to vaccination and you feel the need to explain how vaccination works as if ANYONE here has denied anything about it. But I guess when you're so desperate of being right and you have zero arguments the classic lefty move is, as always, lying. Lying and lying in the hopes that enough people at some point believe the lie. It won't work.

Seriously, both of you get out more or get medical help, there's no shame in taking help when you need it, anyone at some point in their life has been there.

Who explained how vaccines worked? I have plenty of arguments for my political beliefs, just ask. You did just describe what the Republicans did and are currently doing with election fraud though, so I'd say that's a classic righty move. Same with those WMDs Saddam had or the idea that immigration hurts the economy.

I recall telling you that you should get mental help, and you blocked me for it.

Vaccines, Saddam, Republicans... Dude, get some fucking help, you're not okay!

Is this your attempt at gesturing towards whataboutism? This isn't whataboutism.

You could explain how Trump wasn't best buds with Epstein, or why it's a classic lefty move to lie until people accept it, or... Why you think me and the other guy are mentally ill?

No, it's you and your demented buddy ranting about stuff that NO ONE other than you two loonies talked about. Get a room if you're into each other or get medical help. Because none of you are making sense and are just sucking each other's dicks by lying about everyone who doesn't think like you do. And now you're going to ramble about CO2 footprint or God knows what else your sick twisted minds will come up with.

Yeah, that's nice and emotional, could you explain why any of what we said is sick and twisted, or are you that bad faith that you won't even acknowledge anything?

EthanVanSciverHiresPedos and I aren't buddies, btw, I think this is the most we've interacted ever.

I like how this pedo apologist blocks everyone who disagrees with him and still goes into a frothing rage when someone says the word "vaccine".

Merlyn doesn't know how to argue, because he has no basis for his principles. He just parrots what he hears elsewhere.

And that's disappointing because I'd love to actually argue about something in good faith.

is merlyn anti vaxx? damn

Who knows?

Great review, I'd just like to point out that my problem here wasn't with Jonathan saving the refugees, just with the messages Taylor was trying to put forward regarding immigration. He makes it look like it's very black and white and it really isn't. As you said, there's the problem of the asylum claiming, of the fact that no country can receive everyone who wants to be there but most of all the claim that Taylor pushed forward that only desperate people are seeking to go to other countries.

That's just blatantly false, there are economic migrants who go to other countries just to get better paid jobs and not because they're in any real life-threatening danger in their countries, and those people are taking advantage of asylum laws. That doesn't seem very fair to me. That was my main point.

Why do they have to try and make the world better and not just smash robots?

Going on a protest doesn't make the world better.

he clearly is shown saving people from danger. in addition to doing that, he participates in protests to make the world better. He does this because he knows he cannot just overpower everyone like a tyrant and put in place his own rules. He clearly states this in all of these issues. Idk how people can't see Jon as a hero, when he is doing what heroes are doing. Going on a protest doesn't make the world better? tell that to MLK, Harvey Milk, Gandhi

People can't see Jon as a hero, because he doesn't act like one. His "activism" is more akin to posting a black box on Instagram than what Gandhi and others did, i.e. showing that you "care" instead of actually doing something meaningful.

He saved a boat full of refugees from sinking, stopped a shooter in an attempted massacre and saved an entire building full of people within seconds. How is that not meaningful? All of those would have been massive loses of life. How does that not make the world better?

Does putting on a show and getting himself arrested make the world better?

Activism is not worthless. It galvanizes more people to learn about the issues, and in turn, gives the movement more members, and more strength. You need numbers to change things. If no one cares, nothing is changed for the better.

I never stated that activism is worthless, but the majority of what goes for activism these days is.

No it's not. Posting a black box on Instagram, for instance, may not be on the level of what Gandhi did, but it still gets the message out there.

The black box on instagram it's just pretentious, nothing more.

It still gets the message out

"The refugee crisis is an important issue and there is a lot to it, but this was clearly written by some white dude halfway across the world who has no actual clue what's going on here besides what Le CNN tells him." Thank you, this is what I was talking about. I don't think people who are not from a certain country should keep their mouths shut but if you're going to have an opinion about a country's political climate at least put some effort and read as much as you can from all sources

not just the ones you like. If you're going to just listen to CNN you're not going to have a fair view of the subject, nor if you're going to listen just to Fox. "Just because a book validates your politics doesn't make it amazing, or mean people who don't like it are "bigoted" or whatever." I'm afraid that's exactly what is happening with people here, some are even rating it with 10 without reading it.

As for the part where " it also doesn't mean just because someone whose politics differ from", if you were referring to me, I feel the need to add, if the story was good and not ham-fisted like this I would rate it higher, even if I'm not a fan of Tom Taylor. But this is just pandering to the left and nothing else, no nuance and is full of a lot of plain falsehoods. I CAN like comics from writers I don't like, I love Taylor's Injustice, I can' wait for the animated movie.

Good review. Some solid points were brought up.

Very unamerican to not support immigration.

K

And what are you telling me with Haitians who get carried away, things are not so easy, you have to look around the house first before taking someone else inside, if you have the possibility to do it then there must be a selection. The problem with politicizing fun is that you can't come up with childish solutions to such a complex problem.

So all the good reviews are “review bombs” by non readers but the bad reviews are all readers?

I don't know where you got that. You can rate it however you want, ranging from 1 to 10, I don't care. There is someone here, though, who rated it with 10, even though he admits he didn't read it. Sure, he says he'll delete the review tomorrow but up until then, the 10 is still there and it WILL influence people who will see the overall rating much higher because of that rating.

Does that include mean illegal immigration space? By the way those tens of thousands of Haitians (and more are on the way) were resettled in south Americaaround 2010. Theyve been tearing up their IDs to appear as if fresh from Haiti. You can be compassionate without being stupid.

Fenix Taylor is propagandizing not exploring solutions. Hes targeting mushy minds.

Careful there. That last bit, the one about "taking hits", sounded dangerously close to self-righteous.

I mean, I know that people will not like that I say these things, as you can very well see. And I'm sure there are a lot of people who think this way but don't want to get in trouble for it so they stay silent. That's how the mob always wins, by applying enough pressure on people until they shut up and just go about their business because they don't want to put up with their crazy. I don't want to put up with their crazy either but I don't see a solution either in shutting up.

Fair enough.

If you want to enter as a refugee, you have to claim asylum, and you can't do that without going to the proper offices, which requires you entering the country beforehand. A lot of refugees are illegally deported before they can claim asylum, which is in violation of international law.

No, you do not need to first claim asylum before entering as a refugee. Not always at least. You can apply for refugee status through the UNHCR. Now you wouldn't be applying through the U.S government so the country in which you become a refugee may not be the one you want. But the point of seeking asylum is protection from persecution or fear of suffering persecution, so it should not matter where you end up, so long as you are protected.

Now there are caps to these numbers. The previous administration had it limited to I believe 15,000. The new administration has it upwards of 225k, still a lot of people. Now to your second point; your correct in that an asylee may not be deported, however, the government may terminate an asylee's status as an asylee and legally remove them from the country.

Maybe I misread your second point. Are you referring to policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols(MPP)?

There is no law, as far as I'm aware, that says asylum seekers have to stop in the first safe country they enter. At least in America, which is what I'm referring to here. I know in the European Union, they have the Dublin Regulation, but I'm focusing on America, like I said. What we're talking about is Defensive Asylum Processing. This is what the refugees in this comic would presumably go through, and in many cases, what real life refugees would undergo.

The problem, however, is that America does not give these refugees their day in court, which is part of the process for DAP. They are swiftly deported before they are able to have their claim of asylum heard out or investigated. Right now, the way they're doing this is through an abuse of Title 42, as a way to forego Due Process, which is in violation of US and international law.

Okay lets let’s analyze a bit here. Your first point in your original response was “ If you want to enter as a refugee, you have to claim asylum, and you can't do that without going to the proper offices, which requires you entering the country beforehand”. This is not true. You don’t have to enter the country before hand. Refugees who enter the country claimed asylum from their home country. I pulled some numbers from Dhs.gov to compare refugees( who claimed asylum from their own country) to…

Asylum seekers who claim from within the country from either entering illegally or from a port of entry. According to dhs.gov, using the latest available figures from 2019 and going back a decade from 2009, a total of 924,809 refugees have entered the country. Of those who entered, 663,263 of them entered already as refugees, meaning they claimed asylum from outside the U.S.A, that is 72% of refugees. Before we move to your second point, will you agree that you initiallymade an erroneous claim?

Yeah, I should've specifically made it clear that refugee status is contingent on the federal government's humanitarian efforts and discretion, and therefore when I said refugee, I wasn't referring to the legal status, but rather the colloquial term. There's a distinction to be made that I failed to make. But broadly, when I say refugees, I mean anyone forced to leave their country to avoid harm, not just those legally defined as such. Like the ones in the comic, who weren't recognized legally.

But still, I was wrong to generalize the entire concept to the specifics of the comic this discussion is about.

And to your second point. This one is a bit trickier. Yes you are right in that not giving an asylum seeker due process does violate U.S and international law, but at the same time, Title 42 does allow the U.S government to remove persons who have recently been in a country where a communicable disease was present. I don’t believe that U.S and international asylum laws specify what to do in the event of a public health emergency and what takes primary importance, citizens or refugees.

The problem is that Title 42 has nothing to do with immigrants, and was simply used to give public health authorities the authority of quarantine. Shifting the burden of that authority from the president to the surgeon general. And now it's being misappropriated by the US government to expel refugees (again, colloquially used) before they are able to claim asylum or get their due process.

It doesn't stop the spread of COVID, despite that being the claimed reason for it to be invoked, as it does nothing about the thousands and thousands of other foreign visitors coming to the US through other means every single day. It is just a way for the government to quickly dispel migrants from the country, at the cost of their US and international law-backed rights.

Section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42 permits the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction” into the United States of individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.”The rule allows any customs officers—which includes officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) such as Border Patrol agents—to implement any such order issued by the CDC. The..

Current CDC director Rachelle Walensky and even her predecessor Robert Redfield have deemed title 42 expulsion necessary. The CDC director said that the order targets people entering the U.S from Canada and Mexico and who would be introduced into a congregate setting( Port of entry or border patrol station), including asylum seekers. Are immigrants not included in " individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the U.S?

Should the U.S not have the autonomy to follow the guidance of the leading health experts in the country on the matter of who can and can not enter the country, prioritizing its own citizens?

Nothing in Section 265 of Title 42 permits the CDC the authority to expel migrants from the border. Read the entire text. Nothing in it gives the authority to deport anyone. The order itself is invalid without explicit authority and power given to the CDC through congress. And we know for certain that the current abuse of power is ineffective at stopping COVID, so there is no valid claim to continuing this, even with congressional support.

The United States should have the autonomy to follow whatever guidance it deems fit to, as long as it doesn't go against US or International law. This order does both, and is a clear abuse of authority.

[...and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health.. (Surgeon general)shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.

They are prohibited from entering on the advice of the CDC. They are then expelled. If they do not leave voluntarily then they are deported.

The resonse up top is from the text itself, 42 USC §265. Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases.

Nothing in that gives them the authority to deport and supercede law.

If arrivals are showing up in the thousands and are told that, because of a public health crisis, they are temporarily prohibited from entering the country on the advice of the CDC and that they must leave, and they refuse to do so, what should then happen?

We should hold them humanely and safely, and give them their afforded due process, since the CDC does not have the authority to expel people from the country.

And I would never claim that the CDC does have that authority. I said that they are the experts who are, given the current circumstances, offering their judgement and giving advice regarding people entering the country. Title 42 is then being imposed by the federal government based off of the advice of the experts at the CDC. Title 42, as shown eralier, does allow the federal government to prohibit people from entering the country. They are told to leave. If they don' then they have to be remove

I believe that this conversation is over Psycamorean. You made an erroneous claim on your first point, which we have since clarified. And, as I have shown regarding your second point, Title 42 does in fact allow the U.S from prohibiting people from entering the country, including asylum seekers, while the country is experiencing a public health emergency.

The text of law has to be specific, and that text does not give the CDC the authority to create an order which expels people from the country, which is what has happened.

Who claimed that the CDC created the order?

What do you mean, they've created at least three different orders to pursue this.

https://www.aila.org/infonet/cdc-notice-of-new-title-42-order

42 CFR § 71.40 (2):Prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction into the United States of persons...or physically expelling from the United States some or all of the persons;. Its right there. " physically expelling from the U.S...They do have the right to expel people from the country, including asylum seekers, during a public health crisis.

That is not from the law. That is from an emergency Interim Final Rule made by the HHS in March of 2020. This was to give the CDC the authority to make the order by redefining the terms of the law. If you don't think this is an overreach of authority, I don't know what to tell you.

Whether I feel this is an overreach of authority or not is irrelevant. What is important here, objectively speaking, is whether or not the CDC has the authority to expel migrants at the border. You claimed earlier " the CDC does not have the authority to expel people from the country", yet your last response admits that the CDC does have the authority, albeit being given the authority via an emergency interim final rule.

The legal argument is that the authority is ill-gotten, and not given in any solid basis.

Your opinion is not irrelevant. In that case, anything the government does is okay. They have the authority because they say they do now.

That's not how law works either. Many times the law is broken, and then the courts recognize this, and then the authority is revoked. This is actually happening right now with this very law.

So then not only was your first point made erroneously, but also your second point as well. This is a completely different argument now that you are making. I think we are done here. Until next time Psycamorean.

No it's not. I think the CDC is using an overreach of authority not based in the law, at the expense of federal and international law. This whole conversation is just proving that's the case.

The argument you made initially was that the CDC does not have the authority to expel people at the border. You never mentioned that they do have the authority but that there are questions surrounding the legality of 42 CFR § 71.40 (2).

Well, given the constant court challenges and given the language of the law being cited by the HHS, which never mentions expelling people, I think I'll be proven right in the long run. If I remember this argument, I'll post about it and let you know here.

You may or may not be correct, only time will tell. See you in another review.