What are some comics about villains who finally get what they deserve?

What are some comics about villains who finally get what they deserve?

Attached: stevewins.png (564x539, 348K)

>You will never be this asshurt.

Feels comfy

you made me think he was dead, asshole

There's that one where Jack Kirby worked all night while Stan Lee fucked Roz in the next room, because Jack couldn't satisfy her and all he ever did was bitch anyway.

Stop Stanfagging, it's not the early 00s anymore

>get completelly buttblasted over someone insulting your idol
>n-no u mad!

I hope he can at least stay around to see both Infinity War movies.

Is actually impressive how many retards worship a hack who lived of stealing ideas

>this happy an old man's about to die
Wow

I don't understand why people hate Stan Lee. He was a pretty good editor and promoter who made Marvel famous. All of the recent titles are terrible because Modern Marvel gives the artists too much creative freedom to do what they want without reigning in their destructive impulses. Yes, Jack Kirby is an amazing artist, but that's all he ever was. I'm not really diminishing the guy's creative talents, I'm just pointing out that good comics have good writers to help bounce ideas off of the artists. Bad artists are ones who have too much control over their products.

>By vultures, you say? That's a shame...

Attached: steve_ditko1-1024x784.jpg (1024x784, 202K)

>Yes, Jack Kirby is an amazing artist, but that's all he ever was

Attached: 1512945465619.png (895x955, 591K)

Because his career is made of shameless rip offs
>F4 = challengers of unknown
>Xmen = Doom Patrol
>Avengers = Justice League

All this guy ever did was copy other people ideas and change the name, he's a thief.

Can I have a quick rundown on what happened?

Being a good artist doesn't automatically make you a good writer. A good artist is supposed to be pretty good at drawing pictures, A good writer is supposed to be competent at telling a story. I really hate this misconception that the creative process is one derped into existence from the mind of the artist. In reality, making good comics is a concrete, man-made factory like job where men work together to make a coherent story. All those nice panels and pics you see from Jack Kirby are high quality because he treated the whole thing like work.

Who are you arguing against? Who said being a good artist automatically makes you a good writer?

So, Batman was a shameless rip off of Zorro and everyone loves him. The difference between Stan Lee and Bob Kane is presentation. Stan is the guy who you want to hang out with, while Bob is the guy who you want to punch in the face.

I see this from lots of modern content creators like Bruce Timm, Rebecca Sugar, who seem to forget that they got hired for work.

Stan definitely stole from Jack, but all the people I've met who bitch about Stan Lee all come off as edgy faggots.

Attached: feels good.png (568x474, 355K)

>what are some OPs who need to be raped

Stan might have been bit of a con-man, but elder abusers should have every bone in their bodies broken

>Bob Kane

He fucked over Bill Finger, the real creator of Batman, you pleb.

stans a con man who fucked over legitimate creators to help marvel keep hold of things they pretty much blatantly stole from people.

there is no god damn way it should be legal for someone to sign their paycheck and by signing the paycheck for work they already did they gave up ownership rights.

Except that no one doubt Bill Finger was a thief, but Stan Lee was a far bigger,shameless and more arrogant scammer. Every single time DC made a new idea he published a copy of it and that's where all his career come from, that's all his legacy, a bunch of shitty recolors.

His longtime caretaker was quietly fired, and not long after the LAPD is called in after a bunch of his money went missing. I think his caretaker was the one that took the money but I'm not sure.

There's no evidence to prove that Stan Lee stole ideas from people. It sounds like he was open to suggestions from other artists, or was influenced by other works of art to help create his own story. It's legal for someone signing their paycheck to give up ownership rights if they agree to those terms. A lot of times, artists don't really read the fine print, or consult other people on financial and legal matters until it's too late.

I always come to these threads for the Ditkoposts

There's no such thing about legitmate creators, user. That just a lie you were taught by the shitty education system. In truth, being an artist is just a job you do for money, not this embellished epic that thrusts you into the upper echelons of high society.

Will Jack Kirby's spirit finally be able to rip in peace?

Attached: 1520114020177.jpg (476x496, 34K)

>no evidence
Fantastic 4 is literally challengers of the unknown, they didn't even changed the costumes instead simply doing a recolor from pink to blue

Attached: not spiderman really.png (662x599, 35K)

>no Xmen

I'm Beyonder mad

Who cares. It sounds like you're more jealous of Stan Lee being able to profit off the idea than legitimately concerned with Kirby being stiffed.

You're not supposed to greentext your own replies.

>jealous
You need to be 18 to post here.

Why the fuck do people who have no clue what they're talking about come to Sup Forums to speak with authority about comics?

>Stan never stole credit
>Kirby is just an artist

Just fuck off.

Comics books until generational Boomer shift in the 70's were as low class, artless, disposable trash which means few people outside of "second class" artists like Jews worked in the industry which means the entire industry was Jewish which means you're a fucking retard for whining about Jews on Sup Forums and you should go back to Sup Forums and stay there.

STAN LEE IS 95?!!!
Damn is cucking Jack Kirby the secret to eternal life?

I really liked John Byrne's reinterpretation of that story with Superman and Barda.

Neither do you faggot. Do all of you fuckers in this thread only have a passing knowledge of comics? Do all you faggots just read memes and believe them as fucking fact?
Stan Lee is a fucking GLORYHOUND.
He has always given artists co plotter credit in EVERY interview but its the Mainstream Media that ends up giving him more credit. IN THE end Stan is a fucking glory hound and acts like it, which makes him more popular among fans and media.
Not only that but many artists never had the same media presence or DESIRED that fame. Don't believe me? Look at Ditko. He hated the lime light and interviews have showed that he "preferred" to have his art be judged by fans.

>He has always given artists co plotter credit in EVERY interview but its the Mainstream Media that ends up giving him more credit

You have no clue what you're talking about. He only started doing this in the alt 90's because the truth started coming out. He never gave proper credit when it came to royalties or contracts.

edison?

You really want me to bring up old interviews where he gave credit to other artists? I am sorry he didnt fucking fellate them but he gave credit where it was due. Its not his fault that the media kept sucking his cock.
Also lets not forget Kirby was notorious at flip flopping by taking full credit for the FF or giving co-credit to Lee in the interviews depending on his mood.

Heres one in 1975 where Kirby gives co-credit to Lee you fucking moron. Why don't you admit to being an underage faggot who just reads memes off the internet.

Attached: KirbygivesLeeCredit.png (938x1704, 3.48M)

Stan never credited co-creators until decades after the contracts ensuring he would be financially compensated as a sole creator were signed.

When Marvel was bought by a major publisher in the 1968 the publisher compensated comics the same way they compensated books which was 90% of money goes to the writer and 10% to the artist, which is complete nonsense for comic books. Stan exploited this oversight and used familial connection with Martin Goodman to get himself credited as writer and editor on as many books as possible and fucked over his artists.

>Stan exploited this oversight and used familial connection with Martin Goodman to get himself credited as writer and editor on as many books as possible and fucked over his artists.
Thats bullshit and you know it. There are several older news papers where Stan gives collaboration credits to artists and the MSM simply credits Stan as the only genius behind Marvel.
I mean seriously are you going to say Ditko or Kirby came up with names like Peter Parker, Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, Stephen Strange etc etc. They have his fingerprints right there.
The only big debate is literally over who did what. Some say Stan barely did anything and his contributions were minimum. Others assert that Lee's contributions actually made the difference which made Marvel unique.

And this is from the comic veterans who lived around that time. This isn't interviews from Lee or Kirby or Ditko who would happily dig at each other. I think if multiple creators who lived around that time agree that they collaborated a lot then there is some truth in there.
Could Lee have corrected the media everytime they claimed he was the only creator? Sure but I don't think that's his problem.

>There are several older news papers where Stan gives collaboration credits to artists

Not financially. If you don't prove otherwise you're just wasting your time with these walls of text.

An "insider" (aka an user) said that its likely Stan's daughter is trying to get everything Stan has and feared that his longtime caretaker would be left with something/more than her. Stan apparently loved the guy like a son.

not sure why Sup Forums rates ditko so highly and hates stan, just the typical Sup Forumsntrarianism i suppose. ditko is just not a good artist and spiderman thrived on the back of stan lee's plot lines

Spiderman was just a rip off superboy comics you casual

>stan lee's plot lines
You mean the yellow note that said nothing?

>Stan's daughter is trying to get everything Stan has
Like father, like daughter.

Oh, it's that troll who claims that Marvel just rips off DC, despite Marvel being more successful and DC desperately trying to catch up and copy them throughout the entirety of the silver and bronze ages, culminating in Byrne's Superman, the Marvelization of the Man of Steel.

>Yes, Jack Kirby is an amazing artist, but that's all he ever was

Attached: somedays.jpg (500x334, 36K)

I think there's a villain in some X-men comic who was some spoilt rich kid, parents got him a puppy and he throw it in the oven then killed his parents in the end he got his ass kicked by Scott

Sorry, but Kirby knew what he was doing when he signed the damn contract.

Is this entire thread a big competition to be as wrong as possible?

>anyone who don't agree with me is a troll!
Get real, stan lee big titles are all copies of comics create few months or years before

Denying that X-men is a doom patrol rip off is beyound stupidity, they don't even change several extremely big and unique factors like "world weirdest heroes" and "evil brotherhood"

>stan lee
>good writer
hm

Its not Stan's responsibility to financially compensate the artists. It's marvel the corporation. Last I checked they fucked over Stan as well until he sued them.

>Your Honor, I just sell drugs! It's not my fault if people consume them!

Stan literally made every marvel super hero, if not directly. Jack Cucky didn't do shit other than have some nice art

I see you hate taleted people.

Faggot.

t. failure

When this old dude will finally die?

>It's legal for someone signing their paycheck to give up ownership rights if they agree to those terms.

IIRC, they didn't agree to such a contract before they did the work, and one was inserted afterwards onto their paychecks. They don't sign, they don't get paid.

Sounds hinky to me, Ace.

>Superboy: wholesome adventures starring a relatively well-off Kansas boy that's respectful to authority figures and the like
>Spider-Man: dramatic adventures starring a struggling Queens boy that gets chased off by every authority figure out there
???

Evolution of a comic fans opinion on Stan Lee

1st: Oh wow! that guy who made Spider-man? excelsior! so cool!

2nd: Stan Lee? that fucking thief who stole ALL of Kirby and Ditkos work? the devil himself? Fuck stan

3rd and final phase: Stan Lee was a flawed man but his accomplishments and showmanship in the comics industry ultimately saved it and he should be respected

That didn't make any sense. OP hates lee, why would he be mad at anyone insulting him or consider him his idol?

>ultimately saved it
>the guy in charge of a publisher that every 20 years crashes the industry

But he was also great at plotting, coming up with character concepts and worldbuilding. He literally was just shitty at dialogue.

Kirby is still taboo at Marvel. Rick Remender himself said so. In this board.

>about to

I want to ask where his daughter is in all of this but I've seen her once in my lifetime and my impression of her was that she's a 60 year old who acts like a teenager. She ain't gonna do much.

Say what you will about Kirby but the man was always sorrounded by his family amd people he loved and he never had to outlive his wife.

Not all that surprising honestly. Makes sense that he got all of his Kirby jonesing out in Cap then, it's likely the only title where that shit flies.

REMINDER THAT STAN LEE DID NOTHING WRONG AND THAT HATING STAN LEE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MEME

first of all i never said he stole. what he did do is purjor himself denying marvel forced contracts to be signed by making it impossible to cash their paychecks for work until several of the checks were entered into evidence at which time he then claimed that something that didn't happen was "industry wide practice."
this was in the 70's during the trial where jack kirby and others were trying to reclaim ownership of what they not stan lee created. his crimes against the actual creative comics community are actively being scrubbed but they are not forgotten

* stole in the sense of he himself committing the robbery. what he did do was allow marvel to steal characters through his lies and blatant illegal