Cut because it was plagiated from Wikipedia.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I just re-read issue 73 of Birds of Prey volume 1 in relation to the second example for "If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him" after my edit was changed back to what it was, with the following explanation:
"No, he was on the ground and defeated. That was the issue: Whether killing a defeated opponent is okay."
In the issue, Brusaw has used his mind control powers to convince every member of the cult to commit suicide by hand grenade, which they will do very soon. This is the only reason Huntress considers killing him (she even says "you could have *lived*, dammit" in the previous issue). The resulting explosions would probably kill Huntress and might kill Vixen, but they definitely will kill all the kids, teenagers and adults who were under Brusaw's control. This is to say nothing of the threat posed by the five meta humans who may or may not resume their attack at any moment (Huntress later says that Brusaw got them to stand down, which appears to happen off screen), mainly because Huntress and Vixen could probably beat them a second time.
He might have been laying on the ground, with three bolts in his chest and Huntress stepping on his neck, but his mind control powers still made him an immediate threat to everyone at the site. As an immediate threat, he can in no way be considered "defeated". If he was a threat at all before Huntress shot him the first time, then he was still a threat after she shot him, because his capacity to kill was not affected.
This scene wasn't about whether killing a defeated opponent is okay (because he wasn't defeated), it was about what it takes to get Huntress to cross the line (as it turns out, it's to prevent the mass murder of hundreds of people). This is why the example should acknowledge that he was still a threat.
He wasn't actually defeated until after Huntress tried to fire her crossbow. She convinced Brusaw to give up by reminding him of all the other cult mass suicides (knowing both the names and former locations of several) and how they didn't achieve anything. It wasn't as though the police were just waiting in the wings to arrest the guy and throw him in prison, prevented only by the Huntress ruthlessly deciding he needed to be executed for his crimes.
These distinctions are important because they each present a very different picture of the situation, especially in terms of Helena's characterization. What's the point of including examples if they don't actually describe the situation?
I'm pretty sure this is the right place for this kind of discussion, but if not than I'll gladly take it to where it's more appropriate.
Edited by Tonkarz Hide / Show Replies
This is the correct place for such a discussion, and I'm always happy to go over why I made a change (Despite my outward appearance, I'm not quite perfect just yet and I suppose it's possible that I could make a mistake). I don't have my copy of the comic with me right now, so I'm going off memory, but I recall the scene differently: Killing Brushaw would not have stopped the bombs, he was (personally) defeated, and killing him would have accomplished nothing. It was only by sparing him that Huntress managed to stop the bombs since he deactivated the psychic commands, whereas if she'd shot him the kids would have gone ahead on autopilot.
I'll check once I'm home later today, but I'm pretty sure the idea was "Killing him won't stop anything, it'll just be vengeance" as opposed to "Killing him will be the dirty deed that saves the day".
Brusaw says that killing him won't stop the kids from carrying out their last commandments (in issue 72), but Huntress says "See, I figure when you're *gone*, your hold over those kids *ends*" in issue 73. She might be wrong, but it's clear that she thinks killing him will work. She also says "... I'm not going to let him turn this compound into the next cult massacre." shortly before her crossbow jams. So it's clear that Huntress believes that killing him will stop the bombs, and this is the main reason she is going to kill him. It's absolutely not a case of a meaningless execution that would accomplish nothing.
Whether or not it actually will save the kids or not is beside the point, because Huntress believes it will, but it's worth noting that Brusaw doesn't seem to understand his own powers, saying that the kids returned the the cult of their own free will, and we've seen that the cultists are still capable of independent decision making, such as when Peter decides to get out of dodge (and Tom shoots him), and he has no way of knowing what will happen when he dies, so she might be right.
Edited by Tonkarz
Fair point. To just side-step the whole issue, I've cut out the part where we try to say what the exact status is, just pointing out that Huntress is going to kill him and Vixen says not to cross the line.
I'm going to move this page to the Comicbook/ header, since Wiki policy is now to only have tropes and disambiguation pages on the Main/ section, but I'm wondering if it should just be moved directly to Comicbook/BirdsOfPrey, or if the page should be split into two pages for the pre- and post-Flashpoint continuities. Even though the original series was split into separate volumes it was part of a single continuity from beginning to end, but this new series (Which is technically volume three) is a completely new entity, not a continuation of the old series, so it should probably get its own page.
We made a split like this recently for the Batgirl page, and the separate series were identified by their years of publication (Steph's series was 2009 and the current was 2011). If we do it that way what year (Or year range) should be used for the original, and if we don't do it that way how should we identify which series is which?
Hide / Show Replies
It's been a few months, surely somebody can weigh in on this. If not, I'll make the change myself sometime soon to comply with wiki naming practices.
I just watched Linkara's review of Cry for Justice and, though it was a small part of the review, he mentioned both the idiocy of the Lantern/Blackhawk/Huntress threesome and Simone's retort that it was just a drunken fantasy.
There was no new information, but I'm wondering if this statement (That the original idea was idiotic and Simone rightfully Jossed it) should merit a mention on this page. I'm not sure if Linkara quite counts as a Big Name Fan here (He has not previously spent any time on either Simone or Bird characters or stories), but he is of repute on TV Tropes and is at least somewhat respected in the comics review section as a whole. Thoughts? Should Linkara be name-dropped, or should it be left as-is?
Katsuhagi recently put a link to the famous four-page spread from the end of Gail Simone's run (Gotta say, hell of a picture) on the Crowning Moment Of Awesome page, and I'm thinking a link to it should be put somewhere on this page. The dimensions of the picture won't work for the page header (If it's width is shrunk enough to fit on the page it would be so short as to be an indecipherable blob) but it is a great picture and is the best canon compilation of the various Birds ever drawn together.
It could, of course, just be put into a link ("See here for picture of all the Birds"), but where?
Edited by JBK405
Salty
Why was the Good Catholic entry deleted? I don't see any reason, and Helena's faith is a big part of her character.
Face the past and you'll fly ass first into the future. - My Dad Hide / Show Replies
Oh wait, never mind, I see that we also have Raised Catholic, which is a split off, and works better for Helena. The edit comment boxes are there for a reason.
Face the past and you'll fly ass first into the future. - My Dad
There's an issue with this sentence that opens the article.
A DC comic series running from 1999 to 2009, originally created by Chuck Dixon. Birds of Prey deals with ex-Batgirl Barbara Gordon coming to terms with being paralysed at the hands of The Joker in Alan Moore's The Killing Joke and becoming the tech-savy Oracle, a wheelchair bound computer genius who leads a team of superheroines from a high-tech HQ, originally a Clocktower in Gotham City, but later moving to Metropolis.
Now I don't know if the article writer missed this or if Simone did, but Barbara was in a wheelchair a decade before this series and was already active as the Oracle as far back as the 1994 series Knightsend. (The one where Bruce worked to recover his physical skills and his identity in the wake of Bane's backbreaker. At that point, her identity was a mystery.) Later she was a part of the Morrison era JLA as Oracle (after her identity had been confirmed) which took place prior to Birds of Prey.
Hide / Show Replies
Actually earlier than that - "Oracle" was introduced in Suicide Squad circa 1987.
I think the paragraph's OK, if a little unclear. It doesn't actually say Bo P was the debut series of Oracle.
It probably should be rewritten anyway, as Bo P really isn't much about Babs "coming to terms" with any of this stuff - as of the first Bo P miniseries, she had already become fairly comfortable with the changes in her life.
Jet-a-Reeno!
Looks good, though I'd note that they're back in Gotham now in the new series.
Jet-a-Reeno!
I thought about that, but decided not to since it is in the new series. It's not a spoiler, but it is still part of the ongoing, currently-happening events, which normally aren't in the intros. Primarily they're about overview and history.
Where did the Lady Blackhawk article go?
Hide / Show Replies