If you want to make an argument, focus on the book itself instead of insulting other people, eh? It's fine to like it, it's fine to dislike it. The least you can do is write down your personal experiences with it and explain why you gave it this particular score.

Oh, socialism, imagine the horror! Hide your children and cover your ears! All seriousness, though, there's no mention or analogy to socialism here in the slightest. Do you even know what socialism is to begin with?

Hey soyboy, I’m get you love “political” comics, but not everyone does, some people hate the losers like mark Russell who turn a beloved pastime into a soapbox to virtue signal their pathetic agenda

Oh, I'm a soyboy now, that's cute. FYI, I don't care if you like political comics or not, you're free to like whatever you like and you're free to remain ignorant if that's what you aspire to be forever. What I do have problem with is political illiterates who cry about politics, acting like reactionary crybabies and using adult words like "socialism" to describe anything that hurts their precious feelings. That's just pathetic!

LMAO this guy is a Comicsgater. These pedophile supporters get triggered over the tiniest things.

Ok, I will try to be respectful here. Yes, I assure you that I know what socialism is and I’m more then qualified to discuss the issue. There are clear references throughout the book to the practicing of socialism and how it is the “evolved” or desired practice in the future. I tried to give clear examples but there is a limit on comments. Anyway, if you enjoyed the book great but I did not.

I just replied to points you made under my review, pointing out alleged "lefty propaganda" points. I'm sorry, but none of them stands. Nothing lefty about this comic, let alone pro socialist. Which leads to two possible explanations - either there are some pages missing in my copy, dedicated to unadulterated promotion of workers taking control of the means of production, or maybe you really don't know what socialism is.

Or a 3rd option, you're choosing a very narrow definition of socialism. By critiquing basis of Capitalism (exploitation to some)the book is by default promoting the alternative of wealth/resource redistribution. It's there in the book if you choose to acknowledge it or not. I'm more than happy to discuss comics with you but I would refrain from insulting the intelligence of people who engage in conversation with you. You've done it twice now and both times were uncalled for. Have a nice day.

I didn't choose a very narrow definition of socialism. I chose THE correct definition of socialism, which is no more, no less, means of production belonging to the workers. The book doesn't even criticize capitalism, as it vaguely comments on totalitarianism, nationalism, xenophobia, fascism, imperialism and state propaganda, albeit not one comment is a big hit or jab at them. As far as wealth/resource distribution go, they're not, in any way, synonymous with socialism, which brings me to my...

main point, which is your analogy is factually incorrect. I don't insult your intelligence, I state the simple fact the comic does not promote or even sympathize with socialism in any way, and claiming it does is wrong. I don't insult your intelligence here. Your initial complain, as well as examples you've provided, are incorrect, and that's that. One more footnote, capitalism indeed is based on exploitation, while we're at it. I don't say it in a derogatory way, mind you. If you produce...

goods worth 3000$, but you get paid half of that, and your boss, the private owner of the means of production and thus the produced goods, takes the rest, you're being exploited. This core of the system is hierarchical exploitation, with those on the very top being able to force those below into submission. But that, of course, is just a sidenote I find interesting.

Side note response: I wouldn't call it exploitation because the worker is being paid for their skill level and their limited assumption of risk. If a company fails the worker can always keep their wages and find another job, It's the owner who takes the majority the risk and is thus tied to the success of that company. The greater the risk the greater the reward.

In theory, yes. In practice, I think both 2008 crash as well as the one we're entering now prove it's the exact opposite. If a company begins to lose money, its owners will either lay off workers (Business Insider had a nice article on that, highlighting f.e. American Airlines, which cut its staff by 20%), cut their wages (exactly because employees are hired "at will") or simply outsource/replace them with slave labor (like trash collectors from New Orleans, replaced by prison slaves).

Brett booth is amazing, don’t understand why people think he sucks

Nepotism? Lol

It was not such a bad number for me, and unlike you I respect your opinion and I will not make any comment except pressing it because I have enough maturity to respect it unlike you. But I really don't understand the Nepostism thing either, can you explain it?

You have every right not to like it, but the truth is that you speak sales. And for me it was the best DC put out this year.

Remember this is not canon.

Lol, someone like you, whose overall comic rating sits at 1.5/10 and who uses ad hominem attacks against writers in 2/3 of the reviews is the last person to call anybody an ideologue.

RACIST

Said someone who just yesterday reviewed a comic saying "Of course the BLack screenwriter can ONLY write about black characters", of course giving it 1/10. Begone, you loser snowflake.

This is why Trump lost.

"RACIST" Good to know you are self aware.

How do we get reviewed like this out of this forum?

Sadly I don't think there's a way to do so without setting a precedent for further deplatforming. Open ad hominem reviews probably could be taken down as we speak for obvious reasons, but the rest of this gibberish... CBRU'd be one step from entering a slippery slope where anything vaguely deemed trolling or offensive/shocking could possibly be removed as well. Besides these comicsgate clowns could always return and spam 1/10 ratings with no reviews attached.

I definitely get where you’re coming from, it’s just disappointing because I look at these reviews to see if I should pick up books that I may have been on the fence about and members like this exceptionally skew the results.

Yeah, I know, that's unfortunate. Guess the best we can do is to approach comics open minded, ignoring what others may think, and posting our own experiences to counter this clown flood.

You never read it

Even if it was disappointing (and it wasn’t) this rating is laughable, it can’t be one out of ten at least because of the art quality

You are bad at trolling, "Comicker Person".

Or maybe he just doesn’t want to waste time with a long review, since it was enough waste of time reading this messed up story.

And yes you can give it a 1/10 even with great art, because the one point is for the art.

Agreed lack luster, with to many holes

Man, Johns fanboys get really assblasted over criticism, huh?

Unlike you and the comment you left me, I will say WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS TO OUR LIKES, I love these books, I bought them all and the cards. BUT IF A PERSON DOESN'T LIKE YOU, YOU HAVE ALL THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT, WE ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL CRITICS ONLY FANS OF COMICS.

you won't do that again I hope

You what?!

Jokes on you I guess

I thought Kevin's was the best. Denny O'Neil was by far the worst. Geoff Johns was also disappointing for a writer I usually love.