I wonder why? :laughing:

Mark Millar is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers. The man seems to be a wizard at deconstructing superheroes, and this series is a perfect example of him at his best -- which means superheroes at their worst. In a nutshell, Ultimate Marvel was a "rebooted", alternate universe created shortly after the first Spider-Man movie in order to give new readers a chance to jump in without having to worry about almost half a century of continuity. It was kicked off with Ultimate Spider-Man, and with that title's success, the Ultimate universe was further expanded with Ultimate Fantastic Four, Ultimate X-Men, and a nearly endless amount of mini-series. One of these was The Ultimates (and the subsequent Ultimates 2 and 3), which was this universe's version of the Avengers. In this first series, the roster consists of Captain America, Ant-Man (here referred to as Giant Man), Wasp, Iron Man, the Hulk (kinda sorta), and eventually, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (kinda sorta).

I call this a deconstruction due to its in-universe cynical take on both the team and the characterizations of the individual members themselves. At first, the Ultimates are as much a publicity stunt as they are a legitimate superhero team -- most notably exemplified by the seemingly casual attitude and antics of Tony Stark, who at one point causes minor embarrassment while conducting an interview with Larry King while floating on a space shuttle in celebration of Shannon Elizabeth's birthday. They aren't even called upon to deal with any threats until halfway through the series, when the Hulk goes on a rampage in New York City, which they themselves were at least partly responsible for initiating in the first place. Eventually there is an apocalyptic alien invasion that they must stop, but for much of the series they are actually more of a liability to the world, not to mention each other.

Even more of a departure from superhero norm are the Ultimates themselves. The aforementioned Stark treats the whole thing as an adventure, though it is later revealed that his motivations are actually more altruistic than they appear at first; Giant Man (Hank Pym), and his wife, Wasp (Janet Pym), are more concerned with scientific prestige than actually saving the world; Bruce Banner causes the mid-series Hulk rampage intentionally, largely because he feels emasculated by his on-again-off-again girlfriend and the Pyms after the latter take over his position as head scientist of the Ultimate project -- although his excuse is that he was trying to give the team good press by manufacturing a threat for them to stop; it's never entirely clear whether Thor is in fact Thor, son of Odin, or just a delusional schizophrenic who believes he is... and just happens to have the powers of a Norse god; Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver aren't even really Ultimates, as they are in fact members of Magneto's terrorist Brotherhood who are only assisting the team in exchange for the release of "political prisoners".

The lowest personal depth explored by far, however, is the relationship between Hank Pym and his wife. It was already part of Marvel history that their marriage had involved physical violence, but in issue six -- which is actually titled Giant Man vs The Wasp -- this is taken to its extreme conclusion. During the battle with the Hulk, Hank Pym had been humiliated at the beginning of the altercation, putting up almost no fight. To make matters worse, there was apparently a photo in the newspapers of his wife kissing Captain America shortly after the Hulk was defeated (largely due to their combined efforts). This has all resulted in Pym feeling "small", leading to an argument with his wife which quickly escalates in intensity, until it reaches a horrifying conclusion, leaving Wasp hospitalized, after which Giant Man flees the city.





I think the aspect of this scene that really makes it disturbing to read is its ambiguity. Eventually, it clearly reaches a point where Hank's actions become unacceptable in the extreme, but until then, both parties are participating equally. This isn't a case of Hank coming home drunk and knocking around his helpless, terrified wife after she overcooks dinner; initially, the escalation is as much her doing as his, and it's made pretty obvious that this is a pattern which both participants are aware of. Janet knows what's coming, and yet she helps to perpetuate this apparent cycle all the same. That's not to say that she "deserves" what happens to her, or is even equally at fault -- Hank's attacking Janet's self-esteem over her "hygiene" as a mutant is textbook emotional abuse -- but it's hard to treat the situation in black and white when she hits him in the face with a radio.

Later revelations show that Hank taking the abuse to similar levels is nothing new however, so this is also not a case of two parties with an equally antagonistic dynamic. It's likely that Hank initiated the abuse, and Janet allowed herself to be dragged into it, eventually becoming masochistically complicit in a perpetual cycle of violence.

I find it fascinating that Millar would go this route. Morally ambiguous superheroes are nothing new, but generally not to the point of making a protagonist completely unlikable. It makes sense in a way. The kind of extreme personalities that would be drawn to this "profession" likely wouldn't be the most stable, and the realism with which this situation is depicted really brings the story down to the human level -- even though one of the characters basically turns into a pixie, and the other can grow to a height of sixty feet. This sub-plot is one of the things about this series that really makes it more than just an alternate universe Avengers.

Even Captain America isn't quite the boy scout we're all used to. Out of all of the characters he's definitely the least morally ambiguous, but he also exhibits an old world mentality that isn't entirely acceptable in modern times. After Pym disappears, Cap takes it upon himself to track him down and basically defend Wasp's honor. It's caveman-style white knighting that went out of style long ago, but it's also a subtle criticism of the kind of jackbooted, vigilante mentality that Alan Moore also attacked in Watchmen.

That said, when Captain America kicked the absolute mother****ing **** out of a sixty-foot wife beater, my inner Neanderthal couldn't help but cheer. It was Batman-level awesomeness, and I have never cared more about some guy dressed in the American flag.





Of course, there's actual superheroing... eventually. The last few issues are absolutely epic, with the Ultimates engaging in a battle with an invading alien race known as the Chitauri that makes the ending of The Avengers look like a friendly handshake. Thor uses lightning to obliterate half an alien fleet, Captain America chops some dude in half with his shield, and then the Hulk eats him... the dude who got chopped in half, not Captain America. Anybody waiting for the **** to finally hit the fan in a big way was given everything they wanted and then some. Sci fi comic book excess at its finest.

Almost everything about The Ultimates was fantastic. From the characterizations, plots, to the world building, the execution was practically flawless. The only two things off the top of my head that really bother me are A.) the absurdly convenient timing of Captain America's discovery (which was lifted almost entirely for the movie), and B.) the facial expressions. The art was otherwise phenomenal, but it had this photo quality to it that made facial expressions kind of static and lifeless at times. For the most part it's not distracting, but occasionally... not so great.

Otherwise, Millar yet again knocks one out of the park. The Ultimates has renewed my resolve to read everything he has ever done -- and I gotta get me some more Captain America while I'm at it!

Missed this. Don't know enough about the ins and outs of the industry to really say, but I imagine so, just like the future of books is in Kindle and such. Much more convenient than going to a store, don't have to deal with storing physical copies, and, while comic piracy is certainly less easy than music piracy, it's still quite possible to be able to steal just about anything.

Wonderman was actually an important hero in the Marvel universe especially in the Avengers in the 1960s? and 1970s. He got a lot of bad rap though when he had his own comic but before that he was pretty good.

(This is why I gave up on trying to give contributor credits at the start of this journal. It's just a ****ing pain in the ass when credits change over the course of multiple issues. Anyone I missed can kiss my ass. You worked for Image Comics in the '90s, so **** off.)




For the most part, I don't listen to music when reading books, but since I don't have to expend extra mental energy in making my own mental images with comic books (besides filling in the action gaps between panels), I tend to listen to it a lot more. I don't really worry too much about what I'm listening to in general, but while reading Spawn, I had either Iced Earth or Judas Priest's Jugulator on repeat, and I think that says a lot about the series. The simplistic music, intentionally/unintentionally cheesy, overblown, yet aggressive tone of both just sync up so well that they might as well be the series' soundtrack (There's even a Spawn concept album by Iced Earth called Dark Saga).




That's pretty much Spawn in a nutshell TBH.

But I suppose I should elaborate. I neither love nor hate this series so far. The things about it that are cringeworthy (such as the art and storylines) are also charming in their own way, and while the writing isn't exactly top notch, the ideas that McFarlane is attempting to get across are still more interesting than anything else that seemed to be coming out of Image at the time (although I actually here relatively good things about Savage Dragon). I am never blown away, but I still find myself entertained in a way that is clearly down to my inner teenager's love of all things mindlessly cool, even if the subject matter in question makes my "mature", "adult" "sensibilities" roll their eyes.

Seeing as how Todd McFarlane is an artist first, and a writer... I guess he's technically a writer, the focus of this series is unsurprisingly mostly on the art: self-consciously melodramatic poses, laughably overdesigned characters, absurdly futuristic guns, etc. Sometimes, Todd even throws all of these into a single page, with dubiously glorious results...




It's hard to pick one single thing to mock here, but I'd have to give the gold medal to those skull shoulder pads and belt buckle. They look like a goth fashion victim's earrings (gender not important). I suppose the art is supposed to be "grim and gritty", but it just ends up looking like what a high school dork probably thinks looks COOL², and he justifies it by claiming that the level of detail and effort he put into his cheap, power fantasy makes it artistic or some ****.

Still, my own inner high school dork can't help but find some merit in the cool-for-the-sake-of-cool nonsense. It's not inspiring, but it's executed well enough that I can sometimes appreciate it for what it is. At least I don't find myself playing "Count the blatant, hideous mistakes in each panel" like I do with Rob Liefeld. McFarlane has some talent, if not good taste.

The main flaw with all of this however, is it's lack of mood. The try-too-hard splash pages and bright, shiny, cartoony colors kill any sense of atmosphere that such a nihilistic, horror title like this desperately needs in order to be anything more than self-indulgent pulp. The Spawn television show on HBO back in the day did a much better job building atmosphere by muting the color palette, showing Spawn's costume as little as possible, and adopting a noir style that wasn't afraid of negative space.

As far as writing goes, I will again compare McFarlane to his contemporary Rob Liefeld, as he is basically the same type of artist/creator, but with an actual ounce of talent. Both seem to be able to come up with at least half-decent ideas, but are unable to really exploit them to their full potential. For anyone who doesn't know, Spawn's entire motivation for giving his soul to the Devil (named Malebogia for some reason) after his death, is that he wants to see his wife, but he is brought back five years later, after she has remarried and had a child. There is a possibility for real depth with this plotline, but McFarlane's attempts to develop it feel two-dimensional, and don't really satisfy on any level: Spawn's emotional reactions come across as flat, the dialogue when he and his ex-wife and her new family finally meet (though he is disguised) is frustratingly clunky, and Spawn's reaction to just about every emotional trauma is to go brood in a hobo-strewn alley.

On the opposite side of the coin, you'd think that a series like this would at least be heavy on the action, and while there is certainly a decent amount of it -- and it's plenty gory when it does happen -- the story moves so slowly, and accomplishes so little for the most part, that actual action scenes seem to come out of nowhere, and so lack any real impact. They really seem to be just excuses for McFarlane to show off rather than devices to advance the plot. At least Spawn's opponents tend to be better than your average Liefeld ****turd...

At least until issues #6-#7, when a Liefeld-created villain named Overkill (RRRAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!) whose entire character seems to be defined by his ludicrously oversized shoulder pads and Deadshot-ripoff, sci-fi eyepatch. We are introduced to him while he is blowing up a building in Sicily for the mob, and then engages the army for some reason. Cause that's what the mob is all about: public battles in the middle of the day with the ****ing army in the streets. I'm sure that in no way would result in a massive crackdown on organized crime, and possibly martial law. Nope.

But, just as a crude part of my soul can't help but find some entertainment in the artwork, the thin plots and wannabe, Frank Miller grittiness make for some fun pulp. Anyone who can enjoy this seriously as McFarlane clearly meant for it to be taken, would have to be either a teenager or a moron, but if you switch off your brain for a little mindless fun, then Spawn is a surprisingly entertaining romp. I don't know how far I'm going to make it through the series, but since the next four issues were written by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Dave Sim, and Frank Miller, I am expecting at least a moderately mature run, even if it is temporary.

Spawn was the sh*t back in the day, he was like a teenage boy wet dream :p:

Im sad to see they didn't give more depth in the comic books, from your review he doesn't sound that much different from the character in the spawn movie. he always seemed a little OP to me, the type of character who can pull of any super power out of his ass in a tight pinch.

um.. i gotta question.
supposedly Spawn is to lead Satan's army against God and his angels and Spawn is but one of many using that suit, do they expand on that side of the story in the comics?

I'll go into this first just cause I'm starting to go into some long-winded analysis about the first half of your post. If I missed anything you were hoping I'd explain, then please tell me, as I love to ramble about this ****. Anyways...

Once every hundred years or so, the devil (called Malebolgia in the comics, to avoid pissing off the Christians too much I assume) picks a person of extra-special potential to be a new Spawn, and puts them on Earth to prove that they are worthy to serve in Hell's army. How exactly they're supposed to prove themselves is kind of nebulous (I don't know if they haven't expanded on it yet, or if it's just lazy writing). Basically, the devil ****s with the Spawns in order to push them over the edge into being evil. Or something.

One part of it is that a Spawn's powers draw from a limited power supply (which is regularly shown by a decreasing set of numbers regularly throughout the comic [which actually adds some much needed tension]), and when that is used up, the Spawn goes back to hell forever. If the Spawn chooses to not use their power (and the devil, not to mention heaven, make sure to put them in situations that will encourage the Spawns to use their powers), then they will become detached from the world, embrace their inhumanity, and become demons in soul as well as body. If they use their powers, then they eventually go to hell and become the devil's bitch anyway.

Why the latter outcome should be of any use to the devil is beyond me at this point, since the Spawn had to die and go to hell in the first place in order to make the bargain that turned them into a Spawn. So... why not just keep the Spawn in hell without sending them back to Earth at all?

I guess Malebolgia figures that letting a Spawn's free will on Earth will do more to damn them than just keeping them in hell, but why it's important to make fallen humans the highest-ranking officers of Hell's army isn't or hasn't yet been explained. Maybe it's just a **** you to God, or maybe corrupting souls to the Nth degree and then using them against God somehow gives him even greater power.

And yes, they do expand on the other Spawns from the past. There's a medieval Spawn, a cowboy Spawn, and, like... other Spawns that I'm probably just not familiar with ATM. There are also lesser Spawns who never get to go to Earth, but are just notably evil fellows who get to be Spawn-lites in the devil's army.

It's probably been the better part of two decades since I've seen the movie, so I really can't compare the two. I'd say Spawn doesn't so much not have depth, as Todd McFarlane just isn't that adept at reaching the character's potential. Like I said, he's a great idea man (kinda like George Lucas I guess) but he's not so great at actually realizing his vision all by himself.

If you want to see Spawn in all his potential glory, then watch the HBO animated series. I haven't watched it since I was in my early twenties, so it might not hold up as well as I remember, but it's definitely the best depiction of the series yet. Themes and characters that are used passingly or not explored as well as they could be in the comic, are dealt with much better in the series.

There's a sense of story progression and character development that is relatively absent from the comic, as it can go ten, or even more, issues without really doing much -- and storylines that were introduced earlier are sometimes dropped for no apparent reason, and then pop up ten or so issues later, as if McFarlane finally remembered that he'd somehow forgotten an entire subplot. The animated series is much more streamlined and focused, with more or less strong, dynamic, fleshed out storylines that maintain your interest throughout the season (although the child killer subplot of the first season drew out an OTT, two-dimensional villain's role for far too long, while he mercifully only lasted an issue or two in the comic).

I'm twenty-three issues in (for some reason I can't entirely explain), and Spawn doesn't even really seem to have any motivation besides moaning over his past. He doesn't accept the role that the devil wants for him, but he's not particularly concerned with opposing him either. All he really wants is to hang out with a bunch of hobos in an alley and be bummed out 24/7. He isn't even really committed to staying out of fights, as he'll go on a spree of violence against people who invade his turf at the drop of a hat, but then retreats back to his dirty alley to brood.

The series has much of the same alley-dwelling, hobo-buddy thing going on, but unlike the comic, where he just sort of shows up and befriends the bums right off the bat, Spawn at first resists getting close to them, which does a lot to express his sense of self-concerned isolation. He's much more resistant to playing the hero in general, so it has a lot more meaning when he finally does listen to his conscience.

Even his whole thing with his ex-wife isn't really explored to any great extent in the comics. It's a major story element early on, but after that first arc, it's much less concentrated on, which is odd, since the whole premise of the series is that Spawn sold his soul just to be reunited with his wife. But in the animated series, he basically stalks her, constantly torturing himself by reliving his past in a way that really expresses his fractured psyche.

Another element that really separates the comic and the animated series is the artwork. The comic is far too bright and colorful to have any kind of horror atmosphere, whereas the animated series uses lots and lots of shadows and noirish elements to really make it feel like you're watching a horror series.

Also, can't leave without mentioning the voice acting of the show. It's pretty excellent for the most part, and I probably wouldn't enjoy the comic half as much as I am if I didn't have Keith David's voice in my head whenever Spawn talks.

Skip the first minute to avoid a bad Disturbed song.



TL;DR: The Spawn comic is fun but nothing great, so watch the far superior animated series. And make sure you watched the uncensored version, as there is an inferior, censored version of the show.

Will do, that vid has a couple of related links with full episodes, now that i know they have it on YT i'll give it a watch.

To your credit Batty, it wasn't TL:DR it was actually quite funny. :p:
i didn't know he had limited power and that once he used it he had to return to hell, that implies that his time has a hero is limited, no? maybe this is why he sticks to just defending his hobo alley lol

And i think i remember seeing Cowboy spawn and hearing about his different time incarnations, though that concept seems a little gimmicky it's also an opportunity to show the personality and story of a different spawn. do they do that?

At least to some extent. The aforementioned Medieval Spawn probably would have been explored even more, but there was a legal dispute that meant he couldn't be used for about a decade. Same reason Angela is now a Marvel character.

Gaiman & McFarlane Settle Suit on Medieval Spawn, Angela - Comic Book Resources

Apparently McFarlane created a knock-off Medieval Spawn to get around the court case, but he got sued for that too.

Judge Rules for Neil Gaiman Against Todd MacFarlane in Medieval Spawn Case

Have you read the comics that are kind of at the center of the lawsuit? Marvelman (aka Miracleman)?

Not yet, though they are on my list, as is just about anything by Alan Moore. Todd McFarlane never ceases to find ways to make himself look like a douche, does he? I like how Neil Gaiman wrote a comic to raise money for the legal dispute, and dedicated it, "To Todd, for making it necessary".

Gaiman > McFarlane.

Pictured above are the seven founders of Image Comics*, who broke away from the mainstream comic industry in 1991-92 (although they all actually came solely from Marvel) to form an independent publishing company that would allow artists and writers to maintain pretty much complete control of their own creations.

This was a revolutionary concept, not so much because they were the first independent comic publisher -- alternative comics had already been around since at least the 60s -- but because many of the artists to jump ship were the top selling artists of their time, regularly setting and then breaking records for all-time comic book sales figures (Jim Lee's X-Men #1 is to this day the highest selling comic book of all time at 7 million copies, followed by Liefeld's X-Force #1 at 5 million, with Todd McFarlane's Spider-Man #1 at fourth place with 2.5 million) ... and they all left at the same time.

These were "rock stars" of the industry at a time when creators were gaining more respect and visibility than anytime before in comic history. Imagine if the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Who, the Doors, the Beach Boys, and Bob Dylan all decided to leave their respective labels and join forces to self-publish their own music, with all the sensationalist media coverage that would generate.

The craptastic quality of many of Image's 90s titles is infamous these days, but I just watched an interesting documentary on the founding and history of Image Comics, The Image Revolution, that gave me a new appreciation for that whole period. Image's negative impact on the creative quality of 90s comics as a whole, its roll in the speculator boom and subsequent collapse, and the dubious writing abilities of its founders, are unquestionable, but I have a new, grudging respect for the basic idea behind the company.

No matter how much Youngblood sucked, or whether Spawn's execution partially squandered a good idea by focusing on flashy but cheap artwork at the expense of the story, Image's impact on the industry in terms of the rise of creator-owned properties that aren't subject to the demands of monolithic corporate entities (i.e. Marvel and DC), is clearly important beyond the scope of its original incarnation.

The modern Image era, with titles such as The Walking Dead, Fatale, Saga, etc, seems to have finally realized the company's initial promise. It will likely never entirely escape the taint of The Liefeld Legacy, but perhaps credit should be given to a good idea, even if its early history is rightfully treated with derision.


* Chris Claremont, the legend who, along with artist/co-writer John Byrne, made the formerly cancelled Uncanny X-Men into arguably the most successful comic of the 70s and 80s, almost jumped ship along with the above seven, but the deal ultimately fell through.

I think Image could have worked if McFarlene had gotten into it for the love of the craft rather than merchandising. Also if they had lawyers draft up proper ownership contracts. Better writing obviously would have helped, but when most of your staff comprises of superstar artists... well you get what you pay for.

I still hold that The Maxx was the best thing to come out of Image back in the beginning.

I think the obvious, huge problem with the original concept, was that it was founded by seven ARTISTS who for the most part, as far as I know at least, had never really shown any talent for writing. If they hadn't been such egomaniacs even by the point they all left to form Image, and realized that perhaps they should spend as much time courting actual writers as they did artists, then maybe the original line of Image comics would have been more than just birdcage liner.

It sounds like when Jim Valentino, a guy who'd been doing creator-owned stuff even before Image, became publisher, that was when the company started doing things other than just uber-derivative superhero drivel.

I probably won't be updating for a while, as I'm currently writing an in-depth thing on Poison Ivy, and it's gonna take a good minute. Multiple entries spanning decades. TL;D-****in'-R to the max. On the plus side, it may very well end up being the most comprehensive piece on her ever written. So suck on that professional writers.

Alright, while I am currently slacking on my Poison Ivy feature*, I've got an idea to keep this alive for the time being. You give me two superheroes/villains from any company, and I shall decide who would win in a fight.

I will endeavor to make sure that my decision makes as much sense as can be expected considering inconsistencies in continuity, is articulated enough to be interesting, and is a least mildly entertaining. I might even do my own little mini-story to describe the battle, but no promises. I am lazy, after all.

Any combination of superheroes and/or villains is acceptable, even non-heroes/villains if you really want, just so long as they are in superhero comic continuity (f.ex. Lois Lane v. Mary Jane Watson catfight). If you want specialty match-ups, like who is stronger between the Hulk and Superman, rather than who would just win in a fight (cause we all know it would probably being ****ing Superman anyway), or a dance off between Spider-Man and Nightcrawler, or whatever, I will do my best. Just, keep it to one-on-one for now, though I might have team battles, like the X-Men v. the Avengers, if I decide I'm having enough fun with this.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________

* I'm well into it with the Ivy entries, but to take the next step I'm going to have to read almost the last twenty issues of the original Suicide Squad series, and I haven't even read issue #1 yet. That's gonna be a serious pain in the tuchus, especially since she'll only be a supporting character, probably with very few stories focusing on her.

Unfortunately though, the series has the fourth largest amount of appearances from Ivy (18) -- after Batman (30), Gotham City Sirens (25), and Detective Comics (20) -- and they're mostly consecutive, which means it's by far her highest concentration of appearances, after Gotham City Sirens (which will likely require a few separate entries all its own, AND I HAVEN'T EVEN READ THAT EITHER!!!)

And that's not even counting her part in No Man's Land (which sounds like one of her most interesting storylines ever), her two graphic novels, the numerous issues expanding on her origins that I still need to get through, her animated appearances (which are easily some of her best portrayals, and simply cannot be ignored), a smattering of stuff from the regular Batman series, and then of course her appearances in Birds of Prey from the New 52.

I'm quickly discovering that this is a project with at least as much scope as TH's Metal Month or Tom Waits discography. Thank god I didn't start with the Joker.

/end rant

I got one, Quicksilver Vs the Flash, who would win?

Bonus Matchup, The Silver hawks Vs the Thundercats, who wins that one?

Since you didn't specify a Flash, I'm going to use Wally West, the third Flash, as he seems to have been the most powerful.

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about either of these characters, outside of cartoons, so I have had to rely on the Marvel and DC Wikis for much of my information.

Apparently, the both of them have had varying levels of speed, but have been shown to be able to run faster than the speed of light (whether this is normal, or due to some temporary, special, comic book voodoo I don't know), so I can't say for certain who is faster, but I might give the edge to the Flash (especially since it is hinted that Flash's speed is potentially limitless, so long as he believes that he can achieve it). Still, inconclusive.

One obvious point in the Flash's favor is that his stamina can last for days, as opposed to hours, like Quicksilver. Depending on how long the battle lasted, this could clearly be a deciding factor.

Another thing that would seem to give Flash the edge would be that the semi-mystical "Speed Force" which grants "speedsters" their abilities, also gives him invulnerability to an extent, so he might be able to dish out damage that Pietro wouldn't be able to return -- and even if the Flash were injured, the Speed Force can heal almost any injury instantly.

It's not mentioned whether Pietro also has this ability -- though if he can run past the speed of light, then it would stand to reason that he might have an equivalent -- but when the Flash is moving past light speed, he is capable of using an "Infinite Mass Punch", which has "a force greater than that of 'a white dwarf star'". Assuming that Flash's invulnerability and healing would make him immune to Quicksilver doing the same, then it may well be a very short battle indeed.

The deciding factor for me however, is that the Flash can use the Speed Force to "steal" the speed from anyone or anything (even Superman) to the point where they become an actual, living statue. Apparently it doesn't work on other speedsters, but since the defining characteristic of a speedster is that they have access to the Speed Force, and with Quicksilver being merely a superfast mutant, I imagine it would work on him.

So, even without all of these other advantages, the Flash's ability to steal Quicksilver's speed would make him the clear front runner in a battle between the two of them. Flash wins by a mile.

First of all, comic books only, douchebag, and secondly, no teams.

But Quicksilver's a mutant so that should give him a +1, but the again he was kind of dopey as Magneto tricked him into joining the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

You really need to read these early X-Men and Avengers issues, classic stuff. I'm assuming you don't know them as you stated you didn't know too much about Quicksilver.

Why would it give him a +1? Being a mutant just gets you in the superhero door. It doesn't grant you any special privileges over the others.

Yup, two series I need to read. I still need to get back into 70s/80s Uncanny X-Men too.

Well here's a double header for you?

Electro V Shocker

and a big league one in:

Doctor Doom V Magneto

I might have to give the win to Electro.

Both seem to have about equal strength energy blasts, but Shocker's insulated suit could probably take a large amount of Electro's electric shocks. With enough electrical power to drawn upon however, Electro's power could increase to a level that might nullify this advantage, but that is only theoretical, and would be entirely situational. Without that advantage, it could be a crap shoot, but since we're assuming they'd be fighting in New York City, it would be unlikely that he wouldn't have that environment.

Electro also has the benefit of being able to travel along electrical wires, giving him far greater mobility than Shocker, but again, that would be situational.

As far as hand-to-hand combat, Electro would probably still have the advantage. His supercharged body gives him super strength, but Shocker's blasts give him a punch that is "a dozen times more potent than normal". However, that would only apply to a punch, whereas Electro's strength could be used with much more versatility.

So, Electro FTW.

Oh, that's a toughy. I honestly don't think I can answer this one.

It seems like an easy answer that Magneto could just crush Doom with his own suit, but I seem to remember a debate on this issue that revealed that they had actually fought before, and that Doom's suit was immune to magnetism, so Magneto would only be able to use indirect attacks (though considering he could just drop a battleship on Doom, that's far from a crippling disadvantage).

I don't know if Doom's robots are also immune to magnetism, but even if they aren't, they could still be useful as a distraction.

In hand-to-hand combat, Doom would seem to have the edge, since his suit grants him far greater durability and strength than Magneto, who has no armor of his own, though I imagine that he could possibly create a makeshift suit with his magnetic powers, and could also use his powers to grant this theoretical suit equal or even far greater strength than Doom's own. All theoretical of course, but if so, then Magneto might actually be able to wipe the floor with Doom at close range. (And on the topic of Doom's suit, I'd imagine that its energy blasts would be nullified by Magneto's ability to create force fields.)

The x-factor (pun intended) though, is Doom's magical abilities, and I'm not really familiar with the extent of his powers, so I could only guess how useful they would be. But considering that he's been taught by Dr. Strange and Morgan le Fay, I have to assume that his magical abilities are considerable, though I can't say with any certainty how they would match up against Magneto's own powers.

Assuming that they would normally fight each other to a standstill, those Doombots could again prove a vital distraction, but as Magneto is a wily sumbitch, that advantage might not be decisive.

The battle would also be heavily situational for Magneto, as the amount of metal in the vicinity would be key. If the ground were metal, then he could simply drop Doom to the ground, hurl him into the air, or even completely entrap him. With enough metal lying around, and considering Magneto's power level, he could have a potentially unlimited supply of projectiles to boot. But in a metal poor environment, Magneto would be severely hampered in his possible methods of attack.

Really though, without knowing about Doom's specific magical capabilities, or their power level, I can't be confident in any decision, so I'm going to have to abstain from a final verdict. I'd be rooting for Magneto though, cause X-Men > Fantastic Four.

How about She Hulk versus the regular Hulk? :laughing:

It's generally known that the Hulk is physically superior to She-Hulk, so in a straight fight, I imagine he'd trash her. She's not a mindless smashing machine though, and is very intelligent, so she could potentially outsmart him, especially since she's his cousin and may very well be able to calm him down back to Bruce Banner.

Still, the Hulk is pretty much on par with Superman as far as being indestructible goes, so I'd probably have to give it to him unless she could pull a rabbit out of her ass.

If we're talking about Ultimate universe Hulk though, then outsmarting him might just take She-Hulk flashing her tits, so the brains advantage would be even more in her favor (If Ultimate universe Hulk is perfectly happy to engage in murder, rape, and cannibalism, then I imagine incest wouldn't faze him.) And if she's willing to "go all the way", then her "endurance" would probably calm him down back to Bruce Banner.

Hell I was just expecting a few lines on these and not a ****ing thesis :laughing:

I agree that it's almost impossible to call between Magneto and DD and agree X-Men is superior to F4 as a comic. F4 gets all it's love as it was the flagship comic when Marvel started and it had a lot of great issues before it went of the boil especially when Stan Lee stopped writing on it.

That's exactly what I thought; that the Hulk would just completely blitz through her unless she could outsmart him. But I did some digging (I have way too much time on my hands right now), and now i'm not so sure. According to this (Strength Scale - Marvel Comics Database), they both have the ability to lift over 150 tons, and get stronger as their anger increases, with the Hulk generally accepted to be a bit stronger by default. But according to this (She-Hulk (Character) - Comic Vine), She Hulk's powers aren't completely limited by anger like the Hulk's powers are. The more she trains and exercises outside of combat, the more her strength increases.

Since she gets practice all the time (by fighting such villains as the heinous toad-men :laughing:), she might very well be just as strong as the Hulk by now, or maybe even stronger (I mean, she has overpowered the likes of Hercules in the past, who is supposedly one of the strongest characters in the universe). Also, apparently she has the ability to swap powers with someone ("The Ovoid Mind Switch"). So even if the Hulk was stronger, she could theoretically steal his strength and use it against him. But in the end, I think you're right in leaning towards the Hulk, because She Hulk's possible advantages are all based on ifs (if she could exercise before the fight, if her mind swap would work on another hulk, if she could use her intelligence to trick him, etc.), while the Hulk's main advantage is very clear and apparent (by default he's technically stronger than her).

I'd also add in the Hulk's favor that, even if it does impede his ability to think, his battle rage would make him a far more tenacious opponent than She-Hulk. She'd pretty much be on the defensive the entire time, and would have to get some distance in order to come up with a plan. And since the Hulk is stronger, which means his legs as well, and therefore his speed, then it's questionable that she would be able to put any distance between them.

I do like the idea of her being able to increase her strength though. I'd be totally rooting for her.

P.S. I see you neglected to comment on my Ultimate universe scenario. Incest is the the most taboo of secret weapons, but should not be underestimated. :pimp:

How bout Dr Fate Vs Martian Manhunter?

Martians are weak to fire. Dr. Strange can summon fire. NEXT!!!

How about a motorcycle race between Black Canary and Ghost Rider? :laughing:

Two here for you:

Two of the biggest heroes that don't actually have superpowers-

Batman V Captain America

and this pairing-

Juggernaut v Rhino

lol i thought you would say that but you're not giving the Martian hunter a fighting chance! if anybody with some kind of fire power can easily take him, why is he compared so much to Superman and Batman?

those guys are not easy to beat despite their weaknesses..

Ok, how bout Dr Fate Vs Dr strange?

Ok, how about Green Arrow versus Hawkeye.

Black Canary uses a concentrated sonic scream to give Ghost Rider a flat tire, causing him to wipe out. He spends the next six months in traction.

Black Canary FTW.

What are you talking about? Captain America does have superpowers. Super soldier serum? Hello?

Anyway, tradition would of course give the impression that Batman was the better fighter (and considering his training, he probably does edge Cap out), but they're both too ninja to call it on just skill alone. That's where Cap's enhanced strength would give him the win in a straight-up fist fight. Batman has taken on enemies with super strength before, but the supers in his rogue's gallery all have to sacrifice speed to some extent, whereas Cap still moves like a normal human, so any mention of Batman being able to beat Bane or Croc is irrelevant.

Cap gets the shaft in general because he's covered in an American flag, but in many ways, he specializes in the same things that Batman does: fighting technique, tactics and strategy, and just being in general the most competent and tenacious hero in his universe. So, it's harder to give Batman an edge when they're so much alike.

Bats does, however, have all those damn gadgets, whereas Cap "just" has his shield. It's a pretty bitchin' shield, but it doesn't quite measure up to grappling hooks, Batarangs, ninja paraphernalia, remote controlled super-car, remote controlled super-plane, remote controlled super-boat, etc. So that's one big point in his favor, though I highly doubt Cap would be one to let a little thing like a Batarang to the face bother him. Besides, they may not be his gadgets, but Cap does work for SHIELD, so...

It's also tradition that with enough preparation, Batman can beat anybody. But Cap is likewise a master tactician, and doesn't have any real weaknesses to exploit. And any tactic that would apply against him, would probably also be just as usable against Batman, which I'm sure Cap would recognize.

I'm trying to think of ways that Batman could use to beat Captain America, but I'm coming up short, so unless anybody has any other ideas...

... Captain America FTW?

How is this even a question? Juggernaut, duh. Juggernaut is even stronger and more invulnerable. Not to mention that all it takes to beat Rhino is one Spider-Man, as opposed to all the X-Men.

Juggernaut FTW.

Superman's weakness is an ultra-rare rock and Batman's weakness (being human) is something he has trained to account for since he was a child. Martian Manhunter could potentially be menaced by a stove.

I have no idea what the difference is in their magical abilities, or the difference in their power levels. It's incredibly hard to compare magical beings, since magic is in many ways an unquantifiable ability.

I'll give it to Dr. Fate, just cause one of the Dr. Fates was a DBZ-like fusion of a woman and her ten-year-old, magically aged stepson, who she was in love with, and Dr. Strange would probably be too busy vomiting to fight.

Honestly, I think Hawkeye is too big a ripoff of Green Arrow for there to be any difference. They both "never miss", they both use trick arrows... alright I can't think up a third thing that they do, but you get my point.

If we're talking Green Arrow from the Arrow TV show, though, then GA hands down, as he's basically Batman with a bow and arrow.

P.S. BTW, if we're just talking comics, then I'd be totally rooting for Hawkeye, cause his current series with Matt Fraction is just insanely good.

Full disclosure: I am not currently high, but I was when I read this.

For those of you rolling your eyes at the idea of Archie comics in general -- I myself have never read any before this, and have no burning need to start now -- Afterlife with Archie is worlds away from the original: G-rated high school hijinks are replaced by more realistic, PG-13, teenage melodrama, until the town of Riverdale is engulfed by a full-blown zombie apocalypse, and petty high school relationships become something more compelling and desperate as the children are forced to become adults within a matter of days. Not to mention the R-rated zombie violence. To illustrate my point I'll post this page from issue #4, where Archie must defend his mother from his zombified father...






But anyway, onto the reason for this entry. Afterlife with Archie is amazing all by itself, but it's just a trip when I'm high. Even while sober, I'm always aware of the old world, sexist, Archie comics tropes (most obviously, two women "BFFs" sniping at, and backstabbing each other over a guy), but I can kind of keep that in the back of my mind due to the strengths of the title (Seriously, possibly the best comic going ATM). When I'm high, however, it's now so in I'm face that, while I'm comforted by the (initial) atmosphere of (deceptively) "simpler times", I'm also uncomfortable every time some modern cultural faux pas is made.






But the title is so mature and modernized -- with the Archie status quo thrown for so big a loop -- that a few pages after a Betty/Veronica spat that makes me wince, they then hit me with a plot point that calls those same themes into question, which always keeps me on my toes as to what the writer is getting at:

Is he to a limited extent aware of the anachronisms, and choosing to challenge them, all the while being ignorant of the cognitive dissonance of glorifying the more outdated elements of the basic nature of the universe.

Or is he completely genre savvy, and using the seeming ambivalence to celebrate a genuinely rich world, while at the same time confronting its flaws? And if so, is he using subtlety for a less preachy contrast, or just toning down his more confrontational points about the comic's core values so as not to offend legit Archie fans? (I'm inclined to go with some form of this option, due to the conscious effort on the part of the writer to subvert just about everything about the Archie universe.)

For example, as a counterpoint to the charmingly misogynist undertones of the Betty/Veronica rivalry, two lesbian characters are carrying on an affair "on the down low", and the merkin boyfriend of one of the women calls her "baby" upon their reunion; incensed by this, the other woman -- who wants to go public with the relationship, as opposed to her partner -- confronts him.






Add on subplots and themes concerning incest, homophobia, the obligatory exploration of the nature of man, etc, and you have a comic book whose basic nature is on the surface at odds with itself, while being made all the more intriguing for these contradictions.

How a company whose entire existence is dependent upon preserving an outdated, fun house mirror image of the world, had the artistic cojones to so abandon that concept (albeit for an AU title) is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned. I tried getting into The Walking Dead comic book, but found the character drama to be rather dull, while the surreal teen drama of Afterlife with Archie is completely engrossing. This is actually the second time I've powered my way through the entire eight issues of the series, which is something I generally don't do.

So yeah: Afterlife with Archie > The Walking Dead

That is all. You may go about your business.

I love those panels where he's forced to kill his father. The "flashbacks", the tears, the blood, the twin "I love you"s and the fact that he's using the baseball bat his dad taught him to play the sport with to kill him is doubly ironic. Also, this gives me a feeling of Watchmen. Who drew it Batty?

Francesco Francavilla - Comic Book DB


And just for some added awesomeness, here's one of his pages from Afterlife with Archie, without any context whatsoever.

Doctor ****ing Lovecraft????!!!! :yikes:

Yeah, **** gets weird. And I'm not saying weird as far as Archie goes, but just plain weird.

It's hard to put these in any type of definitive order, and I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't knock off one or two for something else in another mood, but these are the top ten comics (both old and new) I've read/been reading since I started really getting into comic books last June/July. There are plenty of books I'd put here (especially Batman comics) from before the cutoff, but since I'm restricting this to a year, then unfortunately things like The Long Halloween aren't being featured. This will be a ten-part series, since it would just be too massive to do in one entry. Anyways, onto #10...






This series is a weekly, digital title, which is actually a prequel to the fighting video game of the same name. It's so much more than some tie-in, however: it's a "What if?" tale about the possibility of superheroes going too far, and the consequences, both for them, and the world itself. Not to mention an excuse to **** with the DC Universe in an alternate universe where anything and everything is possible.

The story -- divided into five "years" -- starts five years into the future, in a fascist police state ruled by Superman...




We are immediately taken five years into the past, and discover a world much like the mainstream DC comics universe: Superman does Superman things, Batman does Batman things, the Justice League does Justice League things, etc. Everything is perfectly as it should be, until Superman is tricked by the Joker into killing his wife, a pregnant Lois Lane, simultaneously setting off a nuclear explosion which wipes Metropolis off of the map.

Superman reacts thusly...




Having now snapped, Superman -- backed by most of the Justice League -- declares a moratorium on conflict throughout the world, directly intervening in every war going on anywhere. At this point the Justice League is mostly benevolent, seeking only to save the world from itself, but as the series progresses, it takes progressively more direct control of world politics, becoming a de facto, totalitarian junta.

Not all of the world's heroes back Superman, however. Led by Batman, a small group of soon-to-be rebels attempts to stop this escalating power grab. While this takes the form of talk early on, battle lines soon harden, friends become rivals, and in the end, bitter enemies now too consumed by hatred to ever reconcile.

Interestingly, the pro-Superman contingent are made up of most of the heavy hitters: Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, etc. It's the street-level heroes who dissent: Batman and his clan, Green Arrow, Black Canary, etc. The series seems to imply that, with great power, comes a skewed perspective.

For me, the best part of Injustice is that no one is safe. By the end of the first two years of the series an alarmingly large percentage of mainstream DC characters are dead, and it doesn't seem to matter whether you're obscure, or an A-lister. Some of the most emotionally heavy moments I've yet read in superhero comics are in this title, and much of that is due to the shock of seeing a character who would never in a million years bite the dust in the real DC Universe, die in service to a world-shattering plot development... or simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Naming names would be a crime, but I'll just say that the rivalry between Superman and Batman is made far more than simply the clash between two opposing ideologies by the end of Year One. There's as much chance of their friendship being revived as there is between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi.

And yet it's never black-and-white in this series. Yes, Superman becomes ever more of a corrupted villain, but it's a gradual shift, and no matter how ruthless he becomes, he never loses sight of his goal of saving the world. His allies likewise hold onto their integrity as much as they can. On the other side of the coin, the rebel heroes are at times forced to use tactics they might otherwise never resort to when it becomes necessary. Even villains take sides, both for and against the Justice League: Lex Luthor allies himself with Superman, and genuinely seems to believe in his cause, while Sinestro appears to do so only for his own secret purposes -- and of course Harley Quinn becomes a good guy, because **** YEAH, HARLEY QUINN!!!

But of course, this is all just a glorious excuse to have Batman and Superman go at it. Batman is clearly the antagonist of the series -- because of course he is -- but isn't able to pull some random rabbit out of his cowl as he has done in past Batman/Superman battles. His allies are not in the same league (pun intended) as their enemies, and so must operate like guerrillas: they strike where they can, always knowing that in a direct confrontation with their former allies that they will have to immediately withdraw.

Superman becomes a truly daunting figure of terror. Time and time again, they attempt to defeat him, but always he survives -- like some unkillable, slasher movie abomination -- and proceeds to wreak brutal revenge on those foolish enough to fight him head-on. His superhuman sight, hearing, strength, and speed make any action by Batman's allies, no matter how carefully planned and clandestine, into a potential catastrophe; at any time, the Kryptonian might hear one of his enemies step on a twig halfway across the world, and then it becomes a question of escape vs. death.

I'm only up to Year Three -- I believe Year Four has just ended -- and Injustice just keeps getting better. With so many dead, focus shifts from traditional superheroes to more... esoteric characters, keeping the plot from becoming stagnant, ever keeping you guessing as to what direction the story will take next. Epic in scope and fearless in direction, this is simply one of the best titles on the stands at the moment.

In short, The Batlord ****ing loves Injustice: Gods Among Us, and so should you!