Suspension of Disbelief

Suspending Disbelief

2007-12-31T22:32:00.000-05:00

After lengthy consideration, I've made the decision to retire the Suspension of Disbelief blog. The end of the calendar year seemed an appropriate time to close up shop. Although given the frequency of posts over the last several months, you may be thinking that this won't have much of an effect on the content of this site.

And I suppose it won't. With She-Hulk's changes of direction, and with Manhunter on a seemingly indefinite hiatus, I've been without a regular source of legal material for some time now. Equally problematic, and as I've shared before, my irregular trips to the comic shop have often put me weeks behind the rest of the net. A blog's readership deserves more than a post a month, and I just can't deliver that anymore.

That's not to say that I'm giving up entirely, though. For those occasions when issues do present themselves, I've arranged to share my thoughts over at the CBR blog, Comics Should Be Good. That was always the mission statement of this blog, so I think our ideals will merge nicely. If you don't already read the guys over at CSBG, I highly recommend it. I've even got a couple of back-issue reviews in mind that I should finally get around to. Chances are, I'll continue to mirror those new posts here, so in that sense this blog will continue to be updated somewhat.

To further occupy my time in 2008, I will be making another long-shot political run, this time for the United States Senate. So if you're a Georgia voter, please remember my name come November. Also, I'll soon be taking a new stab at issue-based political blogging, under the hyperbolic title Social Security Must Die! My homepage, LorenCollins.net, will be updated with whatever random little projects I take on (latest additions: Cotton Patch Gospel, and the Miracleman Countdown Clock). And there will continue to be updates to the Free Comic Book Index, with the next one before week's end.

Finally, my old offer, like Jim's, still stands for any creators out there: drop me a line, and I'll be happy to help answer any legal questions your story presents. Remember, if Mark Millar had taken up the invitation, Civil War might have made more rational sense. Maybe.

I want to thank everyone who read and commented over the last three years, and everyone who continued to visit even as the content became increasingly infrequent. Thanks also to the creators and authors who shared their thoughts and responses, which I'll admit is a singular and satisfying feeling. Of course, thanks to Jim MacQuarrie, Sandy Hausler, and the others who contributed material over time. And special thanks to Marc Andreyko, whose work on Manhunter assuredly provided me with more material than any other series, and to Neil Gaiman for an early plug that I fear I was never quite able to live up to.

So thanks for a great three years, and I wish everyone a happy, prosperous, and productive 2008.

See y'all in the funny pages,
Loren

Comics Make the Bar

2007-12-29T09:15:00.000-05:00

This was forwarded to me by its author a while back, and I wanted to be sure to share it before the year's end. It's an article for the Widener Law Review, and it aims to document the entire history of attorneys in comic books, from Mr. District Attorney to Manhunter. And believe you me, it's pretty thorough.

Hi Superman, I'm a Lawyer: A Guide to Attorneys (& Other Legal Professionals) Portrayed in American Comic Books: 1910-2007

- William A. Hilyerd, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville

Hulk Ipsa Loquitur

2007-10-31T21:42:00.000-04:00

Today was the original date for World War Hulk #5, but the mini-series' final issue has been delayed two weeks until November 14. What are Hulk fans to do until then?

Well, it was rumored and confirmed some time back that Marvel's "World War Hulk" is merely the second part of Greg Pak's planned trilogy for the green goliath, which began with the year-long "Planet Hulk" storyline. To date, Pak has been tight-lipped about what is next for Dr. Bruce Banner, and Marvel's solicitations for upcoming issues have been suspiciously silent on story details.

Suspension of Disbelief is proud to share that it has received top-secret information regarding this third act of the trilogy, entitled:

"Hulk Ipsa Loquitur"

From Marvel:

After failing to gain full satisfaction against the Illuminati through physical violence, the Hulk decides to hit the Illuminati where it really hurts: in their bank accounts. With the help of his cousin, New York attorney Jennifer "She-Hulk" Walters, the Hulk is taking the Illuminati to court. Now they're going to pay for what they did to him. Literally.

In the tradition of its Daily Bugle giveaways for their big stories, Marvel's promotions for "Hulk Ipsa Loquitur" will include a copy of the Hulk's lawsuit against the Illuminati.

What courtroom excitement can you expect in the pages of The Incredible Hulk in the months to come? Here's a sampling:

Incredible Hulk #111 - Bruce reaches out to Jen Walters for help. After the events of "World War Hulk," will family come through for him?

Incredible Hulk #112 - The search for Nick Fury begins...in order to serve him with process.

Incredible Hulk #113 - The Illuminati may think themselves capable of a lot of things, but even they know better than to attempt a pro se defense. So who do they turn to in their time of need? Matt Murdock, Attorney-at-Law. Duh.

The 13-part arc begins next month, with tie-ins that include the 4-issue Hulk Ipsa Loquitur: Gamma Court mini-series written by Bob Ingersoll, the 3-issue Hulk Ipsa Loquitur: The Twelve profiling the Hulk's jury, and, kicking the whole event off, the 48-page special, Hulk Ipsa Loquitur: Civil Suit.

So strap yourself in for a year of a whole new kind of Hulk story. Because you wouldn't like the Hulk when he gets angry; when he gets angry, he gets litigious.

Isn't this just nitpicking?

2007-10-18T10:55:00.002-04:00

A few readers have at various times remarked upon the necessity or desirability of this blog, suggesting that it's nitpicking, or somehow rude to the artists whose work we critique, or reveals a negative attitude toward the comics in question.

So I'll take another whack at explaining it, only this time I think I'll let an expert do the heavy lifting. Here's Matthew J. Bruccoli, editor of the Cambridge University edition of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Dr. Bruccoli is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of literature at University of South Carolina and a leading authority on Fitzgerald. On the subject of accuracy, Dr. Bruccoli says, "Factual errors in fiction distract readers who spot them and may undermine confidence in the work and the author.* Many careful readers hold that if an author cannot be trusted in details, he may not be trustworthy in larger matters."

Dr. Bruccoli goes on to explain the two types of errors that occur in fiction, external errors (those regarding the actual world in which the work is set) and internal errors (those involving the fictional world).

Returning to the world of comics, we can call continuity problems "internal errors", and this blog is utterly unconcerned with them. If a given issue of Superman says that Clark Kent's middle name is "Joseph" and another says it's "Jerome", that's an internal error, and fans are welcome to argue over it to their heart's delight (or they can declare that his full name is "Clark Joseph Jerome Kent", as Wikipedia says).

We are concerned here with external errors, that is, things in the actual world that comics get wrong for no good reason. When Loren takes on issues of law here, he seldom deals with the fictional laws presented in comics except as how they interact with real-world laws that are assumed to be in force in the comics world. The primary concern is how real-world law is presented in cases where no comics-world law is in play, as for example in issues of courtroom procedure.

Or as I said from the beginning, I'll accept that Green Arrow can shoot an arrow through an ant's ass at 100 yards while swinging upside-down from a chandelier... provided you first show me that he knows how to hold a bow.

One comic writer, discussing a character's amateurish shooting form, told me that "the guy is just that good, he can still be accurate even shooting that way. He's doing it on purpose." Sorry, that doesn't wash. The laws of physics may not apply to Superman lifting a building, but they do apply to Hawkeye aiming an arrow, otherwise there's no point in having an archery-themed superhero at all. At that point it merely becomes a fashion choice, a theme, and not an ability at all.

Similarly, inconsistencies in the geography of Metropolis are not our concern, but inconsistencies in the geography of real-world places like New York, such as moving the Empire State Building, are an issue for us. I hope you see the difference.

* Bruccoli, "Getting it Right: The Publishing Process and the Correction of Factual Errors--With Reference to The Great Gatsby," Library Chronicle of the University of Texas at Austin, 21, no. 3-4 (1991), 41-60. Quoted in Fitzgerald, F. Scott, The Great Gatsby, The Authorized Text, Scribner Paperback edition (2003), p. 192.

Artistic license?

2007-10-16T17:09:00.002-04:00

Over at John Byrne's forum, a reader from Hong Kong asks "Mister B., do the pose of the character is an accurate pose of using bow and arrow, or is it involving artistic licence for the sake of a good pose ?"

Byrne replies "Artistic license."

Sorry, Mr. B, but that dog won't hunt. Artistic license is valid for picture #2, since it's clearly a frozen moment in the action, so even though Ollie obviously doesn't know how to shoot a bow, it can squeak by on the argument that he hasn't finished drawing.

Number three might even be arguable, even though the arrow is falling off the bow.

But that first picture is just wrong. Incontrovertibly wrong. Try it yourself. Grab a yardstick and a piece of string, make a bow and try to draw it that way, pulling the string up over your shoulder on the outside of your arm. It does not work, and calling it artistic license doesn't cover it because the pose is awkward and doesn't look good.

Here's what it should look like.

John Byrne goes 0 for 3

2007-10-15T16:53:00.002-04:00

Over at John Byrne's forum (byrnerobotics.com), he recently posted some of his drawings of Green Arrow. Given that Mr. Byrne is a notorious stickler for accuracy (see any of the numerous controversies in which he's embroiled himself, such as the logical inconsistencies of Captain Carrot), let's see how he does with archery...

First, the positives: Byrne's Green Arrow is consistently right-handed, consistently has the arrow on the correct side of the bow, and consistently has the fingers on the string in the correct orientation. His bow fairly accurately resembles an old-fashioned Ben Pearson or Fred Bear one-piece recurve in most respects.

On the minus side, there's no way that this guy can shoot straight. No anchor. No back tension. He's canting the bow. Arrows only have two fletches, or are nocked upside-down so that the index fletch will strike the riser. In picture #2, GA is pulling on the shaft rather than the string. In #3, the arrow has fallen off the bow and is resting on GA's knuckles.

Worse, in picture #1, Green Arrow is drawing the bow up above his bow arm. The string should be under the arm. Of course, the bow should be vertical, but apparently archery has been affected by the same idiocy that causes gangbangers to turn their guns sideways in order to try to look "cool".

I don't know what those little cuffs on the ends of the limbs are supposed to be, but that's not how the string attaches to the bow.

In a nutshell, if this guy showed up at my range, I'd send him back to the beginner class.

Mr. Byrne, my offer still stands. If you would like assistance in portraying archery accurately, I am happy to offer photos, consultation and reference materials free of charge. If you happen to be in the Los Angeles area at any time and would like to try archery for yourself, I am happy to offer free lessons, including the use of all equipment, at any convenient time.

Star Trek & Federalism

2007-09-27T16:56:00.000-04:00

I meant to share this last week, but it slipped my mind until now:

Ilya Somin: How Federal is Star Trek's Federation?

How much power does the Federation's central government have, and how much is left to the individual planets? Does the central government's Star Fleet have a monopoly of military force, or do Vulcan and other planets have their own local forces? Does the Federation subsidize planetary governments heavily, or are there hard budget constraints? Despite five Star Trek TV series and numerous movies, these questions haven't really been answered. Unfortunately, the academic literature on Federation law isn't much help either

Somin continues with an interesting (and wonderfully geeky) analysis of Trek-era government, and there's a lengthy discussion that follows in the comments.

Edited to Add: No sooner did I post this than the National Review went and had itself a Star Trek Weekend, with multiple Trek analyses, including a modified version of Somin's earlier column.

Sprechen Sie Deutsch, Herr Claremont?

2007-09-25T18:56:00.000-04:00

Stelok, a new poster over at the Comics Should Be Good forum, had a few things to say recently about the use of German in Marvel comics. With his permission, I'm reposting some of his comments:

-----

Fabian Nicieza typed in X-Force Vol.1 #8 that Baron Strucker greeted to Cable and his gang, "Guten Tag, mein Freunds". That is wrong. There is no such German word as "Freunds". Nicieza should have typed "Meine Freunde". Obviously he has never studied German once in his life.

Mein Freund- masculine, singular, nominative
Meine Freundin- feminine, nominative

Meine Freunde- plural, for both males and females, nominative
Meine Freundinnen- plural, for females only, nominative

There is another book called "Captain Amerca: Medusa Effect", written by Roy Thomas. In that book, Helmut says "Mein Mutter". He should have typed "Meine Mutter", not "Mein Mutter".

"Mein" is the masculine German article of "my" while "meine" is the feminine German article of "my."

And I also think Bucky is supposed to ask Helmut the informal question "Sprichst du Englisch?" instead of the formal question "Sprechen Sie Englisch?"

Fabian Nicieza also made a typographical mistake with a German word in X-Force's 1999 Annual. The correct German word for "experiment" is Versuch, not Vershuct.

Take my advice. Don't learn German phrases from Marvel comics. Don't learn them from an English-German dictionary, because just a dictionary is not adequate enough. I know it, because my German teacher noted some German words in all of my English-German dictionaries were not accurate. Learn them from a German tutorial class instead.

-----

Now I wouldn't expect comic writers to go to the lengths of taking night classes just to get their foreign phrases right. But in the age of the internet, it's all too easy to find someone fluent who could do that translation for you. I imagine that's how Alan Moore got the Arabic right in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Stelok also passes along a link to Nightcrawler's Marvel Wiki page, which has a short section on erroneous words and phrases that have been put in Kurt's mouth.

And on an unrelated note, reading this reminds me of my own time in college learning German, and how, as in Spanish, I came to despise the notion of "genders." Every noun is declared, more or less arbitrarily, to be male or female (or in German, neutral), which essentially doubles the number of things to memorize and unnecessarily complicates lots of conjugations. My German teacher once said that Germany was perhaps moving to use the neutral gender for everything; I don't know if that went anywhere, but it would sure make the language easier and do away with an utterly silly and useless complication.

New Defense -- She Hulk #21

2007-09-07T07:38:00.000-04:00

Oh, and yest, there will be spoilers.

Well, one of the secrets of the Marvel Universe has been how the in the name of Jack Kirby could the She Hulk have slept with the Juggernaut?

Well, she did . . . or so in seemed . . . in an issue of X-Men a few years ago.

This issue answered that question while giving supervillains a new defense to their crimes.

It seems that some joker from Earth A has been sending people from that world to Marvel Earth and using an atomic resequencer to match the structure of their Marvel Earth counterpart. In other words, the Earth A Jen Walters came to Marvel Earth and has been doing some of the She Hulk stuff, including sleeping with the Juggernaut.

But this provides a new defense for super villains, at least for a limited time -- the Earth A guy did it not me. If a villain can make a colorable argument that he was not at the scene of a crime, e.g., on vacation in Hawaii, not fighting the Initiative in New Mexico, he or she, if they are later arrested, can argue that it was his or her Earth A duplicate. This would be especially good for those villains who we know had Earth A counterparts visiting the Marvel Universe. I'm sure Mallory Book (the new partner; it seems Holliway quit the firm) will take advantage of that loop hole.

Oh, by the way, the She Hulk's back. Part of me hopes she joins the Winter Soldier and they kill Stark (fat chance). But I'd really like to see her going after the SHRA, that blatantly unconstitutional piece of litigation. Isn't anybody doing anything about it?

The Spirit #5

2007-08-20T11:33:00.000-04:00

The Spirit #5
Writer: Darwyn Cooke
Artist: Darwyn Cooke

Con-man Carrion is running a new scheme in Central City. Nothing illegal, mind you, but definitely odd. He's hawking sugar-sweetened pork & beans to the kiddie set, and using the Spirit as his marketing icon. The profitability of his operation draws the attention of the Cossack, leading to this confrontation:

The Cossack may need to get himself some better lawyers, because his current ones apparently neglected to advice against this course of action. He may have gotten Carrion to sign on the dotted line, but that signature's about as likely to stand up in court as a Salem witch's confession.

One of the basic rules of contracts is that they're not enforceable if signed under duress. Here, the Cossack has beaten, bloodied, and even shot Carrion, all in an effort to "persuade" Carrion to sign the contract. Carrion is certainly not signing of his own free will and volition. If the Cossack tried to enforce this signed contract, all Carrion would have to do is object on the grounds that he signed under duress, and explain that his signature was the result of the Cossack beating him and threatening his life if he refused to sign.

Long story short, when told "Transfer ownership, and you'll live," the safe thing to do is to agree to the transfer. Once the court learns that 'Sign or die' was a big part of the contract negotiations, it's pretty unlikely they'll require that the transfer go through.

Furthermore, one of the requirements of an enforceable contract is the existence of "consideration." If one party is choosing to give something up, he must be getting something in return. If the Cossack's paperwork simply transfers ownership of Carrion's operation, without compensating or benefiting Carrion in any way, then there doesn't appear to be any sort of consideration for Carrion that would allow the Cossack to enforce this contract the next day. On paper, it would have all the appearances of an uncompensated-for gift. Then again, maybe there is some kind of nominal consideration in the contract, and it's just not mentioned in the dialogue. After all, the Cossack seems more interested in getting the signature than in explaining the terms.

I'd chalk all this up to the Cossack simply being a violent and ignorant brute, if it weren't for the fact that he referenced his own legal counsel on the same page. As such, he really should've known better.

And from the same issue, but on a completely different subject:

I was raised believing that you make pork and beans with brown sugar. Never white. Is that a coloring goof, or is it representative of some kind of Yankee recipe?

Fables Freebies

2007-08-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

At the Fables panel at Comic-Con International last week, the special gift for attendees was an exclusive Fables one-page story. Bill Willingham promised that the story would never be republished, and as it turned out, there weren't even enough copies for the entire audience at the panel.

If you, like me, are a Fables fan, and you didn't go to SDCC, you may be a little curious as to the contents of that page. So, as a public service, here is that one-page story, starring Babe the Miniature Blue Ox:

And if you haven't sampled the series yet, you can read Fables #1 and Jack of Fables #1 online for free.

KKKomic Book Heroes

2007-07-30T21:49:00.000-04:00

Spoilers follow for The American Way

Some time back, MacQ did a post on The American Way. I picked up a copy of the trade a couple of weeks ago, and enjoyed it for the most part. My biggest gripe, I suppose, was having the whole story fall into an old North vs. South dynamic.

And one aspect of that rubbed me wrong enough to want to share. That would be this guy (the one on the left):

His hero name is Southern Cross. His power is, obviously, very much like the Human Torch's. And in the latter half of the book, he turns out to be a really big racist. As in, very-eager-to-go-lynching racist.

And his logo, naturally, is a cross. Specifically, a slight variation on this cross,

which is the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan.

So...no. I can't believe that the U.S. government would take a virulent racist with pyrokinetic powers, name him something that (with those powers) hints at cross-burnings, and stick him in a white costume with a KKK logo. And this is, of course, assuming that the feds didn't themselves give the racist guy fire powers to start with.

I can handle the flying, flaming man angle. But not the idea that the feds would be so remarkably stupid as to put together a KKK-themed superhero during the Civil Rights era. George Wallace, maybe. On a particularly evil day. But the Kennedy administration? No way.

She-Hulk #19: The Trial of the Leader

2007-07-25T22:30:00.000-04:00

After a several month dry spell, and right before Peter David takes over the book and drops the legal aspects entirely, Dan Slott treats us to one last superhuman prosecution in She-Hulk #19. This time, it's long-time Hulk villain The Leader who is on trial for, well, pretty much everything he's ever done. Including, perhaps most significantly, his nuking of Middletown, Arizona in The Incredible Hulk #345.

Normally, Arizona crimes don't end up in NYC courtrooms. But this is the Marvel Universe, and since the only two well-known attorneys in the MU live in New York City, pretty much everything ends up in a New York court somehow. (Note how this contrasts with the DCU, where for the last few years, most everything ends up in Kate Spencer's Los Angeles zip code.) The setting is not entirely inexplicable, since it is in a federal court. To be specific, the Sol Brodsky Federal Building, the MU's new "superhuman courthouse." Whatever that entails.

The prosecution successfully, and easily, paints the Leader as a ruthless, evil bastard. We're treated to glimpses of four prosecution witnesses: a Middletown survivor and subject of Leader's experiments; a military officer who responses to Middletown; a woman who was nearly killed when the Leader destroyed a Las Vegas casino; and a woman whose husband died when the Leader commanded him to commit suicide.

I'm pretty sure you can find a federal violation or two in nuking a small American city. Maybe even in destroying a casino. We'll even forgive the notion of several of the Leader's bigger federal crimes being rolled into a single trial. But carjacking and ordering a suicide? I don't see that making its way into a federal prosecution. And she can't testify at this stage unless he's been prosecuted for the offenses she's testifying about.

Mallory Book doesn't object to any of this, nor does she cross-examine any of the witnesses. That's because the defense she has planned doesn't depend on claiming the Leader is innocent, or even decent. No, her defense is to blame gamma radiation.

Ms. Book calls Dr. Leonard Samson to the stand first. He testifies that the Leader was an average joe before his gamma exposure, and that afterwards his brain changed and he "began exhibiting anti-social behavior almost immediately." Book even gets him to say that it's not common for high school dropouts to try to take over the world after accidents at work.

Dr. Samson is clearly testifying as an expert, and he certainly has the credentials to do so. One conspicuous problem with his testimony is that there's no indication that he's ever actually examined the Leader. He's familiar with the guy's backstory, but he says nothing that suggests he's done any specific psychological evaluation of the Leader. That won't necessarily prevent him from testifying, but it's a huge weakness that the prosecution would definitely stress. Of course, Ms. Book doesn't give the prosecution the opportunity:

Maybe it's just me, but Dr. Samson seems actually happy to offer up testimony to help the Leader.

Book's second witness is Jen "She-Hulk" Walters. Jen admits to being more "uninhibited" as She-Hulk, and Book presses her into admitting to all her sexual relationships as She-Hulk. (While the court might compel Jen to reveal the number of her sexual partners, I rather doubt any judge would force her to name names on the record. Here, it's obviously played for laughs, so we'll forgive that.) Book finally gets Jen to admit that she has always preferred to live out her life as She-Hulk, and then Book wraps up with this:

The prosecutor may be sitting upright in the background, but he's clearly nodded off. There's no other explanation for why he'd allow the defense attorney to go off on this preachifying narrative without objecting. Especially when she draws a conclusion about her client's mental state based on the witness's mental state.

I'm also amused at the undertones of Book's theory. Bruce Banner gets belted by gamma rays, and it makes him want to smash things. Sam Sterns gets exposed to gamma radiation, and it makes him want to take over the world. Jen Walters gets a gamma-irradiated transfusion, and it makes her want to sleep with a lot of men.

I studied that last panel of Book for a bit, trying to figure out what kind of defense she's advancing. There is no "addict defense." Intoxication can negate some elements of some crimes, but it's not being argued that the Leader was 'intoxicated' on gamma radiation. This is a full-time condition for him. And he was in full control of his mental capacities.

Finally, I determined that Mallory Book is pursuing a particular kind of insanity defense: the irresistible impulse. You may remember this from the trial of Copperhead. Your typical insanity defense involves a person who claims they couldn't distinguish between right and wrong. That certainly does NOT describe the Leader, who proudly admits to being an evil person earlier in the issue. The irresistible impulse defense claims that the defendant was fully aware that his actions were wrong, but that he was helpless to stop himself from doing them anyway. He couldn't control himself. Inhibitions don't really play a role, but Book does reference control.

There's a chance that Book may have forfeited the opportunity to make this defense at all. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require a defendant to notify the court in advance that it is going to pursue an insanity defense. Since insanity defenses will inevitably involve competing doctors and diagnoses, it's unfair for the defense to suddenly spring the defense at trial, with no opportunity for the prosecution to rebut with its own experts. Here, not only does the prosecutor not object (despite earlier indications that he didn't know what the defense plan was going to be), but he doesn't even cross-examine the defense witnesses. Further proof that he's sleeping. Or grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

Assuming that she did the proper pretrial notification, the burden is still on Book to show her client was 'insane.' And to meet that burden, she's going to need to do better than a doctor who hasn't examined her client and a woman who suffers from a similar condition. She'll need to put somebody on the stand who can say "The Leader can't control what he does." The defendant himself, if no one else. And this may be a tough claim to make, since the Leader demonstrates later in the issue, and in front of a crowd of people, that he is fully capable of controlling his own actions.

In fact, her two witnesses so far may have hurt her argument. Book wants to argue that the influence of gamma rays are what drove her client to want to kill and conquer. Well, both of Book's witnesses are gamma-irradiated people (which Book specifically drew attention to), and neither of them are murderers or wannabe despots. Neither of them are even so much as antisocial. If she wants to put the blame on the gamma rays, then she needs to do some explaining as to why her client's condition is so different from theirs. Once again, that's going to require some testimony specific to the Leader, and not broader talk of gamma rays.

And then there's a small, niggling, detail that the federal courts don't recognize the defense of irresistible impulse, which should make Mallory's entire defense strategy useless and wholly objectionable. But, since the insanity defense is something that courts have fluctuated on over the years, we'll give Mallory the benefit of the doubt and assume that the Marvel Universe Federal Rules allow it.

Next issue I expect the trial will wrap up, but it's hard to see at this point how any verdict will be much of a "win" for the defense. The only apparent options for the jury are "Guilty" and "Not guilty by reason of insanity." If the former, he's liable to be on the receiving end of a needle. If the latter, then he avoids execution or imprisonment for the moment, but he's guaranteed to be committed. Walking away a free man is not exactly a viable option.

A "Fell" Follow-Up

2007-07-23T17:00:00.000-04:00

I was a latecomer to Fell, the $1.99 Image series by Warren Ellis and Ben Templesmith. It's a book that I highly recommend, and it's probably the best bang-for-your-buck among current series.

This past weekend I caught up on the back issues I'd bought, and Warren's comments at the end of #6 piqued my curiosity. As with most issues, he shares what news story inspired the issue, and in the case of #6, it was a particularly horrific story of child abuse. I don't want to spoil it here, but you can read the details at the link below. Or better yet, buy the issue.

Anyhow, in the course of relating his inspiration, Ellis mentions that he didn't know what happened to the real-life parent. So I found out. (The specific form of abuse is referenced in paragraph six.) Her first trial ended in a mistrial, and although she eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge, she never admitted to the particular actions that police charged her with, and which Ellis utilized in his story.

She was sentenced to three months in prison. If you notice, the date on that article is April 20, 2007. Which means that if she began her sentence immediately, and served the entire term, she was likely released late last week.

Purely Prussian

2007-07-15T15:28:00.000-04:00

Fair Warning: Links to some fairly offensive audio material follow, which are probably NSFW.

X-Factor #21 brings a new case to the offices of Jamie Madrox and X-Factor Investigations. June and Charlie Tyler aren't mutants, and neither are their grandchildren, twins Molly and Wally. What Molly and Wally are, however, are the "Purity Singers," a duet that travels the country singing about the joys of a world without mutants.

If that concept sounds familiar at all, then you've probably heard of Prussian Blue, the white power duet of twin teenagers Lamb and Lynx Gaede. And thanks to the miracle of YouTube, you can experience the hate firsthand.

First up, "Victory Day, which begins "Well sit down and listen, to what I have to say. There soon will come a great war, a bloody but holy day. And after that purging, our people will be free, and sing up in the bright skies, a sun for all to see..."

Next, "Lamb Near the Lane," with music by Lamb. According to the video director who posted this to YouTube, there's no mention of hate or minorities. I suppose he's not counting "If the white men won’t battle for Life and Race, then the women and children, the terror will face."

There's more at YouTube, but that's enough to share here. So what's my point in this, since it doesn't really have much bearing on the X-Factor story? It's to share with y'all what I had to search out after having first heard about these girls on PrimeTime. To let you see that despite their bizarro niche popularity...

...they are seriously bad singers. The music is lousy, the guitar-playing is barely passable, their voices are flat and dull, and their singing is frequently off-key. If you've watched that second video above, you've noticed that the entire song consists of singing just TWO notes: C and D. And they're kinda flat on both of them. Ignoring the lyrics entirely, musically the girls' material is so bad that it makes even the worst pop song on the radio (currently, Gym Class Heroes' "Take a Look at My Girlfriend") sound like Sinatra by comparison.

And that's why I'm writing about two little racist white girls instead of dissecting the latest She-Hulk. I want to mock not just them, but the entire white power community for liking them. The mere fact that these two have a following suggests that not only are white supremacists addled in all the ways you'd expect them to be, but they're also tone-deaf. I wonder...does racism make a person tone-deaf, or are tone-deaf people more likely to be racist?

Thus, I have my fingers crossed that when the X-Factor team encounters the "Purity Singers" next issue, Peter David makes a joke out of them being lousy musicians too.

Ess-You-Vee?

2007-07-01T11:22:00.000-04:00

Heroes #6 (1996)
Writer: Matt Wayne
Artists: James Fry & Keith Pollard
Editor: Joe Illidge

While parsing through my comic collection, I finally got around to reading the Heroes mini-series from Milestone Media. And frankly, despite the general high quality of the Milestone books, the mini wasn't very good. This particular panel, though, amused me.

I got my first car, a Jeep, in 1997. Was 'SUV' still an obscure acronym the year previous?

To compound this, the very next page has Static use the acronym 'DTU,' with gets another footnote reading "* Dimensional Transfer Unit -- Joe." Apparently, SUV was as equally deserving of explanation as Matt Wayne's technobabble.

Power Girl Gets a Breast Reduction

2007-06-24T14:36:00.000-04:00

The solicitation cover for Justice League of America #10 by Michael Turner elicited some complaints due to Power Girl looking unusually top-heavy, even for her. In the course of ripping apart the issue, which came out this week, Greg Burgas wondered if PG's chest looked a little smaller on the printed cover.

I did some Photoshop work, overlaying one cover on the other, and as it turned out, Greg's suspicions were right. To the tune of a couple of cup sizes, in fact:

At the time of the solicitation, Meltzer reported that PG had already been toned down from the original Turner artwork. So either he got his covers confused, or this particular drawing of Kara got revised twice.

Manhunter #30: The 'Trial' of Wonder Woman, Finale

2007-06-09T21:55:00.000-04:00

Manhunter #30
Writer: Marc Andreyko
Artists: Javier Pina and Robin Riggs

What was once supposed to be the final issue for the series is now merely the end to an arc. An arc that I previously touched on, but which eventually proved to be rather light on the legal maneuverings. Much like the trial of Dr. Psycho, come to think of it. The courtroom aspects are introduced in one issue, moved to the background and even off-panel for the next few issues, and then finally resolved.

When last we tangled with Wonder Woman's grand jury, Diana had chosen to submit to the U.S. authorities, and the case against her was being presented to a federal grand jury. Despite the law governing grand juries, this particular grand jury took place in a courtroom with a judge, and the accused and her lawyer were present (although the unusualness of the latter was noted by the characters).

Here in #30, the grand jury has reached its decision. We meet up with Kate as she loiters in the hallway of the courthouse, wishing that she'd been allowed to argue before the grand jury, and thinking to herself that she would have torn the feds' case apart. As I addressed before, this much is right, in its own way. Defense counsel isn't allowed in the grand jury room; it's the prosecutor, and only the prosecutor, who gets to present the evidence.

Finally the doors beside which Kate was waiting open, and out strolls the prosecutor, with the press begging for comment on the grand jury's decision not to indict. From all appearances, although Kate was excluded from the room (after having sat through the rest of the proceedings), it seems that the media was allowed to sit in. That's not only not right, it's internally inconsistent. Grand jury proceedings are secret. If they're not going to allow the accused or his counsel to be present, they sure aren't going to allow reporters and cameras.

And the media's presence is even more galling later in the issue, when we see a television news network broadcast video footage of the grand jury deliberations. During deliberations, not even the prosecutor is allowed to be present; only the grand jury members are permitted. To not only film the deliberations, but then to broadcast them on national television, that's 31 flavors of wrong. Grand jurors aren't even allowed to talk about the proceedings after the decision is made, because of the rules of secrecy involved. Allowing Kate in was bad enough, but it's hard to imagine a bigger breach of that secrecy than to film and broadcast the grand jurors' deliberations. Live radio broadcast or streaming video might be the only possible worse move.

-----

So what's next for Manhunter? The series got its third chance at life, but it doesn't appear in July's or August's solicitations. Is September the next time we'll see a new issue on the stands?

And if Marc's out there, my offer still stands to help out on any legal issues that are planned for future issues.

Freedom of Power Treaty Help?

2007-05-10T21:18:00.000-04:00

Civil War gave us the Superhuman Registration Act in the Marvel Universe, but unbeknownst to myself, it turns out that 52 solidified something called the Freedom of Power Treaty in the DCU. I only bought the first 10 issues of 52, and I recall the Treaty being mentioned, but I had no idea it had come to have any sort of real impact.

Apparently it's even a significant plot point over in Green Lantern. I say "apparently," because I haven't read the issues myself, and I hesitate to make a stab at any analysis without some more thorough information. Could anyone help to catch me up to speed? I'm especially curious as to the details of how this has affected Hal and the Outsiders.

Capitalism in Action

2007-05-09T23:50:00.000-04:00

I'm in the process of doing some spring cleaning and weeding out of my comic collection, and I'm unloading some of my books on eBay. I've already sold off my Nightwing comics, but my auctions this week include a bunch of JLA, Powers, and Ultimate Spider-Man comics.

Showcase Presents...

2007-05-09T12:05:00.000-04:00

SHOWCASE PRESENTS: MR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY VOL. 2

Ultimate Spider-Man #53

2007-05-07T12:21:00.000-04:00

Ultimate Spider-Man #53
Writer: Brian Michael Bendis
Artist: Mark Bagley

Delving into the back issue bin, here we have an Ultimate Spider-Man issue from 2004, part of the "Claws" arc that introduced the Ultimate Black Cat. In the arc's last issue, Peter Parker discovers a newspaper article about a formative event in the childhood of Felicia Hardy, aka the Black Cat:

In case you can't make out that last paragraph, it reads "Attorney Franklin Nelson, who is representing Jack Hardy in the trial, had a different opinion. 'These crimes are much larger than Jack Hardy. He does not deny involvement, but this is much larger than him.'"

Ultimate Foggy Nelson is either a phenomenal lawyer, or an incompetent one. I'm leaning toward the latter, since comments later in the issue imply that he lost this trial, and Jack Hardy went to prison.

Here we have him essentially saying to the world, "Yes, my client is guilty as charged...but he wasn't the only one involved!" That's a tough hole to dig yourself out of, when your client is already on trial. Since Mr. Hardy is charged with committing a string of cat burglaries, and his attorney just admitted that Mr. Hardy is guilty of committing a string of cat burglaries, what exactly does Foggy expect to accomplish at trial?

There are occasions when a criminal defendant can admit to committing an act, but avoid conviction. In these instances, certain extenuating circumstances exist that negate the 'intent' aspect of a crime. If a defendant chooses this path, his attorney has to present what is called an "affirmative defense." The burden is on the defense to prove that the defendant should not be held criminally responsible for an act he admits to committing.

What are these affirmative defenses? And do any of them apply to Jack Hardy?

- Entrapment. Here the defendant alleges that he was induced into committing a crime by overzealous law enforcement, and that he wouldn't have committed the crime without significant prodding by the police. No luck for Hardy here.

- Insanity. This is perhaps the most complex of these, but it basically boils down to having committed an act but not understanding that it was wrong. And Hardy wasn't insane.

- Necessity. A defendant may argue that his actions were necessary to avoid some greater harm. There's a test for this, and Jack doesn't pass it. Burglarizing people's houses isn't in the service of some greater good.

- Self-defense. Pretty self-explanatory. But committing cat burglaries in self-defense? Nope.

- Duress. Some states recognize an affirmative defense when one commits a crime in response to a threat of physical force against himself or another person. And New York is one such state. Hypothetically, if Jack Hardy was committing cat burglaries because Kingpin had threatened to kill Felicia if he didn't, then Jack might have a valid duress defense.

Ah, but New York's duress statute has a second part: "The defense of duress...is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is probable that he will be subjected to duress." So if Jack went to work for Wilson Fisk, and then found himself threatened when he tried to give up the criminal life, then Jack can't claim duress. He surrounded himself with criminals; he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when they act as such.

Plus, there's no indication in the text that Jack Hardy was committing crimes under threat of force. All signs point to him being a willing participant. Rather, his defense, per Foggy, appears to be that there are simply bigger fish to fry. And unfortunately for Jack, 'Minor Player' is not a recognized affirmative defense. How does Foggy plan to convince a jury not to convict his client, who admits to willingly committing a string of inexcusable cat burglaries? It's easy to see why Foggy lost this trial.

If Jack Hardy really was part of a bigger scheme, and he really did have the dirt on his superiors, then the rational approach for the defense is to avoid trial entirely, and work out a plea bargain. Admit to his crimes, and get a lesser punishment in exchange for assisting in the prosecution of the higher-ups. It happens in every other episode of "Law & Order."

Incidentally, such an approach does remind me of a real-life trial, albeit a civil one (an important distinction), and also perhaps the most absurd and outrageous trial in modern memory. It was the wrongful death case filed by the King family against Loyd Jowers, accusing him of murdering Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You can read the transcript here. The whole thing was a farce, with a defense attorney who was in cahoots with the plaintiffs, and a judge who was willing to allow anything as evidence (including the showing of an anonymous videotaped deposition). The Plaintiffs' allegation? That Mr. Jowers played a huge role in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King. The Defense's argument? The Mr. Jowers played a minor role in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King. Not surprisingly (since there was no evidence presented to the contrary), after 14 days of trial, the jury concluded that there was a conspiracy to kill Dr. King.

She-Hulk Summary Judgment

2007-05-05T09:42:00.000-04:00

Since it appears that I may not be doing any more She-Hulk posts for a bit, given the current direction of that title, here's a recap of all the posts I've done on the series:

Volume 1
She-Hulk #1
She-Hulk #2: Danger Man
She-Hulk #3: The Ghost of Bailey Briggs
She-Hulk #4: Web of Lies

Volume 2
She-Hulk #1: Young Avengers
She-Hulk #1-2: Jury Duty
She-Hulk #2: The Trial of Charles Czarkowski
She-Hulk #6-7: The Trial of Starfox, Part 1
She-Hulk #7: The Trial of Starfox, Part 2
She-Hulk #8: DestroyAllWarriors.com, Part 1
She-Hulk #8: DestroyAllWarriors.com, Part 2

And please tip me off whenever Jen ends up back in the courtroom.

She-Hulk #7: The Trial of Starfox, Part 2

2007-05-02T23:15:00.000-04:00

Recap: Starfox is on trial for sexual assault. The prosecutor has just called five women as witnesses, all of whom testify that they slept with Starfox, but have nothing negative to say about him.

Now to continue...

Deprived of her five female witnesses, the prosecutor then calls a male one. A HYDRA agent who claims that Starfox mind-whammied him into seeing Starfox as his hetero-life-buddy. This does a better job of illustrating Starfox's powers for the jury, as it's someone who has clearly has an unexpectedly positive attitude toward Starfox. (Of course, it turns out a couple of issues later that he's lying through his teeth.)

Frankly, for proving the extent of Starfox's powers, the prosecutor would be best off just finding an expert on superhuman powers. If nothing else, maybe a fellow Avenger could testify as to the nature of his abilities.

At the tail end of the HYDRA agent's testimony, after the prosecutor says she has no further questions, we get these three panels:

In panel one, Jen shows a spark of legal acumen, stating the flaws with this witness. Of course, she chooses to simply state these flaws as fact to the courtroom at large, rather than attempting to prove them through cross-examination. Good idea, poor execution.

Then in panel two, the judge, having apparently decided that the prosecutor is incompetent, decides to do the prosecutor's job for her. He practically tells the jury 'You ought to believe this guy.' Strangely, this doesn't get an objection from Jen.

And neither does the judge's sudden dismissal of the witness in panel three, before Jen has gotten to ask a single question on cross-examination.

When the judge said "Get both of them out of here!", this turns out to be the solution:

I love that first caption. Apparently, the judge was perfectly fine with Starfox being in the courtroom so long as he could only influence the minds of women.

Jen, once again doing something right, isn't too happy with this arrangement:

And she's right to be unhappy, because this is highly prejudicial to Starfox. After all, the extent of his powers of persuasion are kinda a central issue in the trial; by excluding him mid-trial, the court is taking a clear side on the issue, and I don't think a jury instruction ("Members of the jury, please ignore the fact that I threw the defendant out of the courtroom") will solve the problem.

The judge does have a valid concern, though, and it's similar to the one with Jen's cousin, Bruce Banner. Here we have a concern that is foreign to our courts, and I think a two-way video linkup would be a plausible solution. But it would need to be an arrangement that was in place from the start of the trial, and in this instance, it would require some careful instructions to the jury, both before and after the trial, that they should place no value on Starfox's physical absence. If possible, no mention would be made as to why he was on video at all. Switching things up mid-trial sends a definite anti-Starfox message to the jury. If convicted, Jen could probably get a conviction overturned on appeal on this ground.

Jen chooses not to wait for an appeal, though, and her demand, which the judge accepts, is a problem.

Not any piece of evidence can be presented during a trial. There are extensive rules on what kinds of evidence is admissible, often dealing with the relevance, reliability, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence proposed. One kind of evidence that is often controversial is character evidence, and that's what Jen is proposing here. Starfox is accused of sexual assault, so the defense wants to put witnesses on the stand to basically say "I know Starfox, and he's a swell guy. He'd never rape anyone."

Courts generally frown on this type of evidence, and New York specifically does. The prosecution is essentially forbidden from introducing bad character evidence against the defendant (which may be what the prosecutor appeared to be doing with those five women last time), unless the defendant chooses to put his character into issue. And that's precisely what Jen has chosen to do. She wants the jury to hear that Starfox is a fine, upstanding young Titanian.

But Jen can't do this by simply parading a series of Avengers to the stand, with each saying that he/she likes Starfox. New York doesn't allow personal opinion evidence; only community reputation evidence is allowed. So Janet Van Dyne cannot say "I think Starfox is a morally upright guy." She has to be able to testify that the community at large (say, the Avengers, or the superhero community) has a positive view of Starfox. And judging by the number of Avengers Jen had to talk to in order to find one good witness for Starfox's defense, his community reputation might be a little rough around the edges. Plus, since the introduction of good character evidence would 'open the door' for the prosecutor, the state could then call witnesses to say that Starfox's reputation was that of a scoundrel and a lothario. This would probably not play out in Starfox's favor, I'm betting.

We never get to see any Avengers called, though. The last witness we're privy to is the Defendant herself, as Jen cross-examines her. And here, Jen probably does her best work of the issue. It turns out that the victim is a superhero fanatic, and flirted with Starfox herself. Introducing this evidence and testimony, Jen manages to inject reasonable doubt into the case. She might've even been on her way to a win, if she didn't suddenly start accusing Starfox of assaulting her in the past, and then fleeing the courtroom to battle Starfox in the sky over New York.

Potential acquittal to mistrial in under two minutes. When the defense attorney starts accusing her own client of crimes during the trial, and then she fights her client as he escapes from custody, no judge is going to let that trial continue.

And it didn't. In later issues, when he's standing trial again on Titan, we find out that Starfox was guilty. Kind of. It seems his powers were malfunctioning, and he could end up 'seducing' someone without knowing or intending it. Does that make him guilty of rape? That sounds like a good question for another post.

One Can Hope

2007-04-30T00:08:00.000-04:00

SHOWCASE PRESENTS: MR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY VOL. 1

She-Hulk #6-7: The Trial of Starfox

2007-04-28T12:49:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk (Vol. 2) #6-7
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Will Conrad

Former Avenger Starfox, aka Eros of Titan, is in New York for fun, and meets up with a woman named Christina Garvey at a club. They flirt some, and before you know it, it's the next morning and they're in a hotel room. Starfox puts on his costume and brags a bit before exiting through the window, leaving Christina in the bed, a little confused. Starfox, you see, has the power to woo women, and has a reputation for being a bit of a ladies' man. (Y'know, Starfox would be a more interesting character if he had that power but looked like his brother, Thanos.)

So, with typical comic book speed, it's suddenly a week later and jury selection is wrapping up for Starfox's trial for "sexual assault." There's nothing wrong with that phrase, but it's the only crime named in these two issues. I don't think "rape" is ever mentioned, although it would certainly be an appropriate allegation under the circumstances. I wonder if there was an editorial edict in there somewhere.

Later in the story, there's a scene between Starfox's dad and She-Hulk's boss, where daddy demands that his son be extradited home for trial on Titan (said trial was later seen in She-Hulk #11-12). I mention it here because there's never any indication that Starfox is resisting being on trial. When we last see him before the trial he's not in custody, so at some point he had to be notified he was charged with a crime, and was either arrested or chose to turn himself in. There's little stopping him from simply returning to Titan. His own submission undercuts his dad's objections.

The judge at one point refers to the courthouse being on "Centre Street." And that is, in fact, the location of the New York Supreme Court. (Note: Whereas virtually every other state, and the federal government, uses the designation "Supreme Court" for its highest court, New York uses that name for its lowest trial courts. Don't ask me why.) Kudos to Will Conrad for his depiction of that courthouse.

The trial itself begins in #7. There are no opening statements (at least, none are shown or indicated), and we jump straight into the prosecution's case. The prosecutor calls her first witness, a woman, and Jen turns to Starfox to ask who this witness is. Starfox, unfortunately, doesn't know. It seems he's slept with too many women to remember their names.

I was momentarily concerned that the story was employing the old "surprise witness" canard, a practice that was done away with in real courtrooms over 30 years ago. Thankfully, Jen then references the prosecution's list of witnesses, which is exactly correct. To avoid sudden surprises at trial, both sides are required to provide lists of potential witnesses to the opposition. Quite correctly, that's been done here.

Unfortunately, Jen doesn't seem to have done much, if any, research into who the people are on the prosecution's list. This is not a promising start for Jen.

Sure enough, the prosecution's first witness is a woman who claims to have slept with Starfox. So are the prosecution's next four witnesses. Which raises a question: where did the prosecution get the names of these women? Clearly not from Starfox. And their sexual histories aren't public knowledge. If there's, say, an "I got assaulted by Starfox" MySpace group, Jen apparently failed to find it. Did the prosecution take out a classified ad in the New York Times: "Have you slept with the superhero Starfox? Please call the New York DA's office immediately."

I suppose they could've individually come to the DA, claiming they'd been raped by Starfox in the past. Of course, that means that Starfox is a serial rapist, and that his powers caused them to lie on the stand. This doesn't taint him; it pretty much makes him a sex-crazed super-villain (well, depending on the 'out' that he got in the subsequent story). Or maybe the women lied to the police just to be in close proximity to Starfox again. In which case, they're all guilty of obstruction of justice for lying to police and the prosecution.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, all five woman do nothing but sing Starfox's praises once they're on the stand. This rather annoys the prosecutor:

First off, kudos to Jen for the objection. She could've done better than "Where's the proof?", which doesn't really do enough to deny the allegation, but at least it shows she's paying attention and not doodling in her notebook (see the last page of #6). The prosecutor is way out of line making these kinds of allegations in front of the jury.

The prosecutor, on the other hand, is quickly proving that she can be just as bad a lawyer as Jen. Threatening witnesses on the stand, yelling in the courtroom, making highly objectionable comments...this isn't the best reaction for when things don't go well. It's surprising that Jen had to object at all; many a judge would interject to cut off this kind of display.

The more cool and collected thing for the prosecutor to do would have been to simply confront the witnesses with the inconsistent statements they'd previously made. "Did you say to Investigator Lestrade that Starfox seduced and raped you?" This requires the witness to either admit that, yes, she said that (which is what the prosecution wants the jury to hear) or deny it. If she lies and denies, then the prosecutor whips out a copy of the statement for the witness to read, or she calls another witness to say that the woman's story has changed.

This scenario plays out ALL THE TIME in domestic abuse cases. A woman goes to police and claims her husband/boyfriend hit her and hurt her, but when it comes time to say it to a judge or jury, the woman tells a whole different story. It's sad and depressing, but it's something a prosecutor has experienced, and knows how to deal with. It's not an ideal situation when you have to undercut your own witness's honesty in front of the jury, but threatening perjury charges in front of the jury is worse.

It's a lot more fun to lay blame on Jen Walters than on her guest opponent, though, so is there a way in which Jen can be faulted for all of this? The answer (not surprisingly) is yes. While it was good to see Jen throw out one objection to the prosecutor's rant, Jen should have been objecting to the mere presence and testimony of all five of these witnesses.

Pause and consider the central issue in this trial: did Starfox have sexual contact with Christina Garvey against her will? The evidence presented in the trial needs to relate, somehow, to this issue, either by supporting it or disputing it.

What value, then, is there to the testimony of other women who have slept with Starfox? Were they going to testify that he's a cad? That kind of character evidence isn't admissible, unless Starfox tries to claim he's otherwise, and he hasn't. Were they going to claim that he used his powers to rape them too? Those kinds of allegations would be highly prejudicial against the defendant, and would probably be excluded from evidence. Starfox is on trial for the sexual assault of Christina Garvey; the introduction of other sexual allegations makes him look bad without shedding any light on the question of his conduct with Mrs. Garvey. Under rare circumstances, the judge might give special permission for evidence of prior criminal behavior, but Jen should've been fighting hard to keep any such evidence out (which would best be done in a motion before trial even began).

What they probably could testify about would be the nature of Starfox's power. His powers of seduction are alleged to have played an important role in the crime, so it's important for the prosecution to explain and prove those powers to the jury. They need to show that he has the ability to get unconsensual consent. Unfortunately, their testimony only really contributes anything if his powers actually caused their opinion about him to change; if they were naturally attracted to him, then their testimony doesn't say anything worthwhile about his power. And if he DID force their opinion to change, then the prosecution has to walk a very fine line, or else she'll fall back into inadmissable testimony. (Plus, if they honestly didn't like him, then we're back with the meta-problem of Starfox manipulating people's minds in the courtroom.) They'd be better off making the same point another way.

OK, this post has turned out to be unduly long, so I'm going to cut it off here and finish the issue with a second post. So I'll finish up the Trial of Starfox next week, with more pictures and hopefully a little less text.

Bob Ingersoll on "The Trial of the Flash"

2007-04-24T07:15:00.000-04:00

Just before the Crisis, there was The Trial of the Flash, wherein Barry Allen was charged with the murder of Professor Zoom. At the same time, a young Robert Ingersoll was beginning a column for Comics Buyer's Guide, "The Law is a Ass," where he pioneered the same ground I'm treading today, reviewing the law as it's presented in the funnybooks.

Over his first couple of years writing the column, he repeatedly skewered The Flash for its intrinsic and endlessly repetitive legal errors. It was a two-year storyline built around a 'crime' that was never really a crime to begin with.

It remains one of the more well-remembered arcs of the 1980s, although it has never been collected as a trade. Perhaps Mr. Ingersoll had something to do with that. In any case, a comic book legal event of that magnitude deserves some attention, and rather than simply repeat Bob's work (a difficult feat for myself, as I own just one issue of the arc), I've accumulated below an index of his columns that addressed different issues of the story.

Flash #324
Flash #334
Flash #336
Flash #339
Flash #341
Flash #343
Flash #344
Flash #345-347
Flash #350

Incidentally, the Barry-Zoom fight at the center of the trial was injected with a rather severe retcon by Geoff Johns during "Rogue War." While the two of them were running towards Barry's fiance Fiona, the modern-day Zoom travelled back in time and snatched Professor Zoom to bring him back to the future. Then Barry broke off and came to the future too. They, Wally, Zoom, and a whole slew of Rogues battled it out in Keystone City, and then Barry and Professor Zoom went back to the past and resumed running toward Fiona.

Slow News Year

2007-04-22T22:29:00.000-04:00

It hasn't been a good couple of months for this blog, has it?

She-Hulk had a memorable Civil War issue last May, but then the book married her off to a cosmic werewolf, sent Jen into space for a few issues, and finally took her away from her job and drafted her as a SHIELD agent. To be honest, I dropped the book after #14 (Amazing Andy's issue). Several months of Marvel cosmic stuff had already bored me, and my disdain for the SHRA's draft sealed it. I still have some loose ends to tie up, but let me know if the book gets legal again.

Things also looked really bleak for Manhunter, the other superhero-lawyer book on the stands, but it was granted a second stay of execution. (If anybody from DC is reading, my offer still stands.) Unfortunately, despite having a "Trial of Wonder Woman" arc going on, we haven't been seeing much of the proceedings.

And Civil War finally wrapped up, with the Superhero Registration Act proving a bit more resilient than I'd predicted. It's still a morass of absurdity, sure, but frankly, there's so much agreement on that point across fandom that there's hardly any need for me to reiterate it again and again. Marvel's clearly committed to their fascistic interpretation of what should be a reasonable law, and while I'll take my parting shots, at this point it's just beating a dead horse until something new happens or I find a new angle.

Combine all of this with the frequency of my trips to the shop, and there just hasn't been much to talk about as of late. So as I attempt to reinvigorate the blog, I'll be jumping into my backlog of stories I'd put off. The trial of Starfox. The trial of the White Tiger. Daredevil: Redemption. And undoubtedly the most overdue, Clark Kent: Super-Juror.

In fact, I've been so much of a slacker here, I failed to acknowledge the blog's two-year anniversary back in February. Granted, some bloggers create more content in two months than I have in two years, but I refuse to give up.

The Crimes of Captain America

2007-03-12T00:18:00.000-04:00

In all the coverage of Captain America's death last week, this interview with writer Ed Brubaker caught my eye. For this reason:

NRAMA: Let’s move to some of the details of the story. First off, what specifically is Cap being arraigned for?

EB: Whatever he was arrested for at the end of Civil War. You'll have to ask Tom Brevoort. I would guess it was being in violation of the SHRA and leading the rebel forces, though.

Brubaker's one of my favorite writers right now, so I choose to blame Marvel higher-ups for this confusion. One can actually imagine the same Q&A between Brubaker and his editor:

Brevoort: "Once Civil War is over, you'll need to incorporate the fact that Cap's been arrested. Maybe you should start off by showing his arraignment."
Brubaker: "What specifically is Cap being arraigned for?"
Brevoort: "Whatever he was arrested for at the end of Civil War. You'll have to ask Mark Millar."

This kind of exemplifies the pervasive legal problems of Civil War. For a crossover, and now a new status quo, that's entirely built around a controversial law, they just can't seem to decide on the basic details of the law. It's important that Cap gets arrested. It's not that important, however, to figure out what he's being arrested FOR.

However, I'm afraid I gotta give Ed the blame for what's next:

NRAMA: And the talking head’s comment of Captain America not going before a tribunal. Can you explain that a little more? As a military officer, the military legal system would have been the normal venue, right?

EB: Yeah, but Cap's military connections are murky -- he's not a Captain in the Army, for instance - and he's also a S.H.I.E.L.D. operative, which means he also works of the UN. I felt that because of the public attention to the entire Civil War that the government would want to make Cap's prosecution as open to the public and the common man as possible. So, since he's a figurehead and an icon, as well as all the other things he is, a trial in Federal Court seemed like a decent alternative.

What court Cap should be in depends a lot on what he's charged with. And we've just seen that that's pretty murky. Assuming that Steve Rogers is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he could be subject to a court-martial for certain crimes he commits. That's a kind of tribunal, but I don't think courts-martial are commonly called such.

Given the circumstances of his arrest, it makes the most sense, storytelling-wise, to assume that he's charged with something related to the Superhuman Registration Act. As the SHRA is a federal statute, violating it would then make a federal court the natural place for Cap's criminal proceedings. But I'm at as much of a loss for a specific charge as Brubaker is. The massive property damage to New York City, Cap's reason for calling off the fight, could certainly lend itself to some criminal charges, but Cap was the only one arrested, while everybody else got amnesty.

Maybe Millar meant for Cap to be charged with failing "to register," but that makes little (if any) sense. The government knows Cap's real name and identity. They always have. They know what his abilities are, and they gave him his shield. And it was the government that trained him, so he's presumably already met whatever skill standards the SHRA imposes. For all intents and purposes, he has already met the basic standards of "registration."

So for the lack of a better answer, I propose that Cap was being charged with what he did to SHIELD agents back in #1-2, particularly where he threw an agent out of a moving truck onto a highway, causing a pile-up. Despite being a UN organization, SHIELD clearly has some kind of relationship with the US government (as evidenced by the federal SHRA statute subjecting American citizens to conscription into SHIELD), so it stands to reason that assaulting SHIELD agents in the manner he did would be a federal offense.

Unfortunately, with Cap taking the eternal celestial dirt-nap, his prosecution is pretty much ended. That is, until "eternal" turns out to mean "temporary," in which case I expect the charges, whatever they are, will simply be dropped.

It's Super Lawyer

2007-02-16T13:42:00.000-05:00

In today's New York Law Journal, there's an article entitled "Look! Up in the Sky! Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane? No, It's Super Lawyer!" OK, the title is corny, but it's actually a fairly decent (although brief) article on lawyers in comics. It mentions Daredevil, Two Face and Ex Machina, and quotes Michael Avon Oeming and Bill Sienkiewicz. I would have preferred some mention of She-Hulk, despite the repeated legal blunders made by Dan Slott, but that's just me. It also mentions that the issue of the Super Human Registration Act is raised by DD in Civil Wars, but I've hardly seen that issue touched anywhere, much to my dismay. While I've put a link on the article, I believe you will not be able to access it unless you subscribe to the New York Law Journal, so to prove I'm a good (but dumb) guy, anyone who wants a copy can e-mail me and I'll e-mail you a copy. I'm not going to post my e-mail address here, but if you go to my blog on the Second Circuit, Second Opinions, you can contact me by clicking on the "Email Me" button on the left. If nothing else, this offer will draw some traffic to Second Opinions.

You'd think network execs would know this stuff....

2007-01-31T13:35:00.002-05:00

Studio 60
A group of network honchos are discussing a possible new "reality" show with a romance theme, which they have titled "All You Need is Love". The following dialogue follows:

Hallie: We can't get the rights to the title "All You Need is Love"...

Jordan: The Beatles said no?

Hallie: There was already a show that used it.

Jordan: Damn it to hell!

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of intellectual property law (even a layman like myself) would have known that there were no "rights" to get. Copyright law does not protect titles, short phrases, or words, and unless the Beatles or the producers of the prior show had filed for trademark protection and still have an active interest in the name, the name is freely available. The case can also be made that "all you need is love" is a common phrase known to be in use long before either the song or the show in question.

There have been many shows, plays, books, movies and songs that use the same title, and it is perfectly legal and proper to do so. A search of the IMDB will turn up many such examples...

Saving Grace (movies in 1985, 1998, 2000, and a 2006 song by Tom Petty)
Crash (films in 1922, 1977, 1987, 1996, 2004, and several TV shows)
Bombshell (1933, 1935, 1996, 2006)
... and so on.

In addition, there are a lot of films with titles based on songs, including:

Blue Velvet
And the Band Played on
Boogie nights
Man on the Moon
Can't Buy Me Love
Sixteen Candles
Uptown Girls
My Own Private Idaho
American Pie
Happy Feet
Pretty Woman
Some Kind of Wonderful
Beyond the Sea
Down with Love
When a Man Loves a Woman
My Blue Heaven
Sweet Home Alabama

...and so on.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent Hallie's show from going forward, except maybe the boundaries of good taste.

Klaw and Colonization

2007-01-19T00:10:00.000-05:00

2005's Black Panther #1 featured two flashback sequences, the latter of which depicted an unidentified group of Europeans attempting to invade Wakanda in the 19th century.

The identity of these invaders was revealed two issues later, by the "classic" Black Panther villain Ulysses Klaw (more on those quote marks momentarily). He explains that he comes from a "military family. My great-great-great grandfather was one of the founders of South Africa. The Panther killed him in an unfair fight." He says that this event motivates his desire for revenge against T'Challa, and it led him to pursue a career as an assassin. A few pages later, he reflects further:

If you're familiar with the Black Panther, you probably understand the quote marks. Klaw is a classic BP villain, but this is not your daddy's Klaw. He resembles the traditional Klaw slightly less than the Post-Crisis billionaire Lex Luthor resembled his Pre-Crisis super-scientist counterpart. He's now a professional assassin rather than a scientist; he's motivated by a Hatfield-McCoy-esque attitude of revenge ('Your great-great-great grandfather killed my great-great-great grandfather!!') instead of lust for vibranium; and instead of being Dutch, he is now from Belgium.

And it's that last point that I'm writing to address, because it is ironically at odds with the new family history given to Klaw. It's hard to say that any European country "founded" South Africa, but even if one is given credit, it can't be Belgium. Belgium's only significant involvement in African colonization was in the Congo, starting in 1877. South Africa was dominated by the Boers, who were predominantly...Dutch. "Boer" is Dutch for "farmer." So while this family background could be a fairly good fit for the old Dutch Klaw, it's rather at odds with a Belgian Klaw.

Interestingly, Reginald Hudlin, the book's author, identifies said ancestor as a Boer in his afterward in the first Black Panther trade paperback. "The Boers have just finished conquering South Africa and are now moving on Wakanda. They've got rifles, they've got gatling guns." "Our villain is a South African who was named after his ancestor, who was one of the Boers who led the abortive attempt to invade Wakanda a centry ago."

It's curious to call Klaw "South African" since his family hasn't lived there for five generations, but this does confirm the late 19th century setting that's implied by the text. The colonization of the African interior, the presence of a Gatling gun in the story, and the degree of Klaw's ancestor all indicate that the "19th century" scene was set in the last quarter of that century.

To be fair, a few of the early Boers were from Belgium, but they started immigrating in the late 1600s, not the late 1800s. So no matter what country he was from, Klaw's great-great-great-granddaddy was a couple of centuries too late to "found" South Africa (though that could be chalked up to an exaggeration on Klaw's part). And they never had the kinds of ties with the Belgian government or military that the story suggests. Rather, the Boers were notoriously independent, and the late 19th century saw them fighting against an invading European army, not having one support their own expansionist agenda.

I don't really have any concluding thoughts, so I'll close by simply sharing my opinion that this:

is, in my opinion, one of the silliest designs for a major supervillain ever, and even if I'm not that fond of the new backstory, I don't miss that look one bit. I don't know how Marvel plans to straighten out Klaw in the future, but hopefully they'll retain the shapeshifting hand that Hudlin and JRJR gave him. And let him keep his nose.

RIP, Manhunter?

2007-01-17T20:42:00.000-05:00

Dagnabbit it.

Just when I was getting back into the groove of posting, and with an all-new trial storyline offering months' worth of fodder (good or bad), the new DC solicitations decide to be a killjoy and inform me that Manhunter is cancelled with issue #30.

I may rip the book a lot for its depiction of the law, but it's really quite good, and I don't think DC's had a struggling book with this much of an avid fanbase since the days of Chase, Chronos, and Major Bummer.

One hopes that DC might do like Marvel has done with Spider-Girl innumerable times now, and grant Manhunter another reprieve. If that happens, I'd be more than happy to offer up my own assistance in shoring up the law in the book, like Polite Scott occasionally does with medicine. I'll just count it towards my pro bono service. *grin*

Manhunter #27: Wonder Woman's Grand Jury

2007-01-14T22:49:00.000-05:00

Long story short: In order to save the world, Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord. Now the U.S. government is pursuing charges against her for murdering a federal officer.

---

So we've established that it's reasonable for the U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over Wonder Woman and her killing of Max Lord. And that while it may seem bizarre for the U.S. gov't to publicize that it had a mind-controlling psycho supervillain in its employ, it's plausible enough if 1) the public doesn't know Max was a supervillain, and 2) the videotape doesn't reveal it was a defensive killing. Of course, this only works up until the point Superman publicly states that Max was a mind-controlling supervillain and that Diana killed him to save the world. Once that happens, they'd be best off to just blame the whole thing on former President psycho-pseudo-clone Luthor.

The government's first step in pursuing charges, then, would be to indict Diana for murder by presenting the case against her before a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Grand juries meet to hear evidence from a prosecutor, and they decide whether to issue formal charges against a person. This requirement isn't binding on the states (as several other Amendments are), but it means that a grand jury indictment is basically necessary for any federal felony charge. So this is a necessary step for the government to undertake before Wonder Woman can be tried for murder.

One thing the issue captures correctly are the comments in Kate's speech about how skewed grand jury presentations are. When a grand jury hears evidence, it only hears from the prosecutor. The defense isn't even in the room. So in determining whether probable cause exists to issue an indictment, the grand jury isn't able to consider any of the defense's evidence.

Another aspect of the grand jury process captured correctly is the repeated assertion that what happens in a grand jury hearing is confidential. The prosecutor and the grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing what happens in the grand jury room. Witnesses, on the other hand, are under no such prohibition, and can discuss their experience with anyone.

Even though it's Kate that invokes this rule, the defendant and the defense attorney aren't supposed to be in the grand jury to start with, like I said above. A grand jury hearing is a forum only for the prosecutor to present the state's case, and for the grand jurors to ask questions in return. There is no role for the defense, and unless the defendant himself (or herself) is called as a witness to testify, then the defendant can't be present. In fact, at this stage, the defense doesn't really have a role to play at all.*

This does get acknowledged somewhat in the issue, when the judge tells Kate that she's made a special exception for Kate and Diana to be present. But I'm not aware of any rules that allow such an exception to be made, so that's still a pretty big cheat. (If that is possible, I'd be happy to be corrected.)

In any case, that still doesn't explain why the judge herself is present, because judges aren't present during grand jury hearings either. The prosecutor is the one in charge. And grand jury hearings take place in the grand jury room, not in a courtroom.

Grand juries are also larger than trial juries. They can have as many as 23 people, but every meeting of the grand jury is required by law to have at least 16 members present to conduct business. Javier Pina draws a consistent group of grand jurors, but they appear to total only a dozen in number, the size of a typical trial jury.

In short, even though we're told this is a grand jury proceeding, it still has almost all the appearances of a regular trial. The courtroom setting, the presiding judge, the presence of adversarial parties, and a 12-person jury in a jury box. These are all standard aspects of a courtroom trial, none of which are part of a grand jury hearing. All it's missing is an audience in the courtroom. Aside from a couple of nods in the dialogue to the general rules of a grand jury ("You cannot object in a grand jury proceeding"; "You know those proceedings are sealed;" the power of the prosecutor), the scenes don't bear much resemblance at all to an actual grand jury.

---

* Careful readers may notice that this could be seen as being at odds with what I said about Diana potentially waiving her diplomatic immunity. If she shouldn't be part of the process at this stage, how could she waive any immunities? The simple answer is: she can't. At least, not in any way that would be binding after the grand jury indicts her. But if the issues are going to portray her as cooperating with prosecutors, then I'll assume that she's not claiming any immunities until she says differently. And at that time I can reiterate why I think such a claim isn't any good anyway.

Manhunter #27: Two Minor Points

2007-01-14T22:07:00.000-05:00

In my grand jury post above, I couldn't find an appropriate place to include two minor nitpicks. So here there are:

- When the prosecutor is showing the video at the issue's beginning, Kate objects. Although the judge essentially makes the right call, I can't figure out what Kate is supposed to be objecting to. She never states what her objection is, and subsequent dialogue suggests that she was objecting just to taint the jury. She ends up looking sloppy, and a little sleazy.

- I've covered this before, but in a courtroom, the American flag belongs on the judge's right. I know it's a little thing, but it's just so easy to get right. I'm not even sure where you'd get reference material of a courtroom showing it backwards.

Of course, even if corrected, these scenes would still be erroneous in the context of a grand jury hearing. But that's the theme of the other post.

Manhunter #27: Diplomatic Immunity

2007-01-11T14:46:00.000-05:00

Lately, it seems like everything I write is undercut by some kind of continuity concern that was beyond the scope of the issue I was considering. In the case of Manhunter #27 and Wonder Woman's grand jury, it appears that Themyscira was one of the casualties of Infinite Crisis. It was invaded by OMACs, and was transported to an undisclosed location. Diana, left behind, closed the embassy and released her staff. This, naturally, changes matters somewhat.

So before I get back to the matter of the grand jury, how does this affect Wonder Woman's status with regard to diplomatic immunity? After all, the question is asked (although not answered) in the issue itself.

There's a good argument to be made that, in light of the above events, Diana isn't entitled to diplomatic immunity at all anymore. She shut down the embassy a year ago, DCU time, and presumably spent much of the intervening time traveling abroad. Even if closing down the embassy didn't put an end to her formal diplomatic status, the intervening year allowed plenty of time for the U.S. to declare her persona non grata and treat her like a normal visitor henceforth.

Really, though, whether Diana is entitled to diplomatic immunity is really something of a moot point, since Diana doesn't seem to be claiming it. Ordinary, low-level diplomats cannot waive their own immunity; a valid waiver requires the signature of a foreign minister or ambassador. And even if we are to assume that Diana still retains some kind of diplomatic status, she's still the ambassador, not to mention a Princess of her homeland. So she's probably qualified to waive her own immunity.

Based on what we've seen thus far, Wonder Woman appears to be willfully cooperating with prosecutors. She returned to the U.S., she retained a lawyer, and she hasn't simply flown off to another country. All this suggests that she has submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court, and isn't claiming any privilege of diplomatic immunity.

Outside Reading: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

Manhunter #27: The 'Trial' of Wonder Woman, Part 1

2007-01-09T00:20:00.000-05:00

Synopsis: Max Lord was revealed to be a mind-controlling supervillain, in the employ of the US government agency Checkmate. He took control of Superman's mind, and threatened to sic him on the world. He gave Wonder Woman the opportunity to kill him and prevent the damage Superman would do, and Wonder Woman turned Max's head around backward.

I covered Diana's last trial at the UN one year ago today. She was apparently exonerated by the World Court, so here we are, one year later and One Year Later, and Wonder Woman is again on trial for Max's murder.

Now, however, Diana is on trial in the United States, and she has Kate "Manhunter" Spencer as her defense attorney. So how does this prosecution stack up against the last one?

For starters, Diana is now being prosecuted in a court that actually has jurisdiction over the alleged crime. The last time I failed to consider the possibility of the United States having jurisdiction over a Theymysciran killing a man in Switzerland, but it's possible.

Jurisdiction may exist here because Max Lord was an American. One option is a federal statute (18 USC 2332) that makes it a federal crime to kill an American national outside the United States. But prosecuting under that statute requires requires the written certification of the Attorney General, and more importantly, the issue suggests that the U.S. is trying Diana because Max was a federal agent.

18 USC 1114 makes it a federal crime to kill an officer of the U.S., and even though the statute doesn't explicitly allow for prosecutions of murders that took place outside American territory, there's caselaw that says it applies to killing a federal officer anywhere. It also provides for the death penalty. And since we now see that the video feed of Diana killing Max had no sound, appearances (Diana pausing to think, then turning his head 180°) do allow for the viewer to reasonably view her act as rather malicious.

But even with a he also had to get Wonder Woman into an American court. Rucka established Diana as a United Nations ambassador, so she should be entitled to diplomatic immunity with regard to U.S. law. (See Diplomatic Immunity.) Even if the act took place in another country, she should still be protected from prosecution under U.S. law., unless Themyscira (or possibly the UN Secretary-General) waived her immunity.

It's not entirely uncommon for countries to waive immunity, particuarly if a crime as heinous as murder is at issue. Here, though, we have a couple of aggravating factors. One is the fact that Wonder Woman killed Max in the defense of others, and not with the sort of malice required for murder. The tape may not show it, but Themyscira is pretty likely to side with Diana. (Incidentally, who's ruling Paradise Island these days, with Hippolyta dead?)

They do, however, have a certain interest in seeing Diana exonerated, and it's possible to imagine the island granting a waiver with full expectations of her acquittal. Oftentimes countries resist waiving immunity in the U.S. out of opposition to the death penalty; once the U.S. agrees to not pursue the death penalty, then a prosecution is allowed to proceed. Themyscira seems to have neglected to make such a bargain, and so Diana is facing a death penalty prosecution. Poor form, Paradise Island.

Personally, I find myself wishing things had gone differently simply for story purposes. If Themyscira had refused to waive immunity, the U.S. could have stripped Diana of her diplomatic status, declared her persona non grata, and expelled her from the country. Then if she returned, she'd be subject to a murder prosecution.

I think there would have been a lot of story potential in an extended arc where Wonder Woman is banned from the United States, forcing her to take her mission of peace to other parts of "Man's World." I even have a title for the arc and inevitable tpb: "Woman Without a Country."

Next time: Grand jury.

I just can't take the SRA seriously

2007-01-07T23:28:00.000-05:00

Even after my previous post, part of me really wants to rip into the SRA, and dissect its ridiculousness. I still plan to explain what's wrong with Iron Man's legal rationalization for his Negative Zone prison, but so much of the rest of it is too amorphous to get a good grip on.

Now several months ago, I'd have sung a different story. The details of the SRA weren't exactly explicit, but at least they were a little more consistent and straightforward. From Marvel editor Tom Brevoort:

The Superhuman Registration Act does require anybody with superhuman abilities to register, even if they don't intend to use them in a super heroic capacity. It's just like owning a gun.

And at the most basic level, nothing more is really required. However, if you are intending to use your powers in a super heroic capacity, you have to demonstrate the necessary capability and control, demonstrating that you possess the wherewithall to use those powers responsibly. In essence, this is like qualifying to be on the police force.

That'd be easy enough to address. It's also fairly reasonable in a real-world context. But that's not what the SRA turned out to be at all. In the last issue of She-Hulk, the SRA was responsible for getting Jen drafted into working for S.H.I.E.L.D. against her will (how a US law can mandate participation in a UN organization is an obvious question).

But my favorite illustration of how absurd the execution of the SRA has become is this scene from Amazing Spider-Man #535:

The fellow locked up in the bottom left panel is Richard Gilmore, aka Prodigy. I know this because his name is printed on his door in panel 2. So if the government's interest is in knowing WHO has superpowers, or WHAT those powers are, well, they already know the answers to those questions. Better yet, Mr. Gilmore is not a superhuman himself, but rather gets his powers from his Prodigy suit, which, for whatever reason, they've decided to let him keep and wear in his cell. And for some strange reason, Mr. Gilmore doesn't seem to be acting the part of a civil disobedient (like, oh, everyone else in the Anti-Reg camp), but appears honestly confused as to why he's imprisoned.

So here we have a case study where Iron Man is really concerned with a young man who has no innate superhuman powers, but is not concerned at all with the suit that provides superhuman powers. Go figure.

It's this sort of scene that makes it difficult to evaluate the legal ramifications of characters being asked to "register," because after all these months, that word..."register"...has come to mean everything, and nothing. When a character refuses simply to "register," what is he objecting to? Sharing his name? Revealing his powers? Submitting himself for training? Participating in a SHIELD army? Prodigy certainly has nothing to lose from agreeing to the first two, considering it's knowledge the government already has. And it's hard to imagine him being willing to go to prison rather than take part in some training classes. On the other hand, if it's an objection to the conscription aspect that's landed him in prison, then it's hardly fair to say that his crime is simply refusing to "register." Such an innocuous label for such a weighty obligation.

My Year in Comics: 2006

2007-01-03T23:50:00.000-05:00

I give a lot of thought to finances, and for the last couple of years I've taken a cue from Augie de Blieck, and kept an Excel spreadsheet recording my comic purchases. Now with 2007 starting up, it's time to take a look back at 2006.

I spent just shy of $650 on comics in 2006, down over 30% from 2005, and even slightly less than I spent in 2004. I averaged $12.50 per week.

21 series and mini-series rotated in and out of my pull list during the year, 13 of which are currently on the list. (This doesn't include titles that didn't ship in 2006, such as Herobear/Decoy, which edges out Daredevil: The Target for longest delay, now 4 1/2 years between #1 and #2.) Two titles were cancelled, six I dropped. Seven of my current titles are monthlies. I spent a total of about $350 at my local shop, to which I made 21 visits during the year.

I bought 116 new issues, 51 back issues, and 27 tpbs/HCs/graphic novels. I bought comics off eBay just twice the entire year. My interest in back issues has fallen off a lot lately; looking back, not many stand out in 2006. I discovered Warren Ellis' Fell; I completed the runs of a couple of mini-series; and last week I randomly stumbled across a copy of Amazing Heroes #68, featuring Ambush Bug.

Favorite series added to my pull list: probably X-Factor, the first X-book I've ever had on my pull list in my 14 years of comic buying. Dini's Detective Comics comes close, but the Poison Ivy issue pulls it down. Greg Weisman's Gargoyles is also worth mentioning, but it's been slow coming and hasn't gotten to original stories yet. Biggest disappointment would be Uncle Sam & the Freedom Fighters, a mini I dropped halfway through even though I loved the introductory short story.

I spent about $285 on the 27 books with spines. They included five Showcase Presents volumes (but only one Essential), three Fables books, and three Uncle Scrooge trades. Best volume of the year is a no-brainer: Absolute New Frontier. Most money I've ever spent on a comic, yet still worth every penny.

If anyone's interested in keeping a similar record for themselves in 2007, just drop me an e-mail and I'll send you a sample of my spreadsheet. It's a great aid for budgeting as well as keeping track of your collection.

The Emperor's New Clothes

2006-12-31T09:59:00.000-05:00

From Black Panther #23, here is artist Koi Turnbull's depiction of T'Challa and Storm at Bill "Goliath" Foster's funeral:

Note the button. For whatever reason, T'Challa is wearing a woman's jacket.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-25T22:35:00.000-05:00

As a little Christmas gift of sorts, the other day I made a huge update to:

The Collins Compendium of Free Online Comic Books

Lots of additions to the Vertigo and Marvel lists, plus a bunch of new stuff from Image, Virgin, and more. I've barely scraped the surface of what Tokyopop has to offer for free. I removed a lot of dead links too (including, unfortunately, the links to the Elseworlds 80-Page Giant pages). All in all, the list now tops 300 comics you can read for free. Maybe even 400, with all of Tokyopop and Dark Horse's offerings.

If you aren't reading Ed Brubaker's Criminal or Warren Ellis' Fell yet, you can read the first issue of each online. I recently added both to my pull list. The first five issues of 52 are online too, as are the first five issues of Powers. This time of year, you may be interested in the PvP Christmas Special. But my favorite new addition may be a short story that was only printed in the 2001 Small Press Expo Anthology, Max Hamm, Fairy Tale Detective in "Just Right."

I'll be tweaking the page further in the next few days, so if there are issues I'm missing, let me know in the comments section.

Enjoy!

Civil War

2006-12-20T01:05:00.000-05:00

Civil War has been running for what seems like a couple of years over at Marvel, and other than a couple of posts on She-Hulk #8, I haven't had much to say on it.

At first, the Superhero Registration Act, the crux of Civil War, seemed like perfect fodder for this blog. After all, it's superhero-centered legislation. But as the months went by, the need for such review seemed to pass.

For starters, I don't read much Marvel. I've bought a grand total of three CW tie-ins, two X-Factors and a She-Hulk, so I'm not in a great position to offer up an informed analysis. While I'd love to do an educational overview, I'm not about to drop a few dozen bucks just to get informed.

Additionally, there is already plenty of armchair analysis of the SRA out there. How does my saying "This is one wacked-out piece of legislation" add to the dialogue? It doesn't take a lawyer to see the absurdity in the government locking someone up until they agree to "register;" if the government has the person in custody, then they know who the person is, and the signed disclosure of one's name and powers is kinda moot. Or at least moot enough to make indefinite detention a serious exercise in overkill. (I do intend to address Iron Man's assertion on the legality of Negative Zone detention, but not in this post.)

From the beginning, I've been Pro-Registration. Or at least anti-Anti-Registration. I find the argument that there's a civil right to anonymously patrol the streets in costume and fight crime rather laughable. I thought the SRA could have used more definition in its details, but it's aim is practically a logical imperative of the law. Superheroes aren't generally immune from civil or criminal liability, and having an anonymous public persona makes it difficult to enforce the law with respect to that person.

Even certain Marvel creators have admitted that while they're anti-Reg with respect to Civil War, they'd be absolutely in favor of some kind of registration law if we had superheroes in the real world. I suspect that's true of most people, particularly if the real-world SRA were rationally constructed.

Unfortunately, the more we learned about Marvel's SRA, the worse it got. Superhero registration became superhuman registration, which became superhuman conscription. And in an astonishingly stupid turn, the punishment for failing to comply with this regulatory law turned out to be indefinite detention in a parallel dimension, without trial. Imagine failing to register with the Selective Service by your 18th birthday, and having the US government throw you in the Phantom Zone as a consequence. This absurdity more or less culminates in the treatment of Speedball, who gets punished (and punished rather severely) for failing to register while both unconscious and unpowered.

All of this irked me for a while. Why couldn't the terms of the SRA have been better defined upfront? Why bring in SHIELD? And what was Millar thinking by involving the Negative Zone? Why has the SRA been presented in such a bizarre and legally absurd fashion?

Finally, I realized the answer why: because the Anti-Registration side needs to win.

Any realistically-written version of the Superhero Registration Act would be almost indisputably right, and very much in the public interest. It would be such a rational piece of legislation that Captain America would look downright irrational for opposing it. It would be rather difficult to concoct a story that wouldn't end with all Marvel heroes being required to register.

Since that end is undesirable from Marvel's publishing and storytelling standpoint, Marvel and Millar needed a way to make Cap's side look like the good guys. And the easiest means to that end was to not portray the SRA in any realistic fashion, but rather to design it to be ridiculously over-the-top. When 'registration' evolves into a SHIELD draft to create a metahuman army, with dissenters being thrown into a parallel-dimension gulag, it's easy to make that kind of proposal look bad. It takes all the attention away from the original core proposal of simple registration and training for private vigilantes. It may not make a lick of legal or logical sense, but it's darn easy to villify.

So what's the point in seriously critiquing the portrayal of the SRA? They set out to portray a hideously messed-up law, and they succeeded. Why rake them over the coals for something done intentionally?

Jonah Hex #14

2006-12-12T00:02:00.000-05:00

In Jonah Hex #14, young Jonah's father throws him into the well of an outhouse. After what would seem to be several hours, Jonah manages to pull himself out of the fetid and stinking cesspool.

Back in my Boy Scout days, we had latrines at summer camp. They were rather deep, and one time my curiosity was enough to shine a flashlight down one to see how it looked at the bottom. I wouldn't recommend doing it; in this case, ignorance is bliss.

Jordi Bernet may have drawn a pretty gross looking pit, complete with stink fumes, but it's nothing compared to what truly lies at the bottom of a latrine. The thought that Hex would willingly stay for any length of time at all is mind-boggling. Palmiotti and Gray may have inadvertantly written the most nauseating scene I've ever seen in a comic. Simply put, the cover ain't lying when it says "The Horrifying Origin of Jonah Hex."

Super-Ceded

2006-11-26T23:18:00.000-05:00

Superman/Batman Annual #1

How much of a nebbish is Clark Kent?

He lets Lois lead.

I'm Back

2006-11-26T22:55:00.000-05:00

Now with the election behind us, and I having had a little time to get my act back together, I'm back to SoD. But first, two quick updates.

1) The final vote tally of the election put me at 64 votes. Not quite what I'd hoped for, but I'm still heartened for future races.

2) Since my campaign blog is now untimely, I've started a new personal blog: Stark Raving Sane. Borrowing the title of my long-defunct personal blog, it will be my place to post on politics, law, pop culture, and probably even comics. It's only a couple of posts so far, having been begun just yesterday, but please check in in the future.

To make up a little for lost time, and to comment on something that doesn't deserve a post of its own on this blog, here's an error from tonight's Boston Legal. At one point, it's discovered that a murdered character left a "holographic will" (which is not nearly as cool as the name suggests, but is rather merely a will written in the handwriting of the deceased). Unfortunately, while this was made to be a matter of importance on the show, the state of Massachusetts (according to my research) doesn't recognize holographic wills. So this 'discovery,' even if it's legit, wouldn't affect a thing.

Oh, Really?

2006-10-26T02:18:00.002-04:00

Smallville: Arrow
So Smallville is doing Green Arrow, and now Chris Arndt, over in the comments on the last post, is eager to hear me rant about it.

Your wish is my command.

I haven't been watching Smallville much for about the past year; it got kind of tedious for me when they went off into all that kryptonian mumbo-jumbo with Jane Seymour and french witches and Brainiac the T-1000. But of course I heard that Green Arrow was coming, and so I set the Tivo. So here we are.

It sure is easy to be an impressive archer when your arrows are computer-generated. And apparently it's even easier if your bow is equally computer-generated. So let's see, what sins against archery are committed here? (I mean apart from the insult to Lois' intelligence; she can't figure out that the archery-themed bandit might have something to do with the new boyfriend who dresses up as Robin Hood?)

The telescopic-night-vision targeting sunglasses. What's wrong with letting him just be that good? He's supposed to be a superhero; maybe it would help if he were a little bit, well, super.

The semi-automatic crossbow. With a retracting cable, no less. I'm still trying to figure out how that thing reloads and draws itself. But that pales beside...

The self-folding compound bow. They made a point of only showing this gadget in the dark and on the move, so you never really got a good look at it, but no matter how much they tried to hide it, they have a few serious problems:

1. The limbs fold down. That is, they fold in the direction that the string would normally pull them. This means the bow can't function. The force of shooting the bow would surely damage or overcome whatever locking mechanism holds the limbs up until they're released. The bow should collapse in Ollie's hands when he draws it. If the producers wanted to be marginally believable, they should have had the limbs collapse forward over the handle, away from the string.

2. Where'd the string go? Ever get a good look at a compound bow? The string is this really elaborate affair that winds back and forth over cams and pulleys. There's no way to remove it without a very large, very heavy piece of equipment called a bow press. Somehow, at the click of a button, the string on Ollie's bow vanishes.

3. The wheels. At one point, Ollie uses his folded-up bow to ride down a line, riding on the bow's wheels which he's placed on the cable. Problem: One of the "wheels" is not a wheel at all. It's an elliptical cam, and it only turns about 3/4 of a revolution.

On the positive side, the taser arrow and the gas arrow were both pretty cool and pretty plausible. And the guy doing the shooting seems to actually know something, at least as far as compound shooting with a mechanical release is concerned. I didn't get a good look at his form with a recurve when he shot the pull-tab off the soda can last week, but what I saw looked reasonably decent.

On the other hand, the writing was atrocious.

I'm a graphic designer by trade. I've spent 40 hours a week for the last 16 years staring into a monitor. I breathe Photoshop. Exactly what software is Chloe using that can enhance and refine images the way she does in the last episode? She works at the Daily Planet, not NASA.

I'm in today's newspaper

2006-10-19T11:43:00.000-04:00

First off, let me apologize for having neglected this blog as of late. I've had a shortage of time due to the election, and also a shortage of material. Things should be back to normal in a couple of weeks.

Or there's the small possibility that they could be very different. Today my campaign got its first widespread press attention, which I thought I'd share here:

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 3 vie for McKinney's former Congress seat

(Registration is required.)

As the article mentions, I've had the opportunity to be part of two candidate debates thus far, and I have my next one tonight. I'm not sure how many votes I'm winning over, but the reception has been rather positive.

Stone Mountain

2006-09-26T16:33:00.000-04:00

Monday night on Vanished, the greatest new show of the season, the action drew even closer to home. Near the end of the episode, the agents in the Atlanta-based show discovered a lead that sent them to Stone Mountain. I was enthused.

Stone Mountain is the Atlanta suburb where I was raised, and is named for its chief landmark. Which is, as the name would suggest, a giant granite outcropping. Imagine a smaller, grayer version of Ayers Rock, located in the Deep South, with the images of three Confederate leaders carved into the side.

My enthusiasm soon turned to annoyance, though, once the characters actually arrived on the scene. An FBI snuck up on a cabin and entered, only to discover that their quarry had already left.

Something tells me that no one on the show checked to see what Stone Mountain actually is, beyond the name. Because Stone Mountain isn't an inhabited mountain; it's the centerpiece of a state park in metro Atlanta. Nobody lives there. There aren't any cabins to hide in, and even if there are some hiding up there, you couldn't utilize them (e.g., drive up the mountain) without tipping off the park rangers.

On the whole, this series may have taken its share of small liberties with the Atlanta area, but it definitely captures the city a lot better than The Walking Dead did.

Wonder Woman: Double Jeopardy?

2006-09-21T13:59:00.000-04:00

The new DC Solicitations for December includes this listing:

MANHUNTER #26
Jump aboard for a new era of MANHUNTER with the start of the 5-part story "Unleashed," guest-starring Wonder Woman! Manhunter Kate Spencer takes on her biggest case yet with Wonder Woman as the client, but the stakes are higher than anyone knows! Is the Amazon princess guilty of murdering Max Lord?

This is a surprise, since DC already had a trial of Wonder Woman for Lord's murder in her own title last year. I even critiqued it. Granted, that last trial never actually had a resolution that I can recall, and there's no double jeopardy prohibition against Diana being tried by a U.S. court after standing trial before an international court. But it still feels like going to the same well twice.

I said before that only two countries would have jurisdiction over the killing of Maxwell Lord: Switzerland and Themyscira. It didn't cross my mind at the time, but the United States would likely be able to claim jurisdiction over the event as well. The "passive personality" principle allows countries to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed against that country's nationals when they are abroad. Since Max Lord was (presumably) a U.S. citizen, the United States could prosecute Wonder Woman for killing him.

I'm not sure why the U.S. would be terribly interested in doing so, given Max's villainous conduct at the time of his death. And as I shared before, I firmly believe that Wonder Woman acted in self-defense, as well as in the defense of others.

In any case, I'm looking forward to December, and I'm glad that Manhunter got an extension on life.

Loren Collins for Congress

2006-09-14T08:28:00.000-04:00

*Pulls out the soapbox*

I've mentioned it before, and you've probably noticed the links on the left sidebar of this page, but I am running for Congress. No joke, the real, honest-to-goodness United States House of Representatives.

I've got the campaign website, campaign blog, an initial and ultra-cheap campaign ad, and I'm listed on Wikipedia. And we all know Wikipedia doesn't lie.

Granted, I'm only a write-in candidate in this election, but that's an unfortunate consequence of both election law and pragmatism. Running for a major party nomination would have been an exercise in futility with either party, and Georgia has remarkably restrictive ballot access laws for other candidates. Plus, there was the difference between the $4863 filing fee to be on the ballot, versus the $10 charge to be a write-in.

I realize that I'm lucky if there are a handful of Georgia Fourth District constituents among this blog's readership, but it is still a fantastic means of outreach. And write-ins (especially write-ins on limited budgets) benefit greatly from word of mouth.

So aside from petty matters like where I stand on the issues, and the fact that most of you can't actually vote for me, what reason is there to support me? What sets me apart?

Whether you agree with me or not on a particular issue, I'd like to think that my posts on this blog illustrate my dedication to research, accuracy, and informed and persuasive argument. So even if we come down on opposite sides of an issue, you can at least trust that I got there honestly.

People love the idea of grassroots campaigns, and campaigns don't get more grassroots than this one. Tired of Democratic and Republican shenanigans, Jim MacQuarrie and I are working together on launching the Bull Moose Party. I have no special interest connections, a miniscule campaigning budget by national standards, and a personal history so clean that you'd think I retcon-punched away all the bad stuff.

I am a young and spry 28 years old. The average age of US House members is 55, possibly the oldest in US history. When some of the big issues of the day are Social Security, Medicare, and deficit spending, Congress needs younger voices taking part. Our generation has a direct interest in the consequences of federal decisions in these areas, because we will live out those consequences firsthand. For the average member of Congress, Social Security is something they're about to collect on; for me and my generation, it's something we're preparing to spend the next four decades funding.

With all the recent talk of the power of bloggers, I'm a blogger who's actually making a stab at running for office myself. And unlike many candidates who attempt campaign blogs, I actually write my own posts.

I imagine I'm the first comic blogger to run for Congress. In fact, there aren't many public officials who are known to be comic fans. Clarence Thomas is one, being a big fan of such books as Icon and the original Rawhide Kid. I've met Clarence Thomas, and do you know what we talked about? Comic books.

And I can virtually guarantee that I will be the only Congressional candidate in the entire country to tackle the most pressing fictional political issue of our day: the Super Human Registration Act.

Now it's around Labor Day when election season typically kicks into high gear, and it's no different for me. That's why I'm sharing this here, on a blog that gets considerably more traffic than my campaign one right now. If you'd be willing to lend some support, I'd greatly appreciate it. More on that later, but for now, I'll leave you with this:

Conflict of Interest

2006-09-11T10:13:00.000-04:00

I don't know if one of my co-bloggers has mentioned it, but Jennifer Walters has a major conflict of Interest in representing Robbie Baldwin (Speedball). Baldwin has been charged with, among other things, violating the Super Human Registration Act by not registering. (Not that he could, being unconscious and all.) Any competent lawyer, as part of his defense, would attack the Act as unconstitutional. But Jen has not only supported the Act, but is assisting in enforcing it! That would seem to me to be prevent her from defending Baldwin or anyone else who is alleged not to have complied with the Act. There must be lawyers other than Walters who can defend him. Well, maybe not in the Marvel Universe. BTW, Jen has been representing Baldwin in issues of Frontline. She has been enforcing the Act in issues of her own book.

"We've Reached the Top"

2006-09-11T08:28:00.000-04:00

Last night I watched the 9/11 documentary on CBS, which focused on the firefighters of Ladder 1. There's nothing I can say that can add to the heroism and sacrifice of the men depicted in the film. The footage and the interviews speak for themselves.

In its final minutes, the documentary simply showed the photographs of all 343 NY firemen killed in the attack of 9/11. And that reminded me of the 9/11 editorial cartoon that touched me the most, coming from the pen of the AJC's Mike Luckovich:

Cross-posted at Loren Collins for Congress

Family Matters

2006-09-09T12:09:00.000-04:00

After Booster Gold's funeral in 52 #18, Skeets notices a young man named Daniel Carter, and determines that he is an ancestor of Booster's. Stephen Wacker says of the encounter, "Discovering Booster’s ancestor is legitimately a surprise to [Skeets] and hopefully the plans for him work out next week."

Michael Jon Carter, aka Booster Gold, is from the 25th century. That is, conservatively speaking, at least twelve generations removed from today. Booster should have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 ancestors living today, of various ages. It is likely that number could be upwards of 50,000.

So the real coincidence here isn't in locating an ancestor of Booster's, it is in stumbling across Booster's (presumably) direct paternal ancestor. A Carter. Of which there are probably, at most, three: Daniel Carter, his dad, and his granddad.

If we assume that Daniel is twelve generations removed from Booster, then there should be 2047 other male ancestors of the same generation. Skeets just happened to find the one who contributed his surname and his Y chromosome. That's the real coincidence; not finding one of tens of thousands of direct ancestors.

This character device of the direct male ancestor has been seen in comics any number of times before, but the use that perhaps irritated me the most was in one of my favorite comics, Starman. During the "DC One Million" crossover, we were introduced to Jack Knight's descendent from the 853rd century, Farris Knight. 85,000 years removed, well upwards of 2000 generations, and it's still a direct male descendant who's carrying on the family business.

She-Hulk #8: DestroyAllWarriors.com, Part 2

2006-09-06T17:30:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #8
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Paul Smith

The Issue:

At the heart of the controversy in She-Hulk #8 is a website called DestroyAllWarriors.com:

As Justice says, the person behind the site has been 'outing' members of the New Warriors, exposing their real names and addresses one at a time. The site also includes pictures of members, indicating who is alive and who is dead:

(I find myself wondering when the Warriors all posed for face-front headshots.)

Apparently, those whose names and addresses were given out subsequently suffered violent attacks. Hindsight Lad had a message burned into his lawn, Debrii's car was torched, and Timeslip was attacked by a mob.

So Rage and Justice come to She-Hulk for legal assistance in having the website shut down. (And they appear to be suffering from a serious case of the stupids, as they come in costume, which leads to them getting harrassed every time they show their faces in public.)

The Background:

Slott's inspiration for this plot element is undoubtedly The Nuremberg Files, an anti-abortion website that, during the 1990s, posted the names and home addresses of abortion doctors, as well as other personal information (such as the names of family members).

Perhaps the website's most infamous and memorable features were its 'Wanted'-style posters of certain abortion doctors, and its list of names with the names of killed doctors struck out, and the names of injured doctors colored grey.

Planned Parenthood sued in federal court in Oregon, and won a $107 million judgment against the defendants, because the jury determined that the website's content constituted true threats. An injunction was issued, forcing the removal of the website's 'Wanted'-style posters. The defendants appealed, and a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict (in a decision written by Judge Kozinski, who is a favorite of mine). Planned Parenthood appealed that, and the full Ninth Circuit Court reversed again in a 6-5 split decision, reinstating the verdict but reducing the award to $500,000 (completely throwing out the $106+ million in punitive damages). The Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal.

(If you're interested in reading either of the above-linked cases, a word of warning. The first one is fairly short and readable, and includes a good description of the offending posters, but the latter is rather lengthy.)

The Law:

What we have here is a prime question of free speech and First Amendment protection. The Nuremberg Files case involved state and federal laws that prohibit threatening statements, and we'll assume that similar laws apply here.

For the record, in rereading the issue since my last post, it's actually not entirely clear from the courtroom scenes that She-Hulk is attacking the website on the grounds that it is making illegal threats. Given the odd testimony and questioning, it almost appears as though Jen's strategy is to claim that the website shouldn't be allowed to reveal secret identities. It would certainly help to explain why Iron Man shows up to talk about secret identities, yet nobody makes a peep about threats.

Maybe Jen was relying on the "secret identity shield laws" referenced in She-Hulk (Vol. 1) #2; but such laws would have to do with courtroom conduct, not real-world reporting. Conceivably, if secret identities were deemed to be classified information (a la Valerie Plame), then 'outing' a superhero could be outlawed, but that doesn't comport with the ongoing Superhuman Registration Act controversy. And judging from Bendis' "Out" storyline in Daredevil, it's safe to say that the New York of the Marvel Universe doesn't have any laws prohibiting the reporting of secret identities.

So regardless of She-Hulk's tactics, the best way of attacking the DestroyAllWarriors.com website would be to allege that it is engaging in illegal "true threats."

Here we hit an unfortunately snag in our analysis, as we're not exposed to very much of the website's content. We know only the following:

1) It is called DestroyAllWarriors.com
2) It has posted the secret identities and home addresses of New Warriors.
3) It has posted news footage about attacks on 'outed' New Warriors.
4) It features the photo 'deadpool' seen above.

Given that Hindsight Lad subsequently states that he didn't intend for anyone to get hurt, I'd like to assume that he didn't put any explicit threats or calls for violence on his website. (The Nuremberg Files didn't have any direct threats either.) However, calling the website "DestroyAllWarriors" has a distinctly threatening tone that doesn't comport with Hindsight's proffered motivation.

Admittedly, as I stated in the comment section of my last post, I can't make heads or tails of Hindsight's motivation. He apparently posted his own name and address, got attacked, and continued posting his friends' names and addresses. He seems to suggest that his hope was to scare the Warriors into giving up their costumed identities...but given that he'd just exposed their real ones, I'm not sure how he expected them to avoid further retaliation.

The core question is not whether the target was frightened, or whether the defendant wanted his target to be frightened. It is whether "a reasonable person making the statement would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom it is communicated as a serious expression of an intent to bodily harm or assault."

If we treated the 9th Circuit majority opinion as absolute binding law, that would tend to support the argument that DestroyAllWarriors.com contains illegal "true threats." That court's decision relied largely on the posters and stricken names that have functional equivalents on this website. Well, sort of. From what we're shown, the only parallel to the 'stricken names' is that Speedball, Microbe, Namorita, and Night Thrasher are labelled as "Dead." All four of them were killed (or believed killed) in Stamford, prior to the creation of Hindsight's website, and definitely not as a result of the website's content. Debrii, despite being the victim of arson, is merely listed as "Alive." On the other hand, specifically identifying individuals as "Alive"

(There's also a minor issue here of standing, because Rage and Justice are the ones challenging the website, but we don't see their photos or any other information about them on the website. For the sake of argument though, we'll just assume that it's there, and simply not shown on-panel.)

Furthermore, even if there's not a direct association between the website's creator and the violent actors, we still have instances of violence that followed certain information being posted. Plus, there is the call to violence in the website's own title and URL. All of this could support a reasonable belief on the part of the New Warriors that the website is expressing a serious intention to cause them harm.

But the decision's realiability is less than absolute. The court did not say that the posters on the Nuremberg files were true threats; the court said that that was a question for a jury to decide. Another jury might not make the same decision about DestroyAllWarriors.com, and it certainly wouldn't be obligated to do so.

The 9th Circuit decision was also, as I said earlier, a 6-5 split decision. The same court could review the DestroyAllWarriors.com case, and if only a single majority judge found sufficient reason to switch sides, then the court would have declared that the website was Constitutionally protected. We're dealing with an area of the law that has a lot of disagreement among judges themselves.

Plus, while it may be the most on-point case, the Nuremberg Files decision is not binding law in a New York court. Its judges may have decided the Nuremberg case differently, and may say that DestroyAllWarriors.com is protected speech.

By contrast, in his dissent, Judge Kozinski says "A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls." Under Kozinski's application of the law, the names and addresses and photos and news footage of the Warriors would all be protected speech, because none of the violence is actually flowing from Hindsight himself. You don't punish the speaker (especially in a financial way) for the offenses of other people the speaker doesn't control. Only the 'DestroyAllWarriors.com' title would be problematic, as it might be a "true threat" by Hindsight, depending on the context of the rest of the site. A court following Kozinski might issue an injunction against the title and URL, but would probably allow the rest of the site to remain online. And that wouldn't be much of a win for She-Hulk, because it's not the website's name that her clients are concerned about.

Now She-Hulk's chances of winning a temporary injunction, and shutting the website down pending a later hearing, are a little better given the contentious nature of this claim. But that's not where the meat of this controversy is; Rage and Justice aren't interested in merely delaying the website's revelations, they want the site shut down permanently.

So in the end, all of this means that the answer to the question "Is DestroyAllWarriors.com a legal website?" is a big and longwinded "It depends." A court that follows the 9th Circuit majority might be inclined to allow a jury to shut the site down. A court following Kozinski (who I, personally, favor) would leave it be.

That's my take. Any thoughts? Opinions? Rebuttals?

She-Hulk #8: DestroyAllWarriors.com

2006-08-31T22:31:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #8

Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Paul Smith

*SPOILERS* follow

Synopsis: In the midst of the controversy over superhero registration, former New Warriors Justice and Rage come to Jen Walters for legal help.

It seems that following the tragedy in Stamford, a hate site called DestroyAllWarriors.com has been 'outing' members of the New Warriors team. Their real names and addresses are posted and shared with the world, and several members found themselves on the receiving end of violent attacks.

So She-Hulk takes the matter to court, suing to have the website shut down. Several witnesses are heard, including the website's financial backers and Iron Man. After the second day of court, Iron Man gives She-Hulk the name and address of the person behind the website: Carlton LaFroyge, a.k.a. former New Warrior Hindsight Lad.

Analysis: To prevent this from being an unreasonably long post, I decided to split my review over two posts. This first post is going to be a look at the realism of the events as they're presented in the issue, and the second post is going to take a closer consideration of the legality of the DestroyAllWarriors.com website.

I'll admit upfront that I'm not terribly familiar with the New Warriors, though I don't think that much affects my reading. I will say that Hindsight Lad has the dumbest hero name I've heard outside of the Legion of Substitute Heroes, and Rage has the most ridiculous superhero costume I've ever seen, period. The guy walks around shirtless with a painted-on kitty face. Despite having a name like "Rage," he looks about as intimidating as a clown.

The legal case is identified as New Warriors v. eScape Enterprises. Apparently, not unlike the Fantastic Four, the New Warriors are an incorporated entity. And presumably, either Rage or Justice is a corporate officer, capable of bringing the suit. The case appears to get before a judge within a day or two, but fortunately, we never see a jury.

That's a good thing, too, because what we're being shown is not a jury trial (regardless of whether Slott intended it to be one). Given the nature of the complaint, and the timing of the action, what we're seeing is (or should be) a hearing for a temporary injunction. It naturally takes time for a case to reach trial, but circumstances might allow for the court to force the website to be taken down, pending a future verdict and determination as to whether a permanent injunction should be imposed.

Witnesses may be heard at the temporary injunction hearing, but probably not the witnesses we see in this issue. (Witnesses which include, oddly enough, Haley Joel Osment.) In this type of lawsuit, the question posed is whether the website is protected speech under the First Amendment, or whether it consists of unprotected threats. (More on that distinction in my next post.)

The first three witnesses are the financial backers of DestroyAllWarriors.com. (One wonders how expensive this website must be, to require multiple financial backers.) After they're cross-examined, She-Hulk tells her clients "I'm not gonna redirect. My earlier questions established that they're funding the site." That might be relevant at trial, especially if the plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation, but it's pretty irrelevant at an injunction hearing. If the website's full of potentially illegal threats, it doesn't matter who's funding them at this stage.

The defense attorney justifies his cross-examination of the three on the subject of Stamford by saying they are "more than just the website's financial backers...They're Stamford survivors. And that goes to their motives and the heart of this case." To the extent that motives matter in determining whether a threat has been made, the attorney is right.

But why he would want them to say how much the Warriors have ruined their lives is beyond me. Their testimony doesn't do much of anything to help his side, and arguably hurts it. He's supposed to be downplaying the threatening nature of the website, not drawing attention to how much the website's sponsors hate the New Warriors.

The other witness is Iron Man (prior to his public unmasking). He only gets quizzed on the Registration Act, making his testimony even more irrelevant. He has no connection to the website's authors or its targets, and he cannot add anything to the discussion of whether the site is a threat or not. Unless I'm missing something, the judge should never have allowed him on the stand.

Meanwhile, the natural witnesses for such a hearing are strangely absent. Debrii and Timeslip are the most explicit victims of the supposed threats, so they ought be there to testify. Hindsight Lad too, either in his capacity as a victim or as a defendant. Since it is Iron Man who eventually tells She-Hulk that 'eScape Enterprises' is a dummy corporation, one wonders how the court intended to shut the website down, when it didn't know who was responsible for operating it.

And on a final note, Rage should really have been held in contempt of court for this. (Plus, it shows how silly his costume looks.)

Next time: DestroyAllWarriors.com...Free Speech or Illegal Threats?

Completing the Archery Trifecta

2006-08-27T10:26:00.000-04:00

Here is the highest-profile comic book archer in a long time, Green Arrow as he appears on the new USPS DC Super Heroes stamps

It's a pity DC couldn't have picked a better image of Ollie. It's like a visual checklist of all the common mistakes MacQ's noted (with the exception of Ollie pulling the string with just two fingers).

Almost Archery!

2006-08-24T15:06:00.002-04:00

Earth's Mightiest Heroes 2

Wow, the Earth's Mightiest Heroes 2 cover almost looks like archery! He's got the arrow on the right side of the bow, he's actually using his back muscles instead of his forearm, and he's almost got an anchor point. The arrow is nocked backwards, but I've seen worse shooting than this at the range.

Now, can we please see about maybe learning what a bow looks like? The arrow goes on a rest or shelf, not on the knuckles.

*sigh*

The New Justice League roster

2006-08-21T17:20:00.001-04:00

So when did Arsenal become left-handed? And why is he going to shoot Green Lantern in the head?

That's all. Carry on.

Daredevil: Matt Murdock, Felon

2006-08-18T08:30:00.000-04:00

Daredevil: The Director's Cut

**SPOILERS**

There was at least one other scene of legal note in Daredevil, and it's one that has absolutely nothing to do with the Theatrical Cut. During Dante Jackson's trial, the prosecution questions Officer McKensie, who found Jackson with the murder weapon. Matt listens to the man's heartbeat, and determines he's telling the truth. (Matt apparently prides himself quite highly on being a human lie detector, believing it's impossible the guy could be lying.)

Later in the movie, Matt confronts Officer McKensie outside a strip club. And he does it not as Daredevil, but as Matt Murdock. Who McKensie immediately recognizes from the courtroom.

And what does Matt do to McKensie? He pushes him a bit, then handcuffs him to the inside of his car. Matt then gets behind the wheel and, while pressing McKensie for information, intentionally drives the vehicle into a taxi and a dumpster in the lot. The final impact throws McKensie's head into the dashboard, bruising him and knocking him out. Matt jumps out of the car, leaving him unconscious, and handcuffed, in the car.

Now assuming the officer doesn't have a soft spot for Matt, there's little reason why he wouldn't press charges against Matt for this. After all, there's a pretty strong likelihood Matt reported his corruption. So what crimes has Matt committed here?

- Assault.
- Assaulting a police officer.
- False imprisonment.
- 3 counts of criminal damage to property (for McKensie's car, the taxi and the dumpster).
- Battery.
- and possibly Carjacking.

Thank goodness he didn't drive out of the parking lot, or else we could add 'Kidnapping' to the list. And he did all of this as Matt Murdock. Completely plainclothes, and with a victim who knew him.

Matt's staring down the barrel of about five felonies there, with a victim who probably has little to lose by making the accusations. Surely the taxi driver, at least, would want some recompense.

And beyond the criminal charges, as well as the potential civil suits, the New York Bar Association probably doesn't look kindly upon its lawyers assaulting police officers (even corrupt ones) in their spare time.

It's this sort of thing that gives "Civil War" its premise. Matt's actions here could fairly easily be grafted onto Daredevil or some other vigilante ero, and they would could then seem more palatable. But here he does it all without the benefit of a costume or a masked identity, and it ends up looking rather felonious. Yet Matt apparently gets off scot-free (just like he did for putting Quesada on the train tracks). This is what Captain America is fighting for?

Buy Absolute New Frontier!

2006-08-16T10:32:00.000-04:00

And now for a commercial interruption:

I griped long and loud about DC's stubborn refusal to release an Absolute Edition of Darwyn Cooke's DC: The New Frontier. When the series was first released, I held off on buying it for two reasons: 1) the price, and 2) a high-quality collected edition seemed inevitable. That second motivation came back to bite me in the rear, as DC took a full two years after the final issue shipped to release a single-volume edition of the mini-series. Even after it won the 2005 Eisner Award for Best Limited Series, and the 2005 Harvey Award for Best Continuing or Limited Series.

However, the wait is nearly over, as the Absolute New Frontier is now due for release on October 4, just under two months from now. I've already ordered mine, my first Absolute Edition, and having pled so long for its release, I feel obliged to plug it.

The book's biggest disincentive for the consumer is the same as with any Absolute Edition: the price. It carries a cover price of $75.00. That may seem steep at first, but remember what benefits the internet affords us.

Amazon.com has Absolute New Frontier for $47.25. Granted, it's not the $13 bargain so many of us tried to take advantage of a while back, but it's still a sizable savings over $75. With no shipping, and no sales tax. That's about the same expense as buying the first 19 issues of 52, and you get more pages.

And if that still seems unduly expensive, recall the cost of the original mini-series. Six 64-page issues, at $6.95 apiece. Merely buying the monthly issues was a $42 expense by itself. Now, for a few dollars more, you get an oversized hardcover collection, with nearly 80 pages of bonus material (including a dozen new story pages).

If that's not enough, read this interview with Darwyn Cooke from last week. Maybe that'll change your mind.

OT: "Legally Blonde"

2006-08-12T16:48:00.000-04:00

While looking over old posts from my defunct personal blog, I came across a brief legal look I took at the film Legally Blonde. It's nothing even remotely technical, but rather some broad errors that threw me out of the film. And since I've been talking about the law in a particular movie as of late, I thought I'd share this as something extra.

---

Since I just finished law school, it seemed like as good a time as any to watch the GenX version of "The Paper Chase," "Legally Blonde." I'd heard mostly good things about it over the past couple of years, but it mostly disappointed.

I could complain about the smaller leaps of logic in the film (e.g. first-year students assisting on a major murder defense), but I'll let those fly. Although I thought Elle's boyfriend was a jerk from the moment he dumped her, I'll let that issue go too. And while the subplot with the manicurist was mostly pointless, it didn't hurt anything.

No, my chief two problems with the film were these. First, Elle's performance on the LSAT. The LSAT is scored on a scale from 120 to 180. When we see her taking a practice test, she gets a 143. That's a pretty middle-of-the-road score. The next scene has her getting her final score, a 179. One point shy of perfect. That was some miraculous studying inbetween those scenes. And yet that score pretty much never gets mentioned again, despite all of the talk of her vapidness. Her fellow law students treat her as if she's inferior, but a score of 179 would be better than 90% of them, even at Harvard.

Second, Elle's performance in the courtroom at the end is, I suppose, to illustrate her unexpected intelligence and grasp of the law. But she hardly said or did anything legal at all. She recognized a hair-care error in the witness's story (I know virtually nothing about hair, and even I saw the problem immediately), and then the witness broke down and gave an on-the-stand confession. Then everyone praises Elle for being a legal genius. If that's all it takes to be a legal icon at Harvard, maybe I should've gone there instead of staying in-state.

The film had its moments, but for legal comedies, I'll stick with "My Cousin Vinny."

Daredevil: The Trial of Dante Jackson

2006-08-08T23:11:00.000-04:00

Daredevil: The Director's Cut

Now for part two of my movie review. The biggest change in the Director's Cut of the movie is the inclusion of an entire subplot about Matt and Foggy defending a murder defendant named Dante Jackson.

It's a very substantial and worthwhile addition for two reasons. First, as Sean Whitmore pointed out in the comments of my earlier post, the Theatrical Cut gave Matt Murdock, Super-Lawyer, just a single, lousy scene in a courtroom. This subplot fixes that. Second, it ties into the main Kingpin plot in a way that addresses a major plot hole from the Theatrical Cut.

**SPOILERS**

Dante (played by Coolio) stands accused of murdering a woman, having been found in an alley, unconscious, with the murder weapon in his hand. Not the makings of a strong defense. But Matt knows that Dante is telling the truth when he says he's innocent.

Several weeks back, I said I was laying off the speedy trial complaint because of the soap demands of the serial medium. That reasoning, however, doesn't apply to movies. So consider how fast Dante gets to trial.

As Matt goes to bed after killing Quesada, he hears the attack on the woman that Dante is accused of committing. The next day (Foggy shares the newspaper story about Quesada's death) they meet Dante, who is accused of the "August 9th murder of Lisa Tazzio." Matt and Foggy clearly waste no time in signing up clients. (And as they explicitly offer to take his case, they're not merely acting as public defenders.)

It's a good thing, too, because while no explicit dates are given, it seems like Dante's trial began the very next day. Not a bond hearing, or an arraignment, but his actual 12-person jury trial. The 'next day' presumption comes from the movie's pacing. Matt's first meeting with Dante takes place concurrently with the Kingpin instructing his men to fly in Bullseye for a hit. And the murder trial begins immediately after a scene with Bullseye on his flight to NYC, and before he does what he's been hired to do.

So if we assume the murder took place on a Saturday night, it would seem that the murder trial began on Monday morning. Maybe Tuesday. It's a good thing Daredevil's justice is blind, or else it would get vertigo from moving so fast.

To be fair, there's one other date subtly dropped in the movie. Matt's invitation to the Natchios' gala is dated July 24. That would put it nearly a year after the "August 9th murder," and that's a perfectly fair pace for a trial. Unfortunately, that's almost certainly an internal continuity mistake, because there's no room in that part of the script for time to jump ten months ahead.

We don't get to see much of Dante's actual trial. It's pretty much limited to Matt's opening statement, a few questions from the prosecution for a police witness, and Foggy's questioning of Dante on the stand. At the least, everything takes place in the right order. And the jury is suitably diverse.

Matt's opening has that high-minded attitude that is sometimes expected of legal speeches, but it's remarkably free of facts specific to the case being tried. Then again, it's not like Matt had much to work with. One can't help but wonder what kind of evidence he expected to put forward. When the defendant was found in such an incriminating position, merely asking the jury to conclude that reasonable doubt exists is a bad trial strategy. Matt needs some kind of exculpatory evidence to present, because asking the jury to believe in a frame-up without presenting a lick of evidence to support the existence of a frame-up isn't going to win an acquittal with most juries.

Nothing really struck me about either witness examination. Criminal defendants are usually discouraged from taking the stand in their defense, but it makes sense for Dante to do so. When there's no other evidence to present in a case this bad, it's worth the gamble to put the defendant on the stand to tell his side of the story, and pray that the jury might just believe him. Foggy asked a couple of incredibly objectionable leading questions, where he was basically feeding answers to Dante.

And while Dante got off in the end, that scene with Foggy was the end of the movie's dealings in the courtroom. From all appearances, Dante was framed, charged with murder, tried, and cleared all within a week or so.

52: Booster Gold Should Go to Jail

2006-08-03T23:41:00.000-04:00

Week 6 of DC's weekly 52 series began with a meeting in a sewer between Booster Gold and an armored man. The man is an actor who Booster hired and provided with a suit of armor, and who then 'attacked' a subway platform as "Manthrax." Booster then swooped in and saved the day, while "Manthrax" escaped. They subsequently meet in the sewer so Booster can give "Manthrax" (he states his name is Bill, although Booster keeps calling him Bob) his check, and Booster tells him to return the armor to the same storage locker he had picked it up at.

On day 7 of Week 7, Booster saves a group of people from a burning tanker truck. While he's being interviewed by Lois Lane, Manthrax emerges from the crowd and asks how much Booster paid for the disaster. He tells the media how Booster paid him to stage the attack, and says he came forward because Booster's check bounced. (Strangely, he also gives his name as 'Bob Castell,' although his name was Bill a week earlier. And he still has the check that he says bounced.)

Booster next appears on day 5 of Week 8, complaining about the Daily Planet's article about Manthrax's allegations and how Supernova is stealing his spotlight. The last I saw of Booster, in Week 10, he was having to move to a smaller apartment as a result of his lost marketing deals.

Booster is apparently outrageously bad with money, since he seemingly went broke within only a month of Supernova's first appearance in Metropolis. And I'm curious how Supernova is eroding Booster's endorsement deals, since Supernova gave his first interview to Clark Kent just a day earlier. (And I'm curious why Booster paid his hired crony with a check rather than good ol' untraceable cash.)

But that's not why I'm writing. I want to know when Booster is going to suffer the legal consequences of his actions back in Week 6. Thus far, all it seems to have wrought him is bad press.

Manthrax tells Lois in Week 7, "I said I knew I could go to jail for my part in this -- but I'll do it to drag that son of a bitch down." We're never given specific detail of what the fake attack entailed, only references to the "villain's struggle to bomb the city's busiest subway platform" and how Booster "disarmed" him. That's pretty much it. At the very least, this suggests that Mr. Castell is guilty of terroristic threats and aggravated assault (since he was armed at some point), both felonies. The bomb might have been fake, but the threats and the assaults were real. Depending on exactly what else happened in that station, there could be other crimes as well.

And that's where Booster's problem lies. He solicited Mr. Castell to commit those felonies, which is a crime. He and Mr. Castell worked together to fake the attack, so they're both guilty of conspiracy. Booster has gotten all worked up over his public image, but he seems to have forgotten that the police could easily be taking out warrants for his arrest. As for why the cops hadn't come knocking by Week 10, maybe they were just building their case. Should I ask if that's changed by now?

At the least, I certainly hope that Manthrax doesn't end up behind bars while Booster gets off scot free. Not only would that be superhero favoritism, but it looks a little bad to lock up the African-American co-conspirator while letting the oh-so-Aryan co-conspirator/instigator walk.

Speaking of 52, I just so happen to be auctioning off my set of 52 #1-10 this week. It's enjoyable stuff, but I'm looking to thin out my collection, and I don't expect I'll have a hankering to reread these issues. If you win the auction, e-mail me that you learned about it here at SoD and I'll throw in something extra.

Daredevil: Quesada's Comeuppance

2006-08-01T22:59:00.000-04:00

Daredevil: The Director's Cut

I bought the Daredevil Director's Cut DVD several months back, and I finally got around to watching it recently. It was a definite improvement over the Theatrical Cut, and I would readily say that it's better than all the Marvel movies that weren't directed by either Sam Raimi or Bryan Singer.

The reason I bought the movie to start with was because one of the added subplots in this version deals with Matt's legal representation of a murder defendant, played by Coolio. And that's not the only law-related aspect of the film, which is fortunate, since the title character is, after all, a lawyer.

Fair warning, I'm going to spoil the heck out of the movie, particularly some of the added material. So if you haven't seen the Director's Cut already, consider yourself warned.

Near the start of the film, we see Matt Murdock in a (suspiciously small) courtroom, questioning a defendant, Jose Quesada, who's on the witness stand. It seems that Mr. Quesada is accused of beating and/or raping the woman that Matt is representing. When Quesada insists that their intimacies were consensual, Matt can tell from his heartbeat that he's lying.

Quesada gets off (more on that in a second). Matt dons his Daredevil costume, and follows Quesada to a bar. Matt ends up fighting a lot of bargoers to get to Quesada, who, in the end, Matt throws onto the subway tracks, where he taunts him before the oncoming subway train cuts him in half.

There's a scene in the Director's Cut where Daredevil tries to console a scared kid, in front of whom Matt's just beaten up a thug, by telling him that he's not the bad guy. Based on his treatment of Mr. Quesada, I think it's fair for the kid to be scared.

It begins with some confusion as to what kind of trial we saw. Was Mr. Quesada a criminal defendant or a civil defendant? Was he on trial for the criminal charge of rape, or was he just being sued by the woman? If it's the former, he's facing serious jail time; if the latter, he'd only owe her money.

Matt is a private attorney, working for the private firm of Nelson & Murdock. He's not a criminal prosecutor, who by nature are government employees, and are the only people who could be prosecuting a criminal rape case. Legally, there's no possibility that what we observed was a criminal trial, despite Quesada's later references to being "acquitted." So by default, it had to be a civil trial.

And that's fine within the context of the trial scene itself. I don't believe that it's all that common for women to sue their rapists, but it's an available route. Plus, the burden of proof is lower. They may not be able to collect much from a lowlife, but at least they could sully his name.

(Incidentally, one funny moment in the trial was when the defense attorney objected to Matt's questioning, and told the court that his client was "a respectable member of the community." Not the best choice of words to describe a guy who was oozing sleeze on the witness stand.)

So if it's a civil trial and Matt loses, all that means is that his client doesn't get any money. He didn't lie his way out of a prison sentence, he lied his way out of owing his victim money. That's it. Apparently, Matt took the loss kinda hard, since he ended up killing the unrepentent Quesada. And that seems like a rather harsh punishment to mete out to a guy who only beat a civil allegation.

Like I said, that little kid was right to be scared.

The best case scenario that I can think of is this: Quesada had already avoided a criminal conviction. Either the prosecutor's office didn't think the evidence was strong enough to pursue rape charges, or it already went to trial and Quesada managed to win. Then Matt comes along to help with a civil trial, and it fails too. Knowing that the guy managed to escape rape allegations twice, Matt takes the law into his own hands.

That's the only way I can make it work. Otherwise, Matt's revenge is driven by nothing more than his failure to win a monetary award and get paid.

History in the Movies

2006-07-30T00:40:00.000-04:00

I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl tonight, in preparation for going to see Dead Man's Chest in the theater. I found myself a little curious about the "Pirates' Code" that the film referenced several times, and did a little online searching to see whether there was any truth to it.

My searching turned me onto the History in the Movies website. It's run by an Illinois history professor, and answers various questions about the historical details of period films.

One answer that makes me feel better is from the movie Ray. In the film, it's said that Georgia banned Ray Charles from playing in the state from 1962 until 1979, at which time the legislature apologized. There are even images of newspaper headlines about the ban. But when the Augusta Chronicle did some research, it turned out that no such ban ever existed. Even the headlines were fabricated. As a Georgian, I'm glad that bit of our state history turned out to be fictional.

Manhunter #21: The Trial of Dr. Psycho

2006-07-26T00:00:00.000-04:00

It's been a long time since I got to review an issue of Manhunter. For a series that stars a lawyer, it's been somewhat light on the legalisms since the Shadow Thief's trial met an early end. This issue shipped back in April, at which time I started but failed to complete this post. Now that the arc has ended, it seems apropos to finish the job.

It's One Year Later, and not only is Kate back in the courtroom, but she's switched teams. That's right, former federal prosecutor Kate Spencer is now a dirty rotten pinko defense attorney. And her client is that pint-sized pervert Dr. Psycho.

It seems that during the events of Infinite Crisis #7, Dr. Psycho got a little perturbed at a group of villains called The Hangmen. So he took control of the minds of 16 nearby civilians, and made them murder the Hangmen in rather graphic fashion. Now, One Year Later, he's on trial for murder. This issue's courtroom scenes focus on Kate's handling of two of the state's witnesses, a woman who was one of Psycho's 16 psychic victims and, as indicated by the cover, Dr. Mid-Nite.

First, maybe I got the wrong impression, but this trial seems to have one of the same flaws that the Shadow Thief's trial did, and that's venue. There is no doubt that the Hangmen's murders took place in Metropolis. Yet Dr. Psycho appears to be on trial in Los Angeles. Why? When Kate was a federal prosecutor, that conceit necessitated that cases she handled ended up in L.A. courtrooms. But defense attorneys can go anywhere.

Admittedly, there may be good reason to move the trial out of Metropolis. The supervillain attack from IC #7 could certainly give rise to some extreme bias on the part of the locals, and if I remember correctly, Psycho himself made a visit to Metropolis in the pages of Action Comics some months earlier. Given those events, it's believable that Dr. Psycho might not be able to get a fair trial in Metropolis.

But moving the trial clear to the other side of the country? That's not necessary, and it creates a burden in moving witnesses and evidence. The only good reason to locate the trial in Los Angeles is that it's convenient for Kate's supporting cast.

Most of the courtroom action in this issue focuses on Kate's cross-examination of two of the prosecution's witnesses. The first is a woman who was among the 16 civilians who were mind-controlled into killing the Hangmen. On direct examination she gives her account of being mentally pushed to murder. When Kate cross-examines her, though, it turns out that the woman has a bit of a history of mental illness and paranoia. By and large, Kate does an OK job of impeaching the witness and making the jury question her credibility.

Unfortunately for Kate, there are still presumably 15 or so other civilians who were similarly mind-controlled (I can't recall if any of the others were killed in the fracas). Sure, Kate managed to impugn the credibility of one victim, but what's her gameplan for the rest? Even if she succeeds in concocting different excuses for them all, the mere presence of a parade of witnesses saying "I was mind-controlled to murder" lends a certain credence to the allegation that some mind-control occurred.

The second witness is Dr. Mid-Nite, who appears, naturally, in full superheroic outfit. Scott evaluated the medical aspects of Mid-Nite's testimony back when the issue shipped, and had some qualms with the medicine as presented. I find myself a little curious why Kate didn't make an issue out of the fact that the doctor is, after all, blind. If I was in her role as the defense attorney, playing every card I had, I'd definitely dwell on how well Mid-Nite can perceive brain scans when he can only see them through light-manipulating goggles. I'm also a little curious how, in the midst of the Metropolis battle, those 16 people had brain scans done within a few hours.

Kate makes the very good point in cross-examination that the DCU is filled with telepathic persons (and monkeys), so residual evidence of mind-control doesn't necessarily point to Dr. Psycho. I expect that mind-control law would have a rather harsh evolution, since it's a crime that leaves little residual evidence (and I do rather like the suggestion here that it leaves some), it's liable to occur with no witnesses, the victim himself might not even observe his 'attacker,' and the inherent nature of the crime means that the victim's perception (as well as that of any witnesses) is naturally suspect and potentially unreliable.

It's that last factor that's most critical. The other factors show up in real-life crimes all the time, but the closest we get to the last one is in cases of stolen or mistaken identity. Here, the mere presence of mind-control means that there's automatically the strong potential for a frame-up. If Dr. Psycho had been more cunning, he wouldn't have made a public display of his attack on the Hangmen. Instead, he'd have hidden himself, controlled his victims from the shadows, and then left them all with the mental impression that a certain gorilla was the one who'd been controlling them. There would even be a couple of witnesses who would come forward and swear they saw Grodd standing there and yelling the whole time. When there's no physical evidence that can point back to the culprit, and any testimonial evidence is deemed unreliable, then you'd almost just have to hope that somebody was videotaping the scene and caught the perp on camera.

Since mind-control breaks so many of our real-world laws of causality, then it might be posited that the law would utilize similar paranormal abilities in response. Perhaps another telepath could tell who had been the offender, or whether memories had been manipulated. The courts would adapt somehow, but how it would be accomplished would be highly speculative.

Superman Returns

2006-07-17T21:02:00.000-04:00

What follows could probably be considered a **SPOILER**, but it's a pretty minor one.

I finally saw Superman Returns earlier tonight. Great film.

Enough about that. So why am I mentioning it here? Because there was a small, but significant, legal blooper tossed out a couple of times in dialogue. I wish I could say that I was the first to write about it, but some quick Googling shows that a handful of scattered posters beat me to the punch. Such is the downside of waiting three weeks to see the movie.

Twice it's said that the reason Lex Luthor is no longer in prison (despite being given a double life sentence) is because of Superman. It's said that when Lex's case was on appeal, the appeals court called Superman to testify, and when he didn't show, the court expressed its displeasure by reversing Lex's convictions.

The error is this: appeals courts don't call witnesses. They review the evidence that was presented in the lower court, and they hear new arguments from attorneys for both sides, but there are no witnesses called to the stand like during jury trials.

So when Lex got his case up for review, the appeals court would go over Superman's testimony from Lex's trial, but they wouldn't call Superman, or anyone else, again.

Now could the other things Lex mentions (e.g., Superman not reading Miranda rights) have been what helped Lex out? Probably not. Superman's not an agent of the state, so the same restrictions don't apply to him. As far as Miranda rights go, those would only really affect the admissibility at trial of any incriminating statements that Lex made after he was taken into custody. And I don't think a court would need a confession from Lex to convict him for the crimes he's committed on the big screen.

Since I also mentioned a non-legal matter back in my Batman Begins review, I'll mention one thing in this movie that stuck out to me. When Lex shows off the maps of his master plan, they appear to illustrate a rising sea level. He even mentions the displacement of water that will happen. So if the sea level is going to rise, killing "billions," then why do the maps show it rising only along the Atlantic coast, while remaining the same along the Pacific? (And if I'm remembering those maps wrong, please say so.)

A Different Kind of Political Panel

2006-06-20T08:17:00.000-04:00

As someone who's running for Congress, I found this entry in Rich Johnson's Lying in the Gutters column rather interesting.

Cartoon advertisement for Jim Webb, Virginia candidate for U.S. Senate

Excerpt from "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" by John Buscema

Notice any similarities? And Rich doesn't comment on it, but that final panel looks familiar too. Not unlike a Kirby pose, such as this one. Can anyone place it?

Personally, I think there's great potential in comic-format political advertising. But 'borrowing' panels for official publications isn't a good way to explore a new medium.

And this isn't the only controversy to come out of this flier. Webb was also accused of anti-semitism, although I think he's innocent of that charge.

Webb won last week's Democratic primary.

Apology and retraction

2006-06-16T01:55:00.002-04:00

I know this sort of thing seldom happens in the blogosphere, but that's why I publish under my real name. I have to take the hit when I'm full of it.

I was full of it recently when I complained about the regional dialects in "American Way." According to people who read this thing and actually live in the areas involved, the slang used in the story is accurate if a bit obscure.

Apologies to John Ridley.

Equal Protection for Mutants

2006-06-13T22:34:00.000-04:00

Law student Ivan Ludmer of the blog Joint Strike Weasel posted this interesting analysis last week:

Equal Protection for Mutants--A Confluence of Unfortunate Events

Looking at the movies (not the comics), Ivan evaluates what the implications of the 14th Amendment guarantee of Equal Protection would have on the Mutant Registration Act and mandated mutant cures. I haven't seen X3 yet, but I largely agree with his conclusions.

For a similar analysis, check out Bob Ingersoll's "Law Is A Ass" column on this exact topic (at least, the Mutant Registration Act half) from back in 1988. He covers some extra ground that Ivan didn't, and while his reasoning is similar, he ends up with a different final conclusion. The reason being that Ivan was talking about the MRA of the cinema, and Bob of the MRA of the printed page. Despite requiring pretty much the same thing of mutants, the latter has a flaw that would probably be fatal to its constitutionality. Can you guess what it might be without first reading Bob's column?

American Way #4: regional dialects?

2006-06-05T03:10:00.001-04:00

I've been enjoying the Wildstorm miniseries "The American Way" despite occasional lapses in its portrayal of US history and culture. With the latest issue, it became painfully obvious that the writer is not an american.

We get as far as page two before the point is hammered home by Attorney General Robert Kennedy declaring "this is one hell of a cock-up, letting the world know this New American is a negro." (The story takes place during the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s; "The New American" is a faux-superhero, part of a team created by the government as part of a national morale-building effort during the Cold War.)

I don't know anything at all about John Ridley, the writer of this series, but after reading this issue, I'll bet good money that he's british, based solely on his use (and misuse) of slang. Habitually, he has characters use words and phrases that I have only heard used by people from Great Britain, such as the aforementioned "cock-up".

Other examples:
On page 5, Lucky refers to "our east-coast minders." An american would have called them his "handlers."

On the same page, Southern Cross says "Bad enough you shine us into thinking...." I've searched a few online slang dictionaries, as well as Dictionary.com, but I can't find any definition of "shine" that fits the context in which it's used here. If this is in fact a southern US term, I've never heard it before. I welcome a correction or clarification.

On page 7, Freya says "The path to bettering Pharos doesn't travel through me." In this case, the term "bettering is used to mean "getting the better of." In american usage, "bettering" would mean "to improve." Granted, Freya is allegedly a Norse goddess, but it's clear she learned to speak english in Europe.

Aside from the misuse of slang, there is the matter of sentence structure and rhythm. Every character in the book speaks like a brit, even the ones with allegedly southern accents.

I found the dialect errors in this issue jarring enough to mar my enjoyment of the story. Fortunately there was a really brutal and violent conclusion to the comic which effectively engaged my lowbrow american sensibilities and allowed me to forget about the language thing. Here's hoping the next issue does a better job of making the characters sound like they actually live in the country they are portrayed as being from.

As Henry Higgins said, "why can't the English speak english?"

She-Hulk #5 (Year 2)

2006-05-31T22:06:00.000-04:00

This is Sandy Hausler, a new addition to this blog. Loren asked me to start with my thoughts on She-Hulk #5. First off, I should say that I am a big fan of this rendition of She-Hulk. I love the idea of lawyers practicing superhero law. (I'm also a big fan of Batton Lash's Supernatural Law, a comic about lawyers representing monsters -- If you've never seen it. check it out.) But I'm also a lawyer, so it bugs me when Dan Slott makes mistakes in the law, which he could have avoided with a little research. (I don't think Dan is too pleasedwith me. We've had an ongoing discussion of these errors at the Comic Book Resources website.)

Now to She-Hulk #5. Shulkie has just finished an adventure concerning the Time
Variance Authority (I'm not going to talk about that. It's off topic. But I'm sure the first four issues in the series are easily found.) The TVA has asked Jennifer to take a former Avenger back with her -- The Two Gun Kid. All right. I'm in heaven. Two Gun is a great favorite of mine, and the chance to see him on a regular basis is a fanboy's dream come true. And let's not forget. Mat is a lawyer, and he's soon finding a place at Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway. But not as a lawyer. And he may never practice law again. He's a bit behind on the law.

I'm intrigued by the possible relationship between the Kid and Mallory Book. We'll see how that develops.

And the law . . . Well, Reed Richards can control the harvesting of unstable molecules if he has a patent. But does he? That would mean revealing the secret of their creation by filing the application. And after a period of years, anybody could do it with impunity. Reed cannot get an injunction without a patent. And since the Court denied the injunction, it appears the action was not based on a patent, which makes me wonder why Shulky's firm even took the case. It's a dead loser. And, wasn't there a story in FF recently where Johnny granted a license to unstable molecules, indicating that the process is patented? Well, don't expect to find out by learning this issue. But since Reed loses, I guess Dan got it right (as long as there is no patent).

I really liked this issue. Hope you did.

I expect to be chiming in more regularly, so I'll see you all soon.

She-Hulk #4: Web of Lies

2006-05-27T17:41:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #4
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Juan Bobillo

Synopsis: Pug and Jen convince Spider-Man to sue J. Jonah Jameson (and the Daily Bugle) for libel. At trial, they call John Jameson, Betty Brant, Robbie Robertson, and more as witnesses to testify to Jonah’s history of printing lies about Spider-Man in the Bugle. After a brief interruption by the Scorpion, Pug calls Peter Parker to the stand, and after a few questions, announces that he’s adding Parker as a defendant in the case. The next morning, Spider-Man tells Pug and Jen that he wants to settle, and instead of asking for money, he merely asks that Jonah and Peter have to hand out apologies in public, while dressed in chicken suits.

Analysis: It’s an question Spider-fans have postulated for years. With all the horrible things that J. Jonah Jameson has printed about Spider-Man in the Bugle, would Spider-Man have a valid libel claim?

Now, anyone who’s seen the first Spider-Man movie remembers that slander is spoken; in print, it’s libel. The allegation of libel involves the charge that the defendant has been printing harmful lies about the plaintiff. We certainly have that here, given all the incidents over the years where Jonah has implicated Spider-Man as a criminal, as cited in the story.

The story also has Pug point out the second-most important aspect of a libel case such as this. As the trial starts, Pug says “They’re gonna keep pushing how, by wearing the tights, he’s making himself a public figure…but that don’t give ‘em the right to print flat-out lies…”

The law has two different standards for libel. One is for ordinary, private individuals like most of us. Merely printing injurious false statements about a private person can be enough to substantiate a libel claim.

But there’s a higher standard for public figures, those persons “involved in issues in which the public has a justified and important interest.” Public figures are naturally more newsworthy, and when one is the subject of media attention, it’s possible for false statements to accidentally slip past the editors. And when mistakes happen, public figures are more capable of countering such false statements than us normal folk.

So when it comes to libel and public figures, the courts require that the defendant have demonstrated some actual malice in printing the false material. Making a mistake isn’t enough; the defendant generally must have had good reason to know that what they were printing was a lie, and went ahead with it anyway just to hurt the plaintiff.

The comic doesn’t dwell on the issue, but I think it’s fair to declare that Spider-Man is a public figure. He is definitely someone in whom “the public has a justified and important interest.” So Pug and Jen have to show that Jonah printed all those anti-Spider-Man stories maliciously.

And frankly, based on Jonah’s history, I don’t think that would be much of a problem for them. The testimony Pug gets from Betty and Robbie and a police officer does a great job of illustrating the kind of intentional malice that Jonah had toward Spider-Man. Betty’s testimony (“He told me he wanted to pin [Dr. Doom’s attack] on Spider-Man.”) is particularly good in this respect.

Unfortunately, Jonah’s defense doesn’t seem as strong as Pug’s prosecution. Jonah’s lawyer seems more concerned with pointing out Spider-Man’s past troubles than in actually rebutting the evidence of malice. Maybe his point was to imply to the jury that Spider-Man’s history justified Jonah’s overt and intentional lies about Spider-Man’s other activities. It doesn’t strike me as a very strong defense, but then again, Jonah did pretty much do exactly what Pug’s accused him of doing, so there’s not a lot to work with.

Naturally, there were various other mistakes in the issue. The biggest one, and the one most harmful to the plot, is when Pug adds Peter as a defendant mid-trial. Can’t be done. It’s as simple as that. Imagine the situation from Peter’s perspective (and we need to do this as the court treats it, where Peter and Spider-Man are not related persons). The plaintiff has already called several witnesses, and Peter’s had no opportunity to cross-examine any of them. He’s had no time to look at evidence, or gather evidence of his own, or even to hire an attorney. There’s been a whole day of trial that he hasn’t even been privy to. He just shows up to testify in a normal court case, and is suddenly informed that the plaintiff wants to put him on trial too, starting immediately. It brings the case to a quick end, but it’s a legally absurd and impossible plot device.

(Not to mention that if Pug had proposed this earlier in the litigation, while it was still possible to add Peter as a defendant, it would be Spider-Man’s call, not Pug’s, as to whether Peter should be added. If Spider-Man said ‘no,’ Pug would have to oblige.)

The trial also flip-flops on who’s presenting their case. Pug calls several witnesses, then Jonah’s lawyer calls Jonah, then Pug calls Peter. I suppose Pug could be calling Peter as a rebuttal witness, but I can’t imagine why. And because this is a civil suit, Pug would’ve called Jonah as a witness himself, and wouldn’t have waited for the defense to do so.

Maybe the law is different in New York, but here in Georgia, we don’t normally use process servers to deliver subpoenas to witnesses. It’s possible if the witness is stubborn and refuses to cooperate, but that’s not the case with John Jameson or Peter Parker, so their subpoenas should have just been mailed to their homes.

And it’s petty, but it seems that Jonah got special permission to smoke in a New York City courtroom.

Finally, Jonah makes an excellent point when Spider-Man is called to the stand: how can the court know that the masked guy on the witness stand is actually the authentic Spider-Man? Masked superheroes testifying on the stand is a conceit that’s rather hard to justify under real-world law, but Slott concocts a decent enough explanation. Pug uses an Avengers scanner to verify Spider-Man’s identity through a federal database. I’m not sure the method would hold up under scrutiny (especially given Spidey’s history with clones), but I like the conceit so much that I’ll give it a pass. The fact that the Avengers have ties to the federal government lends the method some added credibility that, say, the Superbuddies wouldn’t be entitled to. And it’s a lot better than Jeph Loeb’s method in the “Challengers of the Unknown” mini-series, where Superman verifies his identity by lifting the jury box.

Previous She-Hulk (Vol. 1) Reviews
She-Hulk #1 (Vol. 1)
She-Hulk #2 (Vol. 1)
She-Hulk #2b (Vol. 1)
She-Hulk #3 (Vol. 1)

She-Hulk #3: The Ghost of Bailey Briggs

2006-05-19T00:28:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #3
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Juan Bobillo

Synopsis:
Bailey Briggs is an aeronautics engineer who is murdered at his job. Bailey's boss, Maxwell Newton, is charged with the murder, mostly because every last bit of the physical evidence points to Mr. Newton (i.e. fingerprints, voice recording). In fact, the only exculpatory evidence in Mr. Newton's favor is the testimony of Bailey Briggs.

You see, the ghost of Bailey Briggs has continued to roam the earth, and contacted Dr. Strange (see last issue) for help. Mr. Newton's attorneys have come to She-Hulk's law firm because "the courts won't acknowledge [Briggs'] existence," and thus won't allow his testimony.

At the trial, it's said that Bailey's testimony has been excluded because "He's dead, and as a dead man, he has no rights in a court of law." Jen calls The Thing to the stand, and through his testimony, she manages to convince the court to allow Bailey's testimony because of the possibility he might come back to life at a later date.

Analysis:
CBR poster, and new SoD member, Sandy Hausler has had several exchanges with Dan Slott about the law in She-Hulk issues. Among Dan's assertions is that the presence of the superhuman and supernatural in the Marvel Universe would have had such an impact on the MU's legal history, that it's unfair to judge the law as presented in comics by our legal principles.

My (and Sandy's) response to that argument is for another time, but the reason I bring it up now is because I can't help but think that such a position runs directly contrary to the kind of legal debate we see in this issue.

Our legal issue is simple: can a ghost testify in court? In particular, can the ghost of a murdered man testify at his own murder trial? This comic has it that the MU's answer is "no." That the dead have no rights, and that only living persons (or persons who may live again one day) may testify in court.

Once again, it's an issue real courts don't have to tackle, because it's inherently supernatural. The closest we get to such a restriction is that the rules tend to refer to witnesses as "persons." The courts have never formulated any rule requiring witnesses to be alive, because there's never been any alternative to beg the question.

So where does the Marvel Universe get such a rule? This is a universe where the courts would regularly grapple with non-humans. Let's ignore the obvious extraterrestrials and secondary earth races (e.g. Inhumans, mole men, etc.). Take Vision, the robot. Or Wonder Man, who at one point was essentially a post-human bundle of energy. Or Warlock, the sentient computer. Or Douglock, who (IIRC) was more or less Doug Ramsey's mind "reincarnated" into Warlock's tech body. And does Marvel have an equivalent of Deadman, someone who interacts with others by possessing people?

These are the kind of circumstances that the MU courts would be ironing out from day one. And I can't think of any legal principles that would keep them from testifying in a real-world court. They're competent, they're capable of giving intelligent and informed responses, and they can be cross-examined. There's nothing to distinguish them from a normal human witness aside from what their bodies are made of. And the same can be said of Bailey Briggs.

But none of them fit the standard that seems to be on display in this comic, which seems to suggest that none of those characters would be allowed to testify in an MU court. Either that, or they've developed some weird jurisprudence that allows you to testify if you return from the dead as purple energy or as a reincarnated robot, but not as a simple ghost.

It smacks of discrimination against ghosts, frankly.

So for all the hoopla on the page, I honestly can't imagine this question being a big deal in the Marvel Universe. And even if this was the first time it came up, only allowing him to testify because "he might rejoin the living one day" is just not the best reasoning.

Plus, for the record, I can think of at least one right that a dead man possesses: his right to property. That's why we have estates. If the dead didn't retain a legal interest in the property they left behind, determining inheritances and future ownership would be a lot more difficult.

Finally, the procedural stuff. A few panels before the defense calls Ben Grimm to the stand, the setting is established as "Monday. Ten minutes before the Bailey Briggs murder trial." There's no indication of any significant jump in time, so why is the defense calling witnesses early on the first day of a death penalty trial?

Second, there's an amusing panel where a court officer complains that he's having trouble swearing Briggs in, because Briggs' hand just passes through the Bible. Admittedly, it makes for a cute scene. But unless New York courts are substantially more archaic in this respect than down here in Georgia, witnesses aren't required to place their hand on a Bible anymore. Normally, the witness just raises his right hand.

Third, the final sequence of the comic doesn't add up procedurally. What makes it even odder is that the reasons why it doesn't add up are actually stated in the comic. After Briggs' ghost accuses his ex in the courtroom, the police decide to interrogate her. Jen watches this questioning, and chats with Mallory Book. Mallory points out "The case is closed...Reasonable doubt is in the bag. We've won." Jen suggests that Briggs' allegation doesn't sound right, and that they should investigate his claim.

(Apparently, this means that they didn't bother to find out what their own witness was going to testify to until he said it in court. Sloppy lawyering.)

Mallory says that's not necessary, and Jen replies:

So they go investigate, and afterwards (the captions specify that only hours have passed), we see Mr. Newton say "But I got off! The jury said I was innocent!"

How a death penalty case got all the way to a jury verdict in one day is amazing. Especially when Jen and Mallory cut out to investigate Briggs' claim. Then again, this is a case that had defense witnesses on the first day.

But more importantly, if the jury did manage to return a not guilty verdict, then why was Jen able to worry Mallory that they could still lose the case? If the jury's made its decision and sided with the defendant, then nothing the prosecutor does can undo that.

Next issue: Spider-Man v. J. Jonah Jameson

Taking Sides

2006-05-12T22:32:00.000-04:00

The Eye of Agamotto Commands You To Confess!

2006-05-05T11:20:00.000-04:00

One scene I glossed over from She-Hulk #2 was the Dr. Strange cameo. As it presents a neat little legal question, and had nothing to do with the rest of the issue, I wanted to talk about it separately.

Dr. Strange is seen in a small meeting at the office of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg and Holliway. It seems that one of the firm's clients, Nicholas Wilkes, was arrested for stealing Strange's Wand of Watoomb. The police found the Wand on him when he was arrested, and he confessed to the crime after being read his Miranda rights.

However, the guy's lawyer, Mallory Book, points out that Wilkes was still under the influence of Strange's Eye of Agamotto. Presumably, this means he couldn't help but tell the truth. The cop then learns that Book has gone to the D.A. and gotten the charges dropped.

Involuntary truthfulness isn't something our courts commonly deal with, but it presents an interesting dilemma in supernatural law. How would the courts rectify the Constitutional right to remain silent with the physical inability to lie, and possibly the irresistable compulsion to confess?

First, a little familiar legal background. The Constitution guarantees us, among other things, the right against unreasonable searches and seizues and the right to not be compelled to be a witness against oneself (aka, the right to remain silent). For a long time, American law struggled with what to do when these Constitutional rights were violated when the state was gathering evidence against a person in a criminal matter. Rather than leave it up to civil suits between the individual and the police, the Court created the Exclusionary Rule. If evidence was gathered through an illegal search, or a confession obtained through force, then that evidence was excluded from use at trial. Law & Order invokes the Exclusionary Rule at least once per episode, although its judges are a little more happy to exclude evidence than real-life judges are.

So that's what we have at play here. A confession, obtained by police from a properly Mirandized defendant, and the confessor subsequently claiming that his statement was involuntary due to mystical influence. Was his right to remain silent violated? Does the Exclusionary Rule apply to his confession?

My first thought was to compare it to situations when the police interrogate a suspect who is intoxicated or high, and consequently has his mental defenses lowered. So long as it wasn't the officers who induced the intoxication, such confessions are often admissible.

But that didn't seem satisfactory. The evaluation of drunken confessions turns a lot on whether the confessor intelligently understood the legal consequences of the statements he was making. Moreover, a person who is drunk or high enough to not appreciate their situation is likely noticably drunk or high to the interrogating officer. So when the questioning is taking place, the officer is fully aware that he's more or less taking advantage of the person's condition.

Meanwhile, the circumstances surrounding our Dr. Strange thief are somewhat different. We aren't provided with all of the details, but it doesn't sound like the Eye rendered Mr. Wilkes stupid; merely truthful. And based on Book's comments, it sounds like the detective had no idea whatsoever that Wilkes was under the Eye's influence.

I ended up stumbling across a surprisingly useful Supreme Court case, Colorado v. Connelly. In the case, Francis Connelly approached a police officer one day and confessed to having killed a man. The officer gave Connelly his Miranda warnings, and made sure that he understood what he was saying, but Connelly insisted that he wanted to clear his conscience and confess.

Connelly was eventually diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, and before trial his attorneys motioned to have all of his confessions excluded. The state courts agreed, saying that his confessions with "involuntary" and lacked "free will."

If that's where the story stopped, and where our caselaw stood today, I could say with a fair degree of certainty that Eye of Agamotto-compelled confessions would be similarly suppressed. But the story didn't stop there, as the case was appealed again to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the state's reliance on the presence of "free will" in confessions. Rather, the Court said that for a confession to be "involuntary," there must be police coercion. The Constitution's provisions are there to protect the individual from the state, and the Exclusionary Rule exists to more or less punish the state when it oversteps its authority. When the police didn't push the defendant to confess, and didn't even have reason to know why he was willing to confess, then that doesn't fit the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule.

I think it's the same with the Eye of Agamotto. The police didn't force the guy to tell the truth, and they probably had no idea about the Eye or its influence. Without any misconduct on the part of the police, the Eye-induced confession would probably be admissible. But it would be a whole different story if the police had Dr. Strange cast a truth spell on suspects during interrogation.

Finally, I have a couple of residual comments on the scene. The persons in the meeting appear to be the defendant, the defense attorney, Dr. Strange, and a police officer. That's an unusual group to be meeting before a trial, and even more unusual when we're told that the charges have already gone away. So what was the meeting for? More importantly, the D.A.'s decision to drop the charges is grossly premature. Challenges to the voluntariness of confessions are handled at so-called 'Jackson v. Denno Hearings,' named for the case that established them. Both sides present their arguments to a judge, who decides whether the confessions is allowable. It's pure surrender for the prosecutor to just drop the case because the confession was challenged, especially when the law favors the state.

She-Hulk #2: Danger Man

2006-05-03T01:05:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #2
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Juan Bobillo

Synopsis: Jen Walters (aka She-Hulk) has her first day of work at Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg, & Holliway, and also takes on her first client. His name is Dan Jermain, and he was a Roxxon safety inspector who was knocked into a radioactive vat, from which he emerged as the atomic superman Danger Man. Dan wants to sue Roxxon for the changes he underwent, and the toll that's been taken on his life and marriage. In the end, Jen obtains an $85 million settlement.

Analysis: In this issue, Slott really starts having fun with the oddball aspects of superhuman legal practice. Salvage rights involving Atlanteans, territorial disputes among the Moloids, etc.

The biggest goof comes in the form of the introduction of what became an ongoing element of the series, the law office library's "long boxes." Since Marvel Comics exist as licensed products in the Marvel Universe, and since they still bore the seal of the Comics Code Authority until 2002, then they are deemed legal documents and are automatically admissible in court. It's a clearly preposterous notion, but it's so charming that it can't be frowned upon.

Besides, Jen implies at one point that the events depicted in the comics were all true events, merely adapted into printed form. Given that they're 'real' events, an attorney could still use them to bolster his argument. It would just be a bit more work-intensive than citing a comic book.

Slott does a good job of demonstrating how a superhero origin isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Dan may be an atomic superman, but he's just a working class guy without any interest in dressing up and fighting crime. Imagine 'Bob Parr' from The Incredibles, without the costume.

We're provided with glimpses of how Dan's life has changed. He's uncomfortable in public. People on the subway stare at him suspiciously. His super-hearing picks up everyone's whispers. He's outgrown all his old clothes, and he regularly rips his new ones. His house is falling apart because every agitated motion can result in a broken door or a hole in the wall. He's lost his insurance because they refuse to cover superhumans. He nearly killed his wife when he rolled over in bed, but she still ended up with broken bones. His marriage is fraying at the edges, and his daughter resents him. Not to mention that he appears to have a permanent glow about his head and hands.

So yes, I think there's a good argument to be made that Dan's life has been negatively impacted by the accident. Granted, it might be a hard sell to a jury full of people who think it'd be swell to be superpowered, but it's surprising the Roxxon lawyers don't seem to even acknowledge the personal damage done.

It crossed my mind to wonder why Dan's complaint wasn't being handled through an ordinary worker's compensation claim. I think that that might be the right situation for the Roxxon lawyers to respond as negatively as they did. Worker's compensation typically exists for measurable physical and medical damages, not for personal and emotional suffering. In such a forum where the question is always "How much were you hurt?," it would be reasonable to say that making a person stronger doesn't merit a recovery.

I do have to take issue with Jen's proposed method of proving damages. She suggests to Dan that they employ the Jean Grey precedent, and suggest that Dan Jermain died when Danger Man was born. This suggestion totally changes the nature of Dan's claim against Roxxon, turning it into a wrongful death claim. It's not a terrible idea, and it could definitely be applicable in the context of certain origins (see Swamp Thing, Will Peyton Starman). Sometimes a character is completely remade by his origin.

However, I don't consider it very persuasive in Dan's case. Dan has been changed physically, but he's clearly the same person inside. He still feels the same way about his wife and daughter, and they still view him as the same man. In fact, his wife is outraged at Jen's suggestion that he's not the same person. His mind wasn't erased and recreated, and his fall into the radioactive vat didn't produce a second body and leave the first one to decay. Unlike the hybernating "real body" of the Jean Grey precedent, Dan specifically states earlier in the issue that he felt his body changing. He's the same mind in the same physical body (albeit an amped-up body), and that's something that the defense would lean on and the jury would see. Jen may be keen on it, but I don't see a wrongful death claim working here.

Plus, if it's determined that Dan Jermain did die when he fell into the vat, then Worker's Compensation should come back into play. Worker's Comp typically provides for benefits if a worker dies on the job, although accepting those benefits usually excludes the recipient from suing the employer.

Whatever Jen ended up arguing, the case ends with an $85 million settlement. I'm a little confused as to why it's referred to as a "settlement," since Jen also refers to the case having made it before the jury. That would suggest that they went all the way through trial, but Roxxon agreed to settle before the jury returned its decision. That's possible, and it does happen, but it's bizarre that Roxxon would offer so much money as a settlement deal. Were they afraid the jury might return with a $150 million verdict? For one guy whose injuries are personal problems?

Even $85 million is rather excessive. If Dan Jermain is dead, then Worker's Comp wouldn't have paid anything remotely close to that. And a normal wrongful death claim wouldn't have wrought a recovery that big. If he's alive and just suing for the negative impact on his personal life, then how could anyone reach a number that huge for what's basically a claim of emotional distress and marital troubles?

Jen says that she won by suppressing evidence (which can actually be quickly unethical in civil cases like this), and by "turning 'secret identity' shield laws on their head." Shield laws generally apply to rape victims, and the court's willingness to keep the victim's identity out of the public record. But that doesn't mean that the defendant doesn't see his accuser, or that the jury doesn't get a good view of the victim.

She says that all the jury saw of Dan was a "big blue dot on a video monitor." Whatever "secret identity shield laws" may be, I don't see this happening. Back during the infamous William Kennedy Smith trial, the blue dot over the witness' face was seen by television viewers, but the jurors had a full view of the person. Jurors are supposed to be the judges of a witness' credibility, and depriving them of the ability to see a witness' face sorely impairs their ability to do so. And if Danger Man was a plaintiff (which he shouldn't be if Jen pursued the wrongful death route), did they not have him sitting at the plaintiff's table during the trial?

What might Slott have meant when he referred to "secret identity shield laws"? My best guess is that he had in mind the kind of superhero universe judicial policy that allows Batman or Spider-Man to testify as 'Batman' or 'Spider-Man,' in full mask and without having to reveal their true identity to anyone in the court. I know that Bob Ingersoll tackled the possibility of such special protection at least once, and I'll try to dig it up.

Assuming such a law existed, utilizing it here would certainly be turning it on its head, as Jen said. Dan's wife would probably be a party to the case, and both she and his daughter would undoubtedly testify. His name, Dan Jermain, would have appeared in the case name. His testimony would have included a lot about his personal life, both before and after the accident. And 'Danger Man' appears to be little more than a nickname. There's no reason to hide 'Danger Man's true identity, and in fact, aspects of his true identity are all over the case. Having him appear only by video monitor, and blurring his face out, doesn't serve any purpose at all.

So all in all, it's an ingenious legal setup in this issue, but its resolution leaves a bit to be desired.

Congressman Collins

2006-04-26T23:06:00.000-04:00

While the congressional politics on Smallville may be disputed, there's one real-life congressional race that I can take a pretty firm stand on. That's because I'm running for it.

That's right, I, Loren Collins, have decided to run for the United States House of Representatives for the Fourth District of Georgia.

You may have heard the Fourth District mentioned in the news lately, as it's the home district of Cynthia McKinney. Two years ago I took a stab as a write-in, but didn't see it through to the end. I'd been planning on making another try at it this year, but learning that another blogger beat me to the punch really set a fire under me. I'm even going to attempt the petition that's necessary to get my name on the House ballot, even though no independent candidate in Georgia has succeeded in doing that since the requirement was created in 1943. It may be a lost cause, but like Jefferson Smith said, lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.

My campaign site, VoteLoren.com is up and running, albeit incomplete (and ad-supported) at the moment. While few if any of you may live in my district, I sure could use some good word of mouth. *hint, hint*

Displayed rather prominently on the site is the Bull Moose logo, which was created by none other than this blog's other chief contributor, Jim MacQuarrie. Not only do Jim and I share a great deal of politics in common, but he's officially registered with the state of California as a Bull Moose. (Alas, he politely declined my suggestion that he run for President as the party candidate.)

So this is my new project for the next several months. I expect it'll be fun. Any suggestions or words of wisdom? Or do you just think I'm flat-out crazy? : )

The Legend of Zorro

2006-04-24T13:28:00.000-04:00

I watched The Legend of Zorro on DVD this weekend, and while it may not be a comic book, as something of a proto-superhero, I think Zorro is fair fodder for this blog. The points I'm about to make aren't exactly novel, as they've been observed by other reviewers, but I felt like bringing them to the attention of others.

I'll go ahead and warn that the following contains some minor spoilers, but nothing too significant. Besides, I wouldn't really recommend the movie (just rewatch The Mask of Zorro), so I'm not too concerned about spoiling it.

In this sequel, Zorro goes up against an Illuminati-esque organization which is intent on throwing the United States into turmoil. Their plan involves providing the Confederate Army with a large supply of nitroglycerin, which will distribute it among the troops and utilize the explosive in an attack on Washington D.C.

As stated in the movie's opening scene, the film is set in 1850. We can even pinpoint the exact date of the film's climax as September 9, 1850, the date California joined the Union. The error here was noticed by many a moviegoer: there was no Confederacy in 1850, nor would there be for another decade.

Even if one ignores all the references to the Confederacy and imagines this was only exploiting America's conflict over slavery, it still doesn't work. Maryland was a slave state in 1850, and the District of Columbia didn't abolish slavery until 1862. Attacking a slaveholding city located between two slaveholding states would be an odd way to strike a blow for other slave states. This would've been concurrent with the Compromise of 1850, which temporarily lessened America's conflict over slavery, making it an even odder time for the South to revolt.

Also, when Zorro first stumbles upon evidence of the villains' scheme, he finds a map of the United States, which the camera focuses on. Strangely, the map looks rather modern, showing all of the present-day boundaries for U.S. states. A map of the United States circa 1850 would have several territories, and should instead look like this:

There are plenty of smaller anachronisms, but these two were the ones that struck me as egregious. It would be like telling a story about the American Revolution in the 1760s, or the U.S. fighting Nazis in 1930. Given their obviousness, one wonders how no one involved in the production managed to catch the errors. And yet the villains' entire plot is based around this massive historial blunder. It's not a good sign of quality writing.

Senator Kent

2006-04-20T09:42:00.000-04:00

Several months back, John Schneider's old Dukes of Hazzard co-star Tom Wopat guest-starred on Smallville as Senator Jack Jennings, a long-time friend of Jonathan Kent. This bit of guest-casting turned out to be more than a one-episode stunt, as it kicked off an ongoing subplot of Jonathan Kent running for Jack's seat in the Senate.

Jonathan ended up winning the election, beating out Lex Luthor, but he died on the evening of the election. The Governor of Kansas then offered Jonathan's seat to Martha Kent, who accepted.

Since the beginning of this storyline, there has been continued confusion over which Senate Jonathan Kent was elected to: the Kansas State Senate, or the United States Senate. Personally, I feel convinced that it's the former, but for the sake of argument, I thought I'd present the evidence for both sides.

U.S. Senate
- Jack Jennings was treated more like a U.S. Senator than a state politician.
- In "Lexmas," future Jonathan was treated more like a U.S. Senator than a state politician.
- There's not much power in being a Kansas state senator that would attract Lex to run.
- There's not much power in being a Kansas state senator to attract Lionel to donate thousands of dollars to Jonathan's campaign.
- State senate races don't tend to have the huge budgets that Jonathan's campaign did.
- State senate candidates rarely run TV ads.
- If they do run TV ads, they definitely don't run them statewide, as Lois said the ads were.
- Jonathan's rally in "Fanatic" would be normal for a U.S. Senate race (maybe even a little big), but would be obscenely huge for a state senate race.
- There would not be a "Students for Lex Luthor" group at Metropolis University if the campaign was for the state senate seat for the Smallville area.
- The news coverage of Jonathan's win in the election is more in line with a U.S. Senate race.

Kansas State Senate
- Lex is too young to run for the U.S. Senate, as the Constitution requires candidates to be 30.
- Jonathan would be a natural candidate for a local race, but would be out of his league in a federal election.
- Neither Lex nor Jonathan appeared to physically campaign outside of the Smallville area.
- Neither Lex nor Jonathan participated in a primary, which would be unlikely for a U.S. Senate race.
- There was no public debate, which would be unusual for a U.S. Senate race.
- The election took place in January, and not November.
- No one, including now-senator Martha Kent, has mentioned ever going to or needing to go to Washington D.C. Only Metropolis has been mentioned.
- Martha made a local foster mom her first Chief-of-Staff, and then made Lois, a college-dropout coffee-shop waitress, her second Chief-of-Staff. That's rather lowbrow for a national office.
- Martha referred to herself as a "state senator" in last week's episode.

I think the evidence definitely leans in favor of the state senate (particularly the fact that Lex is legally barred from running for the other). The evidence in the U.S. Senate category is persuasive on its own, but every bit of it can be chalked up to ignorance or hyperbole on the part of the writers. I believe they wanted to write about a local race, but didn't know how to accurately portray one, and so they ended up giving it the trappings of a much bigger election. The only serious inconsistency when it comes to the state senate is Lex's motivation, but it's not like the writers of Smallville have been terribly consistent when it comes to his character as of late.

Anyone care to disagree?

Moving, and Moving Fast

2006-04-13T11:29:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned in passing in my last post, I moved last weekend. For almost the last two years, I've shared a house with my brother (my grandmother's old house, to be precise), and as he is getting married next month, it was time for me to find a separate abode.

So now I'm living in Atlanta, in a one-bedroom half of a duplex. Best of all, it's very conveniently located to the MARTA subway station, so no more vehicle commuting for me. I hate commuting, and it's why I avoided downtown for so long.

Anyhow, one consequence of my move is that my 'Net access has been a wee bit interrupted. I haven't set up a new service provider yet, and even if I had, my computer is still back at the old house. So until that's resolved, any text-intensive posts (like my She-Hulk series) are on hold.

But that doesn't mean I can't write about smaller things, and there's one I wanted to mention today. Without internet, I've watched a little more TV in the last week. I saw Boston Legal last week, and I caught my first episode of Conviction on Tuesday.

Both of these episodes shared an element that I've raked some comics over the coals for using: the astonishingly speedy trial. In Boston Legal, they had a civil suit get to summary judgment, and criminal bigamy case go all the way to jury trial, all within the week or so that the two main characters were on vacation. In Conviction, they had a murder case go from death to jury trial in what seemed like a matter of days.

Suddenly, a Manhunter or She-Hulk comic where a case takes three or four weeks to get to trial seems downright leisurely by comparison.

On Law & Order, where the characters' private lives are left alone and events aren't dated, one can presume that each episode spans months, and that episodes overlap. But when character-based B-plots are introduced, those can't be dragged out in the same way. Unless a writer can afford to have his story jump ahead months at a time, or drag out a case for multiple episodes or issues, the chronology has to be compacted. It's an instance where realism runs contrary to the dramatic demands of a story, and compromises must be reached. I still feel a week is unreasonably fast, but a month is definitely tolerable. This is a position I'd been moving increasingly toward, and seeing some worse offenders finally tipped the scale.

I still plan to mention in passing when a story speeds up a timeline, but it's not something I plan to dwell on again. I just hope no one tests my patience by emulating TV and offering up a Wednesday trial for a Monday morning crime.

A Plea for Help

2006-04-11T10:24:00.000-04:00

If you follow comic news, then by now you've probably heard about the Siegel/DC Superboy legal battle that saw some action last week. The Siegels' suit alleges that Smallville infringes on the copyright of the character of Superboy, a copyright that the Siegels (and not Warner Brothers) own.

With that question at issue, the case has the potential to be the greatest comic-related lawsuit since a federal judge declared in 2003 that the X-Men are not human.

Given the subject matter, and some aspects of the story that I'm a little unclear on at the moment, I thought it would be worthwhile to put together an piece on the issue to share here. The history, the copyright issues, my opinion, etc.

Unfortunately, the thing that's stymieing me at present is a lack of resource material. I'd like to get my hands on two things before I attempt to opine at length on the issue. I haven't been able to find either of these, and I thought it best to just ask if anyone could point me in the right direction. What I'd like are:

1) The 1947 decision that declared that Jerry Siegel owned the Superboy copyright. I'd prefer to get the full-length decision, but if anyone knows the citation number (e.g. 616 F.2d 42) or the actual case name, that would help me find it at the library.

2) Judge Lew's summary judgment decision from last week. He issued a written decision, and Variety and Newsarama managed to quote it some. I'd like to see it for myself. This is guaranteed to not be at the library, so I'll have to get it online somehow.

Any help?

LA Times on Superhero Science

2006-04-09T21:59:00.000-04:00

The original article apparently saw print a couple of weeks ago, but it showed up in my paper today. So enjoy:

L.A. Times: An (Un)Caped Crusader for Science

Could an overdose of gamma rays really transform someone into the Incredible Hulk? Was Superman defying Einstein's theory of relativity when he flew faster than the speed of light?

While other UC Irvine science classes dissect sharks or explore plasma physics, Professor Michael Dennin's seminar analyzes comic book superpowers.

In recent weeks, students in his Science of Superheroes course have investigated Batman's utility belt, pondered gravity on the planet Krypton and designed their own superpower concepts that would use existing or envisioned technology.

The 10-week class is part of a University of California program that aims to expose freshmen to unfamiliar topics and majors...

Dennin, 39, a UCI physics professor, said the goal of the seminar was to use pop culture as a hook to introduce such concepts as black holes, cloning, life on other planets, quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics.

"Many students have a fear of science," Dennin said, "but if they come at it from a different angle, they sometimes find out they're interested in the subject and take more classes."...

And the class's textbook? It's Lois Gresh's and Robert Weinberg's The Science of Superheroes. Once I'm settled in (I'm in the process of moving right now), I think I may need to finally check that book out for myself.

Read She-Hulk #1 for Free

2006-04-08T00:31:00.000-04:00

I updated my list of free online comic books the other day, adding material from Marvel, Image, a whole series of #1's from Alias, and a few other scattered offerings. I also put together a trade paperback index that details what tpbs you should check out if a particular issue proved interesting. If you follow a link and buy a book from Amazon, I get a little share, so please feel free to build your personal library.

In the course of this, I was reminded that She-Hulk #1, which I reviewed below, can be read for free at Marvel's Digital Comics site.

So if you haven't read She-Hulk, go ahead and give it a try. There are two other issues, #5 and #8, available for free online too. And while you're at it, you can always sample another Marvel title, like Brian K. Vaughan's Runaways or Ed Brubaker's Captain America.

She-Hulk #1

2006-04-06T18:09:00.000-04:00

She-Hulk #1
Writer: Dan Slott
Artist: Juan Bobillo

Synopsis: She-Hulk, working for the NYC District Attorney's Office, has a big case against one Mr. Paxton, whose company improperly stored antarctic vibranium, causing a warehouse collapse and potentially endangering the health of people who lived nearby. In the middle of her closing argument, Shulkie is called away on an Avengers mission. The judge declares a recess, and after she helps to defeat MODOK (and Frostbite, assuming anyone cares about him), she returns and finishes her case. The jury returns a guilty verdict in mere moments.

But the celebration doesn't last long. The judgment gets tossed because of the potential prejudice that She-Hulk's heroism had on the jury, and as a consequence of that and her other misbehaviors (which are depicted in the issue), She-Hulk gets fired. At issue's end, though, her career problems are solved when she's offered a position with the prestigious firm of Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway...but the job offer is for her alter ego of Jennifer Walters, and not for She-Hulk.

Analysis: Before reading Dan Slott's She-Hulk series, my only exposure to the character was in issues of John Byrne's Sensational She-Hulk that I'd bought out of discount bins. That was a very fun series, but Byrne did pretty much nil with his protagonist's legal side. About the most he did was to establish that she worked for District Attorney Blake Tower, which would be the same job that she loses in this issue.

(Quick question about She-Hulk: throughout the issue, Shulkie is depicted wearing glasses. Should this be taken to mean that despite all of her gamma-induced gifts, she still has poor eyesight?)

Most of the law and trial seen in the issue isn't terribly plot-relevant, but is mostly there as scene dressing. The only details on the "Paxton case" are those that we hear from She-Hulk's own mouth, so it's a little hard to pin down exactly what the case was supposed to be about. My gut reaction was that it didn't seem like a case that an Assistant District Attorney like She-Hulk ought to be handling. Its "Erin Brockovich"-esque elements make it sound more like a civil matter than a criminal one, and even if there's some kind of regulation involved, it'd probably be under the EPA or some other federal jurisdiction, and not the NYC DA's office. Then again, the details are vague and we are talking about the handling of a fictional metal, so it's entirely possible that the MU's New York has a statute on the subject. There's just too much to speculate about.

Perhaps the biggest oddity in the content of the trial comes on page seven, when She-Hulk's talking to her boss prior to trial. They discuss a witness that she plans to call, a witness that she says will "blow this case wide open." But three panels later, she's in the middle of her closing argument. What happened to the whole middle of the trial? It's clearly the same day, and She-Hulk is still wearing the same, seriously inappropriate courtroom attire:

(Aside from the low-cut peasant blouse, what this panel doesn't show is that She-Hulk is also wearing tight red pants. She's well-dressed for clubbing, but not for court.)

She doesn't finish her argument, though, because she breaks it off when she gets an emergency Avengers beacon, and announces to the court "I'm going to need a brief recess. I have to go...save the world." The defense objects, but the judge responds "For the sake of the greater good, Avengers business must take precedence," as She-Hulk vaults herself out of the courtroom to fight MODOK.

After the case is over and the verdict's won, She-Hulk returns to work the next day to get some bad news from her boss. The defense attorney dropped by out of "professional courtesy" to inform the D.A. that the defense "just successfully got a mistrial" on She-Hulk's case. It seems that since She-Hulk's recess activities involved saving the lives of everyone on Earth, then that gave her "undue leverage over [the jury] and would explain their speedy verdict."

First, a few nitpicks. A couple of pages earlier, the defense attorney asks the judge if there are to be any special instructions to the jury, to which the judge replies no. If you've ever served on a jury, you know that jurors get a mind-numbing set of instructions before they get to deliberate. Many of these are standard instructions, used verbatim for typical cases. But often there are also special instructions that are requested, to clarify certain details. The nitpick here is that it's usually the attorneys who propose special instructions for the judge's approval, and not the judge who imposes them of his own initiative.

A "mistrial" is when a judge ends a trial prior to a verdict being reached. Such as when there's a hung jury, or when a witness states some excluded evidence. Here, there was a verdict reached; a guilty one. The judge could toss the verdict for a good reason (as happened in the Todd McFarlane/Tony Twist case, but it wouldn't be called a mistrial.

And if the judge were going to toss a verdict, he wouldn't inform only one side of his decision to do so. In other words, D.A. Tower shouldn't be getting word of the judge's decision from opposing counsel.

However, I have to disagree with Tower's sentiments about this being a "dangerous precedent," and take the judge's side on this. Instant verdicts are guaranteed to raise suspicion. The prosecutor announced to the court, including the jury, that she had to go "save the world." The judge seemingly agreed with this (I think he holds some of the blame for letting this happen the way it did), and She-Hulk did go on to save the world. Given how that scene played to the jury, and given their near-total lack of deliberation before reaching a verdict, I'm definitely inclined to agree that the jury was prejudiced by She-Hulk's conduct.

That's not to say that there's no way to avoid these types of conflicting situations. It would be relatively easy to arrange for such emergencies. If She-Hulk got an Avengers beacon in mid-trial, she wouldn't blurt out heroic declarations in the jury's presence. She'd calmly ask to speak with the judge (along with opposing counsel) either at the bench or in the judge's chambers, where she'd explain the nature of the emergency. The judge would declare a recess, without telling the court exactly why, and She-Hulk would quietly and professionally pack up and leave.

And to be on the safe side, make sure the jurors are instructed to stay away from news reports. If a juror learns too much, he gets pulled and an alternate juror takes his place on the panel.

One would hope that Jen's new firm has arranged for such a contingency. Because even though subsequent issues depict Jen as the attorney in the courtroom, she could still get a call to duty and have to leave abruptly.

Next issue: Jen Walter's career with Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg & Holliway begins, and she takes the case of a superman suing over his origin.

Finally...

2006-04-01T09:13:00.000-05:00

It's no Archive Edition, but I'll happily take the trade-off when it comes to price.

SHOWCASE PRESENTS AMBUSH BUG VOL. 1 TP
Written by Keith Giffen, Robert Loren Fleming and Paul Kupperberg
Art by Keith Giffen and Bob Oksner
The Bug is Back in this comprehensive volume, collecting stories from DC COMICS PRESENTS #52, 59, and 81; SUPERGIRL (Vol. 1) #16; ACTION COMICS #560, 563, and 565; AMBUSH BUG #1-4; AMBUSH BUG STOCKING STUFFER #1; SON OF AMBUSH BUG #1-6; and SECRET ORIGINS #48! Also included is the full run of another Giffen master of mirth, THE HECKLER #1-6!
Advance-solicited; on sale October 31 • 560 pg, B&W, $16.99 US

She-Hulk: Livin' Large and Litigious

2006-03-30T18:17:00.000-05:00

I recently invested in the She-Hulk: Single Green Female trade paperback, after having enjoyed the new series by Dan Slott and Juan Bobillo (and having addressed some issues of that series here).

The trade (collecting #1-6 of the last series) didn't disappoint, and it's provided good fodder for several posts. #2-4 are all standalone legal stories ready-made for analysis, and the other issues offer some scattered material of their own. I had wanted to get started on those issues this week, but it looks like I'll probably have the first one ready for the start of next week. Hopefully I'll progress through them with some degree of regularity.

Meanwhile, I have a question of sorts. I haven't bought or read the second She-Hulk trade, Superhuman Law, because despite its title, I thought I'd heard that there really isn't all that much law in those issues. Is that true? Or is there an issue or two in that book that I ought to check out?

Friendly, Neighborhood Spider-Justice

2006-03-27T15:52:00.001-05:00

I've been lax the last couple of weeks, but I have something in the works for later this week that should remedy that. Stay tuned.

Until then, I'll share a neat tidbit from Brian Cronin's Comic Book Urban Legends series. While I'm usually concerned with how the law affects events presented in comic books, sometimes events in comic books can affect the law. One such true example of this phenomenon came from a New Mexico judge, who admitted that Spider-Man inspired electronic ankle bracelets that courts use to track probationers and persons awaiting trial.

I suppose criminals should be glad that the judge just got his ideas from the Spider-Man comic strip, and not from John Ostrander's Suicide Squad. ("And fair warning, if you misbehave, the ankle bracelet will blow your foot off.")

Breaking News...

2006-03-15T20:43:00.000-05:00

The following headline (and article) appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 31, 2006:

'Testament' Gets Kinky

2006-03-12T09:09:00.000-05:00

To follow up on my previous Testament post, I wanted to comment on something said in Cliff Biggers' interview with Rushkoff. In that interview, the author makes several unusual arguments, but only one that I want to address here:

"Moses has man-to-man sex up on Mount Sinai...Joshua was Moses’s apprentice, and the Bible talks of their encounters ‘face to face’—which, as any Greek knows, is the sexual position reserved for man-to-man sacred sex - women are to be done from behind."

This is inexplicably erroneous on Rushkoff's part for two reasons. First, what "any Greek knows" is totally irrelevant. The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament (which includes the story of Moses), was written in ancient Hebrew, not Greek. And Hebrew had no such meaning for "face-to-face."

(And if you're as confused as I was about how man-to-man sex could be face-to-face to start with, it seems that the ancient Greeks did things a little differently.)

Second, I've perused several Bible translations, and I can't find one that ever refers to Moses and Joshua meeting "face to face." Not a single verse, whether relating to Mount Sinai or otherwise. There are several that refer to Moses and GOD's meetings being "face to face," (Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:8, Deuteronomy 34:10, etc.), but I imagine that a sexual liaison between Moses and the Lord might be a little too much for even Rushkoff to propose.

So I'm at a total loss as to where Rushkoff pulled this particular interpretation from. And I'm guessing that he plans to use it in a future arc. Does anyone have any idea what he thinks he's talking about?

Kasnia

2006-03-08T21:25:00.000-05:00

One of the things I love about comics is fictional geography. DC's fictional cities can be richer than any real city depicted on the four-color page, and fictional countries allow creators to develop whole cultures and socities for the stories they tell.

In the DCAU (the common universe of the Bruce Timm DC cartoons), the go-to fictional foreign country has been Kasnia. It was Kasnia that hired John Corben (aka Metallo) in the pilot episode of Superman: The Animated Series. Kasnia was a big player in the pilot of Batman Beyond. The country also showed up in Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and in several Justice League episodes.

One such episode, "The Great Brain Robbery," aired this past weekend, wherein the Legion of Doom hijacked a trainload of Euros being transported into Kasnia. Once the Justice League gets word of the heist, Mr. Terrific dispatches several Leaguers to a specific set of coordinates, which he types onscreen:

45* 9' 8" N
19* 5_' 13" E

It's not completely legible (Mr. Terrific's head covers one digit), but it's close enough. And thanks to Mapquest, we can easily determine its precise location. It's just a few miles outside of Novi Sad, the second-largest city in Serbia-Montenegro. In other words, it's a spot in the Balkans, precisely where it's always been suggested that Kasnia lies.

So kudos to the JLU team for the attention paid to even a subtle detail like this.

Gimme That Old Time Religion

2006-02-24T00:07:00.000-05:00

I've done the law and politics thing here a lot, but despite having a degree in Religion, I haven't had much of anything to say on that subject. So I bought Testament #1 from Vertigo in the expectation that it would give me something good to review on just that front.

Without going into too much detail, the opening arc is "Abraham of Ur," and draws parallels to the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac (the "Akedah"), as told in Genesis 22. For those unfamiliar with the story, it involves God instructing Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and then stopping Abraham at the last moment. Rushkoff presents the Biblical story pretty straightforwardly, but he makes some potentially significant changes that are likely to escape most readers.

Some are rather obvious, such as his employment of more than one deity to play the role of God. Others might be nothing more than mistakes. For instance, when God stays Abraham's hand, Rushkoff inexplicably has the ram speak God's dialogue. (The ram is also depicted as standing next to Isaac, out in the open, rather than stuck in a thicket, as the scripture describes.)

But the big change is Rushkoff's repeated utilization of and reference to Moloch. Moloch (or Molech) was a deity worshipped by some Canaanites, and to whom child sacrifices were made. On page 3, Rushkoff has one of Abraham's servants say "Abraham has already defied Moloch....Perhaps his new god tests him?" "Or his old one wants him back," the other servant replies. When Abraham and Isaac reach their destination on Mount Moriah, we get the series' first splash page:

However, Moloch is never mentioned during the story of Abraham. In fact, Moloch is not mentioned in the Bible at all until two whole books later. His name first appears in Leviticus 18:21: "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.'"

So Rushkoff's use of Moloch in the Akedah story is textually anachronistic. The Bible's timeline doesn't allow for Abraham to have been a former worshipper of Moloch, or for an old stone altar of Moloch to be situated on Moriah.

Both of these aspects also contradict their Biblical depictions. When Abraham and Isaac reach their destination on Mount Moriah, the scripture says "Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it." As depicted in Testament, Abraham doesn't have to build an altar, because there is a giant stone one waiting for him. And Abram's first covenant with God, or YHWH, comes in Genesis 12, just a few verses after his name first appears. There is no indication that Abram ever changed gods or worshipped anyone other than YHWH. Certainly not Moloch.

My point here isn't to condemn the liberties that Rushkoff has taken so much as to draw attention to the fact that they exist. Especially because Rushkoff has more than one 'out' for the changes he's made. One comes straight from his own pen:

"So there's parallel action happening in Bible time, which is kind of like 1100 BC and all, but I don't see bible time as historical, so it's more like myth-time. And, like Torah, time is all screwy in there, anyway. Torah doesn't happen quite in order and events resonate with other ones centuries before or after. Something happening in one century can either trigger or justify things happening in another."

This makes it easy to cheat the timeline for storytelling purposes. The other reason is somewhat more scholarly, and, judging from other statements of Rushkoff's, involves a theory that he would seem to be aware of. The theory is that Abraham's story itself is the anachronism, a later-scripted message from a time when Moloch-worship was prevalent, written to condemn child sacrifice by retconning God's opposition to it far back into Israel's history. It's not a theory I'm particularly fond of, but I suspect it's one that Rushkoff may subscribe to, and it's one that seems to be on display here.

That's pretty much all I have to say about #1. I fully expect that Rushkoff will continue to tweak the Biblical narrative to fit his needs and that's fine, but for those who are reading, I think it's good to be aware that he is taking some liberties along the way. If you find yourself wanting to crosscheck a depiction, Bible Gateway is a great and simple resource.

(Don't) Show Some Restraint

2006-02-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

One of my recurring gripes about courtroom scenes in comics has been the illustration of defendants in shackles and prison garb. As some of you may recall, the problem with shackles and restraints on a defendant is that it sends a rather strong and extremely negative message to the jurors. Being restrained at the defense table doesn't exactly help with the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of court.

That said, if a defendant has demonstrated an inability to restrain himself in the courtroom, the judge can take certain actions in response. The court is not required to abide an unruly and openly dangerous defendant. After all, creating a scene in front of the jurors probably means the unbiased ship has already sailed.

But supervillains can create a unique situation that isn't paralleled in the real world. A defendant would never be allowed into a courtroom armed, but any given metahuman is inherently armed. There's an unacceptable danger in allowing a criminal defendant who can fire deadly energy bolts from his hands to sit, unemcumbered, in a room full of people deciding his fate.

So what is a court to do? The defendant has a Constitutional right to participate in his trial, so excluding him upfront is out of the question. But restraining him violates his right to an impartial jury. And it can't allow a defendant who could kill the judge or prosecutor with a glance to have the freedom to do so.

The reason I bring all of this up now is that there was the hint of an answer to this problem presented in a recent Newsweek article. A bunch of prosecutors have put together an organized effort to take down the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, and this is going to entail putting a lot of really, REALLY nasty guys on trial. It seems they have a well-established predilection for courtroom violence, but the prosecutors already have a means of taking care of it.

After a six-year investigation, now comes the next challenge for law enforcement: how to hold a fair trial while protecting the lives of the judge, jurors, witnesses and lawyers in the courtroom. Five years ago an Aryan Brotherhood member on trial broke free of his handcuffs, seized a television and hurled it at the judge. Another stabbed his own attorney with a metal shank he'd smuggled into the courthouse.

Prosecutors acknowledge they're taking a risk by bringing so many of the men into a courtroom together, but they say they have no choice. "There really was an idea that it should be a body blow against the gang," says a government employee close to the case who requested anonymity because the judge asked all participants not to speak to the press. The defendants will be tried in small groups at Santa Ana, Calif.'s federal courthouse, in a tiered courtroom built especially for high-threat cases. Federal marshals won't discuss security details, but attorneys confirm that the defendants' shackles will be bolted to the floor, their restraints hidden from the jury by panels.

It's a simple, yet ingenious, solution. The problem with restraining a defendant is the negative message it sends to the jurors when they see it. Thus, the easiest way around that is to make sure the jurors don't see it.

I suppose it's possible that the defense could still object to this treatment, particularly since it's being based on something akin to a 'guilt by association' expectation. But given the circumstances and history of these guys, I think the court might have struck a good balance. It protects the defendant's rights as well as the courtroom's safety.

And it's a policy that could be naturally extended to metahuman defendants. They just have to be restrained in ways that the jury can't see. Mental-power dampeners, for instance. It might require some imaginative mechanisms, but it's a possibility.

SoD: Year One

2006-02-18T14:28:00.000-05:00

This past Thursday marked the one year anniversary of this here blog. Granted, everything didn't turn out quite the way I'd initially hoped, but the fact that it's still up and running is a decent enough feat. I've rather enjoyed what's transpired over the past year, and I look forward to year two.

On a more personal note, I shared a couple of months back that my postings had gotten more sparse because of a temp job I'd taken on. Well, as of about two and a half weeks ago, that temp job turned into a full-time Associate position at that same lawfirm. It's not the prosecutorial work I was seeking, but after a year's worth of being turned down by the folks I sought to work with, I opted for the place that was actually willing to pay me. I very much doubt it's what I want to do long-term, but it's good work and experience for now.

So now it's not merely a law school graduate who's writing for this blog, it's an actual lawyer. To be fair, he's not really any smarter or informed than before, but it sure sounds better to my ears. Now if only I can be a lawyer who posts more often.

Thanks again.

Now that's more like it!

2006-02-10T02:04:00.001-05:00

Young Avengers #10

You know, if I were prone to egotism, I'd be trying to grab credit at this point. Though honestly, I doubt if Jim Cheung even knows this blog exists. But whatever, even if it isn't a result of my relentless whining here, it's nice to see the cover of the latest issue:

Well, well, well. What have we here? Kate's holding the bow correctly, the arrow is on the correct side of the bow, she's keeping her index finger the hell away from the arrow, her quiver is where it should be, and best of all, her bow actually looks like a bow. She's got a nice old-fashioned one-piece recurve there. It looks a bit like a vintage Fred Bear, though it might be one of those aluminum ones that were all the rage back in the early '70s. In any case, it's a real bow. Nice.

And the goodness continues inside. Young Avengers is comics done good. It's comics the way all comics should be; looking forward, not back. Taking elements from the past and building on them rather than rehashing, reinventing, recycling, reinterpreting, redacting, or rewriting them. It's comics that are smart, fun, exciting, compelling, engaging and (wait for it) entertaining. With characters you care about, behaving in character. If you aren't reading Young Avengers, you're missing out on what is quite frankly the best thing Marvel has been publishing in a while.

Okay, enough with the effusive fanboy praise. I like the book, we get it. But this is Suspension of Disbelief, the nitpick blog. So where are the nitpicks?

Okay, I'll give you one. And this one falls on Allan Heinberg, the writer, not the artist.

*ahem*

When the late Dr. Richard Feynman used to teach at Caltech, he occasionally performed the following demonstration, which will serve quite nicely to illustrate the nitpick at hand:

Dr. Feynman would reach into his coat pocket and pull out a rubber ball. He would bounce the ball on the desk. It would bounce a few times, then he would put his hand on it, pressing it to the desktop and arresting its movement. Then he would speak.

"I have damped the ball."

Dr. Feynman would then drop the ball into a glass of water. Then he would fish it out and set it, dripping on the desk.

"Now I have dampened the ball."

"Any questions?"

Comic book writers and editors: Please get this right. It's irritating when you don't. My comics are worth less when they have corrections written in with a red pen. Thank you.

Guess Who’s Coming To Shabbos Dinner?

2006-01-21T01:57:00.000-05:00

Action Comics #835
When I read the most recent Action, I wondered about how accurate the final scene was, so I fired off an e-mail to My friend Mordechai. Here are his comments regarding this scene:

Hi. My name’s Mordechai, but you can call me Typo Lad. Everyone else does. I run a little blog called "What WERE They Thinking?!". I’m a comic book fan, obviously. I’m also an Orthodox Jew. Now, while there are lots of Jews in comic books (Kitty Pryde, Doc Samson, Two Gun Kid, Moon Knight, etc) there are very few Orthodox Jews. By this I mean head-covering, Shomer Shabbos Jews (Refers to one who keeps the laws of the Sabbath). The closest I’ve ever seen in any comic were two separate incidents where Justice and The Thing said Kaddish (the mourner’s prayer).

Then came Gail Simone’s run on Action Comics. In it, she introduced Josef, a Jewish reporter for the Daily Planet who wore a yarmulke (Kippah, beanie, skullcap). Now, shortly before, Gotham Central had shown a Detective with a yarmulke, but all he seemed to do was go on doughnut runs*, so he doesn’t really count. But this guy interacted with Jimmy and Superman and was an actual part of the story. He interacted to the point that he invites Superman to Shabbos dinner.

Which happened in the most recent issue #835. Which I am now going to nitpick the heck out of.

Let me start with a caveat: I am assuming Josef is Orthodox due to his dress, mode of speech, and the contents of his house. At the very least, we see that he is Shomer Shabbos. I am trying to be careful to not judge him by my own standards, but by comparing him to typical older adult Jewish males from my old neighborhood.

So let’s start:

Panel 1:
Okay, first off Superman, you’re being very rude. How, do you ask? By ringing the bell. Shomer Shabbos Jews do not use electricity on Shabbos and while a non-Jewish guest doesn’t have to not ring the bell, it’s considered a bit tacky. Next time, knock.

From an artistic perspective we also have a problem. See that funny looking box over the doorbell? That’s a Mezuzah. It’s a box containing a small scroll of parchment that Jews put on their doorposts. So what’s wrong with it? It’s too low and in the wrong place. Mezuzah’s should be at around eye level and are put on the inner part of the doorframe, not the outer part.

Panel 2:
Nice apartment! Kudos to John Byrne, who has drawn what looks like just about every apartment in Pelham parkway, The Bronx. Please note the candelabra on the buffet. This is a Menorah. A Chanukiah is what we light for Chanukah, but they are commonly called Menorahs for a reason I cannot find. Chanukiot consist of a total of 9 candleholders; one for each day of Chanukah (aka Hanukkah) plus a "Shamash". A Menorah can be six or eight (plus shamash). This may mean that someone in their family holds the same traditions as mine, and lit one candle for each member of the household. Not Esther, however, as we see later that there are just two candles at the table (more on that later). The lighting of only two candles is a fairly common practice.

Now we run into two problems from one source: The flowers.

Problem one: Flowers are Muktzah, meaning they cannot be "used" on Shabbos. You can’t move them and you especially cannot put them in water. No reason Superman should know this, but he’s basically saying "Hi, I got these for you. Go on, take them and violate the laws of Shabbos rather than offend the guy who can crush mountains in his bare hands!". Tch.

Problem two: less commonly known fact - you cannot accept gifts on Shabbos. This is actually a fairly complicated Halacha (law) that has to do with the fact that you cannot obtain property on Shabbos. Many people going to other’s houses for Shabbos meals will bring wine or candy, as that’s not a problem if they, the bringer, partake in it themselves at the meal itself.

So yeah, not doing so well at this point.

And to be really nitpicky: I hope Superman likes cold food. Jews don’t cook on Shabbos, only before. So the later he gets, the colder the food gets. Unless they got one of those fancy-shmancy warming plates that you can use, but most older Jews eschew that.

Panel 3:
Okay, grape juice instead of wine. Cute. And common. However, wine is considered more Chashuv (important) than grape juice, and as such if one has an important guest, it would be an insult to tell him "Normally we make the blessing with wine, but for you, tonight only, we got grape juice!". Now I know that Superman doesn’t drink, and there was a good story establishing why that is back in the '90s, but how does Josef know this?

Also, if those are rolls to Superman’s left? They should be covered. During Kiddush and until the blessing on the bread is made, any bread products on the table are covered.

Also, Josef should have told Kal-El that the yarmulke is really unnecessary. Only Jews need to wear those. Yes, if you go to a Bar Mitzvah or the Wailing Wall you’ll be asked to put one on, but that’s for other reasons. There’s no real reason for a non-Jew to cover his hair at someone’s Shabbos table. It’s sweet, but silly.

New page!

Panel 1:
Mmm. I wonder what kind of Kugels they are? My wife makes broccoli, potato, and corn Kugels. My mom makes this amazing Salt & Pepper lukshon (noodle) Kugel.

Kugels, for the uninitiated, are divine little souffle-like dishes.

Gail at this point has succeeded in making me hungry.

The dialogue at this point is actually starting to grate on me a bit and sound like typical "bubbie" talk. Still, what are you going to do?

Panel 2:
Love the breakfront. I have rarely been in a Jewish home in my life that did not have a breakfront. I also love how the candles have not visibly shortened at this point. Let me tell you something, by the time you get to dessert on a Shabbos dinner, the candles have burned out a long, long time before. Once they’re out, they’re out. No more lighting of fires until after Shabbos is over with.

Okay, let’s turn the page, shall we?

The last three panels confuse me. Superman’s dialogue clearly continues uninterrupted from panel four to panel five, yet suddenly Joseph is not only standing, but is behind him? Just feels jumpy.

These three panels have a few major slips:

Panel 4:
Superman, you’re really being very rude. You do not address someone who is sitting while you yourself are standing. You sit and talk to them at their level. Especially an older person. Very chutzpadick (rude and dismissive).

Panel 5
What? NO!

Superman, you mean to tell me you’re "familiar with Kiddush" but you don’t know rule one of Orthodox male/female interactions? That’d be look, don’t touch. You don’t kiss a Jewish woman on the cheek. Ever. Unless you’re family. This is a major error here.

Panel 6:
Wait, why did Esther take her Tichul (headscarf) off? I could understand if she wore one to light the candles and then took it off for the meal, but we see her wearing one for the meal, in her own home, and then when she’s outside, she takes it off? That’s very much backwards. Hair covering observation varies from person to person, even within the same family. Still, I’ve never met a woman who covers her hair in her home and then does not cover it when she goes out. Unless we’re supposed to believe that Esther is wearing a Sheitel (wig).

One important note: I like that Josef and Esther are observing the custom of walking the guest out of the house. Too many people these days don’t do that.

And would it have killed Ms. Simone to not use the stereotypical "Such a nice young man,"? In all my born days, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Jewish person say that in a non-ironic sense.

Like I said above, these are nitpicks. This was actually a very respectful comic, especially when you consider that none of the creators involved are (to my knowledge) Jewish.

(Although with names like "Balsman" and "Schaeffer", maybe the Letterer and Assistant Editor have a bit of Hebriac blood in them)

I’ll be back some other time with topics like "Moon Knight: For This I got Ordained As a Rabbi?"

*Although it is important to note that there are apparently Kosher doughnut shops in Gotham. Cool factoid.

Challengers of the Unknown #2: The Trial of the Challs

2006-01-14T16:10:00.000-05:00

Greg over at Comics Should Be Good has a retrospective on Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale Challengers of the Unknown mini-series from the early 1990s. I can't say that I've read the whole thing, but I have read the second issue, which features the Challs (or rather, three of them) on trial. It's an issue I've intended to review since starting this blog.

In the first issue of the mini, Challenger Mountain explodes. The blast kills hundrds in neighboring Challengerville, and causes millions in property damage. This page provides a great synopsis of the issue's events. In short, a saboteur sent a bomb into the Mountain, but the Challs believe that the explosion was caused by one of Prof's experiments. Because of the bomb, it's not made clear whether Prof's actions would have caused an explosion on their own or not. In any case, Prof died in the blast.

That same site (and I find it rather neat that someone other than DC owns ChallengersoftheUnknown.com) also has a detailed breakdown of issue #2. So if you'd like to see an issue summary and some panels before heading into the legal stuff, have at it.

Issue two picks up five months later (probably a little fast, but a lot better than some other timeframes we've covered) in the Federal Courthouse in Denver, Colorado. With Prof dead, only Red, Ace, and Rocky are on trial.

On trial for what? Well, the issue never actually says what they're charged with. The attorneys ask the jury to find the Challs "guilty" and "innocent," but never say guilty or innocent of what. (And in any case, the defense attorney should be asking for a "not guilty" verdict, not an "innocent" one.) Even at the end of the issue, the jurors find the Challs "not guilty of any criminal misconduct." It's all pretty vague.

We could create a laundry list of potential charges that might have been brought against the Challs for the destruction of Challengerville, but most of those would be state criminal charges. I'm content to assume that whatever federal charges could be gleaned from the circumstances were what got the Challs into federal court. Given the mention of the death penalty later in the issue, it's necessary to say that at least some federal murder charges were involved. This is one of those occasions where being vague actually works to the writer's benefit, since I can't say anything it definitely wrong.

Unfortunately, there's not much else in this issue that's to Loeb's benefit. Starting on the first page, he has the defense attorney giving the first opening statement. The first opening statement in court goes to the party with the burden of proof, which in criminal cases is the prosecutor. Loeb gets the order of the opening statements backwards.

I was tempted to say that he gets the witness portion of the trial backwards too, but that's not quite true. Rather, Loeb doesn't have the prosecution put on a case at all. Opening statements end at the bottom of page three, and the defense starts calling witnesses at the top of page four. No indication is made as to any passage of time. Nobody's even changed clothes. And throughout the rest of the issue, every other witness is a defense witness. How the prosecutor can say she's been "sterling in there," without having called any witnesses or presented any evidence at all, is beyond me.

Yes, the prosecutor manages to go the entire issue claiming the Challs should be convicted of, well, something, but the only time she even hinted at them being responsible for the blast was in her opening statement: "They were four men and a woman who were operating a near-nuclear facility and blew up the whole damn mountain." That's it. It ends up being the defense attorney who finally presents a theory as to how the Challs were involved (i.e., it was Prof's fault). Then again, the prosecutor is seemingly possessed by a demon of some sort, so perhaps the demon was impairing her legal skills. Since the prosecutor has a fair number of out-of-line statements, I'll just chalk them all up to the demon (the script strongly suggests exactly that in a couple of places).

Loeb manages to err with the closing statements too. This time he puts them in the right order with respect to each other, but he inserts them before the defense's last surprise witness. They're not even good closing statements, since they say virtually nothing about the exploding mountain, but rather just a lot about the character of the defendants.

The last witness is Superman, who shows up to take the witness stand, give a narrative speech about how the Challs are heroes, quote the tagline from his movie ("you believe a man can fly"), and basically shame the jury into finding the Challs not guilty. It's a cute moment that Loeb definitely liked, but it's bad for two reasons. First, trials don't have surprise witnesses anymore. It's prejudicial to the other side to suddenly bring an unexpected person to the stand without having given some time to prepare.

Second, Superman's testimony doesn't shed any light on the question of the Challengers' guilt. He even admits that he doesn't know them. There's no value to putting him on the stand, so he would almost assuredly be excluded from testifying.

In fact, his testimony isn't the only one that's problematic. The parade of defense witnesses on pages four and five are all troublesome as well. Their testimony is all about how the Challengers were heroes and helped the city of Challengerville before the mountain exploded. That would be fine if the court was considering sentencing, but it's irrelevant to the question of guilt. None of them knew the Challs personally, so they can't even slip in as character witnesses.

On the plus side (finally!), the prosecutor's question to the defense witnesses ("How much money would you lose if the Challengers were found guilty today?") is a legitimate question to ask in order to impeach a witness's credibility. A financial interest in a case's outcome can affect a person's testimony.

(The last witness to respond on page five says "I take the Fifth." He probably can't do that. The Fifth Amendment's guarantee is against self-incrimination; unless Mr. Daniels would risk incriminating himself by answering the question about money loss, he can't take the Fifth.)

The three remaining Challengers take the stand as well, and all three testify about what happened in the mountain. Actually no, that's a total lie, because that would relevant to the charges against them. So instead, Loeb has them all testify about their history as members of the Challengers of the Unknown. And he has a reporter take the stand to talk about Prof's personal history. There's objectionable material scattered throughout, but this is still the closest to allowable testimony that Loeb gets.

Eventually, the defense attorney puts forward an actual defense: "On that fateful day, [Prof] Walter Haley pulled that fatal switch and blew up Challenger Mountain." This is good. It explains, simply and plainly, why the three men on trial weren't criminally responsible for the explosion. For some reason, the defendants are rather unhappy with this, as if they'd rather go to jail than admit "Prof did it." And remember, since none of them know about the bomb, they all [i]do[/i] think that Prof did it.

The prosecutor has an unexpected response to this: "And now, by introducing as their defense that the guilty party is a dead man, they've admitted their guilt!" I really hope Loeb meant for this line to be a demon-afflicted one (even though she's missing the visual cue that accompanies her other outbursts), because it would be phenomenally stupid for an intelligent lawyer to say. How can saying that someone else is guilty possibly be construed as admission of one's own guilt?

Finally, we reach the jury verdict: "We the jury find the Challengers of the Unknown not guilty of any criminal misconduct." It's a little odd that they don't use the defendants' names, made odder by the fact that we finally see clearly that the front of the defense table has hanging off of the front headshots of all four Challs with their nicknames. Are we to assume Prof is on trial too, as a dead man?

Still, that's an acceptable verdict. What isn't acceptable is what follows: "But, your honor, we do feel that the Challengers should make full financial restitution to the town of Challengerville." Sorry, no. For one thing, juries don't hand down punishments; that's the judge's job. But more importantly, a criminal jury cannot find the defendants Not Guilty, and then still punish the defendants. A 'not guilty' verdict means no punishment gets imposed, at least if and until there's a civil trial.

I'll close with a little flub that's presumably on Tim Sale's part, though it might have been in Loeb's script. On the splash panel of pages two and three, we see a lot of cameras and spotlights in the back of the courtroom. As I've mentioned before, federal criminal trials aren't allowed to be filmed. And even if the DCU had a different general rule, the sheer number and size of spotlights would be a huge distraction and annoyance to the judge, jurors, and any witnesses, and would be disallowed for that reason.

Wonder Woman: Murderer?

2006-01-09T17:02:00.000-05:00

After Wonder Woman #219 and the OMAC Project "Sacrifice" crossover, allegations of murder have surrounded Wonder Woman. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, here's your recap:

It is revealed that Max Lord has secretly been a bad guy for, well, forever. It also turns out that he has been psychicly manipulating Superman's mind in order to bend Supes to Max's will. He ends up taking control of Superman, who has a drawn-out battle with Wonder Woman. The fight winds up at Lord's castle in Switzerland, where he drops his control of Superman long enough to present Diana with the choice of stopping him by fatal means. And Diana chooses to twist Max's head around backwards. Max had also arranged for the moment to be videotaped, and the film was broadcast worldwide after his death.

So in Wonder Woman #222, Diana turned herself in to the Hague, Netherlands, so that she might be tried for murder by the World Court.

The World Court is another name for the International Court of Justice. But the ICJ does not handle criminal cases; its role is to resolve legal disputes brought to it by states. The worldwide court for criminal actions is the International Criminal Court, which is also located in the Hague. It has been controversial in American politics, largely because of questions of who the Court might exercise jurisdiction over. What happens if the ICC started defining 'war crimes' or 'crimes against humanity' a lot broader than we do? Could American soldiers find themselves in front of a foreign tribunal for actions that wouldn't be crimes in this country? This potential uncertainty makes some people wary of the Court.

Still, even the broadest interpretation of the Court's jurisdiction doesn't include what Wonder Woman did. Even if we assume her guilt upfront, she is still only guilty of a single, premeditated murder (and even then under mitigating circumstances). This, on a global scale, is a rather routine crime, and far below the purvue of the ICC. Just imagine the reach the Court would have if it could prosecute every murder committed anywhere, or only every murder that involves a foreigner. The page linked above spells out the Court's limited scope:

The Court's jurisdiction will be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. It will therefore have jurisdiction with respect to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, all of which are fully defined in the Statute and further elaborated by the Elements of Crimes.

Nope, nothing about individual murders. So where should Wonder Woman be tried? There are two possibilities. One is Switzerland, the country where the alleged crime took place. This would be the most natural venue, especially since Diana is willing to submit herself to the proceedings. Thus, whatever kind of extradition agreement may or may not exist between Switzerland and Themyscira, it seems that Wonder Woman would have been willing to turn herself over to a Swiss court.

And before anyone says "diplomatic immunity," I've addressed that before. My understanding is that Themyscira wouldn't object to a waiver of any immunity. Besides, I'm not sure "Ambassador to Man's World" would be a recognized diplomatic position in Switzerland anyway.

The second possibilty for a trial venue would be Themyscira itself. Paradise Island could, if it so chose, try a citizen of their own for a crime committed elsewhere. Apparently they're more forgiving than the ICJ and chose not to punish Diana, even if they're still willing to let her voluntarily submit to trial elsewhere.

So the case is in the wrong court, but the question that seems to intrigue most people is whether Diana committed murder or not. For those who care, I don't think she did. I think what we have here was a justifiable homicide, based on self-defense and the defense of others. Diana reasonably believed that she and others (and given Superman's powers, that implies a lot of others) were in mortal danger, and she reacted accordingly. It doesn't terribly matter if other, less fatal options were conceivable; Maxwell Lord presented a lethal threat, and Diana responded with lethal force. It was a reasonable response under the circumstances. Given all the evidence, I wouldn't convict her.

However, this doesn't mean that I think a criminal investigation and maybe even a trial (albeit not a trial at the ICC) is out of order. Remember, as the omniscient reader, we have access to a lot of information that a DCU court would not. Taken from their perspective, they have seen video footage of the crime itself (which doesn't help Diana) and probably testimony from Diana's superhero friends (who are probably a little biased). Given the evidence available, I can see why an investigation would be merited. And given Europe's general attitude toward the death penalty, I would imagine they might not be as willing to let a supervillain's execution pass with as little objection as we might let it.

Random final thought: imagine that Wonder Woman was convicted and sentenced to death (even though they don't have the death penalty in Europe). How would Diana be executed? Does Wonder Woman have a weakness like Superman's Kryptonite or J'onn's fire? What means would it take to kill her efficiently? The Purple Death Ray, perhaps?

(And if I've gotten any details about the issues wrong above, please forgive me. I'm reviewing this storyline largely based on what I can remember from reading the material several weeks ago.)

My Year in Comics: 2005

2006-01-07T11:16:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the first new comic day of 2006. That makes now a good time to begin a comic-related New Year's Resolution that has served me well for two years now. Starting in 2004, I stole an idea from Augie de Blieck, and began tracking my comic buys with an Excel spreadsheet. What I bought, when, from where, and for how much. It's a good way to keep track both of hobby spending and of what comics I own, and for someone who doesn't think he spends much on comics, I surprise myself. And it allows you an quick and easy way to gauge what went well and not so well in the last year.

Over the course of 2005, I spent just a hair under $940 on comics. This was a really big jump from the $700 I spent in 2004. I still managed to average a bargain, because the combined cover prices of my purchases was over $1700. I expect quite a drop for 2006, though.

Where did all the money go? Over half, roughly $510, went to trades and hardcovers. 57 in all, up from only 23 in 2004. And $133 of that (approximately 1/7 of my entire year's comic spending, and about 40% off their cover price) was on tpbs of one series: Usagi Yojimbo. A year ago, I made a list of all the tpbs I wanted, and it included every Usagi trade I didn't already own. In early December I bought my last one, for a total of 15 Usagi tpb purchases in 2005. Now I have a complete library of a series I'll probably never need to talk about here.

Twenty different titles drifted in and out of my box at the shop. A couple more, such as Akiko, were on my pull list but didn't release an issue in 2005. My favorite new title of the year was Jonah Hex; the new title that disappointed the most was probably Villains United, which I dropped halfway through. I can't recall ever dropping a mini-series partway through before.

I spent just under $380 at my comic shop, Odin's Cosmic Bookshelf, for an average of $7.30 per week. This shows why I'll often go two or three weeks between trips. My eBay spending was practically non-existant after February, but it did provide me with one of the year's best bargains: the first three Cerebus phonebooks for $13.50 total.

Back issue purchases helped me fill some longstanding holes in my collection, and I completed my runs of Young Justice, Static, Mike Grell's Green Arrow, John Byrne's Sensational She-Hulk, and Ty Templeton's last two animated Batman runs.

I've bought four of DC's Showcase Presents volumes. The Jonah Hex one is my unabashed favorite of the four. I hope DC doesn't wait forever to release a second volume.

Best overlooked collection of the year: Max Hamm: Fairy Tale Detective Vol. 1. This book was a hoot, and while it may not be the year's best book, I heard virtually no talk about it. It deserves more attention.

So if you're willing to do a little record-keeping, I'd highly recommend keeping track of your comic buying with Excel or some other means. I'd even be happy to e-mail anyone a sampling of what my spreadsheet looks like, if you'd like to know how to start.

And the new Spectre is...

2006-01-04T00:24:00.000-05:00

With Gotham Central #39 coming out tomorrow, I'm going to take the first of two tangents this week and make my case for an Infinite Crisis-related prediction. Specifically, the answer to the question: who will be the next host for the Spectre?

My answer is hardly novel: GCPD Detective Crispus Allen. Why? Several reasons.

1) He's dead. This automatically gives him a leg up over characters who are not dead.

2) He died seeking vengeance, and his death came before he could see justice done. This is, per Ostrander's history of the Spectre, the standard motivation for a Spectre host. Allen was doing his own independent investigation of corrupt cop Jim Corrigan in order to expose him, and Corrigan killed both Allen and Allen's informant to protect himself.

3) The circumstances of his death share a lot in common with those of the original Jim Corrigan. Both were good cops, both were murdered, both murders involved police snitches, and both died in the middle of unfulfilled quests for justice (as described above). This has all the earmarks of recapturing the essence of the original Corrigan's death, and given DC's new editorial direction, it seems far more likely that they would want to return the Spectre to its roots rather than take the character down a radical new road with a corrupt and murderous host in the form of the 'new' Jim Corrigan.

4) When I first read Gotham Central #37, I thought it was perhaps the most worthless issue of the series. It offered up a little on Allen's spiritual crisis, but the rest of the issue was largely disposable. If Allen is truly dead as of the end of #38, then what was the point of #37? Why spend an entire issue that does virtually nothing other than explore a character's inner struggle over religious faith, when you plan to knock him off in the very next issue? Why do what may be GC's first first-person narrative issue if you intend to kill said first person? If Allen is now gone forever, then #37 was a complete waste of $2.50. If, on the other hand, Allen were to survive on in some ectoplasmic form, then this crisis of faith that was introduced would instead be foreshadowing for the sure spiritual conflict that would result from making a man who doubts God into a man who acts as God's agent of vengeance. It's an instant character hook for the new Spectre, along with the fact that he would still have a family.

Although I have been rather negative about IC's treatment of the Spectre in the past, making Crispus Allen the new host of the Spectre would go a long way towards DC redeeming itself in my eyes. It would manage to replicate much of what made the old Jim Corrigan a good Spectre, without reviving Corrigan or copying him outright. It wouldn't be resorting again to the creatively incestuous notion of making a spandex-wearing superhero into God's agent of vengeance. Plus, it would keep a good character 'alive,' albeit in a different way.

So that's my prediction. I just wanted it, and my reasoning, out there before any answers hit stands. I don't make a lot of predictions as to comic storylines, but I feel darn confident about this one.