Excuse me what I'm going to say, but what the fuck was this? I hated it, I was about to put 1.5 on it, but it stopped me that I don't usually read this story constantly. I'm not a fan of boyscout but I think it deserved more, not this weak pretext painted with pain. Arrrghhh

This was the beginning of the replacement of all our heroes. Batman is being replaced, Diana is already gone, Arthur and Clark are next. DC is going full 5G.

I'm not sure DC has the stones to replace Bruce Merlyn. Williamson is taking over the main book in 4 issues and Tamaki is keeping Tec.

Diana is returning next issue of Wonder Woman btw…

Has DC blinked?

Yeah, for the 80th anniversary. Oh well, they did the anniversary for Aquaman too and then proceeded to replace him with Hyde Jackson.

If Williamson is taking over the main book and Tamaki is keeping Twc then is DC planning a third concurrent book for Usurper Batman or are they keeping him in Future State? Mow I Tamaki is doing "Shadows of the bat" presumably to set up Usurper Batman? DC seems to not be able to sideline Bruce as easily as the others of the trinity. With The Batman next year likely to be a box office success and the coordination between movies and books now DC would be in a bad spot if Usurper Batman is no 1 .

Typo Tec mot Twc.

Even if Bruce will carry the main book and Jace will get another one, Bruce will still be isolated from Gotham. And that annoys me more than anything else.

Next issue of ww she is back and back on the justice league in december

I agree Merlyn I dont like forcing Bruce out of Gotham for nothing more than to place Usurper Batman there.

What's your take DC fan?

Action comics hasn't been very good since Dan Jurgens left in issue #999...

I didn't much like Dan Jurgens' run either

I usually enjoy these anthologies around halloween but this has nothing to draw me in. DC really is running on fumes right now. They're likely counting on 2022s the batman to pull them out of this doldrum.

Do you mean Williamson's Batman or the movie? Because I'm not putting a lot of faith in Williamson's Batman. Not that he's a bad writer but dude has A LOT on his plate and I don't think he can carry all of those books, he's bound to slip somewhere. Plus the setting outside of Gotham doesn't help him. I hope the best because I love Batman but I'm slightly skeptical. Also, yeah, this was a dud.

No the movie. Williamson is going to introduce a new villian right away and have Batman leave Gotham to go after him after some hand wringing. I agree he got a crap sandwich from Tynion to chew on and DCs dithering with Usurper Batman.

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.

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.

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.

DC comics fired any writer who didn't tow the company line, so we're left with the dregs of society who didn't have the moral fortitude to say no.

Lol...that review was a tour de force Quinn. More lazy "meh" level writing from Tynion a guy that should never have been given creative direction over anything to do with Batman. He leaves in 4 issues and dumps a mess on the fans as his parting gift. Fear State is not an "event" it's a sleep aid.

Meh is exactly right. I get no sense of characterization or personality. Things are just happening. Also, what exactly is the crime? Simon Says hates Batman, so this whole thing is just to take down Bats? That is it? Scarecrow wants to scare people so we can evolve? Then what? I mean whatever. Or I could be wrong.

You mean the rumor they'll make him gay?

@Merlyn He's definitely referring to that rumor.

That would be a total joke. They've already did the "Tim Drake is gay now just because" out of nowhere in a distasteful way, after pulling the same thing with Alan Scott. Thing is, the rumor comes from unreliable sources but while I read this I got the same vibe, to be honest. And it's Tom Taylor, who is obsessed with this sort of stuff so I can definitely see that happening.

Either way it would be a bad decision for Jon, he already has enough problems as a character after Bendis, he doesn't need this as well.

Making him gay won't make the character worse, or ´´ruined`` is Alan ruined now? or Tim?

Well, you probably haven't seen the way fans took the Tim news. Yes, he is "ruined" from my point of view. And pulling something from a writers' ass does make the character worse. Iceman suffered from the same thing when Bendis decided all of a sudden he was gay. You're entirely free to eat up whatever these companies are doing in their desperation to stay relevant and make headlines. And others are free not to fall for marketing ploys.

It's marketing and a way to make them interesting again, of course, but they aren't wasted in the process. I haven't read the whole Iceman thing yet, but it seems they handled it in a nice way after the reveal,also who gives shit about Bobby Drake? He was a B list X-men and he's still B list.

And the way some people took the Tim news was stupid. Acting like his relationship with Steph was erased or some bullshit, it's still there, and they can get back together in the future, it's not a big deal. Plus, there's the whole bromance thing with Connor some people like to mention, so...

Changing the sexuality of a heteronormative character should not inherently invalidate that character in your eyes. What draws you towards a character is their personality. Sexuality can inform a personality, but that is not the case with Tim, Jon or Bobby.

And in an effort to pre-empt the obvious question of if it would be okay to do it the other way around, I would say no. The reason being is that heterosexuality is considered the norm in media and in society, and by taking away from the small group of non-hetero characters, you are erasing the tiny bit of normalization that this group of people gets.

As far as I'm concerned if a character being gay makes you dislike them, you are almost certainly homophobic. What makes it certain is that you are rejecting the idea before you see how it is executed. Therefore, it has nothing to do with how they did it (which you could validly criticize in some instances) but rather the act itself.

@Mout: Iceman was an original X-Men. A lot of people "gave a shit" about him. I don't know where you pulled the "he's a B list". He's an omega mutant, he's one of the oldest characters, he literally debuted in Uncanny X-Men #1. And the fact that you bring up the "bromance" with Conner as an argument for him being bi is, excuse me, disgusting.

It's the same idiotic argument people bring about Bucky and Steve, Thor and Loki etc. Flash news: Males CAN be friends without wanting to bang each other. Something progressives seemed to have forgotten but it's worth reminding. And no, the way people took the news wasn't stupid, it was normal. It was a normal reaction to a DC marketing ploy that disrepected 30 years of character history. Good for them.

Also, just for future reference, in the future I'm probably going to ignore your comments since I'm trying to stay as far away as possible from Psycamorean's rantings and he seems to follow you. Sorry but I just don't want all that crazy.

You know what, I'll unfollow Mout. Mout's commentary is quality and I wish there was more of that on this website, so anything to stymie that is unacceptable.

If you don't like it, you're something-phobic. That sentiment seems disingenuous. But I'm sure it makes conversing with people easier.

And why make Alan Scott gay? His son already is, so why not focus on him? Give him some great stories that would elevate his status as a hero, as a character. What story has Alan in store for him? Only one I bet. That he couldn't come out because 40' and 50' might not have been friendly for gay folk.

That's my problem with gay characters in entertainment these days. They seem to be mosty getting one type of story. One revolving around their sexuality. Either they discover it, explore it, have to hide it, get bully for it or embrace it. And changing established charachters gay sentenses them to the same fate, while established gay characters get sidelined.

@Merlyn, even though he's one of the originals, he war never that important. Never had with Claremont, Morrison or Whedon. And he became an Omega mutant in the early 2010's, I guess

*never had the spotlight with

@egon: That's exactly why I think Tim is "ruined". From now on he won't be detective Tim, he will be "queer Tim", most of his stories are going to be focused on that instead of what made the character beloved. And I'm sorry but that's of no interest to me. DC just didn't know what to do with him and this was the way to "make him interesting" again, if by "making interesting" one understands changing his sexuality out of nowhere.

@Mout: I'm sure you're smart enough to see the whole thing your buddy did here was totally unnecessary. I didn't ask him to unfollow you, or nothing of the sorts. All it was needed was some self-control from his part, to be able to ignore me just as I ignore his 34752424 reviews about MY reviews instead of the actual comics. Guess he couldn't pull that very difficult task. Regarding Iceman, I continue to disagree and I think you're underestimating his importance in the X-Men universe.

@egon The problem with that argument is that one, it's not true, and two relationships have been a part of superhero comics forever. What you're asking for is to remove that aspect from them entirely or else, you'll be annoyed at yet another comic about a gay character being gay. You don't have this issue when straight characters get into relationships, I assume.

I think prophesying about any of these characters' futures is a bad idea. Everytime a status quo or a character is changed, you get this fearmongering from the same crowd that they'll never be the same again. To act as though it's not politically motivated is to be disingenuous and cowardly. We just saw it with Batman. Wild conspiracies about how progressivism was going to replace or kill Bruce off so a black Batman can take his place. That was never happening.

That was never happening... except it DID just happen. Bruce is taken off from Gotham so Jace Fox can be Batman there. But when reality is constantly deformed so it can fit one's narrative, you can just reject the actual reality with no problem.

I'm really glad you decided to give up the drama and followed Mout back. I would also ask Mout to stop interfering with the discussions I have with other users since he considers the discussions he's having with me talks that "don't go nowhere". Why would you initiate a conversation with someone if that's your mindset about them? Thank you very much, Mout, I hope you'll respect my wish forward.

It's not happening though. The main Batman title is still a Bruce Wayne title. The theories about what would happen claimed that Bruce would no longer be in action and he would no longer have a book after Fear State. But not only is he still around, he still has the main title. He's a cashcow. Whatever ideological inclinations you think DC has, remember that capitalism trumps that.

I said Bruce will not be in Gotham while Jace Fox will. Didn't mention anything about the main title. Yes, the main title may be with Bruce but all the action is in Gotham. I get that this is DC's way of trying to have it both ways for money but having Batman removed from Gotham so Jace can fill that spot is kind of in line with the theories. Same thing with Clark Kent, he's going off to Warworld so Jon can remain Superman here, I'm sure even you can see a pattern here.

Hal Jordan's been sidelined while Jo Mullein is getting the spotlight, Diana is in limbo, Arthur Curry has been dropped as Aquaman for Jackson Hyde. All in line for the FS JL lineup. I added this because I'm sure your next argument was that two cases are not a pattern. There are more than two cases.

@Psycamorean Well, Bruce seems to be getting butted from Gotham so that the Usurper may take his place. So I would argue that the "fearmongering" was justified. Now it looks the sights are set for Aquaman and possibly Wonder Woman. Was DC not paying attention when the All New All Different Marvel fiasco happened? And true, relationships were part of the comics, but with straight characters, after the relationship is somewhat established it doesn't seem to be the driving force behind the story an

behind the story anymore.

@Psycamorean What I'm trying to say is this. I want writers to leave the established characters as they are and use the existing ones or create new ones. Changing established characters drastically and out of nowhere will always get pushback. So will sudden replacement with a new character immediately after introduction (I'm looking at you Riri). I want writers to make effort, to try. Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Tim Drake did not become popular overnight. That took work and good stories.

@egon: I'm really sorry for this whole long thread, if I would've known this would happen, I wouldn't have asked that question.

@Merlyn I wasn't specifically referring to you when I talked about the other crowd. I was referring to a whole group. While you may have not said that, plenty of other people did. Including established comicsgaters and websites like Cosmic Book News. I recognize that Future State ideas are being mixed into the mainline continuity, but I don't see that as an issue when the older characters are still getting their books/pages. Bruce gets Batman, Clark gets Action.

I don't know much about what's going on with Aquaman. I don't pay attention to him. Wonder Woman will be back on Earth at the end of this extended first arc, IIRC. And Hal is in Green Lantern, but it's a very big ensemble cast, so he doesn't get a ton of pages.

@Psycamorean You want a prominent gay (or minority) superhero? Very well. Take Obsidian, Midnighter or Apollo and give them some good stories and build them to prominence over some time. You want Jackson Hyde to be the new Aquaman? Great. But don't do it in some six-issue mini. Make a long story out of it. An entire run. One in which he actually works with Arthur a lot and in the end, after much work and effort, earns the title.

@egon What kind of phrasing is "Usurper"? As someone who was reading Marvel through all that, I will say the ANAD era was overblown. But there are several stories where relationships are the driving force. I'm more of a Marvel guy, so it may be more prevalent with them. The problem with creating new characters is that when they do that, you still get people giving them shit for making the character gay. It's called SJW propaganda or whatever.

The problem you seem to have stems from the fact that the comics industry is tiny, and they aren't in a position to just create new characters that have an ample chance of making it on their own. They have to be tied, in some way, to the big characters. And making them any sort of minority, be it black or gay, or whatever, makes those chances even worse.

I didn't like how Riri was introduced and how she replaced Tony, either. I chalk that up to Bendis being Bendis though, and I don't make it about something more than it is, by implying it's a political agenda. But I will say, I've come around on the character with how she's been written since Bendis left. The only problem is, no one read that, so I look like a crazy person for liking her now.

@Merlyn What can you do? If you could predict the future I'm pretty sure you would not be wasting time here :)

I feel like there are examples of what you're describing, egon, and I feel like the response has still been the same, even in those cases.

@Psycamorean I think a great way to introduce new characters is to somewhat tie them to existing ones. I still can't understand why DC didn't put Yara in Wonder Woman alongside Diana after FS. It would give her a bigger spotlight rather than a solo series that gets no marketing. If Riri was working with Tony instead of flat out replacing him, I think the response would be much better.

I think we'll see more Wonder people interaction when Diana comes back to Earth. You've also got Nubia as leader of the Amazons right now. And to be fair, Riri worked with a version of Tony Stark, technically.

@Psycamorean As for Usurper. His book is literally titled "I Am Batman". Aside from Lucius (who became a bit of a dick recently), he has no ties to Bruce Wayne and Batman. So if he runs around calling himself Batman, he is usurping the name a bit. Some might even go as far as to call it a form of appropriation (wink, wink). That last bit is a bit of a joke. Then again people called for prison for someone for drawing a white dude in Black Panther costume, so maybe not a joke after all :)

@egon Usurper is just such an indignant, personal term to use for a comic book character. It portrays an anger that just sort of confuses me. As for your joke and explanation for it... Cool, I guess. I don't really know anything about some crazy assholes calling for someone's imprisonment for drawing a white dude in a Black Panther costume. That seems like a really fringe story you heard once and held onto.

@Psycamorean You seem to be doing a lot of assumptions about the other party in your responses.

Eh, I'm not sure about that.

All I got from this is that someone said that because Tim is bi, it's disrespectful. People here don't make any sense anymore. Go join VanSciver and stop reading these comics if you hate them so much. It's not like Jon is going to be Superman forever. We all know this. As well, people are reading way too much into their own agendas and reaching then they try to call Taylor xenophobic in reference to Clark saying it's not his planet. It's LITERALLY not. He's trying to teach his son a lesson.

Pretty much. It's just bad faith reductive interpretation of the material in order to bolster a political view. I don't think it's done intentionally. It's all gut reaction, without a ton of thinking.

People here should learn to read or at least try to understand others before commenting. Especially people who block others and then reply to comment on stuff the people they've blocked comment. It's really stupid on their part. Further commenting about "thinking" with these people is also pretty ridiculous.

Who?

I was not referring to you, obviously.

Anyone here with actual sense would realize how hypocritical Merlyn's last comment was. He never tries to understand anyone else's opinion unless they echo his own. It is also obvious that he doesn't try to understand the comics he claims to read because if he did, he'd realize how ignorant and objectively wrong his comments were in regards to this issue.

Who are you talking to? If you try to attack me have at least the guts to address me, not in a void. Otherwise it's pretty cowardly on your part. Either address me or just shut up since I don't really care what someone who blocked me from the first day he made his account has to say about me. There is nothing ignorant and objectively wrong in any of my comments and you obviously are illiterate since you don't know what "objective" actually means.

You've misread comics before, the one time that stuck in my head was with Green Lantern #3, where you thought Hal was Parallax despite it obviously being a flashback to that time period when he originally became Parallax.

Read more or at least try to understand the words you're using otherwise you're embarrassing yourself. And I do try to listen to others, the hundreds of comments on my posts show that, a lot of the time them being with people I strongly disagree with. I haven't seen the same from you. Oh wait, you just block people who disagree with you and then have the nerve to tell me about listening to other people's opinions. If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Not that this carries the conversation in a meaningful manner especially in regards to the content of the issue, I am allowed to block who I want, I just find it incredibly disappointing that Merlyn is so ever present on this site and does nothing but spew hate toward comic creators that he dislikes for their political views. If you want it to be, "like the good ole days" there are plenty of back catalogue trades being printed. Overall, this issue is solid and people are complaining for nothing.

It carries the conversation in a meaningful manner because you're a coward who wants to be respected and doesn't really deserve it. You've blocked me, cool, now shut up about it and stop inserting yourself in conversations just to gossip about me but without actually addressing me. Like a coward. And all that mumbo jumbo about "spewing hate" and "the good old days"... I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is still a thing here. You don't like it? No one is keeping you hostage here, you're free to go.

So to be clear, I'll keep reviewing this and people like you make me all the more eager to make sure I don't miss a single issue of this. Also, a lot of other people beside me have rated this pretty low. Guess not everyone here thinks like you do. Tough. Deal with it.

Well, just as you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, he has the freedom of speech to say what he wants in response. That being said, misinformation and bigotry shouldn't be allowed here because the normalization of that ends with more freedoms being repressed than those that remain.

Not as long as he's blocking me and clearly believes he shouldn't engage in dialogue with me. You can't do that and then comment about someone, not even having the guts to address him. And all that ranting from that last phrase has nothing to do with what we're talking, it's just more of your sick game of trying to taint others so you can make them shut up. It won't work.

If you block someone, you clearly don't want to engage in dialogue with them. Btw, I have you blocked and I don't want to engage in dialogue with you but this is the fourth time you're interjecting here and I feel like you can't take a hint so here I am. So what he's doing here is like seeing people talk, then coming in that group, cover the mouth of one of them talking while proceeding to bad-mouth him at the same time. That's the behavior of cowards.

I don't find it surprising you're defending him since you would defend Satan himself as long as you're parroting the same narrative.

You know what, maybe I am wrong sometimes. I do find myself wondering why am I entertaining someone whose reviews are more than half of the time about my reviews instead of the actual book or at times didn't even read/review the book but still finds the energy to complain about my opinions. That doesn't really sound very healthy and I don't think I'm doing you a favor by keep doing this. So, you know, feel free to keep commenting here, I'm gonna pass on keep answering.

Well, blocking someone doesn't make it so you can't see their comments on other threads. You can see mine, after all. So no, that analogy doesn't work. And you know what, Satan is a cool guy. He tried his best. I'm only defending him because you're being extremely uncharitable in an effort to ignore them while still ranting about them.

I read everything I review. And I only comment on your opinions after I've read the comic in question. I wait to release my reviews in bulk when I've read everything, and depending on the week, that can take some time. And my reviews, more often than not, have nothing to do with you. If you don't believe me, check them out.

I read the issue and found it fantastic. What a certain demographic seem to find "cringey" I found funny because I knew it would get under their skin while still drawing attention to how tremendously important the issues were. It's a new, progressive Superman for a new progressive world and I loved it.

Oh so you celebrate something that gets "under THEIR skin" but we're supposed to shut up about it because you're a progressive and you're right. That sounds pretty ok. For a crazy and shitty person. It fits.

"A new progressive world". Don't know if you realize just how brainwashed you sound. But of course, "they" are wrong, not you, no, sir. Well, screw your "progressive world", I don't give a crap about it and I'll review this book until crazy, shitty people like you can't take it anymore.

How about we quit with the insults and actually argue the ideas? We don't even have to do it here, we could do it on a separate platform like Discord.

I know Merlyn will say no, because he never actually argues ideas. He just gestures at perceived progressivism and degeneracy, and thinks that's enough. That's why his responses are very empty. So, he's rightfully afraid of actually being put on the spot.

K. I'll still answer the coward when he replies because cowards should be put in their place.

I don't know if Hex will do it. All I know is that I'd love to see the ideas actually argued instead of this shit.

facts.

facts.

I would love to know how old people in here are too

And I would like it if people who claim that talking with someone will not go anywhere would abstain in the future about interjecting in conversations with that someone. But what do you know, none of us will get what we want, apparently.

All I was trying to say that there was still an important message to be found even if it was a bit heavy handed in it's execution but I do believe it was the point, hence why I found it funny and it did clearly get under people's skin.

@Merlyn bro... I said that because we can talk about shit all day and you, me and psycamorean would still hold the same opinions, but I still think it's healthy to talk to people that don't agree with you on every level

with that being said, I really don't understand people on this site that keep reading shit they seem to hate. Especially if you are spending money on the issues.

"I'd rather have you as a friend here than being in discussions that don't go nowhere" See, I also think me and some people here will never see eye to eye. But I never go with the opinion that a conversation with someone will go nowhere. If I do that, I just block that person and never engage in any dialogue with him because if there is absolutely zero common ground, we'll just annoy each other.

Like Hex said, there are TONS of back catalogue that are way better than most of the stuff Marvel and DC are putting out now

I do try my best to find some common ground but if our positions are so polar opposite and the other tries to either "convert" me to his "ideology" or just shut me up, then and only then I give up and I block them. You, instead, begged for his friendship claiming all the same you would rather not continuing conversations with me because they go nowhere. So it seems only fair to ask that you stop trying to engage in dialogue with me since, by your own admission, it's fruitless.

This is all incredibly petty, and you should probably just move the discussion to why you continue to read comics you don't like.

Not your business.

what? no one is trying to brainwash you or something, but ok 👍👍👍👍

Well, we know you don't pay for your comics, so it's not an expense thing. It's just... You're wasting your time.

Again, not your business. You know, I was thinking about unblocking you since you did the same and do it as a courtesy but given all your behavior here I'm not really sure I want all this crazy on my reviews.

I couldn't care less about what you do. Insulting me poorly doesn't help either.

So the rumors were true after all.

Get ready for everything said here from all parties to be repeated ad nauseam because no one can get over the sexuality of fictional characters.

Called it, Tom Taylor's ideological leanings always get the best of him!

his editors and dc comics too

Horrible take on the issue. Thanks for sharing though...

You could explain why it's a bad take.

Don't expect a response. His reviews are bad at failing to explain why he feels a certain way about a book. Stuff like "story 0 art 0 save your money kids" doesn't tell be jack crap about the book and why it's bad.

And if he thinks I'm wrong, I'd like to see him prove me wrong.

He should get in the sharing mood himself. I think I'm instituting a new policy that people who comment nothing of substance to my reviews will be blocked.

Now I don’t know about anyone else but I have other commitments in life so please forgive me if I’m not able to immediately respond to everyone who posts something on line. Now, I disagreed with your take on the book and I will try to keep it as simple as possible. There are many parts of this issue that are truly cringe worthy, from Jon driving a jeep to school while giving off carbon emissions only to lecture readers about melting ice caps through addressing his father

Your statement that Jon could be a better Superman than Clark by “doing more” and uniting Earth due to his human half, is misguided. If anything Jon would only serve to polarize the people of Earth. In the conversation on the moon, Taylor really demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the established character of Superman. For example Jor-El warned his son not to interfere only to guide humanity towards improvement. Which makes complete logical sense but Instead of imparting this wisdom to his

son the writer has him give the exact opposite advice. In every story where Superman has attempted to “do more” even with the best of intentions it has ended badly, so instead of trying to help his son avoid the mistakes he made, the writer thinks it would be cool if he makes Superman quite possibly the worst father ever. Instead of curbing his sons feeling of superiority Taylor has Superman agreeing with him and setting him up to fail as the “New Superman”.

Now, I could go on and on pointing out what is wrong with the way things are being written unless they are setting up Jon to eventually become a villain that his own father has to kill off, they are way off base. Anyways, you wanted my reasoning behind my statement there it is agree with it or disagree with it, do what you want.

I have no doubt that you are an extremely busy person. The "cringe" argument doesn't work. It's just a way to criticize something, without actually doing so, because your reasoning is bad. As for the perceived hypocrisy argument regarding Jon Kent's wheels, his hypocrisy is irrelevant. This argument is a non sequitur used to downplay how correct the other side is. It shows your bias that you're even using this argument. Someone's hypocrisy doesn't determine the veracity of what they say.

By your logic, any climate activist/scientist would be a hypocrite since you cannot function in society without doing something that leads to the emission of greenhouse gasses. This is a flawed argument that is usually regurgitated by people who haven't given anything but vaccines a second thought.

Jon Kent may or may not polarize the humanity, that is one of the ideas the book is working with. He *could* be a unifying force. The comic is showing if that's true. He has a better chance than an alien, like his dad. Which is why Jor-El warned his son not to interfere. People relate and humanize with people, not aliens. Jon, a half-human person, is less likely to cause xenophobic tensions to rise. I guess we'll see if it works out for Jon, that's the whole point.

This doesn't make your statement any better. Feels bad, man.