Thinking Out Loud: Conspiring to Have Fun

As a teen, I was a big fan of Conspiracy Theories. I was never a believer, but I enjoyed the absurdity and mental gymnastics of the process of convincing oneself that the moon landings were faked or that aliens ran the US government. Sometime in the past decade though, Conspiracy Theories have shifted to be a recruiting tool for the Alt-Right. This really put me off the whole thing and I kind of left it alone for a while, but then two things happened. The first was that I completed my masters thesis "A systematic review of extant Psychotherapeutic interventions for combating Far-Right youth radicalisation through social media and comparable digital platforms", and the second was the Netflix series Inside Job. After both of those settled in my head, I was like "you know what? Fuck the fascists, I want to start enjoying conspiracies again as dumb fun"; so I did. If you can access the free streaming service, Tubi, there are thousands of hours worth of 'documentaries' from which you can draw inspiration or just laugh at while you paint.

Superhero comics have flirted with Conspiracies for years, with characters like Sasquatch and Wendigo being straight out of cryptozoology and plenty of hidden alien research and secret government departments galore. Pretty much no established setting doesn't have some kind of secret society, be it The Court of Owls or Secret Empire, and whilst these aren't always the best handled, they have become major aspects of the genre. Anyway, I'm kind of just hedging around things to fill out word length, what I really want to talk about is the Secret Space Program. If you haven't come across the SSP, then you are in for one hell of a ride, as it combines elements of Roswell, Stargate, Starship Troopers, Warhammer 40,000 and even deals a lot with Tom Delonge of Blink 182. There's moon Nazis, cloned super soldiers, hyperspace travel and alien sex orgies, like some glorious bricolage of entertaining nonsense and the best roleplaying game the 1990s never spawned. Of course, this turns out to just be a lead-in for Q-Anon and similar diet-Nazi shit best avoided, but while you stay in the SSP space, there is a lot of fun to be had.

The obvious question is, of course, can I game the Secret Space Program somehow? Superhuman soldiers cloned from great heroes of history fighting Nazis on the moon is so bang-on my Venn diagram of interests that I can't not at least try, right? Chopping the Alt-Right shit out is actually pretty easy, once you know what to look for, and even reversing that is more than possible, just add in plenty of women, queer people and people of colour as you go. Instead of a SSP soldier being the "clone" of Beowulf or King Arthur, try Fred Hampton or Harriet Tubman, for example. A bunch of black soldiers in power armour raiding a Nazi space station would be a hell of a thing and I'm already just brimming with other ideas that actively resist the conspiracy mindset. One of the best ways we can combat this recruitment tool for the Alt-Right is to drag it into the open and look at it for the nonsense it is. So get out there and put some of this shit in your games. Alien stargates to lost human colonies and flying u-boats? How can you not want to play around with that?

Superhero Media: Tron Legacy

I remember when I first saw Tron Legacy at the cinema; it was opening day, I went to the first showing and I don't remember more than one other person being in the cinema. It was magic. I have a bit of a soft spot for Tron to begin with, but Tron Legacy was everything I could have asked for. When the Daft Punk soundtrack started up, when the Recogniser landed, when Flynn's Arcade lit up, I was transported. A few days later, I took my then girlfriend to see the film, she hadn't seen Tron and was a few years younger than me, but I thought she would enjoy it. She did not. When I asked around as to who among my friends had seen Tron Legacy and what they thought about it, the response was also pretty negative. Not to be "that guy", but I really think most people don't get Tron Legacy; it's a story of gods and mortals, of faith and religion, of fathers and sons, and, perhaps most of all, about the power of belief in dictatorships. Tron Legacy is a masterwork of Science Fiction, but it seems no one will ever know. 

Years after the disappearance of Flynn, his son, Sam receives a clue to to his possible whereabouts which leads him to an old Tron machine at Flynn's Arcade. Before you can say "iconic sequence", Sam is sucked into The Grid and is soon fighting for his life in a nightmare dystopia ruled over by Clu, the dark, digital reflection of Flynn. The Grid is beautiful, in high-contrast gloss colours like a neo-noir fever dream, with sleek edges and hard lines to evoke the look of the original Tron whilst still remaining something entirely new; visually, Tron Legacy is a feast, better even that Avatar in my opinion. Then there's the overarching narrative, whilst Sam isn't all that interesting in of himself, the ongoing conflict between Flynn and Clu holds deep meaning. The most obvious comparison would be Paradise Lost, with Clu in the Lucifer role, but it is Flynn who is cast into the wilderness and the Isos are spawned from nowhere, so the text I'd be inclined to consider would be William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Clu is the Urizen aspect of God, measuring out the world and not accepting of chaos and emotion interfering with his good works. 

Flynn, the true creator, retreats from his creation, while his greatest champion, Tron, is slain and resurrected to serve the Antagonist, not dissimilar to Blake's take on the Archangel Michael. Am I saying Tron Legacy is a postmodernist, digitalist take on the works of William Blake? Probably not, especially when the writer's other works are considered in the context, but the reading is there to be made and there's a decent Thesis in it for anyone who cares to try. Oh and the conflict between the spontaneously-generating Isos and the Programs made by Flynn is a whole other thing that we'll have to discuss in the next one of these. Yes, there will be a next one, as I've found one more piece of Tron media, and it explores the Isos better, so watch out for that somewhere down the track. Tron Legacy is amazing, and with any justice and a sliver of hope, it will become a cult classic for future generations. 

Thinking Out Loud: Big Hero Sex

So this article is about the theoretical sex lives of characters in a children's cartoon. Not because that's the kind of thing really interests me, or turns me on, but because I've had this idea in my brain for years and need to get it down to get it out to make space for something useful. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too skeevy or pornographic, as that isn't what I'm going for, a healthy sex life is an important part of personal development and given that the older members of Big Hero Six (Fred, Go-Go, Honey Lemon and Wasabi) are probably somewhere in their early-to-mid twenties, it just kind of makes sense that they're engaging in this kind of thing, even if it's never on-screen. First big bombshell, I think Fred has had sex with everyone in the group. Yes, Fred is an eternal man-child, but he's demonstrated as having an irresistible charisma and I think he's just charming enough that he does alright. Is Fred bi- or pansexual? I doubt he really knows what he is, he just follows along with what he likes and doesn't bother with much self-examination.

The other big claim I have is that Honey Lemon is trans-feminine. This one is pretty tenuous, but throughout the animated series, Honey is referred to as "Tall Girl" repeatedly, which she chafes at. It's not universal, but within the trans community, trans-femmes can use the moniker "Tall Girls" to identify, and Honey does have moments where the "girly-girl" mask slips a little, such as when she gets really into professional wrestling or finds a boy band insufferable. I don't, for a minute, think that this reading is intentional on the part of the authors, just an odd coincidence of trying to write the character similar to how she was portrayed in the film. I also tend to think that if Honey has particular feelings for any other member of the group, it's Fred; though she recognises that he has a lot of growing to do and doesn't actively pursue the relationship. This frustrates Go-Go though, who has a huge gay crush on Honey Lemon. Yeah, sporty girl is a lesbian is a pretty obvious trope to fall back on, but Go-Go really only seems to have close relationships with other women in the series (Wendy Wower) and Hiro, a child.

Probably the least subtle in the series is Wasabi No-Ginger being gay, which, again, doesn't feel so much deliberate as plainly obvious. The one time he really seems to get into someone in the series, it's a genetically "perfected" male assistant who is a great cook and ideal host. Wasabi is certainly only just figuring out his sexuality and probably edges towards being ACE, but it is there to see if you're looking for it. I think the reason this stuff has been on my mind has more to do with my wanting the characters in the media I'm watching to have a little more depth without resorting to the typical grimdark nonsense. The majority of the Big Hero 6 team are in their twenties, so naturally would be likely to be engaging in sexuality and relationships, and nothing here is intended to be overly salacious or out of reasonable possibility for the setting. What these characters would be like if they were a little more "real" is fun to consider, and I don't feel much guilt thinking about them as adults with adult relationships.

Thinking Out Loud: The Hero of Time

Hey there! This is another one of those entries that's not even tangentially about superheroes, just something that's been on my mind that I had to get down somewhere. So sorry, come back next time for something involving capes and tights.

I'm of the age that I owned a Nintendo 64 at the time it was the current generation of console, and would occasionally get games as gifts or whathaveyou. Like many of that age, I fell in love with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, finishing it many times over; it was actually my first Zelda game, and even to this day the series doesn't feel "right" to me in the classic 2D-style. Sadly, I couldn't afford to do more than borrow a copy of Majora's Mask back in the day, but I made up for it with the 3DS version as an adult. Even now, if I'm sick, or even on holiday, running through Ocarina and Majora is a good way to spend my time.

Oddly, these games have actually gotten better as I've gotten older. I mean, I don't think there was stuff there that only came to light later, more that, having done degrees in English Literature and Film Studies, my critical faculties have greatly increased and I can see more in the narratives than I could when I was a literal child. Themes like loss of childhood, inevitability and the need to find closure permeate Ocarina of Time, which is part of the reason it still resonates with players decades on.

Majora's Mask is about trauma and grief, right? I don't know if it was a deliberate choice by the makers of the game (given general Japanese cultural attitudes towards Mental Health, I doubt it), but every element of the game is steeped in loss and the pain it brings. The antagonist has been so hurt by the world that he lashes out in an apocalyptic manner as soon as he has the power to do so, the cartoon fantasy equivalent of a school shooter. The game even starts with the bullying victim bullying the next person down the chain (Link, yes that was a pun) because it's the only power dynamic Skull Kid can relate to. Ah, but I hear you say, aren't the majority of school shooters racially motivated? Well, what does Skull Kid do to Link after stealing his horse for a joy ride? He forces a new, "lesser" racial identity on Link, which causes the people of Clock Town to vilify him, refuse him service in shops and basically treat him as a second-class citizen. With the Business Scrubs and the fact that only the local Banker is keen to talk to Deku Link, there's probably an allegorical reading of the European Jewish experience to be had, but we'll leave it at that.

And what of Link? Well, he starts the game running. From what? Here the "nebulous" nature of Zelda cannon can be easy to trip up on, but I tend to see Majora's Mask as the direct sequel to Ocarina of Time. At the end of Ocarina, Link is forced to return to childhood, despite having spent a not-insignificant amount of time as an adult, putting his life on the line to defeat a mad wizard whose evil has literally twisted his childhood home into a place of nightmares. Of course, the world where Ganon has been defeated has no need for Link, and Zelda seems to be working from a framework of compassion in sending him back, but Link has been forever changed and cannot go back to his life of the most bullied Kokuri. How do the Ocarina credits end? With Link running into Zelda's courtyard as a child once more. Whilst there is a perfectly fair romantic reading of Link and Zelda's relationship, I tend to feel that the connection they share through the Triforce is probably deeper than that, given that the three are continually reincarnated to act out the same struggle throughout history. Naturally, the child Zelda is unable to relate to the Link who has been an adult, seen the future and felt the blood of evil men on his hands, so he has lost even that connection and flees Hyrule entirely, searching, perhaps unconsciously, for someone who can relate to his experience.

Meanwhile, back in Termina, Link is stuck in a "Groundhog Day" three-day loop where he can watch those around him go from disbelief to panic to horrific fiery death knowing that he will survive and have to do it all again. And how does Link combat the end of the world? By putting on masks that literally change him into someone equipped to fix the problem, a process that is clearly painful and traumatic, but which Link puts himself through repeatedly to save others. There's probably a D-I-D reading there, but that's way above my Psychotherapist pay grade. Depending on how familiar with Majora's Mask you are, it may take quite a few runs through the last three days of the world for you, though Link, to save it, so just how many times does this poor child who has seen and lived through way too much already see the world end because he failed? Once all the titans are awakened, Link can prevent the moon from hitting Termina and save the world, pretty standard fantasy stuff, really. However, is this allegorical? Is Link really accessing an inner strength, or perhaps building his Maslow's Pyramid? Link leaves Termina at the end of the game, his belongings restored, but how is he psychologically? Is he stronger for what he has gone through, or has this adventure broken him even more?

And where could this lead next? That's a question that has been floating around my brain for years, off and on. Yes, I know about the "Split Timeline" and all that, and I've played other Zelda games, but I want to know what happens to this Link, the one who defeated Ganon and then Majora before wandering off into the dark areas of the map. Well, sorry to say, all this was a lead-in to another one of these speculating on a possible final installment of a trilogy. So keep an eye out for that, sooner rather than later.

Thinking Out Loud: Anarchist Super Heroes

So having covered some of the quagmire of what politics superheroes tend to represent previously, let's take a look at something closer to my home; Anarchist Superheroes. Are there any? Well, that's a little tricky, if I'm being honest, because Anarchism, as an ethos and political stance, can be a bit nebulous. Part of that is the "Left" just not being super intersectional, in that two people can call themselves Anarchists, but have different views on a couple of things and end up fighting. So let's consider the broader implications of contemporary Anarchism on this one, rather than breaking out the Bakunin. If I limit myself to wanting to eliminate nations and abolish government as we know it, I can actually find a character or two that fits the bill. First of all, characters that are merely anti-police or pro-socialism, like Alison Green or Invincible, are clearly not Anarchists, despite their Leftness, as they wish to reform the system, not demolish it. No we need someone who likes to smash, some kind of Hulk, perhaps?

Yeah, Immortal Hulk is our first stop, as he's probably the best example of both a character and a comic with a radical bent to it. Hell, Devil Hulk's (love the irony) main antagonist is the Roxxon corporation, run by a literal inhuman monster capitalist, like, it's not even subtext, it's just text that this billionaire is a monster that eats people and wants to destroy the world. And Hulk openly states that he wants to end human civilisation, though not humanity, to save the planet before it's too late; it's a far cry from Iron Man thinking that getting cell phones into Africa will solve any of the world's problems. Of course, the other name everyone is going to think of is V, the masked revolutionary of V for Vendetta, an avowed anarchist who's sign is an inverted Anarchy symbol. V is actually a great example of the problems with contemporary Anarchism, especially in the graphic novel, where V undertakes his crusade with no consideration for how the people of England will react or be affected by his actions. Certainly not an intersectional Leftist.

V is problematic because he is also out for specific revenge and isn't really particularly humanist whilst he's going about destroying the system. Even in the film, V performs some pretty dark acts in order to achieve his goals which are, arguably, not redeemed by his death. My favouite at the moment is Karli Morganthau and the Flag-Smashers from The Falcon and The Winter Solider, who are not only intersectional Anarchists, but, during "The Blip", actually got to live in a border-less society with universal housing, healthcare and support; no wonder they're prepared to fight to get that back. And the programme doesn't frame them as outright villains! That's amazing, given that a good 150+ years of propaganda has made the word Anarchy synonymous with 'lawlessness', which, you know, it just isn't, Anarchism just has different methods of law-keeping. Yes, Karli turns to violence and murder as she escalates, but that is responsive behaviour to the arrival of Captain America and her friends being attacked. She's not perfect, but just seeing an Anarchist be presented as a reasonable and logical person is pretty unique, and I really enjoyed it.

Thinking Out Loud: The Overton Phantom-Zone Viewer

An interesting little discussion I get into occasionally is "where do superheroes sit politically"? Now, this is kind of a dumb question on its face, as individual characters would have different political leanings, not to mention that different writers will put their own spin on things. Also there is the Overton window, which shifts over time, further muddying the already fraught notions of the "Right" and "Left" in politics. For example, your average American may consider the Democratic party as "Liberal", though by the standards of Australian politics, the Democrats would still be considered fairly "Conservative". Also, our Liberal party is pretty damn conservative and our Conservative party are a bunch of religious nutbags that no one takes seriously, just to be extra confusing. For myself, being an anarchist, pretty much no political party at home or abroad represents what I want or stands for the same thing I do, so the notion of democratic "Left" and "Right" parties is kind of nonsensical from where I sit, and I honestly consider the "Leftist" parties of Australia to be closer to the "Centre" for the most part.

The argument is, and it's not a bad one, truth be told, that because Superheroes maintain "order", they must be Conservative, as there is the assumption that the society they're helping to protect is worthwhile. Ok, so, yes? You rarely see superheroes raging against the government, and even when you do, in say Civil War or The Dark Knight Returns, there isn't really anyone agitating for the end of capitalism, as I would in their place. Then again, comics, especially Marvel Comics, have a history of being an "outsider" medium, with the Silver Age being replete with support for the Civil Rights, Environmental and Spiritualist movements, all of which are still considered outside of the mainstream, to some degree. Most superheroes are humanist, at least to a certain degree, being against killing their foes and trying to avoid fights, and I tend to place Conservatism and Capitalism as non-humanist, what with the whole letting people die of exposure and starvation rather than pay for them to have housing and food thing. I think if you exist only in the false and inaccurate Liberal/Conservative dualism of politics that is common in Western Democracies, then reading Superheroes as predominantly "leftist" is fair, though not the whole story.

As the internet provides more access to information outside of what is deemed "acceptable" by the mainstream politics and media in your country, (Australian media is weirdly conservative compared to our culture, for example) young people are finally able to learn what terms like "Anarchist", "Fascist" and "Socialist" actually mean, rather than how they are framed by those already in power. I have to admit, I used to have very incorrect assumptions about all of them, and I actually only realised I was an Anarchist when I was actively seeking out a label to help explain my political views to others. Even now, when I tell people I am an Anarchist, there are plenty of assumptions that I find I have to fight, but thankfully, most of my peers are at least willing to consider what I have to say. In the past few years, as the people writing comics get to be of my generation and younger, the politics of heroes are shifting. Be it the MCU Flag-Smashers, Alison Green or even the Immortal Hulk, some heroes are getting more radical in their politics and approach to the status-quo that they once safeguarded. I don't know if this is indicative of a bigger shift in how Superheroes are written, or if it's just a case of companies "going woke" to make more money, but you can be sure that I'll be keeping an eye on it and hoping.

Thinking Out Loud: Serial Killer "Heroes"

After the success of serial killers as villains in 1980s and '90s comics, where was there left to go? Naturally, make some of them into heroes. Now, I'm not talking about The Punisher here, Frank is pretty much never represented as a sociopath or psychopath and his approach is pragmatic, not psychosexual in any way. What about Venom? Certainly some publications featuring the character as a protagonist lean in heavy on the murder and mayhem, but I want to go even deeper. I was actually watching the second season of Hannibal, when a man in a pneumatically-powered, cave bear-themed murder suit was jumping through a window, and my first thought was, "Wait, shouldn't this guy be fighting Spider-Man instead?" After doing some quick thinking about how to make an appropriate miniature, I went to considering the titular Hannibal's plan to create a "team" of serial killers and how that may work in comics. After a minute or two, I dismissed the idea as being pretty terrible and generally the kind of thing an adolescent would think up. 

Thankfully, I'm not one of those Psych graduates who has an intense interest in psychopaths, sociopaths and serial killers (despite The Silence of the Lambs being my favourite film), so I'm not likely to look at a murderous antihero like Kaine or Red Hood (Jason Todd) and be instantly enthralled. However, if I was the only kind of comics fan, basically the entire industry would be Invincible, Marvel NOW! Hawkeye and Atomic Robo, so maybe that's a good thing? Anyway, thanks to the "success" of the Venom film, as well as people misinterpreting why the Deadpool[s] and Logan were so good, a resurgence of the "Killer" superhero is happening in comics, television and film, leaving me sighing quite a bit as supposedly grown men get excited about Carnage being on the big screen. Hell, don't get me started on Joker, I'm actually glad that the COVID-19 pandemic canceled PAX Melbourne 2020 just so I didn't have to see 200 guys dressed like sad clowns while they complained about Captain Marvel not having a masculine narrative structure. Ok, this one's getting a bit off-topic, sorry. 

The serial killer is a fascinating bogeyman for audiences because they look so much like us but are so different in many ways. Pretty much everyone has indulged in a brief fantasy of murdering an overbearing manager, frustrating customer or significant other of our object of desire, but killing as a sexual release is utterly alien to us. Hannibal Lecter, Zodiac and Joker are fascinating and engaging villains because they are unknowable in terms of motivation (Joker less so as writers keep going back to the well of diminishing returns that is his origin). Heroes, on the other hand, even antiheroes, have pretty clear motivations, be they guilt (Spider-Man), duty (Captain America), altruism (Superman) or even revenge (Batman); but turning that to "getting my rocks off with violence" only worked in Watchmen. And Watchmen, just to reiterate for those still in denial about this, is not intended to glorify its characters. As interesting as they are to think about, Hooded Justice, The Comedian and Rorschach aren't heroes for the ages, and don't really need their own series or films to "fill out", as there's not that much there to begin with.

Thinking Out Loud: Serial Killer Villians

In the grim and dark reality of 1990s comics, a new kind of villain emerged, edgier and more dangerous that what had come before it; the Serial Killer. Murderous villains had been a thing since the Golden Age, of course, with even The Owl and Egghead racking up the odd kill, but with the change in tone and market that came with the Dark/Iron Age, things changed. Suddenly, rather than taking on costumed criminals or mob bosses, Daredevil and Batman were fighting The Surgeon General and Mr Zsasz. Now, a superhero fighting a murderer isn't the worst thing in the world, especially for the more detective style characters like Batman and Daredevil, but how about someone more lighthearted in tone, like Spider-Man? So I, personally, find Venom to be a pretty uninteresting villain, but much of his original run is good and as the "glass darkly" version of Spider-Man, he does well enough. Naturally, Venom wasn't hardcore enough for the 1990s, so along came Carnage. 

Not only was Carnage even "worse" than Venom, his first host was a serial killer (Cletus Cassidy), he was red, and his super powers let him make nasty bladed weapons. Yawn. Sure, there have been a couple of decent Carnage stories, I remember one where the symbiote was hopping people to escape attention that was a fun mystery, but "edgier Venom" can never be that interesting when Venom is just "edgier Spider-Man". But back to Mister Zsasz, who immediately gets points for having a palindrome name, he's enjoyed something of an upswell in fans thanks to his appearances in Arkham City and Birds of Prey, and I actually don't mind him as an antagonist; most of the time. In the tie-in issues for Batman: No Man's Land, there's a story where Dr Leslie Thompson elects to treat an injured and unconscious Zsasz despite the danger; it's an interesting story with some ethical dilemma and is a nice break from the main story. That is, unit Zsasz starts killing people in his sleep. Yes, he's so deadly, he murders people whilst unconscious. Odin's beard is that dumb. 

So what am I getting at will all this complaining? Well, the 1990s were not a great time for comics, though I maintain there was plenty of gold if you looked, but it's still pretty much all stuff that happened, and comics love keeping track of stuff that has happened. So now, when we look back and go, "man, Maximum Carnage is really pretty bad", it kind of doesn't matter because Carnage is still here, he never went away. In fact, pretty much all of the Serial Killer Super Villains are still with us, and will now be forever. What's bugging me about that is how much I see the trope pop up in indy comics, even when it doesn't really fit. Hell, as great as it is, Invincible is already pretty violent, so did Conquest really add anything as a character or was it just a fun fight? I know when we homebrew our settings, we want a Joker or a Venom, but does that really fit? Hell, is it at least interesting? What does Zodiac or BTK in a colourful costume add to your story other than an excuse for buckets of blood? Think on that and we'll examine the flip-side of the coin later down the track.

Thinking Out Loud: The Ditko Effect

More and more I've noticed that Steve Ditko's name is on a lot of films and television, especially those put out by Marvel. Mostly this takes the form of little credits like "Spider-Man created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko", and mostly this is a good thing, with many creators having been denied credit for their work in the past; even if they're dead, like Ditko, they deserve to be known for what they did. There is something about Steve Ditko getting more and more press however, that gets my hackles up. Firstly, I love Ditko's work, I have plenty of Silver Age Spider-Man, The Question and Doctor Strange in my collection and have even tracked down some Mr A here and there, so I'm not knocking his contribution to the medium or saying he's not entitled to the posthumous accolades he's been belatedly awarded. What I'm having more and more issue with, is the Dikto apologists and the impact, deliberate or no, that they are having on the discourse around superheroes. Sorry, this is another politics one, see most of you next week. 

That Steve Ditko was an Objectivist is no secret, and should not shock anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Comics history. For the uninitiated, Objectivism is sect of hardcore, right-wing, Libertarian thought, pioneered by the terrible novels of Ayn Rand and still a popular school of "thought" among conservatives. Put briefly, Objectivism posits that the bulk of human society should support the work of the extraordinary individuals among us and place no restrictions on their unbridled genius. Not a terrible idea on the surface, but if you dig down you find that every proponent of this idea thinks they're the special ones, and we have enough trouble with keeping the powerful to any ethical code already. Yes, I'm pretty far astray from Objectivism on the political spectrum, so call this sour grapes if you will, but touting Ditko's genius without also pointing out the unfortunate elements of his thinking can be pretty dangerous. You see, whilst Objectivist thinking isn't inherently bigoted, it is very attractive to those looking to justify their already racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted worldview. 

Was Ditko himself a bigoted person? Well, the evidence is mixed there, and a lot of publications offer contrary opinions, but at best, he was difficult to work and live with, often treating people around him, especially fans of his, poorly. Ditko's beliefs, however, are pretty plain to see in a lot of his work, from unbridled scientific research in Spider-Man through to The Question literally vanquishing opponents with his righteous dedication to the truth. Yes, in Silver Age issues of The Question, he "eviscerates" his foes with "facts and logic". To my mind, if these works were allowed to stand on their own, there wouldn't be too much of an issue, as I trust readers to be discerning and only a handful of morons will get their philosophical and political beliefs from superhero comics. Due to Ditko's legendary status in the industry, however, a comment on an online forum or in a crowded comic store along the lines of "I love classic Doctor Strange comics, but Ditko's politics kind of grate after a while", is an invitation to be dog-piled. 

So what am I asking for here? Basically, I'd like us to treat Steve Ditko the same way we started treating Stan Lee before his death; like a human with flaws. Lee has copped a lot of blame, some of it fair, for the way many artists and writers had credit stolen from their work in the Silver Age by publishers and he had to account for that publicly and professionally. As Ditko never really chased the spotlight, he didn't have that same period of accountability for his less admirable traits, and since his death, people, especially fans, don't wish to speak ill of a great talent. All I'm asking is, can we admit that Ditko had some toxic beliefs? Don't throw away his comics, don't stop reading his work and don't stop showing it to the next generations of fans, but as you do so, point out what's wrong and why. Hell, I like to assume we're already doing that with some of racism, sexism and other assorted bigotry of classic comics, so just add in something about "Ayn Rand was a moron, don't take this seriously" as you go. Oh, and read some Mr A, it's a fucking trip.

Thinking Out Loud: Villain Apocalypse

Pretty much since my first year of doing this, I've been hinting at the idea of "Villain Apocalypse", occasionally lifting the veil but never really getting it down properly. So what is "Villain Apocalypse", and why have I been fixated on it for so long? Simply put, "Villain Apocalypse" is a shorthand term I use for a post-apocalypse superhero setting in which the world-ending cataclysm was not a nuclear war or natural disaster, but instead the act of a supervillain or villains. I first used this idea with, of all things, a one-shot Pokemon role playing game I ran at a convention, where the world had been rendered an Anime version of Fallout by a battle between Mewtwo and other Legendary Pokemon. Of course, there are plenty of examples of this in all superhero media, from Age of Apocalypse and Old Man Logan through to Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks or even Samurai Jack. Not only is a Villain Apocalypse an interesting and engaging setup for a setting or adventure, it can really make for great characters as well. How? Let's go through this. 

Putting superheroes in a post-apocalyptic setting is, weather you intend it to be or not, a statement on the heroes in general and a broader response to the genre as a whole. Keep in mind, that if the world ended (or at least, was drastically changed) by the acts of super powered individuals, be they heroes or villains, that makes those characters the bomb or plague of the story. Post Apocalypse is a subgenre of Science Fiction which tends to be heavily allegorical, with the cause of the end of the world not being so central to the narrative as people's reaction to it. In a Villain Apocalypse, however, the heroes are not only survivors, but walking reminders of the end of the world; imagine playing a walking nuclear bomb or a Nazi after the fall of Berlin in 1945. Even if the heroes inhabiting this world are truly altruistic, how can anyone ever really trust them again when they, or someone like them, is responsible for the end of all you knew? Even if the actual event itself was caused by a supervillain, either directly (Infinity Gauntlet) or indirectly (Legacy Virus), there would be anger over the fact that the heroes didn't stop it this time, that's what they're here for, right? 

I tend to think this approach works best when the "apocalypse" was in living memory, such as Old Man Logan, so that people can miss the comforts and ease of Late Capitalism, despite its flaws, and remember a time where heroes won and villains lost. There is a tragedy there that can drive the surviving heroes, either inspiring them to try and fix things or crushing them into depression, but it makes for a real opportunity to tell stories. Although I tend to prefer running games with lower-powered player characters, how much could even the godlike heroes really accomplish? Controlling the weather is all well and good until the climate collapses, and super strength can only help so much when people are starving. Whilst I'm yet to get a game up and running based around a Villain Apocalypse, it's an idea I just keep coming back to and wanting to make work, when the right opportunity hits. Though I'm constantly raging against the proliferation of "grim and gritty" in the genre, I think there's room for legitimate pathos and tragedy, with genuine hurt driving characters, rather than "damage" or fixations on revenge. I hope someone else draws some inspiration from this idea and, if you do, please let me know.

Superhero Media: Colossal

Sometimes, superhero media can be used to talk about broader social issues, such as Speedy being addicted to Heroin, Captain Marvel being a metaphor for feminist film making or The Punisher taking on human trafficking; but what about Kaiju as a genre? Sure, the original Godzilla has a clear meaning, the Gamera series tackles environmentalism and Shin Godzilla is about Japanese bureaucracy, but how would a Kaiju film about abuse and trauma work? Colossal is an independent film about Gloria, a New York party girl who goes back to her small Seattle suburb home after getting kicked out by her boyfriend. Reconnecting with estranged childhood friends, Gloria tries to get her life back on track and takes a job working at her friend, Oscar's, bar. Then, one night, a giant monster attacks Seoul. The world is shocked at the sudden appearance of a Kaiju, but life moves on quickly and soon Gloria and friends are back drinking at the bar after hours. That is, until, Gloria figures something out; she is controlling the monster. 

The rest of this is going to be pretty spoiler-heavy, so if you're keen to watch Colossal now, stop here. What makes Colossal unique and engaging is how the characters, particularly Gloria, engage with their discovery and take steps to resolve it. After realising that she has accidentally killed hundreds of people whilst stumbling home drunk, Gloria not only resolves to tackle her borderline alcoholism, but tries to atone for her actions, even scrawling a message in Korean apologising for the pain and suffering she has caused. The conflict of the piece comes when Oscar's motivation for his altruism and friendship is revealed to not be an old crush on Gloria, but a seething jealousy that has existed since childhood. When Oscar's true nature is revealed, Gloria must figure out how to use her new powers to save lives and gain control of her own destiny once more. 

If it's action you're after, Colossal is pretty light-on, but the exploration of Kaiju as a literal metaphor for the monstrous nature of people is interesting to explore. The connection between Gloria and the unnamed Kaiju is reminiscent of the 1990s Gamera films having "The Girl Who Talked to Gamera" as a character (Midori?), though obviously the connection is much more direct here. After having watched so many Kaiju films of late, I find myself considering the relationship between humans and Kaiju and how that can be explored through narrative. Characters like Mole Man and Doctor Demonicus have direct communication with their monsters, but Midori and Gloria have a more limited control, due to the nature of their monsters. If Kaiju are typically a metaphor for a human experience, how do we have more direct interaction with them beyond getting stepped on? 

Thinking Out Loud: In Justice

What if Superman were a bad guy? Fans have been asking this question since the Golden Age of comics, but there never seems to be a satisfying answer. Well, honestly, the answer is "boring", but most won't appreciate that, so let's talk this through, shall we? As I've discussed more than once, Superman is "The Man of Tomorrow", the ideal to which humanity can strive, representing compassion as much as strength; a shining light for all mankind. Any attempt to shift Superman away from this history and iconography tends to fall flat, like Man of Steel or Injustice, which focus only on Superman's powers and not his humanity. That's not to say that Injustice is bad, or even the target of my ire, the comics I've read are really quite good (I haven't played the games), but they're not good because Superman is the villain, but in spite of it. It honestly baffles me that some of the same voices that claim Superman is a boring character because he can do anything, then turn around and laud versions where the character is a villain; he's still all-powerful, so how is that any different? 

"But what about Red Son?" I hear someone cry from the back. Yes, Red Son is really good, brilliant even in places, but Superman isn't a "bad guy" in it. I know decades of propaganda has made it difficult for some, but being a Communist doesn't automatically make the otherwise completely-altruistic Superman a villain. The comic has Superman turn most of the world into a Communist Utopia without hunger or labor, how is that "evil" behavior? Yes, Luthor overcomes this world order with a supercharged capitalist dictatorship, but he's clearly the villain, he's Lex freaking Luthor. I know I'm an avowed anarchist, but it's not as simple as "Capitalism Good, Communism Bad", ok? Anyway, if one of the best alternate takes on Superman has him save the world and institute broad social welfare programs, where does that leave our "evil" version? Well, we have Ultraman, Zod and Hyperion, but these just don't seem to be what people want, because they're not *strictly* Superman. 

I think a lot of this comes back to most readers being more interested in seeing Supes punch things than actually be Superman. It's a lot easier to justify Superman taking the violent way out if he's bad to begin with. And again, for those in the back, it's not that you can't get interesting stories out of this idea, I enjoy both Irredeemable and Brightburn on their own merits, but they're not Superman stories for a very good reason. I know this is a trend that will never really go away, but I'd like it to, as it's just tiresome and only demonstrates a misunderstanding of who and what Superman is. There are plenty of alternate takes on a similar character, even in addition to those mentioned above; check out Supreme Power, Super Folks or even Invincible if you really need that in your life, because each of those at least does something novel and unique with the concept. Superman is all good. Any other take is usually a waste of time.

Superhero Media: The Fall of Phoenix Jones

An interesting YouTube documentary that a friend put me onto, The Fall of Phoenix Jones covers the career of Seattle-based "Superhero" Ben Fodor, AKA Phoenix Jones, who operated between 2011 and 2014, before being arrested for dealing drugs. The hour-long video is an interesting look into the reality of people who choose to put on a costume and patrol their local neighborhood for real. Unlike many other self-styled "Real Life Superheroes", Phoenix Jones was not content to help people out, or deliver food to the hungry, he went out seeking trouble and ending it with a mix of pepper spray and his backgrounds in the military and mixed martial arts. The high profile that Jones enjoyed, along with the "team" he assembled, the "Rain City Superhero Movement", launched him to a reasonable level of fame, despite the divisive nature of vigilante violence, and the continuing controversy of his life. For a better look at the whole story, check out the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8CkDrhZw14&t=2111s  

Ok, now let's have a talk about vigilantism. It can be easy to forget, with our comics, film, television and games, that violence is a big factor of justice, be it perpetrated by Police or anyone else. As a society, we tend to forgive violence perpetrated by the Police, even when such violence is directed against the innocent; as an anarchist, I'm really against the idea of the Police having a monopoly on violence, however, I'm not a fan of vigilantes either. In the four-colour world of comics, Batman stopping a mugging with his martial skills is a good thing, but Batman is an impossibly-competent fictional character, not a real person, and it takes only a few minutes thought to realise that Bruce Wayne, with his extreme wealth, could do more to help Gotham in a day than Batman could in a lifetime. We know, though research and painful experience, that the cause of most petty and violent crime is poverty. Punching people is rarely the solution to poverty. 

There is even a section of the video where Jones recovers two containers of laundry detergent stolen by a homeless man. Evidently, there is a way to get high off the detergent, but even putting aside the failure of drug prohibition, how is the homeless man helped by being accosted for a few dollars worth of soap? Jones is to be commended for the times he de-escalated situations and prevented further violence, but the majority of his actions only served to perpetuate cycles of poverty and harm, when they weren't outright criminal. Jones disdainfully calls other "heroes" who help feed the needy and make the world a better place through kindness, "LARPers", but the truth is that helping those who need it despite societal condemnation is far braver and more radical than punching a mugger will ever be. Want to be a real hero? Challenge extreme wealth. Champion ideas like Universal Health Care and Universal Basic Income. Shelter refugees. Stop buying Nestle and Coca-Cola products. Save the punching for the comics.

Thinking Out Loud: Cap/Buck

There is quite an internet following for the "shipping" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Captain America and Bucky as being in a homosexual relationship. Though "shipping" is not a part of fandom I've been particularly interested in, I must admit I've indulged here and there, and certainly see no harm in it, if that's your bag. Captain America is no stranger to the Gay Community, having been something of a Gay Icon for decades now, with many a Cap to be spotted at Pride celebrations and Mardi Gras. Again, I personally find that great and see no issue with people viewing the character that way, especially as most of Cap's romantic relationships from the comics have been forced and uninteresting. In fact, next to the MCU Steve and Peggy arc, the enduring friendship between Cap and Bucky is probably the best presented relationship for either of those characters. So, if I like the relationship, don't care about shipping and am already pro-queer, why bother writing this article? Well, I do have one niggling issue... 

So, ever wonder why men in pre-World War 2 films are a bit more "touchy-feely" than tends to be considered "ok" for straight guys these days? Well, you can thank the USA for that. To, grossly oversimplify, a huge cultural shift in the wake of WWII, whilst Britain and France became more socially minded (read: Left-Wing) in an atmosphere of having less and rebuilding, the Americans profited greatly from the war and drifted towards the "right". Weird how wealth makes you care less about other people, huh? Anyway, in parts of "the West" homosexuality (specifically male/male relationships) was partially tolerated, so long is it wasn't public and the cops didn't feel like beating your head in that day. Think British Public Schools or "love in foxholes" if you can't imagine it. Because there was no "Gay Panic", men touching each other was pretty normal and ok, with close friends and brothers even kissing and hugging when greeting one another. Please though, don't take my word for it, there are plenty of great articles about the loss of platonic male touch after WWII online, I first came across it in The New Yorker, because that's the kind of pretentious, elitist academic I like to think of myself as. 

So, when people look at Cap and Bucky and read their close friendship and platonic touch as homosexual, or at least homoerotic, in nature, sure, that's not harmful, but it bugs me a little that we miss something. Even in the 2020s, the fact that I hug more than a few of my male friends as a greeting, will even give a kiss on the cheek on occasion and/or advocate for platonic male touch in my mental health work, raises questions; about my sexuality, about why I choose to work with young people and what my motivations are. When I see Cap and Bucky gaze lovingly at each other, hug or even tear up when parting, I see the last vestiges of a dead era asserting itself. I see a great example of non-toxic masculinity demonstrating that touch is not forbidden and need no be sexual. I see a future where telling a close male friend that I love him without having to qualify it or risk social standing. That's why I'm not personally keen on the Cap/Bucky ship, even if it isn't at all harmful, because it obfuscates something I really care about, that I advocate personally and professionally. Please, enjoy shipping if that's your bag, but maybe also tell your best friend you love him, ok?

Thinking Out Loud: Murder Hobos

Should Superheroes kill? It's a question about as old as the genre, and one that has no simple answer. In the Golden Age, heroes killed bad guys all the time, often deliberately, with only popular recurring villains escaping to fight another day. The introduction of the Comics Code Authority changed this, with heroes now more likely to round up evildoers and drop them off to the police than drop them off buildings. Now that comics have a rating system, and not to mention multimedia productions that are way more popular than the comics themselves, superheroes are free to do just about anything in terms of violence and murder, and some certainly do. I'm never sure how much I like the idea of a superhero killing a villain, as murder just really is never heroic; however, I do recognise that the ideas that can be explored here are deeper than a first year Ethics class. First up, I'd like to say that characters who utterly refuse to kill, like Batman and Spider-man are hugely important to the genre, despite some limitations that we'll discuss below, because they are intended to be aspirational, and not hurting other human beings is very aspirational in my eyes. 

Of course, Batman is a bit of problem in that regard, as he's ethically pretty terrible aside from the unwillingness to murder, but that's an issue for another time and article. Let's look at Spider-man instead, as his morals are a little more realistic. Although Spider-man doesn't kill, there has been a couple of notable times where he has caused a death through his own actions (not just Gwen Stacy), I'm thinking Norman Osborn and Morlun, both of which left him pretty wracked with guilt for a while, even if those deaths were the only way for Peter to save his own life at the time. What I'm saying is I'm ok with a superhero killing someone if they have to, so long as there's consequences, be they legal, social or psychological. This is something the better Captain America comics and Invincible do well, having a character who can kill, and has in the past, but will only do so when there is no way to get a better outcome, or save more lives. Cap killed Nazis in the war, but that was then and this is now, and now he can knock out a room of AIM guys without killing them, so why take that step? The journey of killing and coming back is portrayed brilliantly in Invincible as well, with Invincible eventually no longer wanting to kill anyone, but knowing that only he has the power to finally end the threat of Thragg. 

The MCU is a bit disappointing on this score in a few places, with Iron Man blasting away indiscriminately and Hawkeye being an accomplished murderer even before the opening credits roll on The Avengers. Again, when Thanos is attacking Wakanda, I don't mind so much that Cap beating down Outriders with no concern for their wellbeing, but at lot of Hydra goons get arrows and repulsor blasts to the face in the opening of Age of Ultron. The MCU Spider-man is managing pretty well, getting hurt in his first solo outing saving the Vulture's life and only killing Mysterio by accident in Far From Home. Let's not even talk about the DCEU, except to mention that Wonder Woman killing during a war is fine by me, she is an Amazon warrior after all, and I'm also in the camp that thinks it wasn't out of character when she snapped Maxwell Lord's neck to prevent more deaths either. When I run superhero games, I try to engender an idea that the heroes aren't killing everything in their paths, just to make things easier; they're the heroes after all. What about characters like The Punisher, I hear you ask? Well, he's not really a superhero though, is he? Frank Castle is a vigilante and only separate from the killers he hunts through his intent and level of competency. Also, in a Supers RPG, I'd be loath to let a player create a character like The Punisher, as he really belongs in a different game.

Thinking Out Loud: Skimpy Costumes

I must have started and discarded this article at least a dozen times. I think that representation of women in comics is a big issue, especially if it's putting women and girls off the medium, and I think the physicality of how female heroes and villains are drawn is a big part of that. However, I also believe that the issue is a lot bigger than just skimpy costumes, and laying the problem at the feet of a single problematic trope is not only a bad approach, but only makes the problem worse. Before we get too much into it, we need to discuss two things that the internet hates, Privilege and Feminism, as I believe it's a misunderstanding of both of these which can cause issues for many. First up, let's check my own privilage and credentials on this one; I am a heterosexual, white, cis-male who grew up middle class in Australia and went to private schools. Being Poly, I "technically" come under the Queer banner, but I almost never experience any detriments from this, so it's not really part of my identity. I don't know what it's like to grow up as a women and experience the constant barrage of bullshit about appearance and beauty standards and I never truly can understand, but I can do what I can to bridge that gap of understanding with learning, which I do through my profession as a Mental Health Youth Worker. 

Also, I love superhero comics, and I want them to continue, but also continue to get better. Sadly, Power Girl's boob window and Carol Danvers' Warbird costume are part of the history of comics, and I don't want to erase that, but creating an environment where readers and creators understand that sort of thing isn't good enough anymore should be a priority for the industry. The flip side of all this, which is something that does tend to bug me, is that any comic with a female character in a state of undress is quickly held up as being "part of the problem" and the entire comic is disregarded. Probably what bugs me the most about this is the (often literal) judging of [comic] books by their covers; but also, any subtlety is lost and the debate quickly becomes binary, which is never a good thing. One comic often held up for ridicule is She Hulk, especially the brilliant Dan Slott run, which had cheesecake covers of the titular heroine, much as previous incarnations had, though this time, the intention is clearly ironic. A friend of mine once posted one of these parody "He-Hulk" images on Facebook and when I pointed out that the comics in question were quite feminist internally and well worth a read, I was told, in response, that if the covers were like that, why bother to read them? 

Was that an extreme response? Certainly. An irrational one? Not really. The medium of comics (especially Superhero comics) is less than a century old, but the only real efforts to produce gender diverse comics in the mainstream started in the late 1990s, change has been slow. At least things are changing, like Janet Van Dyne starting out as an airhead fashionista and now being a powerful fashion-mogul and occasional leader of the Avengers. She-Hulk has gone from a jokey pin-up to a competent lawyer and beloved celebrity. Gwen Stacey has gone from a fetishised corpse to probably the best version of Siper-Woman. The industry is getting better, and the popularity of the television and film adaptations of characters is helping, with Supergirl demonstrating a college-age heroine with a job and complex issues instead of a midriff-baring teenage cheerleader. I mean, I will defend the miniskirt and crop-top version of the costume for teenage Supergirl, but only because I've worked with enough teenage women to be all to aware of the pressures and issues that encourage that kind of behavior in some. Things will keep getting better, hopefully, until then, encourage the women in your life to get to know Spider-Gwen, Atom Eve, Kate Bishop, Kate Kane and all of the other great women of comics past and present, even if the art is a little off-putting at times.

Thinking Out Loud: The Apotheosis of Rick

Like most underemployed, overeducated and somewhat lazy intellectuals, I'm something of a fan of Rick and Morty. A fan in that I enjoy watching the programme, have sat through it a couple of times and am looking forward to more whenever it comes out. As I tend to cast a broad net over what constitutes "Superhero Media", I have been asked as to when readers of this blog can expect to see Rick and Morty get the same treatment I've given Big Trouble In Little China and Scanners. The answer is; never. Not because I dislike the programme, or that I don't think it qualifies, only because there is nothing there to review. Like anyone with an internet connection, I recognise the not-even-a-little subtle nihilism in the text of Rick and Morty, but here's the rub, I've studied my fair share of philosophy, including Classical and Modern Nihilism, and Rick and Morty isn't really about that; it's about nothing. Rick and Morty isn't Nietzsche, it isn't Epicurus, it's a disaffected teenager scrawling "life is pain" on their textbook.  

And that's not an insult to the programme, that is the main point. Feature, not bug. Rick and Morty is perfectly crafted to draw in an audience of (mostly male) people of moderate intelligence who overestimate their cognitive prowess and assume their superiority to those around them. Now that sounds insulting, but I swear I only know and recognise this because I used to be that twenty-something fuckboy so assured of my own godlike status and profound intelligence that I wonder how anyone tolerated my presence, let alone became romantically interested in me. If you're chuckling over a joke in Rick and Morty that you think only people as clever as you get, please stop for a moment and think about it. Is there actually a deeper meaning behind that joke? Because I'm guessing there's not. The internet is full of fan-theories about minor elements of the programme that apparently have deep significance, but I'm yet to see one pan out, even after the long season 2-3 hiatus. The joke is there is no deeper meaning, it just looks like there might be. Yes, those of you thinking you have it "all figured out", unlike everyone else, you're the butt of the joke, sorry. 

You see, I've seen this before; ever heard of The Venture Bros? It's probably the best Adult Swim Original, mostly a parody of programmes like Johnny Quest, at least for the first few seasons. Sometime around season four, it morphs into a seriously compelling action/comedy/drama. There were fans online looking for deeper meaning in The Venture Bros for years who were never rewarded, and it's pretty obvious that the same thing is going on with Rick and Morty. So now you're a Ricky and Morty fan who just realised they've been laughing at the wrong thing for years, what's next? Keep watching the programme. There is nothing stopping anyone from enjoying media on different levels, so get what you like about it, that's cool. Many people enjoy The Matrix because of the slick action and daring effects, just because I enjoy it as a subversive transgender allegory doesn't make my enjoyment (or me personally) any better or worse than you. Yes, this is the point I've been building to; stop thinking that watching Rick and Morty makes you better or smarter than other people, because, as I've just explained, you've probably been getting it wrong the whole time. Rick isn't a person to be admired or emulated, he's a joke on how intellectual "elitists" see themselves when they are disaffected with their lack of actual intelligence. Grow up and enjoy the funny cartoons because they're funny. 

Also, maybe read some philosophy? Marcus Aurelius is a good place to start.

Thinking Out Loud: The Gospel of Frank

Two things of note happened to me recently, one being that I decided to dive back into media of The Punisher, Marvel's murderous vigilante, the other being that I saw a person on the train wearing a "Blue Lives Matter" mask emblazoned with the iconic Punisher skull. Longtime readers of this blog should experience zero shock at the fact that I support defunding the police and find anyone supporting the "Blue Lives Matter" movement to be, at best, misguided, if not outright hostile to my belief system. So then, how does a humanistic Anarchist pacifist find themselves enjoying the Punisher, and what do I think the character represents in a contemporary setting? This one's going to be something of an essay, so settle in for a long one. Frank Castle, as presented in his original role as a Spider-Man antagonist, is something of a "Dirty Harry" figure, intended to contrast Peter Parker's unwillingness to do lethal harm. That comic fans are wont to misunderstand subtlety and take to idolising characters originally intended as parody and pastiche is so much to be taken as read, that, of course, Frank Castle became a cult darling very quickly.

From my understanding, very much that of an outsider, I'll admit, I believe that the element of Frank Castle that attracts the reactionary (and often bigoted) police officer is the perceived lack of accountability. Those few police officers that I am able to be friends with echo this sentiment to a certain degree, at least in that they feel the bureaucratic elements of their work can often hold them back from doing their job better. For my friends, they consider "the job" to be service-based, helping people at risk or in need of aid, with the peacekeeping element as secondary, at best. For those police who believe the, utterly false, narrative of "good guys and bad guys", however, The Punisher represents an efficacy of justice without restriction; for a particularly skewed idea of justice. From my perspective, informed as it is by research and academia, I believe the "best" form of direct justice is rehabilitative, with the aim that any perpetrator receive the support they need to engage properly with society. Critics of this position claim that it doesn't tackle the root cause of criminality, and, actually, I agree. But Frank Castle doesn't engage with those causes of crime either.

Despite what you may have heard or read in popular news press, the cause of most crime is very well known and demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence; the cause of crime is poverty. In my own country of Australia, petty crime has dropped sharply for the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our federal government has increased welfare for that same duration to be, for the first time in many years, above the poverty line. So as many found themselves able to afford both food and rent, crime for the sake of subsistence dropped. Funny that. To bring this back to the idea of "dispensing justice", to the person stealing to avoid destitution and/or starvation, incarceration does little to remedy the root cause of the crime, merely delaying an inevitable relapse into the same behaviour. So want to end crime? Don't give more money to the police, give it to the poor instead, the results are certain and well-documented.

So what does all this have to do with Frank Castle and his astounding body-count? Well, believe it or not, Frank doesn't do what he does with the mindset that he is, in any way, helping to end crime, only to end criminals in a very immediate sense. In Contest of Champions, an alternate version of Frank (from a universe where they lost the Superhero Civil War) is challenged by Outlaw (aka the British Punisher) over the politics inherent in murdering criminals, many of whom are people of colour; Frank replies that what he does is "not political", with Outlaw implying that this assertion comes only because he is White. With anything more than a cursory examination, The Punisher, whilst indiscriminate with his killing of anyone he, personally deems to be irredeemable, is seemingly possessed of a supernatural ability to never come close to injuring an innocent person. In this, as such an ability is something only a fictional character can manage, I personally find my ethical balance with Frank Castle. Despite his lifetime of wholesale murder, he cannot, and will, never hurt an innocent person.

So is it this superhuman accuracy which endears Frank to a certain subset of police officers? Because the idea of being The Punisher cannot truly be appealing, with his extreme nihilism in the face of crippling grief abated only momentarily when he gets into a truly great killing streak; it just sounds like a really bad time, right? Or is the appeal Frank's almost total lack of accountability for his actions? The Punisher can murder as many human beings as he wants (and despite your feelings on their crimes, drug dealers, pimps and mafiosi are actually human and have rights) and never suffer any real legal or ethical consequences. That's why Blue Lives Matter is a dangerous ideology, because police officers, be they "good" cops or not, want a version of their career in which they are permitted to commit more murder with less consequence. I don't know about you, but that idea fucking terrifies me. Frank Castle is the protagonist of his stories, not the hero, anyone who wants to be him has no right trying to dispense justice, as that is not what Frank Castle does, on any level.