InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "cha - cha"

superfan1 (superfan1) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-03-25 16:35:00

Entry tags:

creator: dwayne mcduffie, creator: shane davis, title: justice league of america

Justice League of America #31
.

(Post a new comment)

	bluejaybirdie 2009-03-25 04:52 pm UTC (link)
	God, is Ollie ever a dick. Implying that marrying Dinah was his mid-life crisis? That's really low. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-03-25 05:10 pm UTC (link)
	Um, I don't think that's what he's implying; I believe he's referencing the Grell run. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	schmevil 2009-03-25 06:01 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, this. But he's still a dick. It's kind of his thing at this point. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kenn_el 2009-03-25 08:42 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe I'm overdoing the gender equity thing, but hitting one's spouse gives me the creeps, regardless of the gender of the spouse. "Hero" my arse. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	schmevil 2009-03-25 08:45 pm UTC (link)
	Did you mean to respond to someone else? I was agreeing with Colonel Green that Ollie's referring to the Grell run, in regards to his midlife crisis, not current events. But yeah, absolutely nothing on or off-panel justifies Dinah's attempt to ah, punch some reason into Ollie. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	scansdragon 2009-03-25 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	No, no it's alright for Dinah to hit Ollie. He had it coming. He even admits it. Gotta love those double standards. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	gwalla.livejournal.com 2009-03-26 11:29 am UTC (link)
	"She...she only hits me because she loves me." (Reply to this) (Parent)

	foxhack 2009-03-25 05:56 pm UTC (link)
	Ollie's Midlife Crisis was his darker years before he died. He was with Dinah for most of that time. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mullon 2009-03-25 06:12 pm UTC (link)
	Someone's sleeping on the couch tonight. It might have gone better if everyone didn't constantly undermine Dinah. (Reply to this)

bluefall
2009-03-25 06:54 pm UTC (link)

I love how totally insane continuity is right now. Babs kicks the other Birds out of her life at the end of BoP, which is after Final Crisis, but before Batman dies, even though Batman died during Final Crisis. In Oracle, Babs isn't talking to the other Birds at all, and Dinah can't get a hold of her, which appears to happen directly following BoP and directly following Bruce's death; by the end of Oracle, Babs will be walking again, probably without reconciling with her friends. Meanwhile, simultaneously, in JLA, Batman is dead and Dinah is taking walks in the park with wheelchair-bound not-at-all-cut-off-from-the-Birds Babs and bitching about sexism. (Do I have to post that now? Is that how this 4/3 split thing is supposed to work?)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	parsimonia 2009-03-25 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	You forgot about skydiving with Dick! She's a busy gal, our Babs. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kenn_el 2009-03-25 08:44 pm UTC (link)
	Babs has a team BASED on gender and has the nerve to whine about 'sexism'. One of the shining moments of this issue. I REALLY want my money back. At least there was a little Zee. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arrlaari.livejournal.com 2009-03-25 09:00 pm UTC (link)
	http://whilenotfinished.theirisnetwork.org/2009/03/02/are-female-oriented-communities-or-publications-sexist/ (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kenn_el 2009-03-25 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	Discrimination is discrimination. If one gender gets a pass for exclusion, then they aren't being treated equally, are they? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 12:40 am UTC (link)

I'm fully aware that I'm starting a potential flame war here, but dang it, it's kind of my job to talk to people about this, so I'm doing it: you're absolutely right that excluding men from a women-only group isn't treating the sexes equally, but that's kind of the point, because the sexes weren't being treated equally to begin with. In a patriarchal society like ours (and I'm assuming here that you're also a member of this society; if you are, in fact, a member of some ancient Amazonian tribe, I apologize for my mistaken generalization) men are given preferential treatment, representation, and power, and have been for hundreds of years. (Bear in mind as I say this that I'm a white male, a member of the most privileged class there is, so I speak with some authority here.) Women have been traditionally excluded not only from clubs like the Justice League but from workplaces, academic institutions, positions of authority, and positive representations in the media, for far longer than any of us have been alive.

That being the case, it's not unreasonable for women to demand a space where they are allowed to be in charge, to set their own rules, and to associate exclusively with other women. For men to complain that this is "discriminatory" is both hypocritical and meaningless; men have the power to associate with other men all over the place, and don't think of themselves as being discriminatory when they do so, so in fact denying women that right is the double standard. Even if a man doesn't consider himself a "sexist" in the obvious sense (and most men these days don't), he has still benefited from the sexist institutions in our society, and the only way to counter that insidious, ubiquitous force is to allow women the chance to have their own spaces where they make the rules--anything less simply promotes the status quo, which is disempowering to women in general. Unfortunately, as nice as they may sound on the surface, most arguments about "equality" simply mask exactly this kind of promotion of the status quo. In short, it was never a level playing field to begin with, so saying "women excluding men is just as sexist as men excluding women" doesn't actually work. Women excluding men is a movement from a disempowered state to an empowered one, while men excluding women is an enactment of a pre-existing power structure. I know it may be hard to swallow, but that's how it is.

I realize I'm not likely to change your mind with one message-board post, especially if your views are valuable to you on a personal rather than political level, but I would ask that you think hard about the women in your life that you love (and, because I'm kind of nuts, I'm including the female characters from the Justice League in that grouping) before you claim that they can't have a space where they get to be in charge.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sessile29 2009-03-26 01:01 am UTC (link)
	OMG CAN I GIVE YOU A BIG-ASS HUG RIGHT NOW THAT WAS AWESOME Seriously, man - well said. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	freeman333 2009-03-26 02:10 am UTC (link)
	Thank you! I will accept your hug, and give one in return. (Reply to this) (Parent)

cmdr_zoom
2009-03-26 01:19 am UTC (link)

Exclusively, though?
I freely concede that males hold the dominant position in most societies, but at least in this one, I keep hearing about the courts knocking down the doors of one "No ______s Allowed" organization after another. Is it right (or, in the long term, healthy) for any group to isolate themselves by excluding others? If so, I suppose we might as well get on with the business of dividing ourselves up into tidy little like-minded tribes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 02:10 am UTC (link)

The role of the courts, as you describe, is to remove the ability of the traditionally-powerful groups to exclude members of traditionally-underpowered groups. For the reasons I described above, it doesn't work the same way in reverse; you can't take away the power of underpowered people to form communities, because that's not a power they've traditionally held.

As far as the question of health goes, I'd say yes, it's extremely healthy for groups who have been denied power by existing systems to meet and organize in exclusive groups where members of the power structure are not allowed in. Members of the existing power structure will, inevitably, work to promote the status quo, even if they're not necessarily aware they're doing it. (This is perfectly understandable, of course; people like being in power, and there's no reason they shouldn't.) Underpowered groups need to be able to organize free from the influence of those who would, even unintentionally, undercut their efforts to empower themselves.

Also, I'm of the belief that if people were really interested in forming "tidy little like-minded tribes" we would have done it already. After all, we've had hundreds of thousands of years to put that into effect--and, depending on how you believe human beings came into existence, it could be argued that we started in tidy little like-minded tribes, and have worked our way away from that state. Sure, people like being around other people like them; it makes it easier to communicate, for one thing. Plus, there's (again, if you believe in such things) an evolutionary imperative to associate with others who resemble you; people who are "different" could potentially be threats, or at least could compete for available resources. We're a tribe-minded species to begin with.

But the impetus of history seems to indicate that people move away from that status rather than towards it, on a societal level; people interact, interbreed and interchange ideas, and with the development of the internet that's easier than ever before (for a certain value of "interact", anyway). As such, I don't think the human race is in any danger of become isolated tribes; rather, disempowered groups are having opportunities to seize greater power, shake off oppressive systems and change existing power structures. It's a gradual, painful process, and it ain't going to wrap up neatly in any of our lifetimes, but one of the early stages of that process is the ability of members of these groups to congregate exclusively.

A long-winded answer to a fairly simple question, but hey, it's the internet, after all.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cmdr_zoom
2009-03-26 01:55 pm UTC (link)

(one more time, sorry)

Thank you for your reasoned reply.

I think it's possible that the rise of new technologies will allow us to indulge our natural tendency to isolationism, exclusionism, and discrimination. Scans_daily itself represents one such "distributed tribe."

The rise of nations demonstrates that there are clear advantages to association on a grand scale - yet it seems to me (though this is still at the hypothetical stage, not enough historical data to back an actual trend) that we are now in the process of dividing ourselves back into smaller self-selected communities, under the belief that we (and only we) can provide for ourselves. We can pick news sources and friends who tell us exactly what we want to hear and already believe. One possible outcome of this is depicted in the novel Snow Crash: a society divided into thousands of semi-independent micro-societies and gated communities, who interact mostly for commerce. Taken to an extreme, we might even lose a common language, thanks to our fondness for jargon and shibboleths to deeply discuss matters of interest to our group and exclude outsiders; the grammar would be recognizable, but the vocabulary and content incomprehensible.

In such an environment, one might never have to suffer having one's beliefs questioned, challenged, or even examined - this is my greatest concern. IMO, it is through the exchange of ideas and encounters with different viewpoints that minds grow. Exclusive communities may be founded for many good reasons, and useful discussion needs control and boundaries, but there is a risk of a "founder effect" that limits what ideas can even be thought, let alone expressed. (Of course, this applies to patriarchy as a whole, when considered as an all-encompassing mindspace.)

Now, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that this sort of thing - like the modern vegetarian lifestyle - is a luxury only made possible by existing under the umbrella of a larger society that maintains order*, and that without that, the little tribes will be steamrollered by the larger and stronger ones until we're back to nation-size again. (This sort of annexation and "unification" is how many of the current ones came to be, after all.)

*just as I have the luxury of considering this as a matter of philosophical debate, from my position of admitted privilege, rather than a genuine struggle for self-determination.

I ramble, perhaps. Forgive me?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 05:06 pm UTC (link)

No forgiveness necessary; you make a valid point. If one takes the long view, insofar as that's possible, one can focus on either the long-term overall or the shorter-term (relatively speaking) back-and-forth trends that take place within specific societies. I agree that there's an element of "backswing" taking place within information-age culture at the moment; the exclusivity of jargon creates language barriers that represent divisions between generations, races, cultures and income levels, etc.

It's my take that this movement is representative of the tendency towards "tribe-mindedness" inherent in human beings. But, as you note, there are significant survival advantages to cultural interchange. These advantages tend to only show up on the long-term, though, and are marked by significant obstructions in the short-term. When two tribes (however they happen to be demarcated) meet for the first time, there's almost always a violent clash. Then there's a period of subjugation, with forced unequal integration; then a period of segregation, with rigid resentful isolationism. But eventually, these social pressures tend to ease up as new generations are brought up in an integrated environment, and eventually people tend towards a state of re-integration where previously rigid cultural distinctions become more fluid.

Like I said, this is how I interpret cultural movement over the long-term. People who have been forcefully integrated into a society where they are disempowered are, quite naturally, going to want to break away from that society and form isolated groups where they don't have to suffer under disempowerment any more. This can be described as a necessary early stage in the formation of a functional cultural identity. But models of cultural formation indicate that once this stage is passed, social groups will gravitate towards a state of interaction and cooperation with other groups.

This makes sense on an evolutionary scale, too; while resources are extremely limited and unevenly distributed, it's better to fight off competitors and hoard as much for yourself as you can, because you stand a better chance of surviving that way. But when resources become more plentiful and more evenly distributed, fighting and hoarding become more costly than they are beneficial, and cooperative sharing becomes more advantageous. (Obviously, I'm only talking about first-world nations here; there are plenty of places in the world where these conditions don't apply yet, and I have to admit I'm kind of glad I don't live there, because, as you said, I wouldn't have the luxury of debating these things philosophically while I was engaged in a struggle to survive.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-03-26 07:02 pm UTC (link)
	Well said, and I thank you for discussing the matter with me. offers hand (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	freeman333 2009-03-26 07:10 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you too. shakes (Reply to this) (Parent)

kenn_el
2009-03-26 08:50 am UTC (link)

You seem to have assumed wrongly that I live in your society, and I'm sorry about that. I live in the USA, not whatever benighted Republic you are from, where women no doubt are forced to wear traditional religious garb and take certain societal roles. Here we have freedom of opportunity AND laws that not only enforce that but may go a bit overboard in providing special rights based upon gender. Heck, our most powerful Legislator is a woman, and two women came close to the Presidency last time around (even if one of them was running on her husband's coattails; some traditions die harder than others.). You should really check us out.
As far as the 'Birds' being an answer to a male-dominated field, I disagree. The JLA, for example, evolved organically as a largely male group, but there was no edict that excluded women. In fact, currently, I think it is roughly even in membership between the genders, and has a woman at the head. Far from " a space where they get to be in charge", the "Birds" makes certain that there is only one gender in their grouping. One might venture a guess that their leader is afraid that she cannot maintain authority with males around.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 01:11 pm UTC (link)

Their leader would be right to do so. The sad fact is, all the "freedom of opportunity" in the world won't change the fact that our culture trains both men and women to consider women inferior. This isn't a conscious prejudice that people deliberately hold, it's an insidious mindset that is upheld by the lack of ready examples of women in positions of power or representations of competent women in the media (the fact that no woman has ever done more than "come close" to the presidency, despite being eligible to run for the office for decades, supports this). Equal opportunity laws can't change this kind of cultural imbalance; de rigeur measures can't eliminate de facto segregation, as history has repeatedly shown. De rigeur measures only allow the opportunity for individuals to eliminate de facto segregation, an opportunity that many individuals do not take.

Saying that an institution like the JLA "evolved organically" as male-dominated is to assume that men and women had equal opportunity to be represented in the first place, which simply isn't true. Technically speaking, it's just as easy to create a female superhero as a male one, but then why are there so few female superheroes, proportionally? Because recognizable positions of strength and authority are traditionally given to men, not women, and it is generally assumed that if someone is powerful and assertive that person would be male. For a woman to occupy such a position, an explanation must be given, to excuse the woman's violation of the traditional gender role. Even if we as individuals are not aware that we are demanding this, the fact is that we are.

Again, I say, Oracle is right to assume that including a male in her group might threaten her authority. Even the most well-meaning man (and I've been as guilty of this as anyone) will instinctively undercut a woman's authority, no matter what their views on gender equality happen to be. It isn't enough to say "I'm not a sexist, I believe in gender equality"; that's a good start, but to actually fight for gender equality means men being willing to take a back seat and let women have the floor, including creating spaces that are women-only and free from the influence of patriarchal values and culture, and men have got to (if you'll forgive the phrase) man up and stop complaining about being discriminated against whenever this happens, since it's always been men who have the power to discriminate in the first place. The playing field was never equal, and achieving true equality requires more than simply adjusting the status quo slightly.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kenn_el
2009-03-26 01:32 pm UTC (link)

The playing field IS equal, and no amount of pouting and saying you don't like the rules will change that reality. The problem is that, once you admit that the odds are not stacked against you but are, in fact, set up to give you an advantage, then you have to actually perform and be judged on the outcome of that performance. I can see where that might scare the heck out of you, or someone like the fictional Babs. If Babs feels that her leadership, knowledge, and skill are based upon only ever having to deal with female subordinates, then she hasn't come any further as a character than when she felt that wearing heels to fight crime might give her an advantage in the field. In either case, she let her view of cultural norms dictate her performance. Sad, really.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	freeman333 2009-03-26 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	By what standard is the playing field equal? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kenn_el 2009-03-26 06:24 pm UTC (link)
	By any measurable standard, there are no fields academic or professional that impose a heavier burden upon the female gender in order to enter. But, you are correct to an extent. There ARE those that discriminate against males. We tend not to whine about it, though, which makes all the difference. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 07:22 pm UTC (link)

I admit, I'm honestly not sure at this point whether you're being serious or just baiting me. If you're having me on, well done; I totally walked into this one.

If you are being serious, I apologize for doubting you, and offer this research study as one (among many) examples of how professional fields do, in fact, impose a heavier burden upon women, in the form of less representation in the workforce and lower rates of compensation.

http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/03/no2/jpe03.cfm

Here's another:

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/32/35.php

And just in case you missed it, here's one example (of many) of plenty of men "whining" about being "discriminated" against:

http://www.vooks.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10012&pid=280405&mode=threaded&start=

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kenn_el
2009-03-26 10:02 pm UTC (link)

Look, you've obviously got a chip on your shoulder that's larger than I can assist in removing. I could easily tear apart your alleged 'studies' as I did Psych research for several years (and won a gender discrimination case against my female Professor, so I know a little about that subject), and I know how statistics and studies are manipulated to provide a desired outcome. Funny how the only 'example' you could link about male whining was anecdotal, while the reverse is always Government funded, yet you still cling to your outdated notion that 'sexism' is systemic. But, then, like Babs, if you ever had to take responsibility for your own actions, and couldn't blame 'Society', then a certain comfort level would no longer exist, and that has to be frightening.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	freeman333 2009-03-26 10:48 pm UTC (link)
	Frightening, indeed. I'm curious how you could tear apart these alleged "studies"; it's true, of course, that statistics and studies can be manipulated to provide a desired outcome, but if you're throwing out all statistical evidence that denies your position as biased, I'm curious to know what you're basing your position on, outside of anecdotal evidence. (Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-03-26 04:21 pm UTC (link)

It certainly isn't unreasonable for women to demand spaces where they're in charge - more power to them, that's great. That does not, however, mean they aren't being sexist - it just means they aren't being HARMFULLY sexist. Sexism means discrimination against the opposite gender. There's nothing in there that says the discrimination has to be harmful or hurtful, just that it's there. Discriminating by gender, whether for negative or positive ends, means sexism - period. That's the definition.
The thing is, sexism has become such a buzzword in western culture that its usage automatically brings up a negative connotation. That's not, however, always the case - there are times when it makes perfect sense to discriminate by gender. If you've put together a safehouse for abused women, for example, it's obviously not a good idea to allow men on the premises. And if you're organizing one of those back-to-nature male bonding trips where you go out in the woods and thump drums around a campfire or whatever, having a woman along would be somewhat awkward, since the whole point is to bond in brotherhood with other men. Both of those are examples of sexism free of xenophobia, and that's what I'm talking about here - women have every right to demand spaces where they're in charge, but that is sexist, because it discriminates against men. For a good reason, yes. For a perfectly benevolent one, sure. But it IS sexist, because it discriminates against the opposite gender, whether for good or ill - that's what the word means.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-03-26 12:45 am UTC (link)

Exactly. I don't buy that 'huge amounts of prejudice towards US means that we can't be sexist towards THEM' argument. Of course they can. Sexism means judging someone on the basis of their gender, just like racism means judging someone on the basis of their race. Women may have earned the right to sling back some barbs of their own, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexism, or that there aren't double standards at work here. (You never see a 'men's bookstore', do you?)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freeman333
2009-03-26 01:15 pm UTC (link)

You don't need to. Most bookstores, without any gender in their title, carry mostly books written by and about men. It's the same reason there's no "White Entertainment Television"; regular television is almost exclusively concerned with representations of white people. This is the Hierarchical Binary at play--whenever you've got two groups, and one group is on top and the other is on bottom, any neutral situation is assumed to be concerned with the group on top. This is one of the ways in which power structures are maintained insidiously; because this sort of discrimination isn't obvious, we don't have to think about it. It's just there, unless it gets challenged. Creating specific "women's bookstores" or "Black Entertainment Television", or any of a million other examples, is one way (not necessarily the best way, but there you are) of challenging these insidious structures.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-03-26 03:53 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure that's entirely true - as someone who hangs around in bookstores a lot, it seems to me that most of the successful authors these days (the novelists, anyway) tend to be women. I'm not sure why this is, but that's what it looks like to me. Also, most bookstores worth their salt will have a section devoted to gender issues, along with those of race. (At least, again, that's my experience, judging by the bookstores I've frequented.) If the bookstore is at all large, some of these sections can be HUGE. So in some ways, regular bookstores are actually more inclusive than the specialist ones, since they have books devoted to these specific issues as well as more general subject material.
As to TV, that's a bit different. Throughout most of its history, TV shows have not really had the opportunity to be specialist - they've had to try to appeal to EVERYONE, as impossible as that is, to keep up their ratings and avoid being deluged with angry phonecalls - and, unfortunately, for a number of years the people most likely to make the angry phone calls were bigoted white people. Now that there are all these hundreds of channels available on cable, that's changed things a bit, but old habits die hard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	bluefall 2009-03-25 09:55 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for taking that one. I was about to ask if anyone else was up for it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlbarnett 2009-03-25 10:23 pm UTC (link)
	strikes me as a copout based on a technicality. Of course I also don't buy that power has anything to do with it. People just don't give a damn about people who have predjudiced attitudes but aren't able to do anything about them. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	scottyquick 2009-03-25 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	It's not BASED on gender, it's just overwhelmingly female. Blue Beetle, Savant, Creote, Wildcat and Nightwing have helped before. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kenn_el
2009-03-25 10:30 pm UTC (link)

Most helped out before the 'Birds' thing was defined as a team, and I appreciated that Babs chose operatives she felt comfortable with. However, once it became a team book, if you look at any of the issues where Babs considers 'members', they are exclusively female. Such hiring practices in the real world would be open to discriminatory hiring lawsuits.
Babs can work with whomever she wishes to, IMO, but she needs to own up to her own hypocrisy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	haljordan888 2009-03-25 07:58 pm UTC (link)
	Does anyone have like the first splash page of Hal from this, because I didn't get the issue, but want that page, and the other one of in near the end of his scene holding his ring hand or something, If I could get those thanks. Also I love the look on Hal's face as Ollie gets punched. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bariman1987 2009-03-25 10:34 pm UTC (link)
	Also I love the look on Hal's face as Ollie gets punched. I know! He's all "I am so glad I'm not married." Also, he's probably having flashbacks to his many, many, many head injuries in the Silver Age. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	volksjager 2009-03-25 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	Simplify, people simplify. Too much gear,to much tech. too little character... (Reply to this)

	sailorlibra 2009-03-25 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	Ollie's mustache looks like its taking over his face. (Reply to this)

	jlbarnett 2009-03-25 10:25 pm UTC (link)
	anyone notice the mistake on the first page where Zatanna is talking to Diana but saying Dinah? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kenn_el 2009-03-25 10:34 pm UTC (link)
	Artist error, I assume. I actually read the issue following that panel with the assumption that some sort of chicanery was going on, and Zee's misidentification was a clue. Alas, it was just a bad issue. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fleur-de-liz.livejournal.com 2009-03-26 09:04 am UTC (link)
	You're right, Ollie, this Justice League isn't working out. Motion to bring back the JLI? All those in favor? (Reply to this)

	comicoz 2009-03-26 04:45 pm UTC (link)
	"For the full story...coming out in July" July? Please wait 3 months for us to get out a story about what happened in this panel while we'll already have moved on to a completely different story arc? (Reply to this)