Monday, May 3, 2010

JLA: Act of God Part 3

Photobucket
The finale to the deus ex massive piece of crap that is this Elseworlds Tale.



 ‎

Posted by Lewis Lovhaug at 4:00 PM

Labels: , , ,

226 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 226 of 226
Lewis Lovhaug said...

Falcos, you're essentially asking the age-old question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

There is no agreed upon answer, only theories and different opinions on the matter.

I hold that God granted us free will to choose and make decisions for ourselves, to ultimately decide what we do with our freedom, for good and for ill. Now, with the omniscience angle, I would argue that in associating with free will, God doesn't KNOW the future, but rather is capable of foreseeing every POSSIBLE future, thus our free will allows us to choose which path is ultimately taken.

He doesn't intervene because ultimately I'd prefer a force that allowed me to choose how I want to live my life than one that FORCED all problems in the world to be solved instantly. And since I believe in God, I also believe in heaven and hell and that ultimately, this world of suffering is temporary and will pass, but our behavior in this time will ultimately dictate what will become of us forever-after.

January 23, 2012 at 2:59 AM
Falcos said...

I guess... I get your point, even if I don't think I could find something so vague satisfying.

I guess it does boil down to that same question. Bad things happening to good people is really the crux of why I can't have faith in any omnipotent benevolent god shtick, especially since all too often, bad things happening to good people will turn them into bad people.

I do have some sense of faith, but this one hole is a bit too big for me to jump, methinks.

I could argue that omniscience would also mean that God would/does know which hypothetical path our freedom will lead us down, but I do get that free will is important, and a forced utopia would kind of subvert that.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'm sure you're very busy.

January 23, 2012 at 3:36 AM
Merkavah said...

I have to agree with Double L's assessment:

Without free will, growth would be impossible and true character would not arise. A true Utopia is one the people have chosen. Not one in which the people have no choice.

Bad things happen to good people. But good people rise above it and extend that help to others. Bad people will allow it to swallow them whole. This is how you see the difference between people that are truly good because they themselves want to be, and those who are only "good" when it is convenient for them.


In my view, it is in granting us freedom (yes, even the freedom to walk away from him), that God gave us the greatest gift of all.

Or, to put it in more eloquent terms..well, I'll let an episode of Futurama say it for me.

"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch. Like a safecracker, or a pickpocket. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."


Falco, if you are interested in intelligent discussions about these topics, might I recommend the "Quodlibeta forums"? It has Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Bahai, Deists, Wiccans, and others having civilized, intellectually stimulating conversations about these topics.


The people there are very polite and really are a joy to discuss and
debate with.

I think you'd find the community there to your liking. So consider this an invitation (over there, I am "Merkavah12").

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?

January 23, 2012 at 7:12 AM
shikome kido mi said...

While there are many possible answers to that multiple choice question, Falcos. "Free Will" is not one of them. Free will is a very important concept but it doesn't cover this particular situation. It only relates to things that result from people's actions. Free will explains a car accident (either through the actions of the driver or the car-maker) or a murder, but not an earthquake or the existence of lethal viruses, to give some examples.

However, as Falcos said, there are quite a few satisfactory answers to that logical conundrum, ranging from atheism (no god)to an indifferent god (or at least one with higher priorities than human life), to one I find it odd people don't consider more often, namely that perhaps any divine power(s) that exist are not omnipotent but merely very, very powerful and therefore this is the best possible universe that could be created (either through lack of power or lack of omniscience to guide said power). After all, the idea that divinity must equal omnipotence and omniscience is a fairly recent one. This idea isn't even present in all the Old Testament and other gods like Zeus and Thor certainly were more powerful than humans could ever hope to be but limited. Not that there's any more evidence for that than for atheism, but it's an odd phenomena for me that even when people reject the popular modern christian version of godhood, they still allow it to totally shape their definitions of what a god must be.

I apologize for allowing myself to be drawn into this off-topic discourse, I merely dislike seeing the term "free will" misused.

January 25, 2012 at 3:06 AM
Lewis Lovhaug said...

"I apologize for allowing myself to be drawn into this off-topic discourse, I merely dislike seeing the term "free will" misused."

Well, I'm assuming in this case you're referring to earthquakes and natural disasters in the "act of God sense," which I've never ascribed as LITERAL acts of a divine being. In my interpretation, God set up the mechanisms of how the universe works and got them started and doesn't actively create earthquakes or the like (ignoring acts in the bible, since that's a different discussion).

January 25, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Ignatius said...

I agree Lewis. I've always held the old Catholic belief in natural mechanism (Things which exist as part of the ecosystem and ultimately are part of acts which are necessary for the growth and maintenance of a delicate ecology like that of our planet, created and set in motion as a perfect art by God's hand) . Earthquakes and the like, are instruments of life and change as well as demolition.

In fact, I would argue that much of the time it is human arrogance negligence which lead to the real death and horror from these events (IE: human alterations to existing diseases making them worse, the ghettoization of poorer classes leading them to be more exposed to the elements etc). So I would argue that human free will is still part of the equation even in the case of natural disasters. If humans pulled together and worked as a family (as God intended) as opposed to preying on each other and satisfying our greed, these natural occurrences would be far more manageable.

So personally I find a fourth answer to be more satisfactory: God exists, is omniscient, omnipotent and is benevolent, but it is humanity which has not caught up with the program.

January 25, 2012 at 7:56 AM
shikome kido mi said...

They don't have to be active.

Assuming natural disasters are passive mechanisms that passively kill people without direct intervention still assumes that their creator either can't make mechanisms that aren't dangerous to humanity, doesn't care enough to do so, or hasn't noticed the problem.

So, you're still ruling out either omnipotence (the ability to make a perfect system), total benevolence (although not partial benevolence, such as favoring human well-being when it doesn't get in the way of greater concerns), or omniscience (perhaps the creator didn't realize they'd be harmful).

January 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM
shikome kido mi said...

Or to put it another way, this is the trap of claiming absolutes.

If you say "more powerful than humanity can ever be", "more wise than humanity can ever be", and/or "very loving" you can explain bad things away but once you attempt to say "all powerful", "all knowing", and "utterly benevolent" you have only two options: Either these claims are wrong or the universe is absolutely perfect with no bad qualities at all.

I really don't want to have to debate the latter too much. save to say that it's my view it isn't. Not to say it's horrible, but not "absolutely benign".

January 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Ignatius said...

Or it is perhaps that humanity's short comings that make them so dangerous. After all, you can give someone a foam spork and if they are fool hardy or dedicated enough, they can still kill themselves with it (perhaps by stuffing it down their throats). Unless, of course, you bind them hand and foot, robbing them of choice (even if it is with the intention of protecting them from their own incompetence).

January 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Ignatius said...

In other words, the system is all fine and good, but it is humanity's free will (our choice to engage in acts which will doom ourselves) that is the problem.

After all, we are the species that created a show featuring Scott Bakula and Jolene Blalock on spaceship...and managed to make it boring.

January 26, 2012 at 5:02 PM
DJ1107 said...

Okay looking at the cover just shows how Doug Moech know diddly dick about other superheroes as you said it's a group of non-powered heroes and Catwoman, but heres the problem Hourman 1,000,000 is on the cover. He's a robot from the future and as we established with Booster Gold Hourman could be useing parts and pieces of alien tech. still good review

February 2, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Ricky said...

I read through a lot of this religious discussion and I continue to see the one mistake that I've always see in these debates by both sides. Faith is not simply believing without a reason. Faith is putting your complete trust in something. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason that belief in God is illogical. I know that no discussion has taken place here in several months but that is something that always bugs me. Anyway, the debate on this blog was still a lot better and more reasonable than when you see this debate on a lot of places on the internet.

November 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Maximum Aggro said...

Saludos Linkara! I've been going through your backlog of episodes (always nice to meet another Libertarian, by the by).

Wow. to think that someone got paid to write this slurry (I think we've all had it pounded into heads about
how awesome Batman is for a bit too long. I love Brucie, but man sometimes it just gets weird). About the only joy one could get out of this comic
Is watching you eviscerate it. Excellent work, Lewis. I'm definitely going to hang around here for awhile.

Now usually, this is the part where'd I'd just vamoose, but then I saw this and had to say something:

"Or to put it another way, this is the trap of claiming absolutes."

No. No it really isn't.

The Abrahamic God (assuming this is the one being discussed), can actually be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent
even in light of your argument. The problem with your argument is two fold:

One: that it assumes what my old Philosophy professor might call a "magic wand" position. The arguer makes a claim
that relies on a heavy precondition focused towards an ideal state as imagined by the arguer (in this case, "if the universe was
[X] (whereas X is a subjective imagined ideal state ) then [Y] would be so. Since the universe is not [X], [Y] is not so ".

Now this kind of argumentation isn't bad, per se. In fact there are quite a few very solid works based on this proposition.
But it carries many heavy risks and many traps of it's own. One of which, you seem
to have fallen into: the trap of False Perfection. You assume that the nature of the universe as we know it (or rather what appears
to be it's effects on humanity) demonstrates a fault on the part of it's creator. You assume a universe that is made to your
specifications (a 'child safe' universe, if you will) will not have these problems. You assume that a universe full of
intelligent beings will not encounter hardships and horror simply by changing the playpen. The counter to that is simple: how can you be
certain that a universe that are proposing will be any better than ours? How can you be certain that said 'perfect universe'
will not discount other features (in the quest for ultimate safety) that our universe has that makes it so vast, beautiful and
full of promise? How can you be certain that mortal entities populating this universe will not replicate the mistakes of this one?
You make alot of assumptions that simply don't hold up.

This is important to bear in mind, because ultimately it is the reason why your argument got gummed up something awful:
Free Will.

Here is where problem number Two appears: In order for your argument to have steam, you have to assume that humanity is a passive party completely at the mercy
of the universe and clear of any and all charges of complicity in bringing about their own doom. This is not the case.

We pollute the planet, kill entire ecosystems, jimmy around with exotic viruses, perform underground weapons tests, recklessly drill
and bleed the Earth, build in places we should not and
put personal profit over making solid and safe housing (which we have demonstrated our capacity to do)in the places we should and do live,
and deny efforts to make the situation better. Humanity effectively unleashed disasters, diseases, and doom upon themselves and it is
only getting worse. Far from being passive or helpless, We have incredible power over our ecosystem.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/560158/scientists_find_link_between_global_warming_and_earthquakes
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-ways-man-destroying-environment.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-ecology-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


It cannot be denied that our planet was/is fairly spectacular in that, the conditions it presents for the propagation of intelligent life are
excellent. In fact the sheer biodiversity on display is proof of that. If humanity could foul that up, what chance any other world or reality have?

January 11, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Maximum Aggro said...

What you essentially hand waved away when Lewis and the gang brought it up, was the main problem here: it isn't the universe that's
trying to kill us, WE are trying to kill us. The universe is quite benign. It seems to have everything we need in
abundance and more just waiting to be discovered. It is balanced. It is capable to supporting our type of lifeform easily. Our early ancestors
did so for quite a while. But modern homo sapiens, however, have chosen otherwise. In the name of greed, the hunger for power, and just
good old fashioned arrogance, we have twisted the world and now our avarice comes down upon our heads.

In other words: Free Will.

Even if you created a world without danger inherent in it's design, you could not stop those who desired power over others from
perverting that. Create an infinite food supply? A Cabal of power players could force
others into a position in which they and they alone could decide when, who and under what conditions that supply could be accessed.
Create a world without natural disasters? You still do not stop those who wish to plunder that world and thus force their victims
to live in the filth and decay of ruined ecosystems, unleashing plagues. Create a world without disease? You do not stop hatred and it's
manifestation in the form of war, which ultimately destroys the land, it's people, and the constant race to acquire arms, military technology,
and the industry which propels them forward to their apocalyptic conclusion (ultimately resulting in vast changes which
unleashes greater and greater disasters, if anyone actually survives the wars in the first place, that is).

The common denominator in all this is human choice.

In order for your perfect universe to exist you have have only a set number of options, for example:

Deus Tyrannis: Your humans are your puppets. They do not have greed because you do not allow them to have it. They do not think hostile thoughts
because you do not allow them. All possible choices that that could harm
them are removed from their minds. Their imagination is limited to prevent them from thinking up new ways or experiencing unpleasant emotions which could
lead them to eventually go down a path that alters their environment, thus removing any power they have to change their world.
They cannot hurt themselves because they have no control over their selves (and may not even have a concept of "self"). In doing this, you create a species
that cannot truly grow or evolve or create or even think deeply. This species is merely a pack of thralls that has no need to grow, because they lack the mind
to need growth.

Cosmic Helicopter Parent: Your humans are weak, immature little creatures that need your round the clock intervention. They fight a war? You put them in time out.
They create a killer disease? You cure it for them. They break something? You fix it for them. They do anything that might get the hurt? You get involved
and stop them. They cannot hurt themselves because they can always rely on you to fix the problem. They rely on you for everything (thus eliminating the fear of
others forcing their will on them via supply control). In doing this, you create a species that cannot grow up and has no impetus to do so. They have free will but never the
responsibility (and as a result, the maturity and growth) that comes with it. This species is a bunch of lazy goofs who never contribute to science, art or philosophy
because they never need to do anything to advance themselves past the pursuit of pleasure and seeing what they can make you fix next.


How do I know this? Because the paradigms I suggested are all established patterns of human response when someone tries to create a Utopia. History
is full of these examples (Barett's "The Rise and Fall of an African Utopia" and Walicki's "Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom" are good, but understandably
depressing reads for this) .

January 11, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Maximum Aggro said...



So, with all that in mind, it does seem reasonable to argue that despite protests to the contrary, God IS omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent as shown by the
nature of our world and universe today. He can create a beautiful world, care and love humans...and still step aside to allow humanity to choose, to grow and to learn.
Anything else would be cruel or tyrannical. It is in this, one could argue, that we see his divine wisdom, divine might, and divine love.

As Merkavah pointed out, Matt Groening said it best:


"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch. Like a safecracker, or a pickpocket. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

January 11, 2013 at 11:04 PM
shikome kido mi said...

@Maximum Aggro:
I don't know if I want to get back into this but, since you took the time to post such long replies, hopefully Linkara won't be too upset by the sheer amount of non-comic related discussion going on:
No, I'm not ignoring free will.

I'm operating under the idea that free will only accounts for SOME of the problems humans face. And it does, to claim that every single problem humans face is created by their choices, up to and including hurricanes and the like (especially in the days where our global footprint was much smaller) is so ridiculous I can't believe I even have to argue against it.

Second, "you assume your perfect safe universe wouldn't be lacking in...". No, I assume that if one is literally omnipotent they could create a universe that wasn't lacking those things while still non-hostile. If, as you say, they couldn't, they are not omnipotent because you are now arguing that there are limits to what God can accomplish. Omnipotent means you can do anything. So, what you're arguing for is "very powerful and not omnipotent." Which is fine, as long as you realize what you're saying. If you want to argue there's an all knowing, all loving god who's just very, very powerful, fine. But don't pretend that such a being is possesses absolute power in one breath and then limit what it can accomplish in the next.

January 12, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Lewis Lovhaug said...

"I don't know if I want to get back into this but, since you took the time to post such long replies, hopefully Linkara won't be too upset by the sheer amount of non-comic related discussion going on:"

Quite the contrary! I enjoy philosophical debates, so have at it. ^_^

January 12, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Maximum Aggro said...

"including hurricanes and the like (especially in the days where our global footprint was much smaller)
is so ridiculous I can't believe I even have to argue against it."

The scientific consensus says otherwise. Never before has a species had this much
impact or caused this much damage to the Earth, and the effect on it's storm systems
is apparent.


"Omnipotent means you can do anything."

Yes.


"If, as you say, they couldn't,
they are not omnipotent because you are now arguing that there are limits to what God
can accomplish."


"So, what you're arguing for is "very powerful and not
omnipotent."

Wrong on both counts. See below.



"But don't pretend that such a being is possesses
absolute power in one breath and then limit what it can accomplish in the next."

I didn't. Please re-read my argument.



"No, I assume that if one is literally omnipotent they could create a universe that
wasn't lacking those things while still non-hostile."

...which I already addressed. The universe doesn't lack what we need and it is certainly not hostile. So
God already succeeded in the goal you claim proves his omnipotence. It is humanity's overwhelming desire towards making poor choices that is the problem.
How many permutations of the universe are needed in order to prove that? To refuse to compromise our ability to choose
is not a "limitation" on his power, but rather an act beneficence on his part.
Just because a heavy weight boxing
champ doesn't punch my head off my shoulders, doesn't mean he can't.

January 12, 2013 at 2:03 AM
shikome kido mi said...

@Maximum Aggro:
One last try and then I'm giving it up.

No, not wrong. Scientists say humanity's imprint is blah blah. Now, sure. But every hurricane ever? Even when there weren't very many people alive? Please. How about earthquakes, then? Humans cause the shifting of continental plates? You're just turning a blind eye to things that don't match your established view rather than making actual arguments at this point. Humans do not cause every event to ever happen and thinking so is the height of hubris. Therefore, God 'stepping aside' to let humanity make it's own decisions is, once again, completely irrelevant to the points raised. Free will accounts for lots of things that happen, not everything that happens to humans.

"Already addressed." No, no it wasn't. "The universe has what we need and isn't hostile." Hostile might have been overstating things. Dangerous would probably be more accurate. And your heavyweight boxer analogy falls apart because we aren't talking about someone punching humanity, we're talking about someone building a universe. If God can build something better and chooses not too, than rather than disproving 'omnipotence' we're disproving 'all-loving'. Yes, you made a bunch of arguments about how overdoing things could be bad, but those very arguments assume that God isn't capable of dealing with those side effects. That's not omnipotence, then. Unless, of course God could but doesn't know how, then it's 'all-knowing' that's being disproven.

For all three to apply, this literally has to be the best universe conceivable. Not possible-- conceivable. It could easily be the best universe possible if the one building it had limits, so arguing that it's the best universe possible doesn't support your ideas, it supports mine. Every one of your arguments supports 'powerful but limited' because you're arguing that God can't do better because of reasons. And they're pretty good reasons, that would certainly apply to human attempts or even a more powerful being's, but they wouldn't apply to an omnipotent, all-knowing being. That is,as I said, the trap of claiming absolutes. "God knows more than humans can and is more powerful than they can ever be" is a much more defensible argument. Or alternately "God is all powerful and all-knowing but doesn't actually prioritize humanity first". But all three qualities together absolutely don't work.

January 12, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Maximum Aggro said...

“One last try and then I'm giving it up.”

A shame. I’m having a grand time. Usually people would start throwing sandals at me, around this point in our chat.

“Scientists say humanity's imprint is blah blah. Now, sure. But every hurricane ever? Even when there weren't very many people alive? Please.”

Given that our ancestors were able to manage dealing with hurricanes, storms, and the like, and only in recent centuries has the human population suffered truly devastating storms and the inability to weather them? I’d say the record favors me.

“ How about earthquakes, then? Humans cause the shifting of continental plates?”

I direct you to one of the links I cited before:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/560158/scientists_find_link_between_global_warming_and_earthquakes
You underestimate the power of humanity or the consequences of that power.

“You're just turning a blind eye to things that don't match your established view rather than making actual arguments at this point.”

Irony, thy name is Shikome. I’ve provided sources. I’ve established premises for my argumentation. I’ve taken up the challenge. It seems that you are the one playing “blind man on the witness stand”. You haven’t made an actual argument yet (relying instead on hand waving things which conflict with your world view).

“Humans do not cause every event to ever happen.”

As I said before, even in the cases where the event couldn’t be directly caused by human hands, humans can still make the event worse. Humans can horde, fight, and act selfishly, and make a run of the mill event into a nightmare of doom and chaos. Even in those cases where we do not drop the hammer, we still manage to be the source of the real destruction.

“Therefore, God 'stepping aside' to let humanity make it's own decisions is, once again, completely irrelevant to the points raised. “

No. It is at the very heart of this matter.

January 12, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Maximum Aggro said...


“Hostile might have been overstating things. Dangerous would probably be more accurate.”

Only dangerous because we make it so. But continue:

“And your heavyweight boxer analogy falls apart because we aren't talking about someone punching humanity, we're talking about someone building a universe. “

You missed the point of the analogy: just because someone has the power and does not abuse it, does not mean they lack the power.
“If God can build something better and chooses not too, than rather than disproving 'omnipotence' we're disproving 'all-loving'.”
How? His desire to give us freedom, as opposed to being a tyrant? To have humanity CHOOSE instead of having them as thralls? That does not disprove his omnibenevolence (quite the opposite actually).

“Yes, you made a bunch of arguments about how overdoing things could be bad, but those very arguments assume that God isn't capable of dealing with those side effects. That's not omnipotence, then. Unless, of course God could but doesn't know how, then it's 'all-knowing' that's being disproven. “

My “bunch of arguments” assume no such thing. Please re-read. The side effect of a species being stripped of true choice and freedom of expression (whatever those choices might be and however we may express ourselves)? That is not a side effect, that’s a terminal problem. The problem is not for God, but it’s ramifications for us. The fact that we have a universe that is so fruitful without resorting to hand-holding, is proof of that omnipotence. The fact that God could foresee those outcomes and create a universe which fosters our species’ growth without stripping us of our mental growth demonstrates his omniscience. Just saying ‘X is disproven’ doesn’t make it so unless there is a solid argument in there. (in fact, it seems like you’ve just made a series of rhetorical jabs, not arguments).

“For all three to apply, this literally has to be the best universe conceivable. Not possible-- conceivable. “

It already is.

“It could easily be the best universe possible if the one building it had limits, so arguing that it's the best universe possible doesn't support your ideas, it supports mine.”

That’s nice….too bad that isn’t the argument I put forth. So claiming it supports your contention, isn’t exactly helpful to your case, now is it?

“Every one of your arguments supports 'powerful but limited' because you're arguing that God can't do better because of reasons. And they're pretty good reasons, that would certainly apply to human attempts or even a more powerful being's, but they wouldn't apply to an omnipotent, all-knowing being.”

Once again: HOW? You’ve repeatedly made this claim. I’ve repeatedly shot it down. Where is your argument behind that claim? Where is your support for that claim? I reiterate, Just saying ‘X is disproven’ doesn’t make it so.

“That is,as I said, the trap of claiming absolutes. “

No it isn’t. Please see my initial post on the Trap of False Perfection.

“….Or alternately "God is all powerful and all-knowing but doesn't actually prioritize humanity first".

Not bending humanity to his will, providing us with a luscious world in a grand universe, and stepping back and letting us do as we please with all of it? This is not putting humanity first? Come on now...

“But all three qualities together absolutely don't work.”

Given the nature of universe and our minds? The the exact opposite is true. We are free, we are surrounded by the ideal world floating in a master crafted universe. That is cosmic art made by the hand that has no equal, the mind that knows all, of one who put us before himself. As I’ve argued before: that is Omnibevolence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience in one tidy package.

January 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...

This story's ending makes me wish Darksied or Braniac would show up and remind the people that Batman can't do everything and nobody on Earth with no powers in the DCU is a bad idea.

February 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...

About that tirade about god not caring about innocents dying, and being self centered and vindictive... have you ever read the old testament?

March 18, 2013 at 1:35 AM
Anonymous said...

"About that tirade about god not caring about innocents dying, and being self centered and vindictive... have you ever read the old testament?"

I have. What of it?

March 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Gigi said...

So I saw this review and loved your line in one of the three videos "they lost their powers and also their brains". Then I remembered a cool Superman comic were everyone lost their powers, but it turned out to be all in their heads because of mind control. They actually figured out that they did not really lose their powers BECAUSE there was no way all of them could lose powers through one source.

Keeping that in mind, wouldn't it be cool if this comic instead of ending on Wonder-SuperAbomination baby (sorry, I'm a Clois shipper) it instead ended on it turning out that the Black Light Event was all in their head, they overcame the mental block and it turned out that a side effect of the Black Light Event was that everyone lost the ability to think like rational adults? All the couples get back together, everyone gets their old names back and all the heroes learn that when you lose your powers, YOU DON'T RUN AROUND LIKE A HEADLESS CHICKEN! Love the show!

August 13, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Adam Graham said...

I actually think Wonder Woman becoming Catholic could have worked if given the right context. For whatever reason, her Pantheon isn't helping her, isn't present, and she can't reach them. It'd be easy to conclude that she needed to seek something else with that having failed. However, they needed to actually develop the character in this context to make sense. Why did she become a stockbroker? (ex: Did she go to an AIDS center and find they lacked funding and she decided to play the market to raise money for charity but somehow she lost herself and got caught up in the thrill of making money, which left her empty.) And what led her to the Catholic Church? We don't know because it doesn't make sense.

Really, there were too many heroes running around that it just didn't focus. The overall message that superheroes are mostly heroes because of their powers is stupid and is contradicted in stories where people lose their powers. To be fair, some people would probably act like Kyle or Clark (though not Clark) did in dealing with PTSD. Many heroic people such as police and soldiers have been afflicted, but that everyone would respond as pathetically as they did is stupid. And the Martin Manhunter needing lessons from Batman. Give me a break!

November 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 226 of 226   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)