'I didn't like it all that much so I gave it the lowest possible score, look at me!!!'

He’s a fan and it is fiction. Aren’t most comics fan fiction

I love knightly adventures, I think my expectations were higher. Obviously not the ring of the Nibeluntos or the Mio Cid, but it can still have potential. And I agree that a writer is not indicative that a book or comic will be good or bad. So far I find out that Taylor is in charge. I think these kinds of comics suit him much better.

However, I think we are in front of a some (not all) fans terrified of being judged (that's why they judge) and they get angry because that's what they read between the lines when someone says that I don't like it or that I do like it and they don't. We're facing weak and sensitive generations (and I've every right to say it, I'm a millennial, the susceptible, intolerant generation of 720 sexes) witch think if they throw a gigantic tantrum they'll change the world.

They are indeed weak and sensitive. That's something I can accept, though. What I can't accept is that even though they're weak they try to impose to others what they should like, say or see. That's something I can't accept. And I don't particularly care about their screeching tantrums. I know they all have this absurd notion that only they know what's best for this world, that's super ridiculous. Problem is, they're getting too much attention because they're very vocal. We need to change that.

The story is ok so far. I'm very skeptical about it because I have a lot of experience with Taylor but for a first issue I liked it.

What's this new thing with the progs and their "I wanted to review this early because I'm triggered by people that dont agree with me"?

Normally I'd enjoy this kind of elseeorlds story but I just dont trust Taylor to avoid stinking it up with some activist crap.

My friend @Merlyn that is their weakness, they are so enraged with the world that they vomit out of their mouths as is diversity and inclusion are not well seen when it does not go according to their poor mentality. That is the worst weakness, they are easily indoctrinated, they live in an unreal world.

I'll give this a chace, and if it fails I'll just put it aside, but I think Taylor can do well here. It's what he's preaching, right? ecology, regress in all aspects technologically, culturally and evolutionarily. That's it, now he should focus on fantasy, if he do a decent job, I will buy the TP in the future, but if this becomes a communist aberration, I will not waste my time or money.

Hahaha @Mingthemerciless I didn't even read the comment, but whoever he or she was, let's just leave him on his island of intolerance and take advantage of it. Everyone feels dictator in this days.

But Taylor hates tradition and we got a hint of that when Clark screamed at Bruce that traditions are "backwards and idiotic". Anyway, I'll give it a chance, too. I'm curious who the Green Man is. Logically, it should be Hal, it would make sense for him and Arrow to team up since they're best buddies in the DCU too. But I don't know if Taylor can muster the guts to not place somebody else in his place and the fact they didn't show him makes me doubt it's Hal. DC hates him anyway these days.

I don't have a problem that they put great value in diversity and inclusion. I have a problem with the fact that they can't accept that not of all us view the world through those lenses. Diversity and inclusion are good and all but when they replace merit and talent and when you "include" people that actually want to exclude others and subvert society I'm going to take a step back and say "yeah, this won't work for me".

Neither do I, but I think my attempt to express it in English sucked. Exactly those who most preach inclusion and diversity are the most closed on the subject. They do not accept diversity of thought. You are with them or against them. Whatever with them.

Being sarcastic, like Taylor in the other series, he wouldn't make someone bisexual (he'd marry Clark to Princess Dick) and then cut down a lot of little trees to make paper and distribute his eco campaign. It doesn't matter that they are killing villagers. And if all else fails, he can always search the fanfiction. Ready. Or do a decent job, he has a great help from Putri. I really want to buy this TP only for the art, but I'm not going to endorse any more DC bullshit. By the way did you hear?

The Red Ronin funko was pre-sold the same day. Damn, I wanted one. And you've seen the RH samurai, I stayed in panties for one of those. But it will be worth it when I get my hands.

Yeah, diversity of thought really is too much for the diversity crowd, they need to control thought or at least speech so that's a no-no for them. I'm not a huge fan of the Red Ronin thing. I think I'm just too attached to the Red Hood version, I don't know. I love a lot of Japanese stuff but I'm not sure Jason would mix up that well in that setup. I know Dexter Soy drew all this Ronin stuff and I would probably like to see a one-shot with this concept at least for his sake.

Oui je sais, j'ai aussi vérifié l'annulation de la place pour ceux qui ne veulent plus être ici. Ce n'est pas évident, c'est un fait. Peut-être en envoyant un e-mail ou en arrêtant simplement de commenter ici. Discutons-en sur mon twitter.

But if you are going to translate it? I was also informed by some colleagues that they were kicked out of the place just for refusing to rate DC comics and only focusing on Marvel ones. I think this site is somewhat xenophobic and racist. It is a great coincidence that accounts from Spain, Italy and Russia were canceled and do not touch those who are insulted by people, that gives a lot to say about this place, they will surely eliminate me for making their xe

Joder, creo que es momento de abandonar este barco, ya casi la plataforma esta lista y nos deshacemos de este sitio hipocrita lleno de racistas y progres. En cuanto la traducción, se que estas hasta las trancas con tus deberes y las viñetas de manga, pero podéis hacer una excepción con este comic. Que por cierto increible trabajo que os habeis hecho todos con la entrega de Marvel el viernes adjuntada con la de las mangas, ahora solo falta la llegada de ellas en la tienda.

Je me retire de ce site, loin de l'hypocrisie des libéraux qui dirigent ce serveur. J'en ai marre de tant de racisme dans cet endroit et c'est aussi mon dernier achat de bande dessinée DC. Rendez-vous sur votre Twitter Fenix, je serai à l'affût lorsque nous aurons déjà la page pour lire les bandes dessinées traduites et que nous pourrons commenter dans un environnement plein de respect et sans avoir besoin de le faire en anglais.

Ok guys, let's discuss this in private pls, I'm very sorry to have suggested this place to you, however those who wish to stay on the site is ok, those who have decided to withdraw just stop commenting on this place.

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

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.