Grumpy Old Fan | Tainted love
In happier times
Serialized storytelling provides superhero-comics publishers a pretty handy buffer. Anything can be judged unfairly, perhaps even after the whole story has been collected. Don't like a preview image? Wait until the issue itself comes out. Don't like how the story is going? Wait for it to end, so you can evaluate it in a more proper context. Don't like how the story ended? Hey, at least you got the thrill of following it issue by issue.
There will always be a certain distance between fans and professionals, simply because the pros know where the stories are going and the fans can only make educated guesses. The previous paragraph's view of it may be cynical, but I don't think it's too far off. Beyond nostalgic, blue-sky wishes for publishers to stop aiming low, and for fans to stop assuming the worst, I don't have any easy solutions. Sometimes I just wish these sorts of observations weren't necessary.
Having said all that, I'm not going to call the latest Superman/Wonder Woman pairing (in this week's Justice League #12, as you might have heard) The Dumbest Thing DC's Ever Done. I'm not sure it's even in the Top 20. Heck, I'm not sure it's the dumbest thing DC's done in the past 12 months.
What I will say is that it misses the point.
In fact, it misses a number of points:
1. Superman isn't about 'having it all.'
The thing about Superman is that ultimately, his powers don't matter; he'd act the same without them. In fact, in a very real sense, 'Superman' is just the most visible expression of Clark's desire to do good. Now, this is not to be confused with the different approaches to Clark's public persona. In the Silver Age, 'Clark' became an elaborate fiction, designed expressly to dispel any notion that a certain well-known journalist could also be an omnipotent superhero. Since the 1986 revamp, though, Clark's Kryptonian origins were downplayed, such that he thought of himself (understandably) as a human being, and aspired to be the best example thereof. We might argue about which version of Clark was the more humble, and therefore the less likely to elevate himself to messianic status, but such an event would be equally improbable in either case.
The point is that Clark/Superman is humble, and he doesn't consider himself entitled to any more than anyone else. However, apparently such a perspective is difficult for fans (and perhaps some professionals) to understand. Instead, they may find Superman boring for not being sufficiently self-indulgent, and therefore not allowing them to live vicariously through him. Accordingly, to the extent that anyone believes Superman must be with Wonder Woman because no other woman is good enough, he misreads fundamentally the bulk of the character's portrayals. (To be sure, this is not how JL #12 plays out, but the preliminary publicity has not exactly repudiated it.)
Almost all of Superman's most significant relationships are with non-powered humans (pretty much necessarily, but still). Ma and Pa Kent first helped him connect to humanity. Chris Sims can probably tell you more, but I think Superman sees a lot of his own youth in Jimmy Olsen. Perry White personifies everything Clark wants to be in a journalist, which for Superman is as much a calling as it is an easy way to be close to the action. Batman and Superman are kindred spirits, despite their different approaches, and Batman has also trained non-super body and mind to the upper limits of their potential. Conversely, Lex Luthor represents the dark side of human potential: great power and ambition used only selfishly. Finally, Lois Lane embodies all of the others' positive qualities ' a great journalist who never rests on her laurels and never stops working for the greater good. In the 25 years since the 1986 revamp, she had become Superman's strongest link to his humanity, perhaps even more so than the Kents.
This is not to say that Superman has no significant relationships with super-powered people. However, those relationships tend to show how sometimes, he just needs to be among others who can do what he can. His time with the Legion of Super-Heroes, and his first encounters with the New Gods, are examples of this. So too are his relationships with other Kryptonians, although those carry the weight of their shared loss. Until her death in Crisis on Infinite Earths, Superman and Supergirl were especially close, since (notwithstanding unusual communities like the Bottle City of Kandor or the Phantom Zone) they had only each other to carry on Krypton's legacy. Nevertheless, to one extent or another, Superman has always been more concerned with his Earthly life ' and Lois has always been a big part of that.
2. Wonder Woman is on a mission.
For me, the biggest difference between Superman and Wonder Woman is that while Superman shares some traits with Biblical figures, he's not really out to bring Kryptonian values to an unenlightened world. However, Wonder Woman's main gig is just that. Whether you call it Paradise Island or Themyscira, or Man's World or Patriarch's World, Princess Diana was sent to show the latter what it could learn from the former. Superman's ethics come from Middle America, but Wonder Woman's come from Someplace Else ' and that gives her an edge that he should never have. ('There's the door, spaceman.')
Make no mistake, that edge has defined Diana since her debut. The Amazons got in trouble in the first place because Hippolyta trusted Hercules a little too much, so Wonder Woman was given the power to avoid getting fooled again.
Thus, it's a little dissonant to realize that Diana first got the bug to leave home because of a man ' Steve Trevor ' crash-landing on her doorstep. Steve's inelegant arrival also brought with it news of the wider global conflict we call World War II, which convinced the Amazons that maybe they should get involved in beating back the Axis (and the forces of the war-gods who were allied with them). Still, for decades Steve was Diana's Lois, facilitating romance and rescue in equal parts. As with Superman, a 1986 revamp changed things; but where Lois eventually married Clark, Steve got pushed to the background, eventually settling down with Etta Candy (who had long since grown past her own Jimmy Olsen-ish role).
Even Steve's place in the origin story was downplayed. As told by George Pérez and Greg Potter in Wonder Woman Vol. 2 #1, a dire warning from Olympus about Ares mucking in human affairs prompted the Amazons' choose-a-champion tournament. Steve's appearance in Issue 2 confirmed that Ares was on the move, and Diana's mission was about to start. (For its part, Justice League #12 reveals that Diana helped Steve 'escape' from the Amazons, something about which I presume we'll learn more in Wonder Woman #0.)
As a result, for most of the past 25 years, Diana's romantic side hasn't really been explored. Instead, the texts have doubled down on her duties as a diplomat and ambassador. In fact, writer/artist Phil Jimenez created the short-lived (literally) Trevor Barnes, a United Nations functionary, to be Diana's boyfriend. Most recently, before the New 52 relaunch, Diana got pretty serious with super-spy Tom 'Nemesis' Tresser. Another intriguing sort-of pairing involved Aquaman, because they both balanced superheroics with royal responsibilities. Unfortunately, Flashpoint twisted this notion into one of the darker cornerstones of its nightmarish backstory.
Indeed, Flashpoint still offers an unwelcome cautionary tale about the wrong way to write Wonder Woman. In a world where whatever could go wrong probably has, Wonder Woman and her sister Amazons declared war on humanity, believing their queen to have been assassinated by Aquaman's Atlantean forces. Regardless of the cause, however, this allowed the Flashpoint writers and artists to have Wonder Woman cut loose, ostensibly to show how cool, hardcore, and/or scary she could be. Whether intentional or not, though, this reinforced the notions that a) Wonder Woman needs to be ultra-violent in order to be cool, and b) nothing's scarier than an angry woman.
Now that Amazon history has been revised to make them more warlike (and apparently more bloodthirsty) in general, it's not too much of a stretch to suppose that Superman needs to watch out, or else risk setting off the nigh-omnipotent Amazon Princess. This is a real concern, because the attention-getting thrill of breaking such a narrative taboo is nothing compared to the fannish pleasure of restarting a cherished relationship. DC may say it's not happening anytime soon, but before you know it, Superman and Lois Lane will be back together ' and that means Superman and Wonder Woman have to exile themselves to the Friend Zone. However, if Geoff Johns and company use a bad breakup to justify internecine conflict in the upcoming 'Trinity War' ' that is, if part of 'TW' hinges on Wonder Woman being scorned ' I don't see how the New-52 setup recovers.
3. Wonder Woman is not a sidekick.
Because Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang's New-52 Wonder Woman has been so iconoclastic, or at least so removed from the rest of the superhero line, this particular coupling feels especially stunt-y by comparison. Even as Geoff Johns and company have reintroduced Steve and Etta (and will soon bring back the Cheetah) in the pages of Justice League, its version of Wonder Woman has been fairly generic, existing mostly to provide the required beatdowns. Before Issue 12, Johns had described Diana's relationship with Steve in a few oblique, expository sentences here and there. The current issue goes a little further, giving them a couple of pages (or so) worth of interaction. It's enough to set up a we-can't-be-together plot point, which in turn facilitates a Significant Moment between Wonder Woman and Supes. I'm not sure it works even in the shorthand-characterization of Justice League, and I really can't connect it with Azzarello and Chiang's more fully formed character. Wonder Woman's brief appearance in Batwoman #12 feels more authentic.
Again, I expect Wonder Woman #0 to shed more light, but it makes me wonder how much coordinating Johns did with Azzarello. Before this all came down, Azzarello told CBR:
Let's just say that I have fielded calls about her being in some other books right now, but I think her just being in Wonder Woman and Justice League is enough right now. It's so important to establish her and build her as a strong character. Once that's all done, then she can go guest star in somebody else's book. But let us finish what we're building right now, first.
Oddly enough, there is a lot more freedom with Wonder Woman than there would be with Superman or Batman. There is a lot more freedom. I am allowed to say, 'No, let's keep her out of other books right now.' You can't say that with Superman and Batman. Superman was in the first issue of Swamp Thing, for Christ sakes. Why was that? To get people to buy Swamp Thing. [Laughs] With Wonder Woman, we're allowed to be a little insular. It's not going to last. We can already feel the pressure.
By now I'd say the pressure has gotten pretty great. Ironically, the freedom Azzarello mentions ' which neither Superman nor Batman can enjoy ' may well come from the longstanding ambivalence about how to handle Wonder Woman. (Yet another take, this time from Grant Morrison, is apparently on the way.) While I've not been entirely happy with the New-52 Wonder Woman, by and large I think it's a well-crafted book, and its approach deserves some deference.
It should therefore go without saying that the new romance must not risk subordinating Wonder Woman to Superman ' but if either party to this relationship is going to be subordinated, or (as described above) is going to end up looking bad, I'm not betting on the Man of Steel. After all, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
4. The Justice League is a team of equals.
For longer than I care to remember, I have argued that the Justice League isn't just a group of A-list all-stars, it's an opportunity to blend disparate storytelling styles. In the context of a League adventure, space opera and classical mythology can coexist alongside science-based heroes, pulp-derived urban avengers and magic-users. Those characters normally play by their own rules, but in the Justice League those rules can change, blend, or be thrown out altogether. Above all, though, the characters who make up the League must stay true to themselves ' i.e., as they appear in their own books ' because to do otherwise (yes) misses the point of the book.
Needless to say, this is a big part of my frustration with the New-52 Justice League. As much as I think this romance is a bad idea, if it had arisen in the context of the Wonder Woman book it'd be somewhat easier to take. That it comes out of Justice League, which so far has had the superficial quality of action-figure play, makes it feel grafted onto the characters. It's not just that nothing in their respective histories argues for the relationship ' nothing in the New-52 especially argues for it either.
And with that we come full circle, because the inevitable response will be 'but this is all-new, full of wide-open possibilities we are just beginning to explore,' etc. That's fine for what it's worth, I suppose. Remember, if you don't like This, wait 'til you see That ' and The Other will blow you away!
Regardless, having read Justice League #12, I can say that it doesn't make the case for a Superman/Wonder Woman romance. The burden of proof might be high, but that's because the risks are so great. Without sounding too much like an inadvertent advertisement, the very fabric of the New-52 may rest on an amicable separation. Here's hoping all involved know what they're getting into.
- August 30, 2012 @ 04:00 PM by Tom Bondurant
- Tagged: Brian Azzarello, comic books, DC Comics, Flashpoint, Geoff Johns, grumpy old fan, justice league, lois lane, Steve Trevor, superman, Wonder Woman
10 Comments
I must be the only old school fan who liked the kiss. It made total sense to me given the characters as they are being presented now. And I can live with those characters.
SUPERMAN AND WONDER WOMAN A RELATIONSHIP THAT FINALLY MAKES SENSE
With the recent announcement that Superman and Wonder Woman would be a couple, many comic book enthusiasts have either applauded the move or denounced it. You can count me in with the ones who applaud the move for the very simple reason that superhero and non-superhero pairings tax my suspension of disbelief. The reason that DC prints comic books is to make money. So it therefore does not bother me that they think this will stimulate interest. There have been pairings of heroes that have NOT resulted in one hero overshadowing another. It can be done! For example Susan Richards of the Fantastic Four actually emerged as a solid member and some may say heart of the team in her own right and she was initially overshadowed by three male superheroes in her life including her husband. Storm of X-Men fame, married Black Panther and represents another strong character that has garnered bigger name recognition that T'Challa.
Furthermore, which character is MORE likely to be seen by the comic reading public as Superman's equal ' Lois Lane or Wonder Woman. I could make the argument that Lois Lane represents a weak expression of women BECAUSE she must always be saved and is clearly NOT the equal of Superman. (Not even morally ' as he seems to always be the more moral character of the pairing). If Wonder Woman can have a relationship with Superman and not be overshadowed by him that would validate her place as a feminist icon. Many seem to be already resigned to the idea that it cannot happen and I am unsure why. Sure it is the responsibility of the writers, but I think they deserve a chance to represent the two as equals'a notion I don't think could or has ever happened with Lois Lane which is ultimately what feminism is about and partly what Wonder Woman should be about. I think that comic book based movies have been ahead of the curve in that respect perhaps because there is a sense that if the world of comics could be brought into the real world those situations would just not be plausible. For example'it did not work in the Superman movie series between Superman and Lois for exactly the reasons it would not work in life. The very same issues plagued Spiderman in the first three Sam Raimi movies as well as Batman in Christopher Nolan's universe in which Bruce Wayne's love interest demanded that he leave Batman behind before they could be together. For this and many other reasons the only justification to have a hero and non-hero relationship in comic or movies should be to demonstrate why they would never work out. To facilitate this, here are my TEN reasons why the most 'realistic' pairings in comics should be between Superheroes and NOT with non-superheroes (mortals).
1)The mortal of any superhero/mortal pairing becomes an instant target for the hero's enemies creating another weakness. Even when using a secret identity they cannot hide it forever or at least run a great risk in attempting to do so. Therefore having a relationship with a mortal knowing this is irresponsible.
2)A crisis may occur at any moment and on any scale and a mortal would have to deal with continuous disruptions of their lives as heroes respond to these crises.
3)Who knows if or what kind of children would result. Even assuming they are also human such as in the case of someone like Batman, his children would almost certainly have to deal with an absentee parent.
4)It would cloud the hero's priorities, morals and/or obligations (see Superman going back in time and violating a rule from his father to save one person in Superman the Motion Picture).
5)There is a built in imbalance in responsibilities in that mortals (most of the time) need to be saved and rarely are they the ones who are saving. Superheroes can usually help each other.
6)Mortals ground heroes to humanity whereas with the awesome responsibility given their powers, a hero needs to be BETTER than mortals. (For example if a mortal has a bad day and takes it out on someone, that is confrontational but usually not much more than that. If a hero has a bad day and takes it out on someone it can be deadly)
7)Since being a hero and the awesome responsibilities of that role defines a large portion of who the hero is, a mortal will never be able to adequately relate to what a hero must endure.
Superheroes must always practice restraint or they could unintentionally harm their mortal partner (See Wolverine accidently stabbing Rogue after having a bad dream in the X-Men movie. In fact it was only because she had superpowers herself that Rogue was able to save herself). That risk alone makes accepting a mortal as a companion imprudent.
9)Depending on the hero and their powers, in some cases, intimacy would be compromised or unusual.
10)There would always be a specter of developing an inferiority complex on the part of mortals or a superiority complex on the part of heroes'and it would be more or less accurate.
Nice article Tom' valid points.
'Kiss or no-kiss', I don't care' that's beside the point.
What really bugs me in Justice League is the poor writing and bad character development.
I see it this way:
If Superman exists in a vacuum (that is, Superman qua Superman, not Superman as part of the DCU), then Lois Lane is his logical pair. She's been built up as his romantic interest for decades, she's married him on Earth-2 and eventually the post-Crisis DCU, she's been his love on the cartoons and in the movies, etc. She's part of the God-and-man united archetype, and as a storytelling character, has no purpose outside of being Superman's love interest. (This comment may get me in trouble with some feminist readers, so let me clarify that this is not a statement about women in general. I'm speaking strictly in storytelling terms: Superman and Lois Lane make no sense without each other. Lois, in particular, makes no sense without Superman.) Grant Morrison really hammered this home in All-Star Superman and, to a lesser extent, in DC One Million.
However, IF Superman exists as part of a world-building scheme (which the Marvel cinematic universe has been so good at doing), then we may be stuck with Wonder Woman as Superman's logical pairing. They're 2/3s of a multimedia trinity, they're superhuman equivalents, they're probably both immortal. Lois will eventually die; Superman will likely be around for a long, long time. (Hence, there was a weird logic to Superman and Wonder Woman hooking up in Kingdom Come, especially since Lois was dead.) In a big, broad DCU, Lois is just a well-known woman on the street compared to the superhuman pantheon which dominates the scene. You'd want Superman and WW to get together the same way people wanted Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney or Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart to get together'it's pure celebrity pairing, but it's what people want.
I think this is ultimately a bad thing'it adds an unfortunate element to Superman's mythos that people will remember for decades ('Hey, remember when Superman and Wonder Woman hooked up?'). This will hurt in the long run. However, comics always gravitate back to their iconic status'so it's awful, but it won't last either.
@Patrick'I think it's only fair to respond to your eloquent, carefully constructed points with some meager responses of my own:
In your argument to show that superheroes should marry and be in relationships with other superheroes, you name two examples: Reed Richards and Susan Storm of the Fantastic Four, and the marriage between Black Panther and Storm. First of all, the reason why Reed and Susan's marriage works is NOT because they are superheroes; it's because they were specifically created to be members of the Fantastic Four comic which is all about showing a team of superheroes as being a literal family (hence why it is one of the few comics that actually allows a comic book couple to have children because it doesn't ruin the basic premise of the book). And as for Black Panther and Storm? That was considered overwhelmingly unpopular even by the folks at Marvel in part because it did precisely what some are fearing a relationship with Superman will do to Wonder Woman'it relegated one of Marvel's most iconic female characters into becoming a sidekick for a character who, let's be honest, could barely maintain an ongoing series multiple times. Fans (and apparently the writers) would have much rather have read about Storm, member of the X-Men, than Storm, Mrs. Black Panther.
You also mention how Lois and Clark's romance is one of inequality compared to one between Superman and Wonder Woman. While you have a point about Lois always being cast as the victim, there's one crucial thing to remember: Lois is a supporting character in the Superman comic books, meaning she'just like Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Lex Luthor, etc.'is in service to person whose name appears on the title. Wonder Woman was not. She was created to be a superhero in her own right, one who could stand side-by-side alongside all the other comic books that stared male superheroes. Her being romantically involved with any other superhero who has their own comic book series automatically undermines this very idea. And if you don't think she's going to be, here's a simple question: which comic book character, Superman and Wonder Woman, is the bigger cultural icon? It's Superman by several country miles. Notice how in most of the coverage for this it's SUPERMAN who is usually getting the top billing while Wonder Woman is described as 'Superman's new leading lady' or 'Superman's Sexy New Sidekick?' It's a safe bet to suggest that Wonder Woman is already being overshadowed.
Finally, with regards to your 10 points:
1. Like it or not, it's the love interest being in danger that creates drama and suspense in the story. Especially in Superman's case because we know he can't be easily hurt, but Lois and the people he cares about might. Also, with regards to a superhero being in a relationship with a mortal being 'irresponsible,' that's also for their love interest to decide, not a choice exclusively reversed for the superhero to make. (In fact, this is what often gets them in hot water with their love interests in the first place).
2. And what's wrong with that? Again, it creates drama in the story because it forces the hero to struggle between two different responsibilities'something which has been a very successful model in virtually every Spider-Man story and applied to other superheroes, including Superman. And after all, in real life this happens all the time, as any cop, firefighter, soldier, doctor, etc. can testify to. Superheroes aren't any different in that respect.
3. Again, sounds like a good recipe to create drama in the story if you ask me.
4. Same as 3.
5. Yes, but there also quite a few stories in which the reverse can take place. After all, how many times has Lois had to save Superman whenever he got exposed to Kryptonite?
6. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion, though, it suggests the rather unfortunate implication that only the 'strong' and 'beautiful' should be with the 'strong' and 'beautiful' and not 'lower their standards' by being with someone 'weaker' or 'less attractive' than they are. After all, it's the human supporting cast members who remind the superhero that just because he or she may be stronger, faster, or more powerful than the average person, it doesn't necessarily make them 'better' by default.
7. And in story, that again can be a source of great drama. Not to mention we, as readers, don't know what it's like to have the incredible powers of a superhero and yet we seem to have no trouble identifying with them as characters. 
8. And again, that could be a source of drama in the relationship, or especially how they actually fight their villains. Superman, since he cares about humanity, has to purposefully hold back out of fear than someone will get killed in the crossfire'so how does he stop someone like Bizarro or General Zod who has no such reservations?
9. Which again, can be a source for potentially great drama because it tests both the hero and the love interest just how committed they are to the relationship. After all, there's far more to love than just being able to have sex.
10. And there's that word again: drama! It creates a challenge for the superhero to try and prove to their love interest they are truly someone special in spite of the fact they're mortals, and provides challenging ways for the love interest to provide emotional support for the superhero whenever he feels like he failed.
Wonder Woman and Superman as the' 'Oh heavens ' People just don't understand us' couple'.. AARRGGH!!!! ;(
If it were the real Superman and the real Wonder Woman, their romance might be significant.
But these nuDC Bizarro versions of Superman and Wonder Woman have so little substance that whatever they do is meaningless.
You are living up to 'Grumpy Old Fan'
I found the kiss organic to the situation, and very real. We can argue an ongoing relationship but until that it is written I'll wait.
From a marketing standpoint, goddammit I sold out of Justice League in a day, even over ordering for this issue. So congrats to DC for getting people to buy and hopefully READ a comic book.
But these are the Nu52 versions. Forget about those other examples, as these are different versions of those older characters.
Sometimes NU Superman seems like he's the most alien-like version of the character yet, even abandoning his Clark Kent identity for a few issues before it was reinstated through Batman. That's a far cry from his post-crisis incarnation where Superman WAS Clark Kent.
Wonder Woman appears just as alien. She has only been seen interacting with Steve and Zola; everyone else we've seen is not normal. Steve is a bad-ass normal, but WW isn't impressed and thinks he's a potential victim. Zola was already a target because of her baby. If she might think this way toward normal humans, it's a wonder why she goes along with Batman leading or being apart of the JL. (Maybe Bruce has proved that he could hang despite her misgivings?)
What's their Bradgelina name going to, that's what the papparazzi wants to know!
Goodness, no matter how this is written, it seems like so much fan fiction, and not part of the characters own stories. Why is there no mention of this in the Wonder Woman I am currently enjoying? I imagine there's a similar lack of this plot in the Superman books as well.
Leave a Comment
Grants | Christopher Butcher reminds us that the deadline for applications for the Queer Press Grant is Oct. 1, and those who aren't considering applying for it might consider donating to it. [Comics 212]
Spotted at Steve Cook's blog ' Nick Knight's cover to the next issue of Garage magazine, treating Roy Lichtenstein with the disrespect he deserves while using the language of comics in a new-yet-inevitable way.
With Labor Day weekend upon us, now is a good time to stock the virtual longbox with some digital comics. We reported the other day that Image has made 20 of its #1 issues free on comiXology; here's a roundup of some other free' n' cheap digital comics to check out over the holiday.
The short-short version is that Machine Man (the living robot!) was created as part of a project to make machines in the form of men that could function under almost impossible stress, but their undoing came not from a bullet or a bomb but rather from existential crisis. 'Marvelous neo-human mechanisms developed an ailment common to all men! They suffered an Identity Crisis!' Then there was robot war, a sort of madness that took over all these Weapons from the X-Project (hush, Wolverine), and the decision was made to destroy the whole lot.
If anything can be truly cited as the 'Marvel Way,' it's this: a clear invitation into the story itself and the ideas within from the people who bring you this book. Sure, this sounds pretty heavy, but in Machine Man #2 there's another essay while Machine Man fights off an army hunt and forges himself into a rockin' three-wheeler to jump the Army's barricade. This one's called 'A Persecuted Machine' and posits the question that 'If Machine Man exhibits humanity, isn't it incumbent upon us to extend our own to him?' Kirby explains that it might not be in any of our best favors to do so, as humanity isn't merely our compassion, but our worst qualities as well. 'We're all a kaleidoscope of conditioning and emotions both volatile and placid.' To share our humanity with this new living machine would mean our fears as well as our understanding, our hate as well as our compassion. It's a mixed bag.
In Issue 5, there's a galactic threat bearing down on Earth, and all of humanity will be doomed if Machine Man doesn't step up to save us. There are a few pages of reasonable doubt on whether he should choose to side with those who would destroy him. Inside this debate and world-shaking dilemma, there's a essay titled 'Would You Like a Machine to Fight Your Battles?' As Aaron Stack debates, so does Jack Kirby, who admits that having a robot fight his battles would be pretty sweet. That is, until your neighbor has one to do the same. And then the criminals have them. On and on in an escalation of force, all very clear in 1978 (kids, there used to be this thing called the 'Cold War' '). Kirby then turns it all around and marvels at the indignity of being the Machine Man that continues to suffer through our human foibles as the debate rages on, the one who's sent into battle. The hate and fear continue, now mixed with ownership rights and ridicule.