|
HitTheTargets posted:What happened? All I know about Arena is that only two or three people died for realsies and that the follow-up series gave Chase a douchy haircut. It was just a crappy book where nobody acted in character.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 04:10 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:16 |
|
CharlestheHammer posted:He is not talking about his legal knowledge, but being a vigilante will mean he will have broken a lot of the rules for lawyers. Especially considering how much overlap the two tend to have. A huge part of Waid's recent run on Daredevil involves Murdock coming clean on being Daredevil and being disbarred by the State of New York for ethical misconduct (I believe Perjury but I haven't read it since he moved to San Francisco).
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 04:39 |
|
Dr. Hurt posted:A huge part of Waid's recent run on Daredevil involves Murdock coming clean on being Daredevil and being disbarred by the State of New York for ethical misconduct (I believe Perjury but I haven't read it since he moved to San Francisco). Yeah because he lied about being daredevil in his counter suit against the Daily Bugle.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 04:49 |
|
How pissed off do you think Stephen Glass had to be that Matt Murdock can still practice law in California, and he can't?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 04:55 |
|
Hell's Kitchen has really changed over the past couple of decades. I thank Matt Murdock. You don't see many other heroes get those kind of real-world results.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 10:13 |
|
Does anyone else sometimes have trouble guessing what swear word a writer is going for? Sometimes it just feels like they thought "and then they say a bad word here" without thinking of what they're actually saying. Or maybe I'm a weirdo and this is a nonsense post,
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 15:16 |
|
Unmature posted:Does anyone else sometimes have trouble guessing what swear word a writer is going for? Sometimes it just feels like they thought "and then they say a bad word here" without thinking of what they're actually saying. This happens in Chick tracts a lot.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 15:23 |
|
Unmature posted:Does anyone else sometimes have trouble guessing what swear word a writer is going for? Sometimes it just feels like they thought "and then they say a bad word here" without thinking of what they're actually saying. I always put in gently caress because it always fits. What's the worst swear that you are allowed to say in a mainstream Big Two book?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 16:50 |
|
zoux posted:I always put in gently caress because it always fits.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:04 |
|
Endless Mike posted:"Mutie" Please, call me Alex.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:06 |
Endless Mike posted:"Mutie" I'd love to know how editorial let Kitty Pryde say the n-word twice. I can see a writer thinking he's being clever, but I just don't know how, anytime past the 60s, someone can look at that word and be like "Yeah, that's fit to print".
|
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:09 |
|
zoux posted:I always put in gently caress because it always fits. Imperious Rex. Namor has a dirty mouth. And not just from making out with the Mariana Dirt Queen.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:15 |
|
Lurdiak posted:I'd love to know how editorial let Kitty Pryde say the n-word twice. I can see a writer thinking he's being clever, but I just don't know how, anytime past the 60s, someone can look at that word and be like "Yeah, that's fit to print". I can't tell if you're being serious.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:20 |
|
zoux posted:I can't tell if you're being serious. Yes, Kitty has said the n-word in print.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 17:52 |
|
Uthor posted:Yes, Kitty has said the n-word in print. Twice
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 19:12 |
|
Uthor posted:Yes, Kitty has said the n-word in print. Specially to tell black people about prejudice. (not the readers but the characters) It was bad.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 19:20 |
|
Claremont?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 19:23 |
|
zoux posted:Claremont? She says it in God Loves, Man Kills, so yes. The other time was I think in Secret Wars 2, so that'd be then editor in chief Jim Shooter's fault.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 19:31 |
|
He knew that the hook to selling more Kitty Pryde toys was focusing on her tendency to make tin-eared equivalencies about social justice issues. Great instincts.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 20:14 |
|
I guess these are them then? I mean, I can understand what they are going for but you really can't conflate your fictional hate speech with literally the most hate filled word in the English language.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 20:20 |
|
Also don't make it bold probably.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 20:33 |
|
Oh my god Kitty you just can't ask people why they aren't black.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 20:38 |
|
Is there any issues of Batman/Detective Comics that deal with the legal ramifications of Batman beating up perps? One would think some perp getting beaten up and left on the cops doorsteps would be a one way trip to all charges dropped/mistrial.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 22:01 |
|
Madkal posted:Is there any issues of Batman/Detective Comics that deal with the legal ramifications of Batman beating up perps? One would think some perp getting beaten up and left on the cops doorsteps would be a one way trip to all charges dropped/mistrial. I haven't read it yet (I know), but I imagine Gotham Central addresses that. There was an issue of Tangled Web of Spider-Man that was essentially that, but with Spider-Man. He drops the bad guys off and the cops are racing like hell to get a confession because the purps lawyer gets there because they know they have absolutely no case without one.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 22:13 |
|
There's an episode of The Tick TV show where they go to court as witnesses to put Destroyo into jail. The Tick's testimony boils down to "but his name is Destroyo!" while all the evidence is ruled inadmissible as they didn't have a warrant to confiscate the poison, nuclear bomb, and several feet or rope.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 22:31 |
|
Madkal posted:Is there any issues of Batman/Detective Comics that deal with the legal ramifications of Batman beating up perps? (Wondermark)
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 22:32 |
|
zoux posted:I guess these are them then? The darling of a generation of writers ladies and gents.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 23:01 |
|
Its not the worst thing ever written.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 23:22 |
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Its not the worst thing ever written. In context, the first one almost works, almost.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 23:24 |
|
Skwirl posted:In context, the first one almost works, almost. Yea it is heavy handed and whatnot, but in context it can sort of work.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 23:32 |
|
Madkal posted:Yea it is heavy handed and whatnot, but in context it can sort of work. It helps that she's not actually calling some one that, but using a hypothetical. But as someone else pointed out, it's still comparing a made up term for a fictional group of people to the most hateful and politically/racially charged words in America.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2014 23:37 |
|
Madkal posted:Is there any issues of Batman/Detective Comics that deal with the legal ramifications of Batman beating up perps? One would think some perp getting beaten up and left on the cops doorsteps would be a one way trip to all charges dropped/mistrial. I remember Christopher Priest did a story (I think it was called Batman: The Hill) about a gangster who Batman tries his normal act on, and the guy lawyers his way out of it. The end result was Batman just ups his game, does more evidence collection and other tricks. Then at the end ties him up outside a building, and leaves him in front of GCPD. The overall point being. Yes, on one level Batman's methods are legally unsound and would fall apart by any defence lawyer. And perhaps overall classiest/ don't fully deal with the root causes of crime. On the other hand, almost all drug dealers are nasty pieces of work. And sure if Batman leaves them tied up to a lamp post with a note and a load of drugs at their feet, their conviction may not stick. But they don't get their product back. Turns out, you aren't allowed own legal drugs and even if you don't get charged with it, the Cops will take it off you. And that drug dealer maybe back on the street, but he's always going to look over his shoulder. So in a real way, Batman is an effective method of prevention.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 00:06 |
|
You say "real" but I don't know if you've thought that through.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 00:23 |
|
HitTheTargets posted:You say "real" but I don't know if you've thought that through. If he were real: http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/9p16/
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 00:55 |
|
Skwirl posted:It helps that she's not actually calling some one that, but using a hypothetical. But as someone else pointed out, it's still comparing a made up term for a fictional group of people to the most hateful and politically/racially charged words in America. I mean, that's always gonna be a thing with the X-Men though. One of their foremost characters is a walking comparison between fictional mutant hatred and the real life greatest, most hideous moral crime of the 20th century.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 01:22 |
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I mean, that's always gonna be a thing with the X-Men though. One of their foremost characters is a walking comparison between fictional mutant hatred and the real life greatest, most hideous moral crime of the 20th century. What makes this so tin-eared though is that she's a white person yelling at black characters about real-life racism to make a point about a fictional, made-up minority. Like, that's getting the lesson completely backward if you're schooling a real-life minority that gets actual poo poo in order to teach a lesson about the fantasy vehicle designed to teach kids about racism. I can imagine some shithead suburban kid reading along in his 1986 basement bar on a beanbag chair and getting so pissed at the dumb black character who doesn't understand the noble oppressed soul of the beautiful white characters and their difficult lives.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 02:09 |
|
Jack Gladney posted:What makes this so tin-eared though is that she's a white person yelling at black characters about real-life racism to make a point about a fictional, made-up minority. Like, that's getting the lesson completely backward if you're schooling a real-life minority that gets actual poo poo in order to teach a lesson about the fantasy vehicle designed to teach kids about racism. And again I say: one of the most prominent X-Men is a character who by his very existence compares the fictional suffering of a fictional race to the actual systematic slaughter of six million real people. It's always gonna be a thing with the X-Men. It's graceless, because Claremont is often graceless, but I don't think there's any hard rules against allegory. As for hypothetical 1980s suburban shithead kids, I can't say they concern me too much.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 02:13 |
|
Jack Gladney posted:What makes this so tin-eared though is that she's a white person yelling at black characters about real-life racism to make a point about a fictional, made-up minority. Like, that's getting the lesson completely backward if you're schooling a real-life minority that gets actual poo poo in order to teach a lesson about the fantasy vehicle designed to teach kids about racism. It's not like minorities haven't oppressed other minorities before. When you have stuff like TERFs and the strong Black support for Prop8 I think it's a bit more relevant.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 02:25 |
|
The Question IRL posted:The overall point being. Yes, on one level Batman's methods are legally unsound and would fall apart by any defence lawyer. Eh, sort of. quote:At common law, both police officers and private individuals could arrest someone without a warrant for a felony or breach of the peace committed in their presence (i.e. they had to actually see it happen). However, police arrests and private arrests differed if it turned out no crime had been committed. As long as the police officer was acting reasonably, he or she was protected, but a private individual acted at his or her own risk (e.g. there might be a false arrest claim). So the "leaving a criminal tied up on the steps of the police department" thing is entirely legal, it's just evidence collection that superheroes would need to be careful with. (Law and the Multiverse is a great blog for anyone interested in this sort of stuff, by the way.)
|
# ? Sep 4, 2014 02:52 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:16 |
|
Idran posted:Eh, sort of. Hum, so if a random private individual 'arrests' someone who commits a crime in front of them, this can count as a legal arrest as long as they're willing to testify in court about it and presumably some evidence remains of the crime in question? It seems tricky because there's plenty of crimes that don't leave much/any hard evidence, so it'd be the word of two private individuals against each other. I guess the only case where it really comes into play in reality is arresting people who are actively assaulting someone, or are already wanted (so, bounty hunters). But I thought bounty hunters needed some sort of license. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 4, 2014 |
# ? Sep 4, 2014 03:24 |