#[ic]: c.e.os of heros

[hxperion]

"Remember, if you are registered with the Hyperion New U system, any time you die on this pathetic wasteland of a planet. You are just funding me"

[gokinjeespot]

off the rack #1292

Monday, December 16, 2019

 I sure got a heavy cardio workout yesterday scraping off the ice from both vehicles after the rain on Saturday froze under a layer of snow overnight into Sunday morning. That kind of temperature change will give you whiplash. The frozen blowing snow covered half of our birdfeeders too so I had to clear those off for our feathered friends. It's despairing when the temperature drops during the day instead of getting warmer. Stupid Arctic Air Mass.

 The Red Mother #1 - Jeremy Haun (writer) Danny Luckert (art) Ed Dukeshire (letters). The first page with the disintegrating skull will give you an idea of what this beautifully drawn new story is about. Daisy and her boyfriend Luke are walking home from dinner when they are attacked in a scary black space behind an iron gate. Luke is hauled into the blackness and Daisy has her right eye plucked out but survives. By the end of this issue she's seeing scary things through a haze of red. I loved the art in this and look forward to meeting Mother.

  Harley Quinn & Poison Ivy #4 - Jody Houser (writer) Adriana Melo (pencils) Mark Morales & Wade von Grawbadger (inks) Hi-Fi (colours) Gabriela Downie (letters). The Floronic Man attacks the girls again. This time in a roadside dinosaur theme park run by a crazy old lady. Poison Ivy figures out how the bad guy is tracking them and Harley fixes that problem with a machete. This is one crazy story.

 Punisher Soviet #2 - Garth Ennis (writer) Jacen Burrows (pencils) Guillermo Ortego (inks) Nolan Woodard (colours) Rob Steen (letters). Frank has reluctantly taken on a teammate in his fight with a Russian mobster. This issue starts that guy's origin story.

 Something is Killing the Children #4 - James Tynion IV (writer) Werther Dell'Edera (art) Miquel Muerto (colours) AndWorld Design (letters). Erica goes shopping for monster killing tools and into the woods we go. Time to meet the monster.

 X-Force #3 - Benjamin Percy (writer) Joshua Cassara (art) Guru-eFX (colours) VC's Joe Caramagna (letters). The enemy is revealed and they are Xeno. Kind of reminds me of the Court of Owls from Batman. Wolverine and Kid Omega rescue Domino from their clutches while a new Charles Xavier is hatched with a rebuilt Cerebro to lead the war. I liked how Magneto made a sword for Charles from the broken Cerebro helmet.

 The Dollhouse Family #2 - M. R. Carey (writer) Peter Gross (layouts) Vince Locke (finishes) Cris Peter (colours) Todd Klein (letters). Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect that the M. in the writer credit stands for Mike. I loved Mike Carey's Vertigo books and this has a very familiar feel. I like how the house is a character too.

 The Immortal Hulk #28 - Al Ewing (writer) Tom Reilly & Matias Bergara (art) Chris O'Halloran (colours) VC's Cory Petit (letters). The villain gets the spotlight this issue as Roxxon C.E.O. Dario Agger tries to find a way to fight the Hulk. He goes to find an ally on Monster Isle and I laughed when I saw who it was.

 Valkyrie #6 - Al Ewing & Jason Aaron (writers) Pere Perez (art) Jesus Aburtov (colours) VC's Joe Sabino (letters). What a great read. This is an example of how two good writers can produce a highly enjoyable issue of a comic book. Add to that very nice art and you've got a "pick of the week". Part one of "Strange Aeons" starts a new story where Val needs to put together a team to save Death. Doctor Strange is her first recruit and Night Nurse, Cardiac, Doctor Faiza Hussain AKA Excalibur and Manikin make the journey to the valley of the shadow of death. Talk about D-list, but I trust that Al and Jason will make good use of these heroes.

 Detective Comics #1017 - Tom Taylor (writer) Fernando Blanco (art) John Kalisz (colours) Travis Lanham (letters). This is a great one issue story if you want to see why this comic book is on my "must read" list. Batman solves two crimes and I was happy to see Damian helping out. If Tom Taylor did a Robin book, I'd read that too.

 Fantastic Four #17 - Dan Slott (writer) Luciano Vecchio, Carlos Magno, Bob Quinn & Sean Izaakse (art) Erick Arciniega (colours) VC's Travis Lanham (letters). I was wondering why this story was called "Point of Origin" and this issue explain why. We all know that the Fantastic Four were bombarded with cosmic rays when they took their maiden flight and that's what gave them their super powers. Little did we know it wasn't an accident. It's a subtle change and doesn't make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things but it is kind of neat.

 Miles Morales: Spider-Man #13 - Saladin Ahmed (writer) Javier Garron (art pages 1-2, 16-20) Kevin Libranda (art pages 3-8) & Alitha Martinez (art pages 9-13) David Curiel & Protobunker (colours) VC's Cory Petit (letters). I usually get annoyed when an issue is drawn by a bunch of different artists but Javier, Kevin and Alitha all did a splendid job and the story flowed seamlessly. The awesome colouring job helped too. Say hello to Billie Mariana Morales. Miles is now a big brother.

 Superman #18 - Brian Michael Bendis (writer) Ivan Reis (pencils) Joe Prado (inks) Alex Sinclair (colours) Dave Sharpe (letters). As big a Brian Bendis fan that I am, I stopped reading this title because I wasn't interested in what was happening in the book. Now I'm interested again. Superman drops a bomb that's going to explode into all kinds of repercussions. I liked how Wonder Woman, Batman and Lex Luthor reacted to the news even though they don't utter a word. That's great art right there. The cover will give you a hint to what Superman's announcement is.

 Fallen Angels #3 - Bryan Hill (writer) Szymon Kudranski (art) Frank D'Armata (colours) VC's Joe Sabino (letters). Cable, Psylocke and X-23's mission to save some children continues and one of the heroes is captured by the enemy. I hope their next story happens in the daytime because these issues have been very dark.

 Dark Knight Returns: The Golden Child#1 - Frank Miller (writer) Rafael Grampa (art) Jordie Bellaire (colours) John Workman & Deron Bennett (letters). No returning Dark Knight since this story features Lara, Jonathan and Carrie, the kids of the Big Two. They battle old man Joker and old man Darkseid. I loved the art. The writing was annoyingly repetitive. That seems to be Franks writing style now using lots of verbs and choppy little captions. I don't like it. The thing about comic books is that the art and writing go hand in hand and I just couldn't stop reading the words part way and just look at the pretty pictures. Seeing Greta Thunberg on the last page just made me love Rafael even more.

 Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #14 - Tom Taylor (writer) Marguerite Sauvage (art flashback) Ken Lashley (art) Marguerite Sauvage & Rachelle Rosenberg (colours) VC's Travis Lanham (letters). Crappydoodles! This is the last issue. I am sad. I enjoyed the entire 14-issue run. It was Juann Cabal's art that got me hooked but Tom's writing kept me reading. His stories were very Mister Rogers and I liked them a lot. He showed Peter committed to his sense of responsibility and ended this issue nicely. I'm going to miss this title.

 The Batman's Grave #3 - Warren Ellis (writer) Bryan Hitch (pencils) Kevin Nowlan (inks) Alex Sinclair (colours) Richard Starkings (letters). Batman is working on a case of murder disguised as a suicide. I like how this issue starts and ends with him working the case with Alfred in the Batcave that bookends 10 pages of wordless solo crime scene investigation and a fight with an intruder for a crucial clue.

 2099: Doom #1 - Chip Zdarsky (writer) Marco Castiello (art) Chris Sotomayor (colours) VC's Clayton Cowles (letters). This one-shot doesn't add much to the overall story but I like Chip's writing so I read it. Victor winds up in 2099 fighting his future self. The last page doesn't make a lot of sense so skipping this comic won't hurt much.

 2099: Spider-Man #1 - Nick Spencer (writer) Ze Carlos (art) Brian Reber & Andrew Crossley (colours) VC's Cory Petit (letters). I was as confused as the Miguel in this story when I got to the end. We get a sense of what's happening in 2099 that's bad for everyone but there's no connection to the main story as far as I can make out. These 2099 one-shots have been a waste of time, which doesn't bode well for Marvel's next big event. I'll read 2099 Omega to see if there's a point to this story and I'll read The Amazing Spider-Man #36 that ties into this event because that book is on my "must read" list, but Nick Spencer is skating on thin ice with me.

 Annihilation - Scourge: Beta Ray Bill #1 - Michael Moreci (writer) Alberto Alburquerque (art) Jay David Ramos (colours) VC's Joe Sabino (letters). This was a good single issue story. Beta Ray Bill goes up against the Sentry and saves our universe from the scourge of the Cancerverse. I liked that he's teamed up with Lockjaw.

 Annihilation - Scourge: Silver Surfer #1 - Dan Abnett (writer) Paul Davidson (art) Matt Milla (colours) VC's Clayton Cowles (letters). I was asked recently if the Silver Surfer was good or evil after the Silver Surfer Black story and I didn't know the answer until now. This tie-in one-shot takes place right after Silver Surfer Black as Norrin Radd breaches the barrier between the positive universe and the Negative Zone to investigate what's causing the mass exodus from Annihilus's realm. Here he finds the means of defeating the Void controlled Sentry and thereby save two universes. He also discovers the ability to merge with another being sort of like DC's Deadman.

[spoopercorp]

Supercorp Fic 2/4

Summary: Kara leaves for a mission and when she returns, she is not entirely herself - Kara Danvers and Kara Zor-El are gone. All that is left is Supergirl, last child of Krypton and now Rao’s successor.

Chapter Summary: Lena struggles, the ordeal hitting her harder than she will ever admit. She tries to convince herself that the Kara she knew is gone forever, that Supergirl is all that remains, that any trace of their friendship is nonexistent.

But Supergirl keeps coming back to her balcony, and it often leaves Lena wondering why.

Based on this: “plastic-pipes.tumblr.com/post/161320253433/plastic-pipes-i-can-c-basically-its-kinda-i” by @plastic-pipes.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

"What am I supposed to do?"

Lena could feel Alex fume from the other line.

"Something!" she cried out, desperate, "Anything!"

"I'm not..." Lena trailed off, took a deep breath, "I'm not you. I'm not James. I'm not Winn. I'm just..."

She faltered again.

"Kara and I, we've only shared a few lunches together, we've only traded some light banter, we've only known each other for a few months. Agent Danvers, I probably don't mean that much to her. I'm not going to be enough."

"Listen here, Luthor, time doesn't always dictate the strength of a friendship. But I know Kara, she cares about you. A lot. So if you don't get your fucking ass out and help, if she doesn't come back home, then I'm blaming you for doing absolutely nothing while everyone else tried."

"Okay, okay."

Then Lena slumped against her desk and she finally shed a tear, "I'm sorry..."

Her apology was hoarse, but sincere.

There was a long stretch of silence.

"Don't be a coward, Lena."

She flinched at the words.

"But you've actually saved her before," she whispered solemnly.

There was a small pause.

"But you've saved the entire alien population on Earth. You can save Kara."

There was a flat, droning beep once Alex hung up.

And Lena was left alone in her office.

She sighed shakily before sliding her phone onto her desk, before moving to her cabinet and pouring herself a cup of lukewarm bourbon.

She tossed some ice into the whiskey, then moved to her balcony.

Lena was three cups into her liquor, her thoughts foggy, when she arrived.

It startled her and she jumped, the glass slipped from her hand - it was pulled by gravity, headed towards the ground many stories below and awaiting its shattering fate.

But Supergirl caught it with her almighty hand.

Lena examined the Kryptonian floating in front of her, on the other side of the railing.

Supergirl adorned the stars - the deep space of the universe wrapped fittingly around her body. Her cape was long, it passed her bare feet by a yard with a pointed end; the red of the otherworldly cloth was deeper, darker than her original suit.

The emblem on her chest was a bright gold, as if a blazing, fiery star was actually encased within the symbol - the seams that lined around the fabric were just as radiant.

She was the descendant of the sun.

She was hallowed, but hollow.

Her eyes were equally shining, though almost blank.

But Lena averted her gaze, before she lingered and thought there was a reason for the 'almost'.

That was when she realized Supergirl was still, her arm stretched out to return the glass of bourbon.

Lena took it back, made sure that she very carefully avoided making any physical contact.

"Thanks, Supergirl."

It was easy to call her that.

It's not her.

It's not.

Her tone was terse and rude, the alcohol loosening her tongue more and more, and she bit the muscle in the hopes of preventing herself from saying something stupid.

The woman in front of her simply tilted her head.

"What?" Lena snapped again.

"You do not address me as Kara, like everyone else," Supergirl stated, and she seemed unaffected by the Luthor's instability.

"'Cause you aren't," she bit out, and it sounded a little menacing.

Lena was most certainly not prepared for this visit. She did not have any other background information other than it was a mission that had gone awry. She thought, with bitter humor, that Supergirl was 'promoted' in a way.

"You are intoxicated," the Kryptonian stated.

Lena scoffed, rolled her eyes, "Please. Tell me something I don't know."

Supergirl did not speak.

She left.

And Lena was unsure whether or not she was thankful for that.

She fell asleep that night in tears, her heart aching for Kara as she wallowed in drunken agony.

Again.

She missed her.

She missed her so much it felt like she was being torn apart inside.

Lena woke up in her bed and routinely - robotically - entered her luxurious and oversized bathroom, ornate with marble and unnecessarily extravagant pillars.

All for one lonely occupant.

She grimaced from the hangover, and when she faced the mirror she noted that in her exhaustion she left her makeup on the night before, and she was still in her dress clothes.

Lena stared at herself, lipstick and mascara smudged from wiping away her tears and tossing and turning in her restless sleep.

Her dull green eyes were drained of life, they were barren and desolate, and there was perhaps just as much nothingness in them as Supergirl's.

Almost.

The grief in Lena's eyes had always been unmatched.

Unrivalled until she met her.

Kara Danvers, totally awkward and totally normal, totally human, junior reporter from CatCo.

It did not take long for Lena to fall in love, it was difficult not to be completely entranced by the blonde's love for food and curious fascination that drove her journalism.

Out of seven billion people on planet Earth, Lena's heart just had to stop for her, even though she knew that she herself would never be chosen.

Kara chose James, and though the relationship was temporary, he was everything that Lena was not - could not be.

The majority of the time she was a businesswoman, acting C.E.O. of L-Corp, so she had to be callous, cold, ruthless, with a brutal demeanor of indifference. She had to be cruel and strict and a Luthor. She was not outgoing, not terribly amicable, not quite in tune with even herself.

She was constantly lost.

Then Kara chose Mon-El, another temporary relationship, but yet another person that Lena could not be.

Her sarcastic quips were not lighthearted, they were bitter and wry and often had unintentional dark implications.

She was human - fragile - and being with a Kryptonian as a feeble being proved challenging enough without Lena being a part of an anti-alien family.

But she told herself that James was a human too, that he was an exception for Kara, and that gave her the tiniest of hopes before her mind over-thought; James was strong and passionate, but Lena was too.

She was strong on the outside, much stronger than him. It acted as a shield for how weak she was inside, and if that calculating shell was broken, then the rest of her shattered.

James did not have an impressive defense like Lena's, who gave her all on her heartless exterior. He was steadfast all around, he had a support system, he grew up with all types of love and he knew them and could reciprocate them, he could take hits from all angles, and he did not have an Achilles heel.

Lena did, and it took one well-measured strike to collapse her, to impair her so thoroughly to the point all that was left was a wreckage of fractured ruins.

Kara knew what love was, her heart was full of it and she received just as much or more in return.

Lena did not; no matter how much love she gave others, which had been exactly two people, it had never gone well.

She had to kill Jack.

And Lex was dead to her.

Maybe because she was so inept at love, because she was so disconnected and detached and unable to really fathom such an abstract concept.

So why did she give her heart to Kara? What made her different? She had already deceived her once, a liar just like everyone else when Lena had been completely open in their friendship.

She knew though, that Supergirl was Kara's secret to tell, that she was the sole person that could choose whether or not to disclose it and who to give that information to.

And Lena was never going to be one of them, and the thought really did not come to her as a shock - it was expected, but it still hurt.

The revelation left their bond in tatters, but time managed to patch it back together, even if there were still cracks, and Lena told herself that they would heal eventually, but the pain was still too recent.

Then she told herself that most of all, she was simply not enough.

By now, Lena was aware that almost all of her heart belonged to Kara; it was not consciously given, but it was still given willingly, just little bits and pieces after each of their lunches to the point Lena was unaware that it was even happening.

By the time she realized, it was too late - there was almost nothing left to give.

But Supergirl was the enemy, the cousin of Superman, the hero of Metropolis who locked her beloved brother up and further tore apart her already dysfunctional family.

And Lena ended up blaming herself anyway.

She still did.

She stood by, did nothing, as she watched her brother descend into insanity, despite the signs. Maybe it was because she was afraid of him, maybe it was because she understood the method to his barbaric madness.

If she refused to just sit by maybe Lex would not have killed thousands upon thousands of people. Maybe he would still be here with her, playing chess and showing her the ropes of being the C.E.O. of a multibillion dollar company. Maybe Lillian would have been less...inhumane and wicked.

Sometimes she wondered if she herself would soon follow.

But Lena would be damned if she stood by again, if the consequences of her inactions caused her another loss.

Lena would be damned if she just sat on the moon and watched as the flaring beauty of the sun flickered out.

And a selfish part of her did not want to try to bring Kara back, because if she tried and if she failed, that meant she was not enough.

Her conscience already had an abundance of burdens on her, weighing down her shoulders while she was already bleeding inside, crushing her chest until she was breathless and gasping for air.

But a sudden bout of dread filled Lena, spontaneously hitting her as she sat in her office chair, at the realization that Supergirl might not return due to her unforgivably inebriated state yesterday.

As night came and her employees trickled out of her building, Lena believed that she might never come back.

But she did, when everything in National City was so silent in its sleep that it might as well have been dead.

They were on the balcony again and this time Supergirl was hovering next to Lena, who was nursing yet another cup of liquor - rum this time.

They did not speak to one another, simply basked in the presence of the moon above them.

Then...

"You should rest."

Lena shrugged, elbows rested on the rails with her beverage in hand, "I don't need it. I'll sleep when pigs fly."

Supergirl gave a confused look for a second, but her mouth opened to state something instead of ask something, "Scientifically, humans-"

Lena took a sip of her drink, more sober than she was before, "I just mean I've always been a nighthawk."

"What is that?" Supergirl questioned after a moment.

"What's what?" Lena repeated, asking for clarification.

"A nighthawk," came the answer, simple.

Lena finally glanced to the side.

Of course. Gods don't really have any concept of...earthly things.

For a moment she wondered if Supergirl was gradually losing her more human memories, or if they were gone in the first place.

"I'm nocturnal to simply put it," she looked to the faint light in the cloudless sky, "I sleep once in a blue moon."

It was blunt, straight to the point.

Then it was silent again.

Then it was broken by Supergirl. Again.

"What does that mean? Once in a blue moon, that is. And what you said earlier about when pigs fly - pigs cannot fly."

And Lena found it baffling that the Kryptonian was trying to engage in a conversation; everyone else informed that holding one with her was taxing, because she never initiateed, because she preferred to be silent unless it was Alex.

And maybe Lena hated it a little bit because she was not one for small talk, never was, no one was willing to speak to her during her childhood up to when she met Jack Spheer, then Kara Danvers. Luckily for her, the blonde's mouth ran faster than her brain sometimes, so Lena was thankful that her rambling prevented her the option to speak.

Casual socializing was always pretty unnerving if she cared about the person.

Her thoughts were so harrowingly pensive she wanted to sedate herself - a coma was better than fighting for a lost cause.

"They're idioms," Lena explained slowly, cautiously, "They're phrases with meanings that aren't...inferable from the individual words themselves."

Supergirl nodded, "So?"

Lena scoffed, "Well, 'once in a blue moon' basically means 'rarely', and 'when pigs fly' basically means 'never' because, as you intelligently pointed out, pigs can't fly."

"You are amused by my lack of knowledge of these phrases."

"You hit the nail on the head," Lena answered with another idiom, maybe because she was slightly entertained by how Supergirl's eyebrows furrowed in concentration.

Then she realized that the crinkle was still there and her heart skipped a beat before she gulped the painful lump in her throat down with a swig of rum.

"And that means..."

"That you're correct in your assumption," Lena finished.

"You are speaking to me in idioms, hoping to entertain yourself with my confusion," Supergirl stated, "You do not seem to be much of one that enjoys creating jokes."

"Well, you can't judge a book by its cover," Lena smirked.

Supergirl took a moment to herself before replying, "And that means that one cannot judge something or someone based on appearance?"

"That's right," Lena smiled halfheartedly, "See? Piece of cake."

"I thought you were informed that I do not eat."

The Luthor sighed, "'Piece of cake' is actually another idiom. And here I thought gods were supposed to be omniscient."

Supergirl shook her head at the tease, "Idioms are...perplexing."

Lena only now noticed that they were both completely facing one another, entranced in their trivial banter, but she still forced distance - at least three feet apart from the goddess.

"Idioms are a part of everyday life," she explained, "Humans often speak metaphorically. We're based on emotions, and sometimes figurative statements work better than literal ones."

"I see."

Lena hummed, "I guess it's time for you to start hitting the books, just don't bite off more than you can chew."

The Kryptonian was quiet again.

"What, Supergirl? Can't wrap your head around idioms?" she joked, and a chuckle bubbled its way up her throat.

"I..." the heroine pressed her lips shut, then her ears twitched and she looked out into the distance.

"Go," Lena whispered, "They need you more."

Her own eyes widened a fraction at what she was implying with the last word.

They need you more than I do.

But Supergirl did not seem to contemplate the underlying meaning within the sentence and bolted off at sonic speed.

Her departure was excruciating, but Lena belatedly noticed that, and she was thankful that the delayed realization hit when she was in bed.

A week later, Supergirl visited again. At night. It seemed to always be at night, when everyone was gone and she was the only one present, and another thought dawned on Lena.

That she grew more and more angry every time they met. At Supergirl. At herself.

Though she did not analyze where it came from, she already vaguely knew its roots, there was no need to open more cans of worms for herself.

But when Supergirl landed, well, floated on her balcony...this time she looked a little...troubled.

But Lena did not pry and drank the alcohol in her hand instead, hoping the stupor was not so bad this time around.

And they were next to each other again, looking up at the stars, the very ones that anointed Lena's best friend.

Then finally, finally, she uttered something.

"Alexandra Danvers has taken me to many places, hoping to spark my memory."

Lena side-eyed her, saw that Supergirl was staring intently at her own hands.

She swallowed the bile in her throat, already knew that she would not like the answer.

"And you..." her voice wavered with her quivering lips, "Have you remembered something?"

"No."

The answer was succinct, decisive, and it hurt.

But the expression on Supergirl's face was almost...guilty.

"Oh," Lena said, clenching her hands so they stopped trembling, "I see. Are you okay?"

Her gaze returned to the night lights of the city, and the green in her eyes was glum.

"There is still almost nothing," Supergirl breathed, somewhat lamenting, "Yet...I find myself drawn here. To you. I think to you. It is...familiar. Were we..." she pauses, "We were something to each other, were we not? Something important?"

Lena's shoulders dropped, "Friends."

The word - the truth - tasted bitter on her tongue, more so than the liquor, but she continued, "You were - are - the closest person I have to a family. You're very important to me."

"I see..."

The tone was almost disappointed, but before Lena could determine what it meant, the voice went on.

"And what exactly determines a being's...importance?"

The Luthor shrugged, "Your guess is as good as mine. As far as I know, it's a subjective matter," she finally turned to Supergirl, eye to eye, human to entity, "Every being is important to you - you're a god, you're objective, utilitarian. That's your duty," she shook her head, "But to humans, there are countless variables. A life can be traded for many things, abstract or material..."

She sighed, ran her fingers through her hair, "There are some days where I'm to be murdered for nothing, and there are some days where I'm to be murdered for billions - or maybe even a promise, empty or not. It depends on the person, their conscience, their pride. And a lot of the times, they can be wavered. But human decisions fluctuate. With the right words of course."

Supergirl looked as if she did not particularly like the answer with how her body tensed slightly.

Her spine straightened up farther, her shoulders broadened up more.

"And your survival thus far is an example of your persuasive and dissuasive abilities I presume?"

Lena shrugged, downed her entire drink into her mouth and relished in the burn, refusing to cough when her eyes watered with how powerful it was, "Some of the time."

Now Supergirl was a little intrigued, "And other times?"

"Close calls," Lena chuckled, though it was empty, "You usually end up saving me the last possible second. You've always had impeccable timing."

Her face morphed into a scowl at how familiar she sounded, and she reminded herself for perhaps the millionth time...

It's not her.

The next time Lena saw Supergirl was around three days later.

She watched the news on her television with a glass of tequila and an appalled expression as the heroine managed to save the hostages from a bank heist.

Six died in the crossfire. Ten others sustained injuries.

Once it hit near midnight, two hours after the event, she arrived.

Lena walked out onto the balcony, to achieve a clearer view of the goddess floating before her.

And for the first time since Supergirl transcended, she looked tired and worn out.

Not noticeably though, since the exhaustion only pulled her glowing eyes down by a measly fraction.

Supergirl hovered next to her now, and they resumed their routine of looking out to National City.

Lena, at this point, was a little bit frustrated with everything; with all the meaningless conversations, with her board members, with the world, with her.

Supergirl kept coming back, and from Lena's understanding, it was usually the rest of the super gang that had to chase after her.

And she did not know why Supergirl kept coming back.

A sharp intake of breath snapped Lena out of her thoughts, she took a sip then turned her head to the side, brows scrunched together in concern.

Then Supergirl sighed.

"I cannot deliver humanity from such evil - from themselves."

Lena scoffed inside her own head.

Tell me about it.

"Humanity does not deserve salvation. They are not worthy."

And then Lena froze, her muscles pulled taut, her spine stiffened, her grip on the glass was like iron.

"How can you say that?" she whispered harshly.

"They are foolish," Supergirl stated simply, and Lena did concur with that, "They continue to repeat mistakes after being told not to do so, after being proven wrong," she shook her head, "They are cruel to one another for the most trivial of things."

Again. Agreeable.

And then Supergirl said it again, rephrased.

"Humans are unworthy of deliverance."

Something inside Lena crumbled and she lashed out, mind addled with anger.

"Kara Zor-El, Kara Danvers...Kara wouldn't have said that, in any persona of hers. Ever," she reprimanded, "She's not her cousin; he believes humans need to be protected and saved 'cause we're feeble and fragile beings; he simplifies us into needy creatures and thinks of justice in black and white."

Lena turned her gaze back onto National City, and her voice wavered, "Kara believes humans, however light or dark, should have second chances - maybe even three 'cause she's too nice for her own good. She, more than most, understands the complexities of humanity and every other being - she sees everything in shades of gray because there's more to everyone."

Lena choked down a sob, but her voice still came out a little strangled and cracked, "And I know better than anyone else how awful we are, how unnecessarily cruel we are to each other, how war is waged over the pettiest things, how fear of the unknown drives us to make abhorrent decisions..."

Supergirl's lips parted, as if to speak, but no, Lena was not done yet.

"Trust me," she rebuked, and it was dripping with disapproval, "I didn't think humanity could be saved for the longest time, especially by some..." she gestured to Supergirl's figure, "...deity such as yourself. Then Kara showed up," and her voice broke again and this time it sounded pleading, "For her, it's about helping, about supporting, about encouraging others to grow, to teach them and to learn from them. To be better than who we were."

Once the speech of reproach was over, Lena's chest heaved with every furious breath she took, and her grip on her drink was so tight her knuckles whitened.

For the longest time, Lena did not receive a reply, and she was left waiting like a fool. Then she formulated a retort, she was quick, but not quick enough because Supergirl finally spoke.

The goddess echoed her words from before, remained firm in her stance, but the cadence in her voice had a mysteriously gentle lilt to it, "Humans do not deserve to be saved."

There was silence.

Then Supergirl connected their eyes, the divine glow so soft and sincere that Lena's breath hitched.

"But you do."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

[bigyack-com]

Quibi Is Coming. Here Are the Famous People Making Shows for It.

Quibi, set to launch on April 6, stands for “quick bites,” which refers to the service’s plan to offer short segments (10 minutes or less) designed for small screens (your phone).But little else about this short-form venture is bite-size. In its first year, the company’s partners (the chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg and the C.E.O. Meg Whitman) are spending more than a billion dollars on content acquisition alone. That’s partly because everyone in Hollywood seems to be doing a Quibi show, including heavy-hitters like Steven Spielberg, Guillermo del Toro, Kevin Hart and Jennifer Lopez.The company has been rolling out promotional announcements and previews all over — including on Twitter, in industry trade publications, at the Sundance Film Festival, and on a screen during a keynote presentation at CES in Las Vegas last month.On Friday, Quibi released its launch lineup, a total of 50 shows that includes Liam Hemsworth’s “Most Dangerous Game,” Queen Latifah’s “When the Streetlights Go On” and Chrissy Teigen’s “Chrissy’s Court.”But this is just a fraction of what Quibi says it will release in its first year. During that time, it plans to put out about 8,500 “quick bites of content” and around 175 new shows — 35 of these shows are “movies in chapters”; 120 are unscripted reality shows or documentaries; and the rest are news and lifestyle pieces, or what they call “daily essentials.”Will all of these shows actually end up happening? Will any of them be any good? Will anyone pony up $4.99 a month (or $7.99 without ads) to watch Quibi?Nobody knows! But at least Quibi has an impressive list of boldface names to tout to investors and potential viewers. Here’s who we know about for now, in alphabetical order. (Others involved in Quibi shows are denoted in bold.)Alexandre Aja: The director is developing a live-action adaptation of the horror manga “Tomie.”Stephen and Robbie Amell: The two actors (and cousins) are doing a spinoff of “Code 8,” their crowdsourced sci-fi thriller about oppressed super-people. The original film’s director, Jeff Chan, will be the showrunner.Eric Andre: He’s expanding his Adult Swim talk show sketch, “Rapper Warrior Ninja,” in which rappers must overcome weird obstacles while freestyling.Will Arnett: Arnett is a Quibi triple-threat. He’s hosting a show called “Memory Hole,” which examines so-called underdiscussed subjects (such as Canada); and he’ll be producing the animated series “Your Daily Horoscope” and a daily late-show recapper, “Late Night This Morning.”Ayo & Teo: The duo behind the viral dance challenge “Rolex” will be hosting “The Sauce,” a cross-country dance-competition series. (Usher is judging and executive producing.)Tyra Banks: She’s starring in and executive producing a docuseries called “Beauty,” which examines standards of beauty around the world and the ways in which they’ve developed.Chancelor “Chance the Rapper” Bennett: He’s taking over Ashton Kutcher’s role in yet another “Punk’d” revival, which will continue to be devoted to pranking unsuspecting celebs.Jason Blum: The Blumhouse impresario executive produced “Wolves and Villagers,” a “Fatal Attraction”-like story starring Naomi Watts.Joel Kim Booster: He’s co-hosting (with Keke Palmer) the rebooted “Singled Out,” which has been redesigned for all genders and sexual orientations across 20 episodes. He’s also writing and co-producing the Fire Island rom-com “Trip.”Guy Branum: The comedian is resurrecting the 2003 rom-com “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.” (He’s presumably not the guy they’ll be losing.)Scooter Braun: The manager of Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande is all over Quibi. He’s producing “&Music,” a music docuseries about behind-the-scenes music people like choreographers, video directors and stage designers. He’s also producing and judging an untitled music competition series, executive producing a celebrity tattoo docuseries and executive producing his client Demi Lovato’s talk show, “Pillow Talk with Demi Lovato.”Titus Burgess: The actor and singer is hosting a deconstructed cooking competition called “Dishmantled,” in which a mystery dish is cannon-blasted into the faces of chefs who must identify and recreate it. (Seriously.) Wolfgang Puck, Jane Krakowski and Rachel Dratch are among the judges for this strange ritual.Bill Burr: The comedian is writing, directing, producing and starring in “Immoral Compass,” a show based on Tyler Falbo’s digital shorts about moral dilemmas.Kay Cannon: The “Pitch Perfect” screenwriter is producing an adaptation of the book “Dead Spots,” which is about a supernatural crime-scene cleaner.Kiari “Offset” Cephus: The Migos member is taking celebrities for a ride with “Skrrt with Offset.” Guests include Cardi B, Dapper Dan, Jay Leno, T-Pain and more.Andy Cohen: After writing the books “The Andy Cohen Diaries” and “Superficial: More Adventures from the Andy Cohen Diaries,” the talk show host is writing and executive producing the six-episode animated series “The Andy Cohen Diaries.”James Corden: His Fulwell 73 company is producing the mind-reading show “Gone Mental with Lior,” featuring the Israeli mentalist Lior Suchard, who regularly stuns on Corden’s late-night show. Unsurprisingly, Corden will also be a guest, as will Ben Stiller, Zooey Deschanel, Kate Hudson and more.Darren Criss: He’s the co-creator, songwriter and star of the 10-episode musical comedy “Royalties.” Amy Heckerling is directing all 10 episodes.Tom Cruise: Quibi is developing a series called “Les Grossman,” about Cruise’s immortal “Tropic Thunder” character. While the service hasn’t confirmed Cruise’s involvement yet, do you think they could do it without him, playaaa? “Thunder” vets Ben Stiller and Justin Theroux were announced to be taking part at CES.Steph Curry: He’s executing producing a docuseries about a basketball team in Newark called “Benedict Men.”Cara Delevingne: The model and actress is hosting and executive producing a practical joke series — working title “Pranks” — in which she’s assisted by a squad of female accomplices.Guillermo del Toro: First Quibi announced that the Oscar-winning director was creating a modern vampire film — working title “Aftermath.” Then Quibi said that it was about zombies. Either way, it’s about the undead, del Toro’s specialty.Laura Dern: She’ll be doing the pouring in Nick Hornby’s bartender series “Just One Drink,” which he’s writing and executive producing. Dern is also executive producing.Adam Devine: This comedian is angling for a Darwin Award with “Bad Ideas with Adam Devine,” an adventure/travel show in which he puts himself and some famous companions in precarious positions (like wearing yummy chum in piranha-infested waters).Zac Efron: He reportedly nearly killed himself making “Killing Zac Efron” — requiring a medevac to a hospital in Australia after living off the grid in Papua New Guinea for this adventure/survival series.Idris Elba: He’s facing off against the rally car driver Ken Block in “Elba vs. Block,” an eight-episode series featuring stunt challenges like the Flaming Obstacle Course and the Wall of Death.Peter and Bobby Farrelly: The sibling directors are helming a suicide comedy called “The Now,” starring Dave Franco, Bill Murray, Daryl Hannah and O’Shea Jackson, Jr.Jon Favreau: His company Golem Creations is executive producing “Micro Mayhem,” a series devoted to stop-motion animated toy car chases, along with Seth Green’s company, Stoopid Buddy Stoodios.Dexter Fletcher: The “Rocketman” director’s involvement with an unspecified film was announced at CES.Will Forte: He’s co-starring with Kaitlin Olson as home renovators who luck into a cartel stash house in “Flipped,” one of the first shows available on launch.Ron Funches: The comedian is hosting a game show called “Nice One!,” in which comedians like Chris Hardwick try to toast, not roast, each other.Evan Funke: The celebrity chef is pursuing his obsession in “Shape of Pasta.” (Take a peek at about 18 minutes into this.)Antoine Fuqua: He’s executive producing the $15 million drama “#Freerayshawn,” starring Stephan James as a framed Iraq vet and Laurence Fishburne as a hostage negotiator.Seth Grahame-Smith: The author of “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is executive-producing “The Last American Vampire,” focusing on a vamp-F.B.I. team-up.Catherine Hardwicke: She’s directing and executive-producing the 14-episode sci-fi thriller “Don’t Look Deeper,” starring Don Cheadle and Emily Mortimer.Mary Harron: The “American Psycho” director is helming “The Expecting,” a horror film about a disturbing pregnancy starring AnnaSophia Robb.Kevin Hart: He’s producing, writing and starring in “Die Hart,” playing a would-be action hero version of himself who takes classes from John Travolta’s action-school coach. (It’s an expansion of the opening scene of his film “Kevin Hart: What Now?”)Liam Hemsworth: The “Hunger Games” star is the hunted prey “Most Dangerous Game,” a retelling of a classic short story with Christoph Waltz playing the mastermind in one of Quibi’s first shows to launch. May the odds be ever in his favor.Michael Hirst: The “Vikings” creator is developing the historical drama “Charlemagne.”Boyd Holbrook: He’s playing a man wrongfully accused of terrorism (and pursued by a detective, Kiefer Sutherland) in a reboot of “The Fugitive.”Rosie Huntington-Whiteley: The model and actress is hosting and executive producing a show about beauty icons with the working title “The Go See.”Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson: He’s executive producing an animated adaptation of the graphic novel “Trill League,” about a team of black superheroes.O’Shea “Ice Cube” Jackson: His involvement with an untitled heist series was announced at CES.LeBron James: He’s producing a docuseries about his Ohio school called “I Promise.”Kendall and Kris Jenner: The model and her mother, Kris, are executive producing a parody series about the impersonator “Kirby Jenner,” who pretends to be Kendall’s fraternal twin on Instagram. (A Twinstagrammer?) Ryan Seacrest is also executive producing.Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson: He’s executive producing a Hawaii-set comedy called “Last Resort,” along with Paul Feig.Joe Jonas: He’s expanding his Instagram travelogue of the cities explored on tour with “Cup of Joe,” along with guests such as Tina Fey and Jack Black.Rashida Jones: The writer-actress and her writing partner Will McCormack are executive producing a flower design series called “Centerpiece,” in which such guests as Ava DuVernay and Maya Rudolph create floral centerpieces with host Maurice Harris of Bloom & Plume.Anna Kendrick: She’s executive producing and starring in the comedy “Dummy,” playing a woman who becomes buddies with her boyfriend’s sex doll. (Get a glimpse of it here.)Liza Koshy: The “Liza on Demand” star is hosting a moving-floor-based dance competition called “Floored.”Kevin Kwan: The “Crazy Rich Asians” author is examining elite brands’ familial dynasties with “Empires of Luxury.”Queen Latifah: She’s starring as a police detective investigating a double murder in “When the Streetlights Go On,” one of the first shows available at launch. Chosen Jacobs and Mark Duplass co-star.Thomas Lennon: Another Quibi M.V.P., he’s starring in and writing both the “Reno 911!” revival and the Napa Valley comedy “Winos.” Wendi McLendon-Covey is also producing and co-starring in “Reno 911!”Doug Liman: The director-producer is adapting a Steven Gould story for “Crazy Talented,” in which psych ward patients discover their mental issues are actually superpowers. His 30 Ninjas company is also producing “Don’t Look Deeper.”Jennifer Lopez: She’s executive producing and participating in “Thanks a Million,” a pay-it-forward-style show that will feature guests such as Nick Jonas, Yara Shahidi, Gabriel Iglesias, Kristen Bell, Tracy Morgan, Karlie Kloss and Aaron Rodgers, who pay back people who’ve helped them out along the way.Demi Lovato: Her talk show, “Pillow Talk With Demi Lovato,” will explore body positivity, gender identity, social media, activism and more.Miles “Lil Yachty” McCollum: The rapper is starring in “Public Figures,” a comedy inspired by events of his youth.Jed Mercurio: The “Bodyguard” creator is developing a sci-fi thriller, “Transmissions,” about a scientist who’s receiving signals from deep space.Cam Newton: The Carolina Panthers quarterback is executive producing and participating in the sports series “Iron Sharpens Iron,” pairing athletes from completely different sports to train together. (For example, Newton with Atlanta Hawks point guard Trae Young, U.S. Women’s National Team captain Carli Lloyd with U.F.C. champion Amanda Nunes.)Trevor Noah: The “Daily Show” host is executive producing and starring in a comedic travelogue about his interactions on tour — the working title is “Canceled.”Will Packer: He’s executive producing a Donald Sterling documentary called “Blackballed.”Jim Parsons: He’s executive producing the comedy “The Monarchy Is Going To S***.”Travis Pastrana: The motor sports star is hosting the Nitro Circus stunt show “Life-Size Toys.”James Patterson: The author is an executive producer on the adaptation of his book “Toys.”Paula Pell: She’s the co-creator and star of the comedy “Mapleworth Murders,” about a mystery writer who just so happens to have homicides committed in her vicinity on a disturbingly regular basis. Her “Saturday Night Live” colleagues (such as Fred Armisen, Maya Rudolph, Tim Meadows and Tina Fey) pop by as characters to be accused — or killed. Lorne Michaels and Seth Meyers are executive producing.Sam Raimi: He’s executive producing the horror anthology “50 States of Fright,” exploring folklore and urban legends from around the country, starring Karen Allen, Rachel Brosnahan, Asa Butterfield, Rory Culkin, Taissa Farmiga, Travis Fimmel, Ron Livingston, Elizabeth Reaser, Christina Ricci and Ming-Na Wen.Megan Rapinoe: The soccer star is hosting a docuseries about young athletes called “Prodigy.”Ryan Reynolds: His involvement with an unspecified animation project was announced at CES.Nicole Richie: She’s executive producing and starring in the comedy “Nikki Fre$h” as her rapper alter ego. Her husband Joel Madden’s music company is overseeing the music.Adam Rippon: The Olympic figure skater is hosting “This Day in Useless Celebrity History.”Kathleen Robertson: The actress is writing and executing producing the remake of 1995’s “Swimming with Sharks” starring Kiernan Shipka and Diane Kruger.Michelle Rodriguez: Her involvement with a show called “Ten Ton Chum” was announced at CES.Justin Roiland: The “Rick & Morty” co-creator makes “Gloop World,” a clay animation show where two blobs are roommates, with Seth Green’s Stoopid Buddy Stoodios.Anthony and Joe Russo: Inspired by the Reed Tucker’s book “Slugfest: Inside the Epic, 50-Year Battle Between Marvel and DC,” the “Avengers” directors and brothers are exploring comic book rivalries on “Slugfest.” Pow!Andy Samberg: He’s hosting and executive producing a single-bite cooking competition called “Biggest Little Cook-Off.” (In other words, quick bites. Get it?) He also appears on “Mapleworth Murders.”Ridley Scott: He’s executive producing the gaming thriller/horror “CURS_R,” about a computer survival game that tricks players into playing for their lives.Steven Soderbergh: He’s executive producing the thriller “Wireless,” about a crash survivor (played by Tye Sheridan) trying to communicate on his smartphone. (Get a glimpse at about 27 minutes into this.)Steven Spielberg: He’s creating a horror series — working title “After Dark” — that will unlock on phones only after the sun has set in the viewer’s location.Veena Sud: “The Killing” showrunner is the creator, writer and director of the ride-share thriller “The Stranger,” starring Dane DeHaan as a sociopath terrorizing his driver Maika Monroe.Jimmy Tatro: He’s the co-creator and star of “Junior High,” an expansion of his YouTube series, and a co-star on “The Now.”Chrissy Teigen: She’s the judge presiding over small claims cases in “Chrissy’s Court,” where she rules on real-life cases. Teigen’s mother Vilailuck acts as bailiff in the 10-episode series.Sophie Turner: She’s starring as a suicidal plane crash survivor who has to find a will to live in an adaptation of Alex Morel’s “Survive,” one of the first shows available at launch. Corey Hawkins co-stars.Gabrielle Union: She’s executive producing “Black Coffee,” a comedy about a former basketball star who opens up a coffee shop.James Veitch: The comedian known for his spam email Ted Talks hosts the “Q-Talks” comedy special, co-starring Regina Hall, Lisa Kudrow, Niecy Nash and Kristen Schaal.Sasha Velour: This “RuPaul’s Drag Race” champ is hosting and executive producing an eight-episode drag revue called “NightGowns.”Mark Wahlberg: He’s executive producing “Run This City,” a docuseries about Jasiel Correia II, the former mayor of Fall River, Mass., who during his term was charged with fraud, bribery and extortion.Lena Waithe: She’s exploring sneaker culture in the docuseries “You Ain’t Got These,” with guests Carmelo Anthony, Billie Jean King, Hasan Minhaj, Questlove, Nas, Mike Epps and more.Alexander Wang: The fashion designer sets his talk show, “Potty Talk,” in the bathroom.Allen Strickland Williams: He’s the creator of the comedy “Unmatched,” about people who refuse to settle down.Reese Witherspoon: The actress-producer — who is married to Quibi’s head of content acquisition and talent, Jim Toth — is hosting “Fierce Queens,” a docuseries about female animals who lead their packs or pods (hyenas, humpback whales) as well as the femme fatales who dine on their mates (fireflies). Toth, beware!WWE wrestlers: Wrestlers — Sasha Banks, Brie Bella, Nikki Bella, Alexa Bliss, Sonya Deville, Charlotte Flair, Nia Jax, Becky Lynch and Natalya — team up with young women to help them become stronger in “Fight Like a Girl.” Read the full article

[jeroldlockettus]

America’s Hidden Duopoly (Ep. 356)

In the most recent two-year election cycle, the political industry generated roughly $16 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, customer satisfaction — that is, from voters — is at a historic low. (Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty)

We all know our political system is “broken” — but what if that’s not true? Some say the Republicans and Democrats constitute a wildly successful industry that has colluded to kill off competition, stifle reform, and drive the country apart. So what are you going to do about it?

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode; for more information on the people and ideas included, see the links at the bottom of this post.

*      *      *

We’d like to tell you about a new spinoff project from our friend Jad Abumrad, who hosts RadioLab. If you’ve heard Radiolab, you know Jad has an interest in powerful stories and sonic adventures. So you might want to check out his new podcast; it’s called UnErased. It’s about conversion therapy, a treatment that’s billed as a way of turning gay people straight. You may know it as the “pray away the gay” treatment. It’s been tried on more than 700,000 people. Jad speaks with historians, psychologists and theologians about the roots of the practice, what it entails, and why it continues to attract proponents even though the research literature suggests it is not efficacious. Whether it’s desirable, of course, is a separate matter. The first episode features Garrard Conley, who was sent for conversion therapy when he was 19; he wrote a memoir about that experience, called Boy Erased. So please check out the new UnErased podcast, from Jad Abumrad, wherever you get your podcasts.

A quick note about our previous episode, No. 355, which was called “Where Does Creativity Come From?” In a section about the Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei, we noted that Weiwei had been kidnapped and jailed in 2011 by the Chinese government. We also noted that he’d been “charged with subversion of state power.” But in fact, he wasn’t officially charged, with any crime. Which meant his imprisonment was even more punishing, as he was detained without access to lawyers or family. We regret the error. Since it was pointed out to us shortly after we released the episode, we were able to correct the error and republish the episode immediately, so there’s a good chance you never saw or heard the error. But if you did, we wanted to let you know.

*      *      *

Imagine a gigantic industry that’s being dominated by just one or two companies. Actually, you don’t have to imagine. Google has more than 90 percent of the global search-engine market. So, not quite a monopoly, but pretty close. Such cases are rare; but not so rare is the duopoly: when two firms dominate an industry. Like Intel and AMD in computer processors. Boeing and Airbus in jet airliners. The Sharks and the Jets, in the fictional-gangs-from-the-50’s industry. But surely the most famous duopoly is this one:

OLD COKE COMMERCIAL: “There’s nothing like a Coca-Cola, nothing like a Coke”

OLD PEPSI COMMERCIAL: People who think young say, “Pepsi please.”

The rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola goes back to the 19th century. Coke was long dominant, but in the 1970s and 80s, Pepsi gained ground and marketed hard to younger consumers:

Michael JACKSON (to tune of “Billie Jean”): You’re the Pepsi generation. Guzzle down and taste the thrill of the day. And feel the Pepsi way.

Coke’s internal research found that most people — even Coke employees — preferred Pepsi. In 1985, they abandoned their classic recipe in favor of “New Coke,” which tasted more like Pepsi. This didn’t work out so well.

OLD COKE COMMERCIAL: I’m Don Keough, president of the Coca-Cola company. When we brought you the new taste of Coke, we knew that millions would prefer it. And millions do. What we didn’t know was how many thousands of you would phone and write asking us to bring back the classic taste of original Coca-Cola.

Coke eventually got rid of New Coke altogether. And despite the flip-flop — or maybe because of it, and the attendant free media? In any case, Coke regained the top spot. Today, even as soda consumption falls, the rivalry rages on, with both companies adding juices, teas, and waters to their portfolios. You can afford to make those big acquisitions when you’ve got a ton of cash on hand, when you’re one of just two companies sharing a huge market. And there’s another advantage to being half of a duopoly: self-perpetuation. This was covered pretty extensively in the media during the so-called “cola wars.”

DOCUMENTARY: The “war” is good for both of them.

DOCUMENTARY: I believe that Coke and Pepsi together in this Cola War they’ve been in for decades now, actually help each other sell an awful lot of product.

There are plenty of reasons why duopolies exist, and they’re not necessarily all sinister. In capitalism, scale is really important: there are all sorts of advantages to being big, which leads big companies to get even bigger, gobbling up smaller companies and essentially dictating the rules of their market. Not everyone likes this trend. In many quarters, there’s a strong appetite for a smaller scale, for mom-and-pop and indie and artisanal. But let’s be honest: that smaller-scale idea is cute, but it’s not winning. What’s winning is dominance. Entire industries dominated by just a couple of behemoths. We’ve already given you a few examples from a variety of industries, but there’s another duopoly, a mighty one, that you probably don’t even think about as an industry. Which duopoly am I talking about? I’ll give you some clues. Let’s go back over what we just discussed about duopolies. They’re big institutions that take advantage of their size to get even bigger:

PBS: I’m talking to consultants on both sides, many of whom have been doing this for a long time, and they’ve never seen this amount of money.

As we said, not everyone likes this trend, but the opposition is not winning:

MAN: I’d like to see more competition. Competition makes a better product.

And this leaves an entire industry run by just two behemoths:

Chelsea CLINTON: Ladies and gentlemen, my mother, my hero, and our next President …

Ivanka TRUMP: I could not be more proud tonight to present to you and to all of America, my father and our next president …

CLINTON: Hillary Clinton.

TRUMP: Donald J. Trump.

Does it surprise you to hear our political system characterized as an industry? It surprised this guy:

Michael PORTER: Absolutely never thought of it in those terms.

And that’s Michael Porter, the world-famous business strategist.

PORTER: And at the core of it is what we call the duopoly.

Comparing our political system to something like Coke and Pepsi — that can’t be right, can it? No, Porter says: it’s worse than that. Coke and Pepsi don’t control their market nearly as fully as the Republicans and Democrats do.

PORTER: So you see even in soft drinks, we have a lot of new competitors. Even though Coke and Pepsi are so big, they don’t truly dominate.

Indeed, Coke and Pepsi only control about 70 percent of the soft-drink market. At least they’ve got the Dr. Pepper-Snapple alliance to worry about. Whereas, Republicans and Democrats? You can take all the Libertarians and independents, the Green Party, Working Families Party, the American Delta Party and the United States Pirate Party — which is a real thing — you add them all together, and they’re not even close to Dr. Pepper. For decades, we’ve been hearing from both sides of the aisle that Washington is “broken.”

Barack OBAMA: Washington is broken

Donald TRUMP: Our country is in serious, serious problem.

John MCCAIN: This system is broken.

Elizabeth WARREN: It’s not working. Washington is not working.

Joe BIDEN: Washington right now is broken.

Rob WITTMAN: Mr. Speaker, Washington is broken!

But what if the Washington-is-broken idea is just a line?

OLD COKE COMMERCIAL: I’d like to teach the world to sing …

Maybe even a slogan that the industry approves?

OLD COKE COMMERCIAL: … in perfect harmony …

Yeah, what if they’re just selling and we’re buying? What if it’s not broken at all?

Katherine GEHL: The core idea here is that Washington isn’t broken. In fact, it turns out that Washington is doing exactly what it’s designed to do.

And — oh yeah, it’s election season in America: don’t forget to vote!

*      *      *

Once upon a time, there was a dairy-products company in Wisconsin called Gehl Foods.

GEHL: My name is Katherine Gehl.

Katherine Gehl was the C.E.O. of the company. It had been founded well over a century earlier by her great-grandfather. For years, Gehl Foods sold the standard dairy items: butter, milk, ice cream. In the 1960s, they got into pudding and cheese sauces. And more recently, Gehl Foods kept keeping up with the times.

GEHL: High-tech food manufacturing.

Meaning: low-acid aseptic processing and packaging, using robots. Which creates shelf-stable foods without the use of preservatives. The process is also useful for products like weight-loss shakes and iced-coffee drinks. Under Katherine Gehl, Gehl Foods had more than 300 employees and was doing nearly $250 million a year in sales. But: there were a lot of challenges. Why? Because the food industry is incredibly competitive. There are new competitors all the time; also, new technologies and new consumer preferences. So, to plot a path forward, Gehl turned to one of the most acclaimed consultants in the world.

PORTER: I’m Michael Porter, I’m a professor at Harvard Business School and I work most of the time on strategy and competitiveness.

Porter’s in his early 70’s. As an undergrad, he studied aerospace and mechanical engineering, then he got an M.B.A. and a Ph.D. in business economics. So he understands both systems and how things are made within those systems. He’s written landmark books called Competitive Strategy and On Competition; he’s cited more than any other scholar in the field. He’s best-known for creating a popular framework for analyzing the competitiveness of different industries.

PORTER: The framework that I introduced many years ago sort of says that there’s these five forces.

These five forces help determine just how competitive a given industry is. The five forces are: the threat of new entrants; the threat of substitute products or services; the bargaining power of suppliers; the bargaining power of buyers; and rivalry among existing competitors. We’re not there yet but if you want to jump ahead and consider how these forces apply to our political system, I’m going to say them again: the threat of new entrants; the threat of substitute products or services; the bargaining power of suppliers; the bargaining power of buyers; and rivalry among existing competitors. You can see why someone like Katherine Gehl, the C.E.O. of a century-old food company, might want to bring in someone like Michael Porter to figure out what to do next.

GEHL: It was a classic business-strategy exercise.

Now, Gehl, in addition to her family business, had another abiding interest: politics.

GEHL: Yes, I’ve certainly moved around in the partisan classification.

During high school, she was a Republican. Over time, she drifted left.

GEHL: My daughter actually, when she was six, came to me and said, “Mommy, I think I’m a Depublican or maybe a Remocrat.” And I think that gives a good sense of where things are at in our household.

In 2007, Gehl joined the national finance committee of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. She became one of his top fundraisers. A couple years after Obama was elected, Gehl joined the board of a government organization called the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which helps U.S. firms do business in emerging markets.

GEHL: And I was paying a lot of attention to what was happening in Washington D.C.

And Gehl did not like what she saw in Washington, D.C. She didn’t like it one bit.

GEHL: It became really clear to me that this fight was not about solving problems for the American people — this fight was about one party beating the other party, and that the parties were more committed to that than to actually solving problems or creating opportunities. Eventually, I understood that it didn’t matter who we elected. It didn’t matter the quality of the candidates. Once it became clear to me that it was a systems problem, I switched from investing my time in searching for the next great candidate and turned an eye to the fundamental root cause structures in the political system that pretty much guarantee that as voters we are perpetually dissatisfied.

So she started raising money for non-partisan organizations working toward political reform.

GEHL: And one of the things that became clear is that there was no thesis for investment in political reform and innovation.

In other words, people didn’t want to give money to non-partisan organizations working toward political reform. They only wanted to give money to political parties and their candidates. In fact, Katherine Gehl found that potential donors had a hard time believing that such a thing as non-partisan political reform even existed. That’s how conditioned they were to seeing the political system through a two-party lens. It was around this time that Katherine Gehl began meeting with Michael Porter. She’d brought him in to Gehl Food to help figure out the company’s strategy going forward, keeping in mind his five famous forces about industry competitiveness: new rivals, existing rivalries, substitute products, supplier power, and customer power.

GEHL: And while we were on that strategy, I would consistently make the case to Michael that, “Wow, how we’re analyzing this industry of low-asset, aseptic food production — which is the business I was in — all of these tools are directly applicable to analyzing the business of politics.”

PORTER: And frankly I knew almost nothing about politics. But the more I heard and the more we talked, the more it became clear that we really needed to take a fresh look here.

GEHL: It was out of that crucible of analyzing a traditional business strategy, and at the same time, devoting so much time to political reform and innovation, that it became clear that politics was an industry, the industry was thriving, and that all of the tools of conventional business analysis were applicable here.

PORTER: And that’s where looking at this as an industry starts to provide some power.

DUBNER: So you came to the conclusion that politics is an industry, much like many of the other industries that you’ve been studying over your career. You really never thought of it in those terms before?

PORTER: Absolutely never thought of it in those terms. We always thought of politics as a public institution. That the rules were somehow codified in the rule of law and in our Constitution. But what we came to see is that politics is really about competition between largely private actors. And these actors are — at the core of it is what we call the duopoly.

GEHL: The duopoly: Republicans and Democrats.

PORTER: And that competition has been sort of structured around a set of practices and rules, and in some cases, policies, that have been created over time, largely by the actors themselves. Actually the founders left a lot of room in terms of how the actual plumbing would work. But it was interesting — multiple of our founders actually expressed a deep fear that parties would take over.

GEHL: In fact, John Adams said at one point, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” And if you take a look at George Washington’s farewell address, which he wrote in 1796, he talks about dangers, which could come in front of the Republic in the future. And he specifically focuses on two. One is foreign influence, and the other is partisanship. The other danger is the formation of strong parties.

Having come to the conclusion that the political system operated more like a traditional industry than a public institution, Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter set down their ideas in a Harvard Business School report. It’s called “Why Competition in the Politics Industry Is Failing America.” When you read the paper, right there under “Key Findings,” is this sentence, in bright red print: “The political system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it is designed to do.” In other words, it was no coincidence that politics had become self-sustaining, self-dealing, and self-centered. They were the blue team and the red team — kind of like Pepsi and Coke.

GEHL: Essentially they divided up an entire industry into two sides.

PORTER: And we ended up seeing that it wasn’t just the parties competing. It’s that they had created influence, and in a sense captured the other actors in the industry.

GEHL: So you have media and political consultants, and lobbyists, and candidates, and policies, all divided onto one of two sides.

PORTER: What you see is, the system has been optimized over time.

GEHL: For the benefit of private gain-seeking organizations, our two political parties and their industry allies: what we together call the political-industrial complex.

PORTER: And this industry has made it very, very hard to play at all if you’re not playing their game.

DUBNER: How does the political industry compare in size and scope — dollars, employees, direct and indirect, penetration and influence, let’s say, to other industries that you’ve studied? Pharmaceutical industry, auto industry, and so on.

PORTER: Well, it’s a great question and we have done enormous amounts of work on it. It turns out to be very difficult to get what I would call a completely definitive and comprehensive answer. We estimate that in the most recent two-year election cycle, the industry’s total revenue was approximately $16 billion. This is not the biggest industry in the economy, but it’s substantial.

It’d be one thing if this large industry were delivering value to its customers — which is supposed to be us, the citizenry. But Gehl and Porter argue the political industry is much better at generating revenue for itself and creating jobs for itself while treating its customers with something close to disdain. Kind of like the cable TV industry on steroids. And the numbers back up their argument. Customer dissatisfaction with the political industry is at historic lows. Fewer than a quarter of Americans currently say they trust the federal government. In terms of popularity, it ranks below every private industry. That includes the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, the airline industry — and, yes, cable TV.

GEHL: Generally, in industries where customers are not happy and yet the players in the industry are doing well, you’ll see a new entrant. You’ll see a new company come into business to serve those customers.

A new company like … Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime or Sling TV or — well, you get the point.

PORTER: So in today’s world, we have the majority of voters say in polls that they would rather have an independent. So in a normal industry, you’d have a whole new competitor coming up that was about independents to serve that unmet need.

GEHL: And yet in politics, we don’t see any new entrants, other than Democrats and Republicans. So why is that? Well, it turns out that our political parties work well together in one particular area, and that is actually colluding together, over time, behind the scenes, to create rules and practices that essentially erect barriers to entry, ways to keep out new competition.

In their report, Gehl and Porter identify the “five key inputs to modern political competition: candidates, campaign talent, voter data, idea suppliers, and lobbyists.” Here’s what they write: “Increasingly, most everything required to run a modern campaign and govern is tied to or heavily influenced by one party or the other, including think tanks, voter data, and talent.”

PORTER: So essentially what’s happened is, the parties have now sort of divided up the key inputs to political competition. And if you’re not a Republican or a Democrat, then you’re in trouble in even finding a campaign manager, much less getting the best up-to-date voter data and the best analytics and so forth.

It’s not enough to monopolize the campaign machinery. Gehl and Porter argue that the political industry has essentially co-opted the media, which spreads their messages for free.

Sean HANNITY: This helps Donald Trump tonight. This is a big, big beginning to the end of what has been a witch hunt.

Chris MATTHEWS: Trump Watch: The man in the White House is behaving now like a character from on that old detective show Columbo.

Perhaps most important, the two parties rig the election system against would-be disrupters. The rules they set allow for partisan primaries, gerrymandered congressional districts, and winner-take-all elections.

GEHL: So each side of the duopoly — Republicans and Democrats — and the players that are playing for those teams, effectively, have over time worked to improve their own side’s fortunes. But collectively, they also have come together to improve the ability of the industry as a whole to protect itself from new competition, from third parties that could threaten either of the two sides of the duopoly.

PORTER: In this industry — because it’s a duopoly that’s protected by these huge barriers to entry — essentially what the parties have done is they’ve been very, very clever. They don’t compete head-to-head for the same voters. They’re not competing for the middle.

GEHL: It’s likely that we have a much more powerful center, a much more powerful group of moderates, than our current duopoly demonstrates.

PORTER: What they’ve understood is, competing for the middle is a sort of destructive competition. It’s kind of a zero-sum competition. So the parties have divided the voters and kind of, sort of, ignored the ones in the middle. Because they don’t have to worry about them, because if the middle voter is unhappy, which most middle voters are today in America, what can they do?

GEHL: The only thing either party has to do to thrive, to win the next election, is to convince the public that they are just this much less hated than the one other choice that the voter has when they go to the ballot. Which means that that gives those two companies, essentially — the Democrats and the Republicans — the incentive to prioritize other customers.

PORTER: And their target customer, on each side, is the special interests and the partisans. And they get a lot of resources, and a lot of campaign contributions, and massive amounts of lobbying money to try to get their support with whatever those partisan or special-interest needs are.

GEHL: There is now an entire industry of politics that moves forward, independent of whether that industry actually solves problems for the American people.

PORTER: So what’s happened is that the moat or the barriers to getting into this industry and providing a different type of competition have been built to enormous heights, which has allowed the parties to structure the nature of the rivalry among themselves in a way that really maximizes their benefit, to them, as institutions, but doesn’t actually serve the public interest.

Well, that’s depressing, isn’t it? Insightful, perhaps, but depressing nonetheless. So do Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter have any bright ideas for tackling the problem?

GEHL: Yes.

PORTER: Yes.

GEHL: Yes.

PORTER: Yes.

GEHL: Oh, yeah.

PORTER: Oh, my God.

*      *      *

The business strategist Michael Porter and the C.E.O.-turned-political reformist Katherine Gehl argue, in a Harvard Business School report, that our political system has been turned into an industry with no real competition. The industry’s primary beneficiaries are itself and its many ancillary participants, including the media.

PORTER: But the vast majority of Americans, who are somewhere in the middle, are feeling very, very disaffected.

The lack of vigorous competition, they argue, has allowed the Democrats and Republicans to carve out diametrically opposed political bases, fairly narrow and extremely partisan.

GEHL: So years ago, we created partisan primaries in order to actually take the selection of a candidate out of this “smoke-filled back room” and give the selection of the party candidate choice to citizens. So that was designed to give more control to citizens. It turns out it has had a very deleterious effect on competition, and has increased the power of the parties.

And the parties, Gehl and Porter argue, use those partisan bases to support the desires of the political industry’s true customers, and its wealthiest: special interests. Industries like healthcare, real estate, and financial services; also, labor unions and lobbyists. In this duopolistic business model, polarization is a feature, not a bug.

PORTER: We have a chart in our report that just selects some, what we call landmark-type legislation over the last 50, 60 years. And if you go back even 20 or 30 years ago, the landmark legislation was consensus.

For instance: the Social Security Act of 1935 had 90 percent Democratic support and 75 percent Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had 60 percent Democratic support and, again, 75 percent Republican.

PORTER: Now, for the last decade or two, that’s been the opposite pattern. The only way landmark legislation gets passed is one party has enough votes to pass that by itself.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, was passed in 2010 with zero Republican votes in Congress. President Trump’s 2018 tax-reform bill? Zero Democratic votes.

DUBNER: So your diagnosis suggests that this industry serves itself incredibly well. It suggests that it serves us, the citizenry, really poorly. And it also suggests that more competition would improve the industry, as it does in just about every industry. But, just having more competition in parties doesn’t seem to be the answer alone. I mean, there are plenty of multi-party political systems around the world that have similar cases of dysfunction and corruption and cronyism like ours. The U.K. comes to mind, Israel comes to mind. So how direct a step — or direct a prescription — would that be?

PORTER: Well I think in our system in particular, where we have only two, and they have been able, through the set of choices we’ve described, to actually set up the rules of competition that reinforce their partisan competition, dividing voters and so forth — more competition, I think, would be incredibly valuable. But it has to be a different kind of competition. It can’t be just another party that’s going to split our electorate into three partisan groups. In our work, we focus on what would it take to make the competition less about dividing the voters, and how can we make the competition more around building up more choices for voters that were more about solutions? By the way, let me be clear: we’re not against parties per se. What we are against is the nature of the competition that our existing dominant parties have created.

DUBNER: Let me ask you this: when you suggest that these rules were carefully constructed, I guess if I were thinking about something other than politics, the first thought that would come to mind then is, well, collusion, right? If I can be one member of a duopoly, I actually hate my rival much less than I hate the idea of anybody else who would interrupt that rivalry, because we are splitting the spoils now. Do you have any evidence of collusion between the parties to create a system that essentially keeps the rest out?

PORTER: Well first of all, that is the right word. It is collusion. And there’s probably a legal definition of collusion, which I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But the effect is exactly the same: the parties have agreed on a set of rules that benefit the duopoly and preserve this nature of competition. You can really put rules into a number of buckets. There’s legislative machinery, as we call it, which is how the Senate and the Congress are run. And then there are the election rules, having to do with what is the primary process like, and what does it take to get on the ballot as an independent. The various campaign finance stuff that surrounds elections.

DUBNER: Has anyone ever considered filing — whether in earnest or not — an antitrust suit against Republicans and Democrats?

PORTER: You know, Stephen, that’s a great question. I have. We’ve actually had a significant effort to see if that’s feasible. Look at what the law is, look at the antitrust statutes. But this is absolutely what antitrust policy is all about. It’s creating open, effective competition that serves the customer and the public interest. And this industry cries out for that.

DUBNER: So in the report, you discuss the many advantages the two parties have. And I think we all recognize that there’s real power in size and there’s leverage, especially when you’re making your own rules for your own industry. And you write that they use those advantages to retain control and to constrict competition and so on. But it strikes me that Donald Trump really got around a lot of those advantages. So you write that the parties “control the inputs to modern campaigning and governing.” But he didn’t rely on that, really. You wrote that “the parties co-opt channels for reaching voters.” But he kind of co-opted or maybe took advantage of his own channels, including free media and his own social media accounts. You write that the parties “erect high and rising barriers to new competition.” But in the case of Trump, his own party tried as hard as they could to erect the highest barrier and couldn’t keep him out.

On those fronts, it would strike me that the parties failed. They failed to constrict a certain competitor. So I don’t know how you personally feel about President Trump, but according to those advantages and his end run around them, it would sound as though he is at least one example of the solution to the problems that you’re describing.

PORTER: I think that is definitely a good question and we must take that on. I would say a couple of things. First of all, the best choice that President Trump made was to run in a party.

GEHL: He had to pick one side of the duopoly, because he knew he couldn’t win as an independent. And he had actually explored running as an independent in previous years, but that in the current system is not seen to be a winning strategy.

PORTER: The other thing I would say about him was that he had resources. In the end, he didn’t have to use that many of them. But in a sense, he could almost have self-financed, and he was appealing to a certain subset of the partisans. Maybe even a somewhat neglected subset of the people on the right. And he had a very strong existing brand identity. So he was able to get a lot of recognition and coverage without having to spend that much on advertising.

GEHL: He represents a personality-driven campaign within a party, but we don’t believe that he represents fundamentally transforming the structure of competition in the industry.

PORTER: But the real thing that I think everybody has to understand is that in modern politics, the parties are more powerful than the president. And Donald Trump has gotten very little done. He’s achieved no compromise. And his signature success got zero Democratic votes. And the game hasn’t changed. So far, Trump is just the third in a row President that may have said that he was going to do things differently and cut across lines and all that kind of stuff. But, frankly, he didn’t. Obama didn’t, and President Bush didn’t. Even though President Obama and President Bush campaigned on bipartisanship and bringing people together, they failed. So I think that those recent case studies are sobering.

We should note that some political scientists argue that Gehl and Porter’s analysis of party power has it backwards. These scholars say our political system is in bad shape because the parties have gotten weaker over time. They argue that stronger parties could help beat back special interests and produce more compromise and moderation. You want some interesting evidence for the parties-are-weak argument? Think back to the 2016 presidential election. You had one national party, the Democrats, that tried as hard as it could — to the point of cheating, essentially — to pre-select its candidate, Hillary Clinton, who then lost. And you had the other national party, the Republicans, try as hard as it could to keep a certain candidate off the ballot — but they failed, and he won.

GEHL: It’s true that the parties are not as strong as they were in the past. But both sides of the political-industrial complex, Democrats and Republicans, are as strong as ever. It’s just that the power may not all reside within the party.

PORTER: And if parties were stronger, that doesn’t mean they’d be moderating forces. That’s what some people say. I really don’t understand that argument. The stronger they are, the less moderating they’re going to be, given the nature of the competition that’s been created.

GEHL: And I think we are really asking for too little when we say, “Let’s tinker around the edges and get stronger parties so that we can have a little bit of a cleaner process.

PORTER: Instead, what we believe is, we need to create structural reforms that would actually better align the election process and the legislative process with the needs of the average citizen.

DUBNER: So you’ve diagnosed the problem in a really interesting and profound way, by overlaying a template that’s more commonly applied to firms, to the political industry. And of course it theoretically leads to a different set of solutions than we’ve typically been hearing. So then you discuss four major solutions. Let’s go through them point by point. Number one, you talk about restructuring the election process itself. Give me some really concrete examples of what that would look like. And I’d also love to hear whether you do see some evidence of these examples happening, because it does seem there has been some election reform in states and regions around the country.

PORTER: Yes, well when we think about reform, we have to think about really two questions. Number one, is a reform powerful? Will it actually change the competition? And a lot of what people are proposing now is actually not going to make much difference. So term limits are a great example.

GEHL: We aren’t fans of term limits, because we think that without changing the root-cause incentives, you’ll actually just have different faces playing the same game.

PORTER: So number one is, we have to reengineer the election processes, the election machinery.

GEHL: And there are three electoral reforms that are important, we call it the the election trifecta.

PORTER: And the first and probably the single most powerful is to move to non-partisan, single-ballot primaries.

GEHL: Currently, if you’re going to vote in the primary, you show up and you get a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot. And then you vote for who’s going to represent that party in the general election.

PORTER: And the one that’s on the farthest left or the one that’s on the farthest right has a tendency to win. Because the people that turn out for primaries are a relatively small fraction of even the party. And those are the people that show up, because they’re really partisans and they really have special interests and they really care about getting somebody on the ballot that’s for them

GEHL: In a single-ballot, nonpartisan primary, all the candidates for any office, no matter what party they’re in, are on the same ballot. And we propose that the top four vote-getters advance out of that primary to the general election.

PORTER: And the reason a single primary where everybody’s in it is so important is that if you want to win, you want to appeal to as many voters as you can. Hopefully more people will vote in the primary. And therefore you’re going get people that are not just trying to appeal to their particular extreme.

The second part of the Gehl-Porter election-reform trifecta: ranked-choice voting.

GEHL: Here’s how ranked-choice voting works. You’ll now have four candidates that made it out of the top four primary. Those four candidates will all be listed on the general election ballot, and you come and vote for them in order of preference. So it’s easy. “This is my first choice.” “This candidate is my second choice.” “This is my third choice.” “This is my fourth choice.” When the votes are tabulated if no candidate has received over 50 percent, then whoever came in last is dropped, and votes for that candidate are then reallocated to those voters’ second choice, and the count is run again until one candidate reaches over 50 percent.

PORTER: And what that does is it gives a a candidate a need to appeal to a broader group of voters.

GEHL: And very importantly, it eliminates one of the hugest barriers to competition in the existing system — and that is the spoiler argument. So what happens currently is that if there’s, let’s say, an attractive third-party candidate, or an independent candidate, both Democrats and Republicans will make the argument that nobody should vote for them because they will simply draw votes away from a Democrat, or draw votes away from a Republican, and therefore spoil the election for one of the duopoly candidates. Once you have ranked-choice voting, everybody can pick whoever they want as their first choice, second choice, third choice. No vote is wasted and no vote spoils the election for another candidate.

PORTER: And then the last part of the trifecta is non-partisan redistricting. Gerrymandering has to go.

GEHL: Essentially, when parties control drawing the districts, they can draw districts that will be more likely to tilt in favor of their party. And they can end up having a disproportionate number of “safe” Republican seats or “safe” Democratic seats by the way that they draw the districts, and we want to make that go away.

In addition to election-rule reforms, Porter and Gehl would like to see changes to the rules around governing.

GEHL: Congress makes its own rules for how it functions, and over time, these rules, customs, and practices have been set in place to give an enormous amount of power to the party that controls the chamber.

PORTER: And right now, it’s the Republicans that are controlling it. But what’s happened — and this is sort of collusion in a way — is, when the other party takes over, they do it the same way, pretty much.

GEHL: So we propose moving away from partisan control of the day-to-day legislating in Congress. And also, of course, in state legislatures as well.

The third leg of their reform agenda is about money in politics. But their analysis led them to a different conclusion than many reformers’.

GEHL: Where we differ with so many people championing these reforms is that we don’t believe that money in politics is the core issue.

PORTER: Ultimately, the problem is really this nature of competition that leads to this partisanship. And that’s not a money issue per se, that’s a structural issue.

GEHL: If you take money out of politics without changing the rules of the game, you’ll simply make it cheaper for those using the existing system to get the self-interested results that they want without changing the incentives to actually deliver solutions for the American people. Having said that, we do believe that there are benefits to increasing the power of smaller donors. The reforms that we have suggested are primarily focused on increasing the power of smaller donors.

For instance: having the government itself match donations from small donors. We should note: most of the ideas Gehl and Porter are presenting here are not all that novel if you follow election reform even a little bit. Even we poked into a lot of them, a couple years ago, in an episode called “Ten Ideas to Make Politics Less Rotten.” I guess it’s one measure of how successful, and dominant, the political duopoly is that plenty of seemingly sensible people have plenty of seemingly sensible reform ideas that, for the most part, gain very little traction.

PORTER: It is definitely challenging. This is a ground game. We’re not going to be able to do this in a year or one election cycle because the resources that the current duopoly have to deploy, to play their game, are substantial.

DUBNER: Despite the rather depressing — or at least sobering — picture that you paint of the political industry, throughout the report, you express quite a bit of optimism. And I want to know why, or how? Because I don’t see the avenue for optimism.

PORTER: Well I do think we have a basic optimism. We have no sense that it will be easy to change the rules of this game, for a whole variety of reasons. But the good news is, we’ve had some progress. We’ve got some nonpartisan primary states now, including California. We’ve got ranked-choice voting in Maine. I think what seems to be building in America is a growing appetite and a growing recognition that this isn’t working for our country. And I think the younger generation — millennials — is particularly outraged and concerned and open to, all kinds of new ideas. But I think it’s going to take time.

GEHL: The most exciting strategy in this area that we champion is a strategy put forth by The Centrist Project — and full disclosure, I’m on the board of The Centrist Project, it’s now actually called Unite America — and this is the Senate Fulcrum Strategy. So here’s the idea. Let’s elect five centrist, problem-solving-oriented U.S. senators who, at that number, five, would likely deny either party an outright majority in the Senate, which would make those five senators the most powerful single coalition in Washington D.C.; able to serve as a bridge between the two parties, or to align with one party or the other depending on the issue, in order to move forward very difficult policy solutions, where previously there has not been the political will. So we don’t need to wait to change the actual rules of the game to deliver politicians to office who can act independently of the existing political-industrial complex.

So that’s an interesting idea, seemingly sensible and maybe even viable. But this whole conversation got me thinking: if our political system really operates like an industry, as Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter argue, maybe it should be treated like one! In most industries, good products and services are rewarded; weakness and incompetence are punished.

Katherine Gehl, coming from the cutthroat food industry, surely knows this first-hand. There’s constant pressure to modernize, to optimize, to fight off old rivals and new. Indeed, not long after she brought Michael Porter in to consult on the future of Gehl Foods, she decided to sell the company, to a private-equity firm in Chicago. Why? “I absolutely loved running that company,” she wrote to us later, “ … but life is short, and I had other things I was also passionate about. … I wanted the company to be in the best position to succeed, and so I focused on professionalizing the company and developing a long-term strategy that took into account a changing competitive landscape.”

And that got me thinking: maybe there’s some private-equity firm out there who’d like to modernize a certain political party or two? Any buyers out there? If you’re too shy to approach the Democrats or the Republicans directly, drop us a line — radio@freakonomics.com — and we’ll get things moving.

*      *      *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Greg Rosalsky, with help from Zack Lapinski. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Alvin Melathe, and Harry Huggins; we had help this week from Nellie Osborne, and special thanks to a Freakonomics Radio listener, Kyle Watson, for bringing the Porter-Gehl paper to our attention. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Katherine Gehl, former President and C.E.O. of Gehl Foods.

Michael Porter, professor at Harvard Business School.

RESOURCES

“Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America,” Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, Harvard Business School (2017).

EXTRA

“Ten Ideas to Make Politics Less Rotten,” Freakonomics Radio (2016).

The post America’s Hidden Duopoly (Ep. 356) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

[hxperion]

"Remember, if you kill the vault hunter before I do, Well- I suggest you don't"

[hxperion]

"oh, this is hilarious. As if i need an app to be able to talk to attractive guys... as if they could be more attractive than me, of course."

[hxperion]

"My New year's resolution? Finally open the vault on Pandora, oh and complete the construction of opportunity "

[hxperion]

"Remember, employees of Hyperion, Hyperion does not offer pay time off. Production doesn't stop just because of the holidays."

[hxperion]

[You did nothing.]

Jack raised a eye brow at her statement, crossing his arms across his chest. "what are you going on about, kiddo?" he uttered. though there was a hint of annoyance in his voice despite the questioning look on his face as he spoke up. "I'm pretty sure, if you were paying attention, i did a lot of things. so, go on, tell me what is this 'nothing' you are going on about."

[hxperion]

@pateretfilia continued from x

Jack listened to Angel's outburst, his finger tapping the desk in front of him that the monitor was over. It was to be expected for her to react the way she did. She had all right to be angry at him. But yet, he didn't feel remorse for what he was making her do. No matter how many tears she shed, he knew it was a means to an end, all of it would be worth it in his mind, and she would be grateful in the end, at least, he hoped to. regardless, apart of him was grateful for having the restrictions on her power, where she couldn't hurt him with the tech. Pressing the button to activate the microphone on his end, he spoke up.

"Language, sweetheart" Jack replied, his voice seemly calm though there was an underline of anger to it. An anger that was building, something that he would have to get rid of. He did not like his daughter swearing. it was something that irked him to his core, something about instilling manners into those who were family or younger to him. an engrained feature to make those below him listen.

"I wouldn't have to hurt you if you listened to Angel," he says, his expression turns one of cold. his voice was full of bitter nostalgia, it reminded him of a similar phrase his grandma used. 'If you listened John and did as I told you, You wouldn't be hurt, would you?' her voice, echoed through his mind as his facial expression ran cold, speaking up calmly with his voice, almost sounding detached but yet, instead of that underlying anger. "and you will do what I will order you to one way or another" he snaps his voice raising at her. "But I am protecting you by keeping you here. the vault hunters that you so wish to betray me for!? they will betray you in the end," Jack explains, the memory of being betrayed by Lilith and Roland five years ago ran through his mind. He wouldn't doubt that Lilith wouldn't try to kill the only person he truly had left of his family. before everything went wrong, as a sick twisted revenge. " they will kill you the moment they realize you are my daughter. " Jack points out, though an underlying fear could be heard, a fear that wouldn't dare show on his face, not at this moment. "If you continue contact with them in the way that you are, I will disconnect your communications from the echonet. is that clear, Angel?"

[hxperion]

tag dump

handsome jack tag dump part : 1/?

[hxperion]

If looks could kill, Jack would be a bloody heap upon the ground, mangled so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.

Luckily, they could not; nevertheless, Ingvar glared daggers. The Eridium-mutated monster couldn't do anything except that to him. That, and speak his mind.

"You lied to me."

Oh Jack was so grateful that looks couldn't kill. He was sure he would be dead by now. But he didn't fear the Eridium-mutated monster in front of him. Luckily he couldn't be harmed by the giant from where he stood. "yeah it happens, kiddo" jack mused. he didn't have any regret in his voice for tricking the giant in front of him, as he spoke. "But look on the bright side, you are much better off here."

[hxperion]

"Where did you even come from?" [From Seto if you feel like it!]

"From the hyperion fast travel network, kiddo" Jack explained, sounding confused by his question but yet answering it regardless, motioning to the machine that was near by. "Have you not used one before?"