Political commentary in comics

How has DC remained based where marvel has failed?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

...

...

...

>How has DC remained based where marvel has failed?
Marvel still thinks they can get SJWs to spend more than a few dollars every other month.

Has it worked?

It's been a while since I checked but they didn't get more sales than usual and the drop of sales every issue was larger than usual.
Marvel also thinks making angry customers buy the most so they keep pissing their old fans off with shit like Whor or the new Iron "Man".

Holy shit Flash actually blown Supercuck the fuck out.

that chapter was so based

BASED

Oh don't forget that the new moon girl is the smartest person in marvel comics.

Smarter than Reed?!?!?!?!?!?

That's stupid.

>Superdude wants to take away people's ability to defend themselves

Is he going to be coming every time someone calls for help?

2000ad is based

He secretly wants the One Earth Regime.

superman is not connected to the speedforce, he is not able to think as fast as the flash

What year was this published?

Think it was around 2010 but the fatties have been in Dredd for a while

>slippery slope
>lol Flash is right coz he is winning in chess now!
Subtle

Their characters are more recognizable, everybody knows them so they don't have to pander

Does these reatards not know you don't capture the king in chess?
It basically how children play

>let them come at us with sticks

this is exactly how the government would see its citizens post-gun ban

From a logical standpoint, the flash is a faster thinker and should always beat superman in chess, his attention was diverted to the subject being discussed and now that he had given it thought he no longer had to focus on it so much and was able to win the game regardless of whether or not his thoughts are correct

It's not really a slippery slope. It's a rational rebuttal to Superman's proposal.

>logical
We are talking about fictional superheroes who's precise powers are totally arbitrary at times, correct?

its not my topic, but from all i hear sjw and leftists have taken over comics.

Point taken.

maybe the bigger point is supes mind was no longer as confident about the idea and became distracted in contemplation

They are playing checkers, but with chess pieces.

It's not a slippery slope. It's logic.

If you want to ban guns because they cause deaths you must also ban all drugs, pets, junk food etc. If you only want to ban guns then your initial argument for banning guns is not based on logic. It's basically ''guns are scary! Ban them!''

I don't see anything wrong with this reasonong though. How is this supposed to refute gim?

i thought sweden were the cucks on this board

guns, cars, trucks, cigarettes, alcohol. It all tools and it all kills people, if they ban one, why not the other you mongol rapebaby?

I don't know, why not the other? I would ban all those things, assuming there is a better replacement for functions currently peformed by cars and trucks.

>I don't care about civil liberties or personal freedoms
thats fine user, just dont complain if we like ours

>banning alcohol
Are you really this delusional?

>buzzwords
Not an argument.

yes user, banning everything remotely unhealthy is completely compatible with personal freedoms and civil liberties

It's this the comic from that fighting game? I lost interest after about 15 chapters

I assume you mean there would be harmful side effects to this ban, like booming black market.

I agree, but that's a different question entirely.

"Should we ban alcohol, in our current situation with the tools at our disposal?"
The answer is no, because most likely on the balance it would do more harm than good, since our abilities are insufficient.

But if we, like Superman, could perfectly enforce the ban with super powers, then why not? No reason not to ban it.

>repeating same buzzwords
Still not an argument.

>if you try to suicide ill kill you
good ol dredd

ban on alcohol rises use of more dangerous narcotics, even superman can't enforce total control of prohibition law
>No reason not to ban it
Well, it's Russian, there is no such thing as civil liberties

>suicide is against the law
>if you don't come down here right now ill kill you anyway

fucking love it

>but that's a different question entirely.
No, it isn't. It's an effect on the ban, just like the black market that would be created with a ban on guns.

>No reason not to ban it.
Aside from the fact that humans should have autonomy in actions that don't harm other people?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties

>inb4 haha its just a buzzword you can't use that against me haha I don't care
I think I worked out how the soviets took over, Russians just want the state to tell them what to do.

>ban on alcohol rises use of more dangerous narcotics
Yes, so we ban them as well.
>even superman can't enforce total control of prohibition law
So you basically agree with me, it's not bad by itself to ban it, it's only bad because we're not powerful enough to make the ban work.

>I think I worked out how the soviets took over, Russians just want the state to tell them what to do.
I doubt that's accurate, because it as an undemocratic revolution, but there might be something to it.

>No, it isn't.
No it is. One is a question of whether it is by itself ultimately right or wrong to do it, the other is a question whether we actually can do it. First is ethical question, second is technical question.
>Aside from the fact that humans should have autonomy in actions that don't harm other people?
Why on Earth should they? is that from a holy book of yours?

The Dredd vs death game was pretty fun, literally just arresting fatties

>Superman and The Flash steal the guns
>Next day niggers rape and kill every white woman in the world
>Superman forced to toss the Earth in to the Sun a few years later after seeing the horror of what he created.

Even superliberals are still fucking retarded.

Superman cant even effectively stop all instances of crime in his own city.

And you expect him to enforce a total ban on all dangerous items and activities around the world 24/7?

Flash is right. They'll spend a day or two going around super fast raiding everyones house like Santa Clause down your chimney, collecting most of the guns.

But they will inevitably miss some. And then what?

And which guns will they take? All of them? The militaries and police forces of the world will also be disarmed? Will they take jets, tanks, missiles, and so on, too? Will they take everyones CNC machines and means of production so that no one can create new guns or weapons? Will they censor all information pertaining to creation of firearms or weapons? How about swords, knives, and maces? Museums will also be raided? Collectors will havetheir historic one-of-a-kind artifacts taken because they happen to be weapons?


And once done, what then? You havnt changed peoples nature and conflicts will continue to arise that will lead to violence. Maybe far less will end in gunfire, but people have been killing each other over disputes for millions of years before guns and before supergoy showed up.

And he clearly cant be everywhere at once, 24/7, breaking up every instance of crime or violence.


The problem with "taking all the guns" is you are proposing something far beyond taking some inanimate objects. You're proposing to shackle the human spirit, human ingenuity and creativity. This cant easily be done because it is part of being human and will constantly seek to reassert itself.

Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

>Superman cant even effectively stop all instances of crime in his own city.
Well if he can't actualy do what he is proposing to do, then he is a moron, I don't read comics, so I just follow from what he is saying here.

>. First is ethical question, second is technical question.
Superman's only spoke about removing guns. Nothing he indicated suggested he could prevent guns from ever being created, much less alcohol which is much easier to create in private setting.

>Why on Earth should they?
Because satisfaction of our desires through independence is necessary for a fulfilling existence. The burden is actually on you to show why an entity should engage in prohibiting such behaviors.

> is that from a holy book of yours?
Here we go. I was wondering where you fell on the political scale, but it should have been clear to me you're one of those unironic materialists who still hasn't realized authoritarianism doesn't work.

Not an argument.

Even if superman could, the rest of points still stand

>Reading comics from left to right

I vomited.

Besides, Superman's reasoning was the number of people killed by guns, in which case cars and trucks would logically have to be removed as well.

Superman's premise is flawed from the ground up because Batman kicks his ass every time, with NO guns. Superman pls, try it.

>Superman's only spoke about removing guns. Nothing he indicated suggested he could prevent guns from ever being created, much less alcohol which is much easier to create in private setting.
Yes, I'm extrapolating this example to discuss a more general question. Superman in this case is a metaphor for someone basically omnipotent.
>Because satisfaction of our desires through independence is necessary for a fulfilling existence.
I don't see compelling evidence for that. I say "fulfilling existence", aka one that maximizes well-being, happiness and progress towards perfection can quite easily happen without desires at all. In fact, desires and their satisfaction is usually an impediment.
>you're one of those unironic materialists who still hasn't realized authoritarianism doesn't work.
Actually I'm not a materialist, more like undecided on the matter, but inclined to say materialism is wrong.

Attempting is against the law, which is logical since it disturbs the local people.

Superman has beaten Batman 10:1 in the comics. Imaginary axis makes a good video on it. Supermans a God. It's ridiculous to make it so that Batman thinks faster than the speed of light

The part about "human spirit"? It doesn't offer any argument beyong poetic appeal.
>in which case cars and trucks would logically have to be removed as well.
Like I said, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we have something that can fulfil the function of cars and trucks in a safer way. Otherwise, net balance of consequences would be negative.

The Flash is pretty based.

Go watch Flashpoint Paradox if you haven't yet.

Doesn't matter, I haven't read this book but it's obvious to me in this setting there building it up so that Batman would get plot armor to deal with Supes. I'm not about to debate what it would be like "if superman were real."

The US banned alcohol once. It was hilarious.

Spotted the weeboo

>Yes, I'm extrapolating this example to discuss a more general question.
So off-topic then? It's assuming an impossibility. We might as well assume why not suppress all evil thoughts in humans because it's equally likely, as well as all causes of death, or anything that doesn't create a utopia.

>I don't see compelling evidence for that.
It's the difference between being a slave and being a independent human being. Authoritarianism is not the default political system, so the burden is on you to prove that it's necessary or justified.

...

Because they were unable to make the ban work. Precisely as I said.

Injustice is shit

damn family, this comic started out really badly and ended being very insightful

>Otherwise, net balance of consequences would be negative.
That wasn't Superman's argument. It stemmed entirely from the number of deaths enabled by the device. If you're going to be an asshat and see nothing wrong with that, explain why there should be nothing wrong in a small number of deaths that occur from guns, alcohol, cars, etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

Kinda does matter. Batmans losing streak even with plot armor is still massive. Talking strictly in the comics.

>superman is a liberal fachist

What happened to him ?

Freedom is pricy. If everything is controlled for the sake of a small number of lives, you've already lost the reasons you were fighting for in the first place.

why there should be anything wrong**

>It's assuming an impossibility.
Yes, that's how ethical reasoning works. We discuss an abstract example to get to the fundamental values behind the ethical choice.

>We might as well assume why not suppress all evil thoughts in humans
We might as well? Many here would say it would be immoral in some way.

>It's the difference between being a slave and being a independent human being.
Then the burden is on you to prove that the state of "independent human being" is in all circumstances preferable to state of "slave" as you define it. So far you are relying on emotional impact of those words and their associations, nothing more.

>so the burden is on you to prove that it's necessary or justified.
Anything that produces better outcomes is thus justified. In a situation where authoritarianism would produce a better outcome, it is justified. There, done.

Okay, but Ivan here sees no problem with that whatsoever, expecting me to prove why freedom has any value whatsoever.

Alternate universe, the real supes comes in at the end and kicks this supes' ass.

Didn't Batman synthetically create some kryptonite rock that turned Superman inside out and made yellow sunlight poison him? Batman CAN and does beat Supes, in fact a lot of characters have.

That makes me think, Batman isn't going to be the only opposition here, supes is more than fucked

WTF I love DC now
Seriously did all of the uncucked writers from Marvel just move over to DC or something? This sensible political knowledge about why gun control is retarded is not what I'd expect.

Sorry, I don't follow you. Your post is too convoluted for me, can't see what you are trying to say.

Triple Dubs checked

Batman has beaten Superman but not in record breaking numbers like Superman beat Batman. I am talking total number of fights between them throughout the comics history.

Supes isn't fucked. In Injustice, the only one that can beat Superman was Superman.

He wouldn't understand, he's fucking Russian.

you're talking about a character who in multiple timelines overthrows the world's governments to "protect" the people.

He can't help it. He wants to protect so bad that he ends up being the bad guy to do it.

>expecting me to prove why freedom has any value whatsoever.
That's because it doesn't have any intrinsic value, only instrumental value, as far as having freedom results in greater well-being in certain situations.

Agreed, pic related kek

I know. I agree with you.

If he had it his way, he would wrap everyone in bubble wrap. You can't drink soda as it may cause diabetes. You can't play sports you might get injured or die. You can't stay out in the sun too long as you may get cancer.

>Waaaah, waaaah, I want to keep my penis compensat-I mean, gun.

Both sides are fucked. The problem isn't guns, they definitely make things worse but they aren't where all the issues stem from. The problem is AMERICANS and their STUPIDITY when it comes to guns. Blame it on "niggers in ghettos" all you fucking want, but THEY ARE STILL AMERICANS.

>Looks slightly like Farage
>Are you in or out?
That is almost a lefty brexit advert

Power corrupts even the best intentions.
Supes wants to keep people safe, but because he's so powerful sometime he's overreaching in the process.
Flash, because he's so fast in every way, is able to think things all the way through though, and understand why certain things are unwise.

Based Flash

The Red Son is a good comic on it. Look up the motion comic of it.

it's him, and nigel gets busted for agitating a crowd

Have any of you ever read Black Summer?

Read it 7 or 8 years ago. Thought it was pretty interesting.

"Guns are for people with small penis'" Cool meme. I don't even own a gun or desire owning one. I am even largely Liberal and even I believe in gun rights.

"Better outcomes" is in no way objective and an entirely arbitrary call. Who gets to make that call and why?

Keep in mind that Goku would never propose gun control under any circumstances.