What does Sup Forums think about "What's Wrong with Truth, Justice and the American Way?"

What does Sup Forums think about "What's Wrong with Truth, Justice and the American Way?"

>Butchered the title
Well shit, ruined my own thread before it began.

I think it's great finish to a great storyline, which was basically an answer to Ellis' The Authority.

Is it actually worth a read?

Yes
>"villains" are debateably correct
>World has outgrown Superman
>debates of right and wrong
>clever ending

It's what Man of Steel should have been

I miss The Elite and the Justice League Elite.

Probably my favourite single issue Superman story of all time. I've got a signed copy from when I met Joe Kelly and it's one of my favourite things.

Pics please with timestamp

No, it's shit and retarded. "You better listen to my orders, because I can kill you". Literally strawman the comic.

It's a pretty weak attack on The Authority based around a strawman idea of violent heroes. I didn't hate it but it's hardly the slam dunk for non-killing that some fans think it is.

I really like it, but totally understand it's sort of a strawman comic,

Samefag.

Lucky. It's my favorite too. Superman Red and Blue is a close second.

I never really minded how the Authority dealt with things, they're suited for their setting and I can appreciate that.
The Elite aren't exactly a one to one copy of them, they're a more incompetent and mean spirited version of the Authority. They got what was coming to them.

>TFW nobody can write a good Manchester Black after Kelly

They should have filmed that instead of Man of Steel. And kept Hack Snyder far, far away from it.

Yeah but I think it over simplified the Authority and didn't quite represent what the Authority represents.

The Authority is basically just an idyllic depiction of benevolent fascism with a progressive leftist bent and superpowers.

Always found it incredibly overrated, is just another "New heroes suck, superman is the best" comic.
Also the whole comic is presented as a conflict of ideologies, but ultimately Superman ends up winning not because he is right, but because is stronger.

>still this mad about a movie that came out 4 years ago

This, it's a fun read but the ending feels kinda forced

>Also the whole comic is presented as a conflict of ideologies, but ultimately Superman ends up winning not because he is right, but because is stronger.

And it shows the hypocrisy of the lol power makes us right of the old killing makes us better heroes mentality when the Elite is shown to be taken down so easily and far from heroic when it comes to being defeated by someone more powerful.

Ellis' Authority is anarchist if anything
They answer to no one and enforce no laws. They fuck up whoever they want for whatever they want to.

Yes, but the Authority is also pro-straw man argument for heroes that kill. It's a hyperbolic masturbation fantasy, hence why as a concept it started failing once they defeated God and Ellis left the book and they ultimately turned fascist and took over America.

>and enforce no laws.

They enforce a law that goes "do as we say or we fucking kill you"

>Waiting for Ellis to have a stroke behind the wheel of his car with Ennis in the backseat

I saw the cartoon and liked it.
How do I into Authority?

You read the first twelve issues, i.e. the Ellis run, and then get super picky about what you read. If you like the characters/style, you go and read Stormwatch which is what the Authority is a direct spin-off of.

Thanks. So far my only experience is the Planetary/Authority crossover with crazy Lovecraft.

Yeah and the Authority are never really presented as the good guys either. They're the protagonists of their own series.

Yeah you need to read Change or Die because that's the event that the Authority sprang out from. It's my favorite story in comics too. Basically what happens when super heroes start using their insane powers to change the world "for the better" and how the world ain't having it for both legit and illegitimate reasons.

When the world's government kill off the Changers, part of Stormwatch and some other heroes around the Wildstorm universe get pissed and form the Authority as their own group that was gonna save the world in whatever way it felt like it had to and not bow down to the corrupt powers that be. But it's obvious that power went to their own heads as well. It's a central theme the entire time, like I said, protagonists, not necessarily always the 'good guys" in a sense.

I guess I like the Changers and the Authority because it brings up interesting moral, legal and politic questions that would naturally arise with super powered crime fighting.

>Basically what happens when super heroes start using their insane powers to change the world "for the better" and how the world ain't having it for both legit and illegitimate reasons.
Wasn't that the whole point of Squadron Supreme too? I loved that one.

Over-rated as a good Superman issue, mostly because it's pretty dated as we get further and further away from The Authority type view of comics. It's very inside, as well.

It's pretty boring, and I generally don't agree with the "you should never kill" sentiment that many superheroes have because some things really need to be killed.

It's basically the answer to MoS and Snyder's entire shtick.

>Joe Kelly
Such an underrated Superman writer. Action #810 is one of my all time favorites.

>It's basically the answer to MoS and Snyder's entire shtick.

So entirely hamfisted kneejerk reaction to "not muh meme"?

But in superhero comics it always ends up in cold blooded murder situation. Not "I had to kill X to save Y, there was no other option"

Plus it leads to awkward questions like "how would the police be okay with murder" when they can't investigate it properly, as the hero would not reveal his identity and participate in the investigation that would rule whether or not the kill was justifiable homicide.

It's just the pretentious version of MoS.

The heroes break all other kinds of laws already, who cares?

Superhero comics also tend to have totally useless law enforcement so any villain can just escape from prison whenever and continue to hurt/kill people, so it has a tendency to mean that the hero is saving one life so that hundreds of others can be destroyed.

If you kill your enemies, they win.

>
>Plus it leads to awkward questions like "how would the police be okay with murder" when they can't investigate it properly, as the hero would not reveal his identity and participate in the investigation that would rule whether or not the kill was justifiable homicide.
Is not vigilantism is actually justifiable anyways.

Because capeshit only works within the confines of cognitive dissonance where they are able to operate despite all their arrests and activities being basically a legal nightmare when it comes time to prosecute. If you introduce ideas like the cops being entirely okay with vigilantes murdering people willy nilly, it unravels the entire fucking thing apart unless the entire story is about corruption and morality, with cops intentionally turning a blind eye.

It's also a fundamental fact that in cape stories those lives still keep getting snuffed even if one particular bad guy dies, as he is just replaced by a new homicidal maniac. And if you make it a standard that the bad guy always dies at the end, then there is no revolving jail door problem that would excuse your actions in the first place. All you do is murder people until you have to murder another bad guy. And another. And another.

"Chaotic Good"

That's what I'm looking for when describing the Authority.

The Justice League is like Lawful Good and the Authority is Chaotic Good. The JL are good guys that follow the leader of the law and seek official justice, the Authority are guys who try to save the world even if it's not exactly ethical or legal.

You need both teams because situations arise in these universes that call for both of their existence and approaches.

>t. Monitor.

>4 years
What can I say, time flies when you'REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It's one of the worst Superman stories ever written and shows that both the author and most Superman fans do not understand ethics at all.

I love the idea behind the issue but it really feels rushed as a single issue.

The animated movie gives it more time to breath and the art style really hammer homes the theme much better then the actually comic art

>And it shows the hypocrisy of the lol power makes us right of the old killing makes us better heroes

The problem is, this wasn't really an idea anyone was espousing.

New heroes don't kill people because it's fun or because it's cool or 'better'. They do it because their stories aren't fucked to shit by the Comics Code Authority and they're allowed to encounter lethal situations where there's no easy away out.

You know, like in EVERY ACTION MOVIE EVER. Or almost any adventure novel ever.

This comic's problem is it attacks a strawman and then declares victory. It doesn't make the Elite just people who are fighting for something and sometimes have to kill. It makes the essentially supervillains that revel in murder and bloodshed to a ridiculous degree. There's nothing special or clever about it.

>New heroes don't kill people because it's fun or because it's cool or 'better'.

That is literally why they do it though. People like edgier heroes exactly because they don't adhere to old rules and nothing is more cool and exciting as murdering somebody in gory fashion to drive in a point. That is why characters like Punisher exist and have consistent popularity.

The Elite are strawman, but that's specifically because the criticism over no kill rule heroes is another sort of strawman. The comic establishes why Superman cannot be a hero that thinks killing is the easiest solution. Because he ends up being just a bully, and there is no justice. Just murder for the sake of convenience and might.

It's pretty good for what's essentially a yelling at clouds comic.

If you kill your enemies, they die. You lose, but they do too. It's not worth it.

>People like edgier heroes exactly because they don't adhere to old rules

Excuse me? What old rules?

John McClane was killing in Die Hard by the truckoads, probably before you were born, and he was a definite hero. Han Solo shot first, and he was one of the heroes of his story. Heroes have been killing their enemies for as long as the concept of heroes has existed. Because in a good story there are real stakes and conflicts that aren't easily solved through contrived means.

>That is why characters like Punisher exist and have consistent popularity.

No, characters like the Punisher exist solely because people enjoy action with believable stakes. I'm sure some people get their jollies off the gore, but that stuff is meant to unnerve you. The Punisher is an intrinsically ambiguous character; his stories are often more about how broken he is as a person than anything else.

>The Elite are strawman, but that's specifically because the criticism over no kill rule heroes is another sort of strawman.

I'm sorry nigga, but most superheroes with no-kill rules literally exist because of censorship. I don't think it's a bad thing to have heroes that refuse to go that extra step, because that adds character in many cases, but the reason there is a taboo in comics regarding lethal action scenes is entirely because of the Comics Code Authority.

The 'new heroes' this story bemoans don't kill because they think killing is the easiest thing to do. They kill because in any believable narrative where characters with lethal abilities are fighting one another over some incredibly important thing, someone is going to get hurt. That's it.

This is why the story fails. It sets out to bash a strawman. It establishes why Superman cannot be a hero that thinks killing is the easiest solution... but nobody was saying he should be. It was just the writer raging at something he didn't understand at all. It's genuinely pathetic.

>Heroes have been killing their enemies for as long as the concept of heroes has existed.
That's why they aren't superheroes. Superheroes go beyond that.

>Because in a good story there are real stakes and conflicts that aren't easily solved through contrived means.
Translation: these fake bad heroes aren't smart enough to come up with better solutions. Don't get mad when Superman and Batman come up with a plan to save the day without killing anyone. Just because edgy "heroes" take the easy route doesn't mean they're better.

Early Superman and Batman killed people or let them die. They weren't superheroes then?

Captain America kills in the name of America.

>That's why they aren't superheroes. Superheroes go beyond that.

...SOME superheroes go beyond that. Not that it's a matter of 'beyond', just a matter of individual characterization.

>Translation: these fake bad heroes aren't smart enough to come up with better solutions.

Nope, they're just in stories with a different tone.

>Just because edgy "heroes" take the easy route doesn't mean they're better.
>John McClane is edgy
>Luke Skywalker is edgy
>Captain America is edgy
>King Arthur is edgy
>Mulan is edgy
>Flash Gordon is edgy

Lel.

Also, I didn't say anything about one being better than the other.