Future State: Superman vs. Imperious Lex #1

Yeah, that's what I want in my comic books political commentary...I read comic books to relax and escape the political nonsense of the world not listen to some author who believes that he has the right to use Superman as his own political platform. You're giving this story WAY more credit than it deserves. The best I can say about this book is the art was good but the story was a unimaginative and needless social commentary.

I want my comics to be thematically and conceptually diverse. Did I give this one too much credit? Maybe. Possibly, since as I said, I doubt certain elements of it I noticed and/or enjoyed were intentional. That doesn't change the fact blind rejection of anything deemed "political" by someone is nothing more than a slippery slope. There are good political stories and bad ones as well. Just like any story in general.

"I read comic books to relax and escape political nonsense" is a really complicated way of saying you don't like to think too hard.

No actually comics are escapism for many readers (like myself). Being bludgeoned with lefty propaganda may be your cup of tea but its not for everyone. So yeah...I read comics to put aside political nonsense not further immerse myself in it.

We know you like you some political drama because you reliably pepper your reviews with shots at your ideological opposites with robotic consistency. I know the left wants to shut down dissent but we re not quite there yet are we?

Show me where this comic's script has anything that could be called lefty propaganda. I'll wait. Come on, go ahead, make my day.

I don't have to champ. Your own review betrayed you.."fox news" "right wing propaganda". YOU clearly found all the lefty treats in the book to tickle your lefty sensibilities. "Nothing like a fine piece if hickory". I can quote Eastwood characters too.

I think there's nothing more to add or mock here. You did the job for me, embarrassing yourself enough.

LOL...your own review gushed over the lefty treats in the book and you demand I point them out to you? Heck other reviews gave also mentioned the obvious lefty slant of the book. Are you abandoning your position on the lefty flavor of the book now after you've sung hosannas to its lefty cred?

The book is an obvious swipe at Teump using Luthor as the conduit. Then proceeds to pay homage to lefty canards like "corporatism" and *colonialism*. I dare say The writer has a reputation for the lefty posture in his writing. You can bleat all you want want but the book is lefty propaganda using ince a beloved character to provide both the audience and the cover for the writers propagandizing. You and some others may get goosepimply over it but some other readers don't share that love.

Do you need a handkerchief?

On page 3 where Azaron is facing energy shortages while they construct a Dyson Sphere and Chaldar offers to share its energy with Azaron with no remuneration. (Side note: The construction of a Dyson Sphere would require an amount of energy and resources that it negates the need to construct one…But anyway…) On page 6 the Reticulants are a direct characterization of militaristic forces used during the colonization period. On page 10, Lex News is a direct criticism of Conservative media and dire

and direct reference to comments made about other nations by referring to other plants as “Hell-holes”. What was even more disturbing was page 11 where Superman states that he refuses to feel “Because feelings are the only thing that tell us when something is not right with the world” which is the basic feelings over facts mentality. There is also the concept of social “Reprogramming” mentioned on pages 12 and 15 resulting in Superman basically crippling Lexor’s economy

The concepts are there, now if you agree or like them is completely up you, I'm not looking to be disrespectful or mean to anyone I just wanted to point some of the examples out.

1. Nothing lefty about sharing energy. If these planets belong to an alliance similar to UN, they help each other out when they can. Foreign aid, especially military, is very common among allied countries. Like the US and Israel, none of which is even remotely centrist, let alone lefty. 2. Duh. Nothing lefty about it either. It's just a description of robots used by imperialists to invade other nations and steal their resources. 90% of sci-fi cosmic villains would fit this mold as well.

3. Yeah, because Fox News totally isn't a propaganda wing of the Republican party and thus totally nobody could ever make fun of its clear tribalism and devotion to "their" champions in power. Now, granted, other American media isn't much better, since they're all owned by the same 6 mega corporations after Clinton's 1996 telecommunications act, but still, a parody is a parody. 4. As for "hell-holes", of course we know what it references. A filthy xenophobic talk of a deranged nationalist...

... and mocking or referencing it is not equal to representing any leftist viewpoints or ideals. It's just common sense and respect to condemn this abominable idiocy. 5. Both left and right wing is prone to being emotional, since emotions are our human nature. Not everyone can be absolutely fact oriented. Especially those who belong to the "facts over feelings" crowd, more often than not being absolute hypocrites from what I've seen so far. 6. Yes. Reprogramming of a machine designed to invade..

... other planets and steal their resources, which for now couldn't be reasoned with. Hence he disabled it and expressed his belief that said machine could possibly be reactivated and "live" its life not threatening anyone else's. He believes machines can be sentient. Nothing lefty here either. Just stopping a disaster while also recognizing possible "humanity" in those who are behind it and giving them a potential second chance. Like you know, Superman uses to.

7. Supes commits a war crime, and I actually mentioned it in my review as well as how citizens of Lexor are portrayed as victims of propaganda and indoctrination. Nothing lefty here either.

So yeah, bottomline, so many references, and not one qualifies as lefty propaganda. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as pro leftist social commentary. 1 is too vague to define, 2 is anti war, 3 is a parody mocking a far right outlet which doesn't have to be lefty in its nature, 4 condemns xenophobia, 5 is a non argument, 6 is a recognition of artifficial life and 7 is an objective war crime while also tries to comment on effects of propaganda.

See how it works redken? If the writer uses lefty canards like corporatism and cilonialus it's not lefty propaganda because hes not literally 1quoting slabs of das capital. And it's ok to use Luthir stand in fir Trump because it just is. And of course declare fox news as a propaganda arm of the gop while never naming nyt wapo CNN MSNBC CBS ad nauseam for covering for antifa and blm terrorism for months and foisting Russia collusion for 4 years because they serve the left's purposes.

Now our friend nihal here as a good lefty also has a dubious eye at the other news outlets because...corporatism. after the *revolution" they will be dealt with too. But for now..useful idiots.

Our buddy nihal here thinks that simply because the writer doesn't literally list lefty positions and demands but rather hides them in allusions then it's not lefty propaganda. But his own review betrayed his approval of the lefty posture of the book.

So fox bad. Trump disgusting. His supporters nationalist. But in lefty propaganda here..move along. Lefties do this sleight of hand alot. By the the way again nihilist routinely takes shots at his political opposites in his reviews. So if course hes going to cover for lefty propaganda in any books it appears in. What did I say again? Corporatism and colonialism. Both lefty canards both alluded to in the book. Both acknowledged by nihilist in his review and this thread.

By the nihilst..I hear that cranberry juice can help with your problem.

I asked you once already - do you need a handkerchief? Because as I see it, you registered here just to cry, moan and insult me for daring to point out that referencing your beloved orange daddy is not leftist. Also, I specifically said "other American media isn't much better", so there goes your strawman. So unless you have anything constructive (and gramatically correct) to say, I'm finishing this discussion. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and acknowledge your idiocy any longer.

Jesus Christ, all this acrimony over what amounts to a middling book with all the barbs one could expect from a centrist late night host. Why do these people always come out of the woodwork over the most mild criticisms of their ideologue. Always just so super reactionary and sensitive, and yet then they want to turn around and invoke Ben Shapiro's idiotic, hypocritical phrase like it's ever actually meant anything.

This has to be the stupidest comment I have ever read around here, congratulations, you just made yourself look even dumber than usual.

Sure, give me specifics. It's very easy to comment with a nothing response like that.

I mean, I could but that would just mean to take every single one of your stupid assessments one by one, which would translate into another huge wall of text like yours and, believe me, I do not have the patience for that. I just have one question: what does "reactionary" mean to you and why do you put that stamp to anyone who doesn't think like you? You keep saying that whenever you encounter someone who's opposed to your ideas.

I will give you a friendly piece of advice, even though you'll probably take it as an attack: you need to stop using the term "fascist" so often and read more about what that means because it certainly doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

A reactionary is someone who wants to return to a previous political form of society, hence their usual extreme conservative viewpoints. Ben Shapiro is a reactionary. These people commenting about leftist propaganda are reactionaries.

Fascism is a system of government centralized around a dictatorial figure who usually uses bigotry, nationalism and racism to galvanize their base, while also violently silencing opposition. Trump was a proto-fascist, ie someone whose political ideology forms the basis for fascism in a government. By the end of his presidency, he was calling for a violent insurrection to thwart democracy and keep hold of his power.

So I'll give you some advice, quit picking fights with people who aren't politically illiterate and you'll probably have a better chance of keeping your ego intact.

No, they're not and while your definition of "reactionary" is correct, the way you apply it in conversations is not. That's just you not liking an opinion that differs from your own. Again, your definition of fascism is somewhat correct, the part about Trump is pure delusion. The theme seems to be obvious here, you're projecting on others your own political frustrations.

Yes, you're not politically illiterate, however you are immensely deluded and exhibit signs of schizophrenia. And my ego is just fine, don't see why it wouldn't be.

These people who are calling foul over milquetoast hints at progressiveness are reactionaries, because they don't like modern political discourse in modern society and want things to be like they were back in the good old days. In this instance, I'm right to call them reactionaries. How is the part about Trump pure delusion? I would really enjoy seeing you try to explain that.

Thanks for diagnosing me with a complex mental illness. Now I don't have to pay for an out-of-network psychologist! And I guess your ego would be fine, as self awareness would be key to shattering it.

Progressives have a "modern" political discourse in "modern" society, conservatives are bad, that's your whole basis for your "arguments" and they're obviously flawed. Obviously for everyone but you and other leftists, of course. Again, the part about Trump is retarded and you don't seem to understand what fascism was since you continue with that stupidity. Think I'm done here.

And usually for schizophrenia you need a psychiatrist, not a pshychologist, just fyi.

You have to be willfully ignorant to act like conservatives aren't rallying against progressivism. A philosophy based on social reform and progress, the type of thing that reactionaries dislike. Conservatism and reactionaries are linked, *by definition.* And why don't you actually elaborate on the Trump thing? I explained what fascism is. I explained what proto-fascism is. And I explained how Donald Trump was a proto-fascist. Actually say something of substance.

And who said anything about treatment? I needed a diagnosis and I got one.

Yeah, I think I'm tired of your spouting nonsense. And no, I'm not going to illuminate you on the Trump thing either, I'm just going to give you a suggestion: read about the economics of fascism and put that in contrast to Trump's life and beliefs. Then slap yourself for your stupidity.

You keep saying I'm wrong and I'm spouting nonsense, but you're not actually saying WHY. Because you don't know what you're talking about, you're just going off of what you've been told. All you have is a whole lot of nothing. Congratulations on playing yourself like this because you couldn't stop yourself from doing the completely voluntary action of talking out of your ass.

Hey, at least I had the decency to tell you that instead of talking about you like a coward. :)

No all you did was act like a coward in front of me. Weaseling out of a conversation you're clearly not qualified to have.

=))) Qualified lol

Yeah, I meant what I said. Don't keep commenting pointlessly to act like you didn't make a fool of yourself.

Lol, someone like you, whose overall comic rating sits at 1.5/10 and who uses ad hominem attacks against writers in 2/3 of the reviews is the last person to call anybody an ideologue.

RACIST

Said someone who just yesterday reviewed a comic saying "Of course the BLack screenwriter can ONLY write about black characters", of course giving it 1/10. Begone, you loser snowflake.

This is why Trump lost.

"RACIST" Good to know you are self aware.

How do we get reviewed like this out of this forum?

Sadly I don't think there's a way to do so without setting a precedent for further deplatforming. Open ad hominem reviews probably could be taken down as we speak for obvious reasons, but the rest of this gibberish... CBRU'd be one step from entering a slippery slope where anything vaguely deemed trolling or offensive/shocking could possibly be removed as well. Besides these comicsgate clowns could always return and spam 1/10 ratings with no reviews attached.

I definitely get where you’re coming from, it’s just disappointing because I look at these reviews to see if I should pick up books that I may have been on the fence about and members like this exceptionally skew the results.

Yeah, I know, that's unfortunate. Guess the best we can do is to approach comics open minded, ignoring what others may think, and posting our own experiences to counter this clown flood.

Oh, socialism, imagine the horror! Hide your children and cover your ears! All seriousness, though, there's no mention or analogy to socialism here in the slightest. Do you even know what socialism is to begin with?

Hey soyboy, I’m get you love “political” comics, but not everyone does, some people hate the losers like mark Russell who turn a beloved pastime into a soapbox to virtue signal their pathetic agenda

Oh, I'm a soyboy now, that's cute. FYI, I don't care if you like political comics or not, you're free to like whatever you like and you're free to remain ignorant if that's what you aspire to be forever. What I do have problem with is political illiterates who cry about politics, acting like reactionary crybabies and using adult words like "socialism" to describe anything that hurts their precious feelings. That's just pathetic!

LMAO this guy is a Comicsgater. These pedophile supporters get triggered over the tiniest things.

Ok, I will try to be respectful here. Yes, I assure you that I know what socialism is and I’m more then qualified to discuss the issue. There are clear references throughout the book to the practicing of socialism and how it is the “evolved” or desired practice in the future. I tried to give clear examples but there is a limit on comments. Anyway, if you enjoyed the book great but I did not.

I just replied to points you made under my review, pointing out alleged "lefty propaganda" points. I'm sorry, but none of them stands. Nothing lefty about this comic, let alone pro socialist. Which leads to two possible explanations - either there are some pages missing in my copy, dedicated to unadulterated promotion of workers taking control of the means of production, or maybe you really don't know what socialism is.

Or a 3rd option, you're choosing a very narrow definition of socialism. By critiquing basis of Capitalism (exploitation to some)the book is by default promoting the alternative of wealth/resource redistribution. It's there in the book if you choose to acknowledge it or not. I'm more than happy to discuss comics with you but I would refrain from insulting the intelligence of people who engage in conversation with you. You've done it twice now and both times were uncalled for. Have a nice day.

I didn't choose a very narrow definition of socialism. I chose THE correct definition of socialism, which is no more, no less, means of production belonging to the workers. The book doesn't even criticize capitalism, as it vaguely comments on totalitarianism, nationalism, xenophobia, fascism, imperialism and state propaganda, albeit not one comment is a big hit or jab at them. As far as wealth/resource distribution go, they're not, in any way, synonymous with socialism, which brings me to my...

main point, which is your analogy is factually incorrect. I don't insult your intelligence, I state the simple fact the comic does not promote or even sympathize with socialism in any way, and claiming it does is wrong. I don't insult your intelligence here. Your initial complain, as well as examples you've provided, are incorrect, and that's that. One more footnote, capitalism indeed is based on exploitation, while we're at it. I don't say it in a derogatory way, mind you. If you produce...

goods worth 3000$, but you get paid half of that, and your boss, the private owner of the means of production and thus the produced goods, takes the rest, you're being exploited. This core of the system is hierarchical exploitation, with those on the very top being able to force those below into submission. But that, of course, is just a sidenote I find interesting.

Side note response: I wouldn't call it exploitation because the worker is being paid for their skill level and their limited assumption of risk. If a company fails the worker can always keep their wages and find another job, It's the owner who takes the majority the risk and is thus tied to the success of that company. The greater the risk the greater the reward.

In theory, yes. In practice, I think both 2008 crash as well as the one we're entering now prove it's the exact opposite. If a company begins to lose money, its owners will either lay off workers (Business Insider had a nice article on that, highlighting f.e. American Airlines, which cut its staff by 20%), cut their wages (exactly because employees are hired "at will") or simply outsource/replace them with slave labor (like trash collectors from New Orleans, replaced by prison slaves).

Psycamorean is a coward who yet again blocks others from commenting when he doesn't get his way. :))