#this comic kills fascists

[jimmyboltonart]

There is a brilliant "lost" verse for "This land is your land" by Woody Guthrie that I loved so much that I created a comic from it as a tribute. It's really sad how few people know about it, I felt like it needed some love.

[littlefankingdom]

Things I NEED y'all to stop putting in Jason fics:

"Since Red Hood arrived, he cleaned up Crime Alley better than Batman ever has" First of all, this is not even the case in the comics, so y'all are making this up to make Jason's way "the right way". Second of all, if murdering criminals violently worked better, then that's what the cops would be doing, because, new flash, but the gov used to be way more violent, and crimes were worse, and the gov had to lower its violence, because we know it doesn't work and the gov didn't have enough good excuses to continue. If you think they are not waiting for an excuse to violently kill people, you are wrong. So, stop writing that shit, it's borderline fascist propaganda (violence is the only way to keep power/peace, so free real estate for us to kill anyone we label as criminals) You do not need to find excuses for Jason.

"Crime Alley is Jason's territory and the Bats cannot enter it without his permission" Also, not canon, never was. Are you all forgetting that Bruce's parents died in Crime Alley? That's how it got its name. It's where Batman was born. It's where Bruce goes to mourn his parents during patrols. It's an important location for the Batfam as a whole. It's where Dick thinks his siblings are not authorized to fight when Bruce is "dead"/gone because it is insulting Bruce's memory. It's the meeting points the Bats use multiple times. Batman's first night was probably in Crime Alley. Crime Alley is the mission, to make it a better place for its inhabitants is Bruce's goal. He is shown multiple times to be very protective of its people, especially in front of powerful figures (politicians/rich). As much as Bruce loves Jason, he would not give up Crime Alley. Yes, Jason grew up in Crime Alley, but Crime Alley was Bruce's before Jason was even born.

"Crime Alley hates the bats, except for Red Hood" Again, Batman has been protecting the people of Crime Alley since he started. He was the only one who fought for them against the people that hurt them, the cops not giving a fuck about the poor. Like, stop trying to paint Bruce as a rich guy disconnected from the people, that's not who he is and who he ever was (except for some storylines, but like, fuck these storylines). He has not live their struggles, but he has studied it, he cares about it. And, I can understand that not everyone in Gotham and Crime Alley likes Batman, of course. But to make children dislike Robin or NIGHTWING??? Dick's whole thing is how he is always everyone's favorite. He's an acrobat, he is flying with grace in the sky without powers, he is all smile and gentleness with children, no fucking way children don't like him.

"Dick killed the Joker for Jason." No, he killed the Joker in an act of rage and fear when he had Tim and threatened to kill him like the last one. BUT ALSO, and this is really important, DICK WAS HORRIFIED about what he had done. He hated himself and self-isolated, refused to listen to Bruce and Barbara when they tried to comfort him. This is not something he is proud of. Dick wouldn't be like "Yeah, I killed the Joker, but you know Bruce... I don't regret it." He does regret it. Bruce forgave him way faster than Dick forgave himself for killing the Joker. He would not do it again if he could, that's why it only happened once.

"Jason is mad at Bruce for being too late to save him." Nope. In Under The Red Hood, Jason literally tells Bruce he forgives him for not saving him. Jason was NEVER angry at Bruce for not saving him. Jason is mad because he thinks Bruce doesn't care about him. If Tim hadn't taken the Robin's mantle, Jason probably would have gone home, because that's what hurt him the most, the possibility that he was replaced in Bruce's eyes.

"Jason ran away because Bruce believed he killed someone" It was never explicit if Bruce did believe Jason pushed the rapist. But also, no. When Jason ran away, Bruce just benched him as Robin because he saw that Jason was hurting and needed help, and being a vigilante wasn't helping. Pls, read Death In The Family, Bruce was trying his best to support Jason and help him. Jason being violent at times is a sign, for Bruce, that Jason is hurting. He doesn't villanize Jason's actions. Don't be like DC writers and forget that Bruce knows that violence and aggression come from pain.

"The memorial is Bruce's making and Alfred hates it" WRONG, it's the contrary. Alfred made the memorial, Bruce was against it. Please, stop putting all the blame on Bruce and making Alfred perfect. Bruce hates the memorials, he hates his sons being remembered as soldiers. He put up with the memorials because it's Alfred. (I am so tired from y'all blaming Bruce for this one, omg) Also, while we are it, Alfred doesn't put up with Jason's bs. Jason can criticize Bruce, but there's a limit for Alfred.

[evilhorse]

Get in. We’re killing the fascists.

(X-Men #32)

[victusinveritas]

[samasmith23]

No… NNNOOOOOO!!!!!! NOT AGAIN!!! This can’t be happening again! He is NOT my president! He’s NOT!

Sincerely, to everyone who voted for the Orange Bastard, I’ll let Joseph Gordon Levitt from The Dark Knight Rises speak for me:

“YOU IDIOTS! YOU SONS OF B*TCHES! YOU’RE KILLING US!”

[matoitech]

the issue with the 'harris cares about you personally and your life would be better w her as president' argument is that it just doesnt work for me bcuz ive seen absolutely zero evidence that harris/the democratic campaign cares abt any issues related to me personally or issues i care about. shes not a fucking candidate for me bcuz the dems rn treat being asked policy like its a silly stupid question u only care abt if ur a republican, Obvoiusly theyre better bcuz theyre Serious politicians unlike trump. obviously if she was the most supportive to me personally campaigner ever i would still not vote for her b4 the democratics in power who have the ability to do it Right Now without even needing to be voted in for it put a fucking arms embargo on israel and actually end the genocide. participating in a massive public genocide is not a Tiny Issue

[unnamed-atlas]

Finally finished sweet tooth s3. Having incredibly mixed feelings

[tpwrtrmnky]

hindsight

[ID: A two-panel comic with crudely drawn stick figures.

Panel 1: The lime green person is talking to the leaf green person and the moss green person.

Lime: "I... have a confession to make."

Leaf: "Go ahead."

Lime: "I want to rewatch the Wizard Child movies."

Leaf: "Didn't the wizard author get incredibly chromophobic?"

Lime: "Yeah I just... It's nostalgia you know? They meant a lot to me when I was a kid."

Panel 2: The three are on the couch.

Lime: "All right, let's go."

Leaf: "It's so weird how the wizard author just turned chromophobic though. Like I remember this series being pretty good for its time. It'll be weird seeing their work contrasting with their views now."

Moss: "I'm just glad we got the movies for free through normal and legal means. Heh."

End ID.]

[ID 2: Scenes from three Wizard Child movies.

Wizard Child and the Simplistic Morality: A slightly round child with a propeller hat is talking to a child with no hat.

Round child: "I am so fucking fat and greedy I am textually shown to be fat because I am greedy and also evil."

Hatless child: "You are to infer my moral purity from juxtaposition with this fat child. Woe is me for our shared parent has deprived me of a propeller hat."

Wizard Child and the Goodness of Wealth: An adult wizard is talking to the child, who now has a wizard hat.

Wizard Adult: "Wizard child you are secretly extremely rich."

Wizard Child: "I will form biases regarding the bankers all being triangular for some reason!"

Wizard Adult: "Your wealth is deserved because your true parent was Good and therefore you are also Good."

Wizard Child: "Now we should acquire consumer goods. Buy consumer goods!"

Wizard Child and the Dark Family History: A blue-grey horse person is talking to the wizard child.

Blue-grey: "No, wizard child. You don't understand. I am one of the good ones, because unlike the bad ones I don't try to spread my curse that makes you a blue-grey horselike creature to others!"

Wizard child: "Wow uncle blue-grey you are one of the good ones! I forgive you for being a horse because I am so good I would even forgive horses. I sure hope you don't conspicuously get killed off later in this movie!"

End ID 2.]

[ID 3: Oh hell no there are even more of these.

Wizard Youth and the Tokenistic Relationship Dynamics: A square headed wizard youth is talking to the former wizard child, now a wizard youth.

Square Wizard Youth: "Wizard child, as the only person with a square head in this entire series it is my duty to inform you that you are the savior of all people with square heads, too. Let us build a one-sided relationship that only furthers your character development, after which I will immediately lose all plot relevance."

Wizard Youth: "I will do this because I am a maturing wizard youth and need disposable relationships that don't threaten the endgame!"

Wizard Youth and the Escalation of Stakes: The Dark Wizard, a sort of grey-green person with a cloak, is pointing at Wizard Youth.

Dark Wizard: "Wizard Youth, I have returned!"

Wizard Youth: "Dark Wizard! Why are you green now?"

Dark Wizard: "Evil magic made me green! I am green with envy towards all who are good!"

Wizard Youth: "I will not engage with how you are clearly based on fascist ideologies and yet this narrative plays into fascist aesthetic sensibilities!"

Wizard Youth and the Post-Hoc Revelations: The Wizard Youth is leaning over their Wizard Mentor, who is laying in a pool of blood.

Wizard Youth: "Wizard Mentor no! You can't die!"

Wizard Mentor: "It is fine, wizard youth. My death will further your character development into a wizard adult. Also, I was secretly a very very dark purple this entire time. I never brought it up so I could retain narrative approval.

End ID 3.]

[ID 4: Wizard Adult and the Overdue Conclusion. Three panels. I am sorry.

Panel 1: The dark wizard is dueling the Wizard Adult with magic beams.

Dark Wizard: "Evil green beam!"

Wizard Adult: "Good red beam! Despite the enormous variety of magic in this series this is what our final battle looks like!"

Panel 2: Wizard Adult stands victorious over the dark wizard, who is dying on the ground.

Wizard Adult: "In the end, dark wizard, you were defeated because I am morally superior to you."

Dark Wizard: "I was a product of systemic failures. There will be someone like me again someday!"

Panel 3: Zoom in on wizard adult, who says:

"Not if I can help it. Because I am going to be a wizard cop now. The moral of this story is that all systemic issues can be solved by finding a bad guy to beat."

End ID 4.]

[ID 5: Four panels.

Panel 1: Return to the green trio on their couch, watching the TV say "The End." All are are silent.

Panel 2: They are sitting on the couch. Moss is looking at their phone.

Lime: "Yeah so there were maybe a few signs we missed because we were children."

Leaf: "Yeah. A few. Some."

Panel 3: Continue conversation.

Lime: "So what did you think, Moss?"

Panel 4: Zoom in on Moss, who says: "I've been zoned out on my phone since the second movie. They lost me at the magic stuff. Wizards aren't real."

End ID 5.]

Start - Previous - Next

[artbyblastweave]

A few years ago, there was a thread on r/asksciencefiction where someone was fishing for a superhero story with an inverted Omni-Man dynamic, or a setting where Homelander's initial presentation is played straight- a setting where the Superman figure actually is the paragon of morality he's initially presented as, but no other superhero is- a situation where you've got one really competent true-blue hero standing head-and-shoulders in power above what's otherwise a complete nest of vipers.

Someone in the thread floated My Hero Academia; while I haven't read it, my understanding is that that's not really an accurate read of what's going on with Stain's neurosis about All-Might being the only "real hero," that the point of that arc is that Stain's got an insane and unreasonable standard and that taking an endorsement deal, while bad, isn't actually grounds for execution. My own contribution to the thread was Gail Simone's Welcome to Tranquility, where a major part of the backstory involved the faux Justice-League's Superman analogue having a little accident because he's the only one who thought they were morally obligated to go public with the secret life-extending macguffin that the rest of the team is using to enforce comic-book time on themselves and their loved ones; while only a couple members of the team are directly in on it, the rest are conveniently incurious. And Jupiter's Legacy gets tantalizingly close to this- The Utopian, a well-meaning stick-in-the-mud, ultimately gets blindsided and couped by his scheming brother who creates a superhero junta staffed by a Kingdom-Come-style glut of third-gen superheroes, who are framed as fundamentally self-interested because only came onto the scene after most of the situations you legitimately need a superhero to handle have been neutralized. (The rub, of course, is that the comic is also highly critical of the Utopian's intellectually incurious self-righteously 'apolitical' approach to superheroism- if for no other reason than that it left him in a position to get blindsided by a coup!) While Jupiter's Legacy gets the closest, all three of these are only loosely orbiting around the spirit of the original idea, and there's something really interesting there- particularly if the Superman figure isn't hopelessly naive in the same way as Utopian. Because first of all, if you're Metaman or Amazingman or whatever brand-name alias the writer goes with, and you really earnestly mean it, and you put together a team of all the other most powerful heroes on earth in order to pool your resources, and then with dawning horror you gradually begin to realize that everyone in the room besides yourself is a fascist or a con artist or abuser or any other variant of a kid with a magnifying glass eyeing that anthill called Earth- What the hell is your next move?

Do you just call the whole thing off? Can you trust that they'll actually go home if you call the whole thing off? I mean you've put the idea in their heads, are you sure that they aren't going to, like, start the Crime Syndicate in your absence? Do you stick around to try and enact containment, see if getting all of these people on a team makes them easier to keep on a leash? But that's functionally going to make you their enabler pretty quickly, right? Overlooking "should you kill them-" can you kill them? You're stronger than any individual one of them- are you stronger than all of them? The first time one of them really crosses a line in a way you can't ignore- will that be a one-on-one fight? Are they the kind of people capable of putting two-and-two together and pre-emptively ganging up on you if you push back too hard? Do you just start trying to get them killed, or keep them at each other's throats so they can't coordinate anything really nasty? Can you squeeze any positive moral utility out of them, or is that just a way to justify not doing the hard work of taking them down? There've been works where the conceit is to question the default assumption that Superman in specific would be a good person, and there've been works where the conceit is to question the default assumption that superheroes in general would be good people. Something to be done, I think, with questioning the default assumption that everyone Superman becomes professionally close to would be good, and to explore how he'd handle it if they weren't.

[but-a-humble-goon]

I think the Daleks are one of the best representations of fascist ideology and the failing thereof. Mainly in that they're really pathetic more than anything. They're sad little creatures locked safely away from the world inside their shells and desensitised to everything but hate. They could never build a real culture of their own yet they are utterly and dogmatically convinced of their own superiority. They are an entire civilisation built solely to destroy and categorically incapable of anything else (literally. Their design is comically inefficient). The single smartest Dalek who ever lived ran the numbers and came to the inescapable conclusion that their species is doomed to failure and the only way for them to survive is to rethink their ways... so they killed him.

[raymurata]

Bellara's main choice and DAV's implicit (or accidental) stance on book burning

Okay, so. Prefacing this with -- I enjoyed the game. I'd even play it again. That being said, one of its biggest flaws is trying to deliver something so morally sanitized it shies away from giving its characters (aside from Solas) and plotlines (aside from Solas's) real nuance. And in the same breath, they end up sending messages that I doubt they intended to send.

Bellara's main decision is particularly annoying to me.

First, I find her arc to be lacking -- She starts the game grieving her brother and blaming herself for his death despite not being responsible for it, then she finds Cyrian again only to grieve him again, so she's back to the start, only this time she has had the guilt removed from her because Cyrian tells her what she needs to hear, and the blame is placed on a big bad evil. Fair, fine.

But I don't like the cinematography of that scene at all. There was plenty of time for Rook and Bellara to react between Anaris grabbing Cyrian's foot and throwing him at the wall. People in Thedas have survived way worse injuries, too, and Bellara literally has healing at her disposal. Why doesn't she even try? His death is clearly plot-driven but it doesn't take her arc forward all that much? But again, that's fine. Not too bad.

But then the choice I have to make for her is whether or not to keep the archive, why? At no point in the game (please correct me if I'm wrong and missed canon information that contradicts me. That would make me way less angry!!!) do they tell us that it was Bellara using the Archive that summoned Anaris, or that it could summon him at will. As far as my interpretation goes, the Archive is, as its name says, the equivalent to a library curated by a comically self-aggrandizing jerk. At no point do we hear it share any actually dangerous lore either, do we? No blueprints for nuclear weapons...

So why does the game choose this wording:

Now, unless the Archive has powers we are unaware of, what this is saying is basically "burn the ancient elven library (it will be safe)" or "don't burn the ancient elven library (it will be dangerous)" and, for a game that is so irritatingly set on giving you only 2024-morality-board-approved goodTM and unproblematic companions and allies... Why does it tell me that burning books is the safe option, ESPECIALLY given that these books are priceless historical artefacts from a marginalized and subjugated ethinic group who have long lost their history to genocide? Like, wut?? Even if the Archive were in fact a dangerous weapon, the game shows us through the Veil Jumpers' vault that they have trained capable scholars and developed (or are developing, with Bellara spearheading it) safe tools to study and keep these artefacts. How condescending is it to tell them that they won't be able to safekeep this one? How pointless? (and her cutest armor AND best skill are locked behind that choice? outrageous lmao.)

And what pisses me off is that they had everything set up already, they just had to deliver it differently. If they told us explicitly that the archive is Anaris' phylactery and that keeping it would mean allowing Anaris to eventually come back? THEN we'd have a real danger. NOW there is a non-fascist risk to maintaining knowledge.

Or what if the only reason Cyrian is back is because Anaris brought him back? What if Cyrian's life is therefore tied to Anaris', and you had to choose between letting Anaris live (perhaps that results in him getting imprisoned in the Archive, tampering with the information in it and destroying its historical value forever, plus Anaris might one day figure out a way out) or killing Anaris for good even knowing that Cyrian will also die again if you do (but then the Dalish get to keep the archive and all the knowledge in it, and Cyrian's sacrifice is not in vain)? Or maybe... The Archive is a spirit, isn't it? Drive home the fact that being tied to that device was a cruel thing Anaris did to it, and keeping it there is just as cruel, even if it would mean giving the elves access to information. Make the wording "free the archive" really mean something here, and the player really think that the knowledge will be lost. Then maybe have it that, if she frees it, it gives her information freely and with its own interpretation of that knowledge, and THEN it leaves (so it's not forever but there is a reward for being compassionate). And if she keeps the spirit in the device, then it is always rude and it gives her information curated by Anaris' point of view, but it is available to all upcoming generations. It'd be real nice and nuanced to pit her compassion against her drive for knowledge. If this were DAO or DA2, you wouldn't make the choice FOR HER. You'd make the choice yourself because you are the leader, and if you chose to keep the spirit, you'd garner lots of negative points with Bellara (and with Emmrich) because, let's be honest, she is written as inherently more compassionate than driven, and she'd resent you making an oppressing choice even if it is well-meaning and good for her people (just like Alistair resents you killing Isolde even if he understands it was a difficult choice).

I just... So many ways it could have been an actually weighted choice, or that it could have affected your relationship with Bellara (and other companions) as Bioware RPGs were wont to do. They had a good set up, but the landing was absolutely bonkers.

[mckitterick]

Your icon looks like a box of hot pockets, have a good day

LOL - I suspect Tank Girl would approve

that's her, from my favorite frame in the comics:

"I can't let things be this way. We can be wonderful. We can be magnificent. We can turn this shit around."

it's angry punk but optimistic and hopeful, set in a dystopian wasteland that's also beautiful. she's pissed off at the people who killed the world, but also believes we can be better and change things for the better

and it's not idle hope: she's wearing a flak vest full of military gear and pulling on her boots to go kick some fascist capitalist ass

[littlefankingdom]

~ Green Arrow: Seeing Red

Really, another moment from Jason showing that his education stopped when he was 15.

The idea that Bruce and Oliver respecting life and refusing to kill is a result of their "pampered upbringing" is ridiculous. It's, firstly, pretty classicist, because portraying the elite has innocent and morally superior while the lower classes are violent and prone to murder, is classicism, even if the person saying that is from the second one.

Secondly, it's plain wrong. The elite, with it's "pampered upbringing", they don't give a fuck about hurting others and taking lives for their own gain. For THEIR greater good, they will do awful things. Open a history book, Jason, because killing less fortunate people by labelling them rapists or murderers is an extremely commun tactic used by the elite. The black folks in the USA, the Palestinians since WWII, the Parisians workers in June 1848... It was just used by the French gov to send the GIGN after a romani family, and if there is one thing European gov work hard for, it's painting Romani as violent and dangerous to justify using excessive violence. YOUR BROTHER IS ROMANI, JASON! Bruce and Oliver refusing to kill, seeing values in the most disgusting people, is them going AGAINST their upbringing. And if they did kill, as they both are very privileged white man in the US, it would be a huge abuse of power. They would be just like the others, members of the elite that kills for their own gain.

I need all of you to understand that Jason isn't speaking about fighting oppression, because that's what a lot of the fandom think he does, but he doesn't. He isn't speaking about the French killing Louis XVI, or black slaves murdering their white owner. He isn't talking about killing someone like Vladimir Putin or Bernard Arnault (one of the richest men on Earth, a French fascist that is destroying multiple countries with the power of his money). He isn't speaking about killing someone that has so much power and influence, they are untouchable, and the only solution we have rn seems to be their death. I would be fine with that, I would bring the champagne afterward. No. Jason is speaking about killing criminals that can be arrested and brought to justice. He is talking about everyday people that are also bad people. And that, that's not acceptable. Because just like I explained in the paragraph before, it's an abuse of power that has been used since forever. He acts like a cop.

"But, he is just talking about doing bad things to survive!" No, he is using that, a commun experience he and Mia went through, to open the discussion on killing people. And, sure, let's talk about doing bad thing to do good. Neither Bruce or Oliver are against that. They are both vigilante, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. I have not read much Green Arrow comics, but I know there is this important run with Hal Jordan where Oliver taught him how to fight for a better society, you have to be nasty sometimes. He is supposed to be an anarchist, and anarchists know you have to do bad thing for the greater good. They did terrorist attacks targetting presidents, for fuck's sake! (In France, one of our president was assassinated by an anarchist) And Bruce, well, he saw how corrupt his city was, especially the politicians and the cops, and he chose violence, which isn't legally good, and even immoral some would say. He took politicians out of their bed and tangled them from the highest building they own by their socks. And he had a plan to unite the crime family under his false identity Matches Malone, so to take over Gotham's underwold, which would have made THE crimelord of Gotham, just to protect the city and control crime.

In the end, what is happening here is that Jason is annoyed that his dad isn't okay with him killing people, so he decides to try to recruit another teenager by beating her up. Like, if every teenager kill with him, it makes it okay. And really, Jason, grow the fuck up. It's normal for a parent to not want their kid to be a murderer. No good parent would want their kid to kill people.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Why The Ending Sucks

Ok I figured it out. Hear me out:

The entire comic has a running theme best summed up as "who is controlling the narrative, and why are we listening to them?"

Hussie plays a caricaturized version of himself that he describes as "buffoonish" and "oafish". Caricature!Hussie is well-meaning, but a dumb idiot who's incredibly biased in favor of certain characters and in disfavor of others (the most obvious example being his "love" of Vriska, but there's also the way he constantly disparages Eridan). As a result, you have to be VERY SKEPTICAL and VERY CAREFUL when approaching Homestuck's narration, because even when the "best" narrator is at the helm, he's not 100% trustworthy and incapable of giving the readers an unbiased view of the story.

I say "best" because, importantly, Hussie isn't the story's only narrator. He and Doc Scratch explicitly fight over control of the story - Doc Scratch, the child abusing predator who engineered Alternia's fascist murder society, whose shaping of its history is explicitly described by character!Hussie as "fanfic". He is then killed by Lord English, who is described by Hussie as embodying the "toxically masculine" and by extension, the patriarchy, and Caliborn explicitly takes control of the story. John even grapples with Caliborn's version of events, calling out how sexist and misogynistic and shitty it is.

So if we're keeping score: control over the narrative is LITERALLY wrested away from Hussie (who was already struggling to be unbiased) by fascists, abusers, and the patriarchy. It's stressed multiple times that Caliborn/LE are responsible for literally everything that ever happens; the reason the Game Over timeline ends the way that it does is because the alpha timeline is, in essence, the narrative LE is telling: the forces of fascism get to claim the new universe, thereby propogating itself, while friendship dies and all hope is lost.

Who's in control of the narrative, and why are we listening to them?

There are other minor examples of this, too: Aranea is an exposition fairy, and she's biased as fuck and wrong ALL THE TIME about her own teammates. Karkat's explanations and rationalizations are constantly tinged with his own self-loathing and self-blame. Sollux and Meulin are both prophets as per their Mage class, but are both so bogged down by their own emotional issues that the futures they pick out are actively harmful. So on and so on. At nearly every turn, you have to interrogate who's telling the story, what their motivations are, and what they're overlooking or deliberately obfuscating.

So given that this theme is so prevalent, and so thoroughly weighted toward "well, actually, maybe you shouldn't take narration at face value and should interrogate it and come to your own conclusions," it would be Really Weird for the story to go "actually, you can totally trust the narrative now because everyone gets a happy ending".

So, I know that it makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but here's my genuine take on Homestuck's ending:

The ending is shitty on purpose because the viewer is intended to take it as a dare to refute the narration and make something better.

Why are we letting character!Hussie tell the story? He's a biased idiot. Why are we letting the various avatars of LE and Caliborn tell the story? They're fascist, misogynistic, predatory assholes.

And - because Homestuck is a story about life - why are we letting idiots, assholes, abusers, and creeps dictate the story of real life? The world is full of forces that would try to take control of the story and make everyone else play along, represented in microcosm within the text of Homestuck. We cannot let those forces win.

So please go out and do something kind and hopeful and loving in the world today. Thanks for reading.

[maxwellatoms]

The #1 inspiration for General Skarr was Starscream. I mean... what kind of commander keeps a lieutenant who keeps trying to kill them under permanent employ? Keep your enemies close, I guess...

I get a lot of questions about Herr Star from Preacher. I still haven't read the comics, and the show came out long after I was done on B&M. There IS some DNA from Bullwinkle's Fearless Leader.

Other than that, he was just designed to be a sort of generic fascist who was always so embroiled in his own machinations that he couldn't possibly succeed.

My casting director Kris Zimmerman Salter was the one who came to me with Armin Shimerman. And since I loved him as Quark on Deep Space Nine and could see an analog between Quark and Skarr, he seemed like a natural fit.

Armin is an actor's actor, and even though I think he sometimes felt out of his element in the booth, it was so fun to watch him step in and just absolutely chew scenery. The Evil Con Carne ensemble records were generally a blast.

Skarr did get a blip of a redemption arc in Underfist, but if it had continued he would have continued to ride the line as the most anti of the team's antiheroes.

[maxwell-grant]

Didn't realize you've read Riddler: Year One, any thoughts on it ? Also, in a more general way, what are your thoughts on the Riddler ?

Someone sent me an ask the past week or so saying that The Penguin is everything that the Joker movies should have been, and I don't think I agree on that in regards to The Penguin specifically. But if we're talking about a "Batman-less Batman villain origin story about a lonely suicidal man struggling with poverty and mental illness exacerbated by child abuse, who is pushed down through the cracks of society deep into the pits of his own mind until he can only save himself by becoming a horrible force of social upheaval and political terrorism, finally discovering joy and a reason to live at the expense of everyone around him, and now he will be Batman's problem someday", well this just completely embarasses Joker (2019) on every level. Impressively drawn, impressively written, impressive on it's own and as a prequel to the movie, WAY better than a movie actor's comic book tie-in has any right to be, and one of the greatest Batman comics ever made. Issue #5 in particular is one of the best and most harrowing comic issues and format breaks I've ever seen in the medium, and even if it's entirely self-contained, it very much belongs in the exact same conversation and should be considered inseparable from The Batman and The Penguin.

We spens 4 issues boiling the frog over every painful corner of Edward's childhood and humanity and misery, taking us through painfully intimate views and perspectives inside his headspace, seeing how and why he justifies his worldview and how easy it even is to do so, feeling truly sorry for this hopeless wretch even though we know he's losing it bad bad baddy bad bad and is going to step off the deep end forever. And then Issue 5 happens and suddenly you are one of the people in Gotham City tasked with sifting through this serial killer's personal diary and you can hear that creep shouting with that distorted voice, you can feel the final death rattle of Edward Nashton's soul ending where The Riddler begins to scream in your head 'I NEVER KNEW I HAD A REASON TO BREATHE", and by Issue 6 you fully understand why and how nobody was prepared for him, and why what he is and does and embodies is going to drag the city into an abyss it may never recover from, and why this was never going to stop even after his arrest, even after his defeat and humiliation in the movie. Everything here adds layers of sympathy and tragedy and heartbreak to the character, while simultaneously making everything he is and does in the movie so much more harrowing and disturbing, holy shit he really staked EVERYTHING, everyone's lives included, on being noticed by his savior.

I was already very much on board with Dano Riddler in the movie, whose execution absolutely sold what should have been, on paper, a storm of unadvisable fandom pitches and uninspired trends and straight-up bad ideas ("What if The Ridder was the Zodiac Killer", "What if The Riddler was a 4chan mass-shooter type", "What if The Riddler was a political terrorist with legitimate grievances but whose final goal was to kill off scores of people for little reason", "What if The Riddler was a creepy fascist responsible for a QAnon cult that ends the movie by metaphorically storming the capitol", "What if The Riddler was really, really, really obsessed with Batman", "What if The Riddler was another Dark Opposite Batman", fucking "What if The Riddler was Hush" even) worked into just this miracle magic bullet of a new take on the guy, fully capturing a lot of the essential bullet points of what makes The Riddler tick as a character while spinning them into new and significant ways befitting this increased role he has in the movie. Rereading the story now, so much of the movie even feels like it's specifically referencing the first Riddler story - The Mayor of Gotham City as a target, Riddler misdirecting Batman with a big target while his real plan involved a flood, Edward putting on a costume and naming himself The Riddler specifically because he wants to get Batman's attention, the glass maze, the written letters to police headquarters, The Eagle's Nest that is a nightclub and also the home of a millionaire with a bird last name (Falcone), a driverless vehicle careening wildly into a public place, even how the very first thing we learn about this fucker is that he cheats to win.

The guy in the movie is a version that fully works on it's own, but it clicks SO much more strongly and cohesively when you read this comic and what it establishes for him. It's the scene in the movie where the section of his diary reads "I must become something more" while Bruce finds the panicked desperate bat rattling against a cage, the thematic parallel between them that is the scariest thing he finds in the entire movie, but developed across six issues. This even begins with Eddie living through his version of the Wayne murders, with the first time he's felt anything other than crushing despair and misery, in part because he's seen the first hint of the puzzle he needs to solve, and where he needs to go. The moment the world stopped making sense for Bruce is the moment that the world started to make sense for Edward.

We understand, around the same time he understands, the childish nightmare that must become the pattern of his entire life from that moment onwards, how Edward Nashton would have killed himself, and no one would have cared, had he not become The Riddler, and how the only alternative to "Hey Edward why don't you crawl into the black hole inside yourself" is to, in fact, find this black hole inside of you and shaped like you and push other people into it instead. Become the creature of the night who can punch crime forever, become the avenging force too great for the Falcones to handle, become the kingpin whose name alone will live forever, become someone that the entire city will never again ignore or forget.

We see how it's less that he's been planning for this for so long, and more that his entire life has been broken and hammered into a Riddler shaped hole, and then when Batman dropped into it, he could start to understand what it is and put a name in it, in the fact that he's been training his entire life for this without knowing. Getting comfortable with flushing rats and making bombs at the orphanage, getting intimately and painfully familiar with self-loathing and alienation and misanthropic contempt for this city and it's people who sit by and allow all of this to happen, surviving his suicide attempts without being able to explain why, searching for answers as to why it hurts so much to live broken and unfulfilled and miserable and why he even bothers to keep on doing so, having nothing to love in his life but numbers and puzzles, spending his entire life invisible while trying to get Thomas Wayne and then his boss to notice and praise him, and then being the wrong man at the right place to begin his campaign, a little nobody accountant who noticed an inconsistency in the numbers, put the pieces together, and then decided he was gonna do something about it because he knew it could be done, because there was someone out there who showed it could be done, and if Eddie joined in, maybe this someone would notice him, let him be his friend.

Batman and R, forever.

(People don't talk nearly enough about how this Riddler's entire life ambition was to recreate Tim Drake's origin story, and they should, it's pretty funny)

And to be honest, I think this is the first Riddler origin story I've ever really liked. Some of the others, particularly the first, have their charms, and this one certainly wouldn't fit most takes on the character, even most of the ones I like, but I've never really been fully sold on the idea of a Riddler origin story until this one, he's always been a very backstory-proof guy to me. This doesn't have any particularly obvious shorthand moment as to why Edward became The Riddler, so much as an entire life twisted and torn and abandoned and rotten in ways big and small until this is what came out of him. No immediately abusive fathers or test cheating scandals or major company backstabbings as defining tragedies, just life for a poor orphan in Gotham City who can't figure out the answer to what's missing from his life until he does.

Still a horrible nerd hopelessly trapped in a life of trying to intellectually one-up everyone as the only thing he lives for and, like every horrible nerd, knowing that one day he will be recognized for what he is and then they'll all see how wrong and stupid and savage these stupid savage idiots all were to look down on him. Still a man driven to impose order on the world the way he believes it has to be. Still a cheater who loves puzzles and answers and the thrill of intellectual stimulation and victory more than anything else (and in this case, having had absolutely nothing else to even love about his life), and still very much this guy at the end:

I do have a lot of thoughts on The Riddler, and I think part of why I might not talk about him as much is because he's not a character I tend to have really exclusive or particular preferences for. There are a LOT of Riddlers out there, maybe more so than there are Jokers out there, and there's not really with him the definitive must-be-like-this that the other Batman rogues have. Everybody approaches the puzzle differently if they do so at all, and I like a lot of these Riddlers! They connect with each other surprisingly well even, in spite of being incompatible as the same person.

He's gone through some real ups and downs over the decades: given stardom in the Adam West show that made him a definitive Batman villain and spread his modus operandi across all the others, sacrificed in the altar of camp insecurity along with fellow snooty oddball Penguin, defanged and turned into a parody of himself, refitted for joke status, re-refitted for surprise baddie status, given a whole new lease on life and his own gimmicks with the arrival of computer puzzles and the internet and given his fangs back and then amplified, pushed back to the big leagues more horrible and topical than ever before and exponentially increasing as such until his next big movie showing, torn in multitudes across multiverses of takes and ideas, almost too many to even consolidate them all.

I like the first Riddler of Bill Finger's original story in Tec #140, this curious satisfaction-seeking master cheater growing exponentially more dangerous and more varied and more assured the more he fades into his endless barrage of traps and toys and puzzles,. I love Frank Gorshin's Riddler, and everybody loves Frank Gorshin's Riddler, he is the reason The Riddler became an iconic Batman villain overnight. I like John Glover in TAS, and I like Robert Englund's cold ghostly showman in The Batman (2002) much more. I love the Arkham games version of Riddler, probably because I never actually played the games and had to collect his dumb trophies. I love Paul Dini's Detective Riddler, and I especially love Brent Spiner's take on the guy for Justice League Action. I LOVE the more classic take on Riddler as played by John Leguizamo in The Batman Audio Adventures, and I LOVE Paul Dano's Riddler in The Batman, and they couldn't be more incompatible with each other.

I love the Riddlers who continuously undermine themselves in the name of criminal artistry and who look down on the profit-seeking rubes who think any of this is about money, and I love the Riddlers who are ultimately con-men doing money heists because they want to be the only crooks in town smart enough to have something to show for all their work at the end of the day. I like Riddlers who are widely despised and regarded with annoyance and disdain by the city and their fellow rogues, and I like the Riddlers who have good professional relationships with the other rogues, and the Riddlers who managed to become darkly inspiring figures in their own right. I love the Riddlers who've subsumed themselves into the mysteries and horror they embody, and I love the pathological pattern-finders trying to find a way out of this weird pathetic life, even if their efforts will be doomed to failure - The Riddler couldn't out-think his way out of Batman's toybox no matter how much he tried, and he has no desire to - where would it leave him? Down there with all the troglodytes? Please.

I can get on board with very human, conversational Eddies, the Eddies that did stints as sideshow carnies, that can tell on some level that they should be doing better things than this, who'll do bored stick-em-ups to fund the attention-seeking tantrums they're actually passionate about, and I can get on board with Eddies who are truly uniquely vile and scary even compared to the other Rogues in the room, who uphold this terrifyingly cold perversion of fairness, imposing a stark and utilitarian worldview on the city by which the penalty for falling short of his games is murder, that sheer calculated murderous menace that Frank Gorshin brought when he ended his first episode leering on a helpless Robin strapped to an operating table. And if I ever thought I couldn't get on board with the Riddler as a major serious scary existential threat to life on Gotham, well, The Batman sure proved me wrong. I may not love him as passionately as I do The Penguin or Hugo Strange, but I love too many versions of this guy to ever be able to narrow them all down, and there are even more still to be discovered.

Endlessly adaptable, able to change and mutate with the times on the same kinds of grand orchestral shifts and minute beats that Batman does, a greater variety of personalities than the Joker if not quite the same versatility (and where would we be without these two always pissing each other off or making out or both, living in each other's respective negative spaces), always an enduring and entertaining opponent regardless of whether he's the most pathetic man alive or a malevolent genius beyond understanding who routinely puppeteers an entire city and it's greatest hero into putting on their greatest performances for him. Always an adapting puzzle box, always leading into the next version of himself, always beguiling, and always becoming the most frustrating thing that Batman has to deal with, whether he's systematically destroying Batman's rationale and will and ability to be Batman or just being naturally the worst guy to deal with at the most unfortunate possible moment, in itself another key to his endurance. The Joker can murder sidekicks and torch the city and routinely try and drive Batman to breaking points of rage and indignity and despair - but sometimes The Riddler can get Batman there just by being himself, as anyone who's had to deal with this asshole in the Arkham games can attest.

It is imperative to believe in and understand Batman's worldview that his villains can be saved because everyone can and must be saved, just as it is to understand that, out of everyone in his Rogues Gallery, if The Riddler was drowning, Bruce would be inclined to throw him a cinderblock, and The Riddler would be glad to receive it, so long as his last gasps of breath could be spent laughing at Batman's inability to match wits with him.

For a villain who is meant to be fixated on knowing the one correct answer to every riddle, he’s uniquely able to be reinterpreted in endless new ways. He’s gone from being a camp and colorful performance artist to one of the most sadistic and sinister villains Batman can ever go up against. There is no one way to write a Riddler. There’s no single solution! And writers will always like the challenge that presents.

Just when readers think they’ve seen everything the Riddler has left to offer us, and the character is finally exhausted… a new lime-green envelope pops through the door of Wayne Manor to challenge us all once again. It seems we’ll never get tired of trying to unravel the Riddler, and writers will never give up on unraveling the character’s fullest potential. It unites readers, writers, and caped crusaders alike: this time, surely, we’ll crack him. - Batman's Greatest Enemy is...The Riddler, by Steve Morris