Real Life Politics in Comics

Hell, didn't most Marvel heroes have a public identity by the time Civil War began?

And actually, would we need Good Samaritan laws to extend to super villains and alien invasions, specifically? There's nothing in the law now that says ordinary civilians can't help out in a crisis. You're not supposed to impede the official authorities, but there's nothing that says the average citizen can't help out (I think I remember Spider-Man even citing Good Samaritan laws once or twice, to explain his own activities).

Quite. Spider-Man is pretty well covered; you can't even nail him for littering, considering his webs melt away in a few hours. Batman, on the other hand... It's kinda funny that, state laws permitting, it would probably be legal for him to carry a gun and use it to lethal effect in a good deal of his usual encounters with criminals, but it would still be illegal for him to employ torture, breaking and entering, privacy violations, or lugging around half the arsenal of Iran in his car - stuff he does on a daily basis.

But yeah, it's become pretty obvious that the friction regarding authority exists for its own sake, when writers feel like making a Point™ rather than just telling a good action story.

I think one other reason this keeps happening is that writers seem to be stuck in the mindset that this stuff feels new. That is following Stan Lee's saying "of every comic is someone's first" they try to do some growing pains arc with the hero clashing with the authorities even when by now this situation should have been resolved. As mentioned, the Avengers had government liasons prior to civil war and Batman previously worked more like a consultant.

Am I being clear? Please let me know.

Yeah, I get what you mean. I'd say, though, that the idea of every comic being someone's first could easily be employed to the opposite effect - one man's generic by-the-book action-adventure is another man's cherished first foray into the genre proper. As you've said before, independent takes on superheroes tend to do just as well as the originals, likely because they focus on the more visible aspects like supervillain fights and whatnot.

To contrast, modern writers for the big two publishers tend to have grown up with the genre, and want to break out of the mold with stories that they find interesting... even if it actually results in continuity lockouts and various other problems for potential and casual fans. (My own tactic so far has been to focus on less-mainstream titles within the two universes; I was blessed to miss out on the first Civil War proper, as it was only barely mentioned in the books I followed then.)

As far as intervention into foreign countries goes, there's an interesting case with Batman and the Outsiders. The Outsiders were formed when Batman quit the JLA over the JLA's refusal to intervene in the nation of Markovia, when the country was taken over by a fellow named Baron Bedlam in a coup. The JLA didn't like the situation, and would have liked to intervene, but were instructed by official channels not to do so. Batman wasn't having this, so he quit, assembled his own group of operatives (which would eventually include one of Markovia's royal family, so I suppose he could say he had official sanction, I guess) and went in anyway.

I think an article on this very wiki said that later on, Batman disassociated himself with the Outsiders when a near-identical situation came up, and he was now the one going, "No, wait, you can't go in, there's international laws and stuff to consider!"

Batman: "mind wiping people is not cool but mass surveillance using an AI whose named is a reference to Big Brother is."

The funny thing is that old-school Batman had zero problem with mind-wiping criminals. Waaaay back in Batman #2, he planned to take the Joker to a "famous brain specialist" who'd "cure" him of his criminal ways.

It was forgotten immediately after one panel's mention, though...

Doc Savage did it all the time. Seriously, that was his go-to method for dealing with his enemies, once he'd caught them. The idea didn't raise as many eyebrows in the 30's and early 40's as it does now.

Did you know the guy who invented the lobotomy won a Nobel Prize in real life?

It was innovative back in its time.

Hitler also won time's man of the year and Columbus has a holiday (though I dont know if anyone still celebrates it).

In fairness, the Person of the Year is whoever was most significant, for good or bad. That's why Stalin, Ayatollah Khomanei, and Donald Trump have all gotten the award.

I'd say the psychiatric solution could be considered fair for it's day regarding the Doc Savage tales, stemming from the attitude that criminal mentality itself is a curable psychological disorder. That's a far cry from "let's brainwash this guy and rob him of his free will entirely, that'll show how noble we are for letting him live".

Hey now that's not what it was a reference to.

The rest is absolutely valid, though.

I know its a reference to the original brother eye but I'm pretty sure it was also inspired by the concept of big brother.

Speaking of which has DC ever tried to tie Jack Kirbys brother eye and the modern brother eye together.

edited 25th Jun '17 10:04:16 AM by Thelastwarrior

I think in both cases we're up against writers who perhaps have different notions of what's right and moral than the audience. Or at least, that what the audience might consider moral today. And Doc Savage performed lobotomies against the patient's will, which was, while entirely legal at the time, still morally questionable to a lot of folks. Many professionals at the time wouldn't have thought twice about his choosing to sterilze them, either. My point was, Batman's sending the Joker to a "brain specialist" in Batman # 2 from waaaay back in the 40's was, as you point out, considered a viable approach at the time. I didn't chime in on the rightness or wrongness of mind-wiping anybody.

edited 25th Jun '17 11:58:03 AM by Robbery

More to the point, I reckon back then there was no particular imperative to keep the Joker alive as an emblematic villain. If there's one thing that's gotten old, it's comic stories basing in-universe morality on real life business concerns. Anything that prevents villains from being permanently offed is good, anything that allows civilians and legitimate authorities to overshadow the heroes is bad, no further discussions allowed.

Speaking of which, I'm kinda puzzled at how comics have taken to tackling various social justice issues, considering that the framework they function on is virtually incompatible. If there's one lesson all superheroes have started revolving around, it's that some people are inherently and immutably better than others, often by virtue of birth alone; that they should be given a free pass for a number of otherwise illegal activities, and that it leads to nothing good if ordinary people try to even the scales themselves. Not exactly a shining example of egalitarianism here. There's the occasional affirmative action wave, but so long as stories keep dividing people into valorous vigilantes, vicious villains and vulnerable victims with next to no mobility in between, I'm not sure it can be reconciled with any actual stance in support of equal rights and representation.

That's one of my main problems with the writing at DC and Marvel; a lot of the constructs and trends from the stories ultimately stems from the fact that they're never-ending stories trying to make a profit, and unfortunately to that end many writers haven't realized what the best way of writing around those limitations are. Instead they try to draw attention to problems they can't fix or coming up with ways to validate the status quo.

Actually, if I remember right Joker's status as a cash-cow villain was recognized from his very conception. He got two stories in Batman #1, and in the second one editor Whitney Ellsworth directly ordered the last panel changed so he'd survive what was meant to be a fatal stab wound.

That said, '40s and '50s Batman comics (probably other ones as well) ran on a limited sort of Negative Continuity, where every individual story treated its chosen supervillain as the only one B&R have ever faced (teamups and Legion of Doom stories were exceedingly rarer back then). You'd pretty much never see the Joker getting shilled in a story that wasn't about him, as opposed to today where he gets at least half a panel of flashback every time Barbara or Jason come up.

Perhaps it's time we went back to that...

For all the things that make them exceptional, I think the idea is supposed to be that most of the heroes are ordinary people who have in some way become empowered. That's really the purpose of the time-worn concept of the secret identity (which is employed much less often, and to less effect today). Superman, despite being an immensely powerful alien, is also Clark Kent, a quiet un-assuming gent disdained by Lois Lane and bullied by his boss. Bruce Wayne, despite being extremely wealthy, is perceived by the general public to be a lazy, do-nothing twit. Diana Prince is a minor functionary in the Air Force (or in Washington, as the case may be). Whether or not the lack of glamour or prestige attached to their various secret ID's is enough to make them "ordinary" in the minds of most readers, I think that was the intent behind it. I'll be the first to say that the civilian lives of super-heroes have become sorely neglected, in the drive to up the action ante, and because of that it does start to feel as if the "classism" you mention is at play.

edited 26th Jun '17 9:02:49 AM by Robbery

Agreed. I'd say additional factors are the way idealized advertising fluff has leaked in-universe with how inspirational superheroes are supposed to be, and their less than appreciative attitude toward anyone trying to emulate their activities, despite how they are essentially amateur volunteers themselves.

Then there's the overall comics portrayal of civil institutions, with a rather pronounced double standard - whereas government agencies and clandestine military teams are relatable enough to invoke some of their negative real life connotations, in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel, they present one of the few reliable venues for actual ordinary people to hold their own and make a difference. Kinda like how all types of advanced ordnance are completely kosher for any tech tycoon rich enough to afford them, but a simple firearm, a self-defense tool available by right to anyone (in America) - that's a no-no, Batman. They're either useless or just disparaged as something only bad guys use, particularly by those heroes whose rogues would be quickly decimated by even a semi-auto AR-15.

Too much of these shenanigans, and you inevitably backlash into the nineties anti-hero - as the trope's analysis page suggests, these were characters meant to embody the idea of becoming one's own savior, rather than waiting for such to come. Similarly, firearms and military-grade bionic enhancements are seen as symbols of empowerment rather than violence and dehumanization, while lethal action is viewed as getting stuff done personally rather than relying on an obviously dysfunctional system. I reckon the main reason these guys aren't seeing a revival right now, Deadpool's popularity aside, is that the same ideas are already prevalent in video games, so would-have-been comic fans flock to those instead.

All in all, I'd say comics could indeed use dialing certain aspects down, focusing not so much on the heroes' civilians lives but on their status as civilians altogether. Alas, a lot of overblown excesses, like Batman's infinite wealth and the Justice League and the Avengers being NGO superpowers, have become sacred cows that even elseworld fics consider mandatory, just to appease vocal minorities in a dwindling fan-base, rather than actually focus on what seems to attract the most potential fans. Though in that regard, I really have to give Marvel some credit for trying to milk every dark horse fan favorite they notice, from Deadpool to Groot. Ditto DC for what they've done with Harley Quinn, though this seems to be contrary to their usual trinity-focused philosophy. Booster Gold and Lobo would be my picks for further such endeavors.

edited 26th Jun '17 12:28:35 PM by indiana404

Lobo's currently on the Justice League and Red Hood is starring in a book with Artemis from Wonder Woman and Bizzarro as anti heroes.

Another aspect I've noticed is how superheroes' tendency to self police not only shows disregard for non superheroes but also causes even more disaster. I feel the issue in Tower of Babel wasn't Bruce merely making contingencies against the League, but doing it himself without any input from other people. If he wanted people to be safe why not distribute anti League weapons and technology to every police and military force in the world? Instead, the League almost dies because they were caught blind by Ra's. And there's the aforementioned debacle with Brother Eye.

I can't help but notice a lot of the problems come from the fact that the superhero genre tends to be very anti-government. A big reason often cited as to why vigilantes don't kill is that it's not their right to decide who lives or dies, but if they're a government-funded operation they can be legitimitzed and given the option to use lethal force in the same way police officers are.