Injustice - Gods Among Us

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Well, that only makes more odd Joker's playability...

What the heck? Is it Jordan or Kyle?

[LostinFandom]

Also, I'm surprised that you would call this story misogynistic because from my recollection, Jimmy Olsen was killed in the previous chapter by Joker. I guess its totally fine for one of the oldest and most recognisable male supporting character to die, but all of a sudden its not okay that a female supporting character dies.
Everything can be spoken out of context. Superman killed Lois Lane because he was drugged with fear gas and mistakenly thought Lois Lane was Doomsday, a monster that killed him once and causes devastation to earth. How is that misogynistic? Is that as misogynistic as Jimmy Olsen being killed by Joker?

Honestly I've never been a fan of Lois Lane. What ever superman stories I was introduced to her through just did not make her appeal to me. I've later learned an appreciation of her, but she doesn't connect to me emotionally. Most of the complaints about Lois being treated poorly in the New 52 I've shrugged off. I don't care that she is no longer the romantic love of Superman/Clark Kent's life. I think have stories about the complicated state of contemporary journalism is fine for the character, and not having her on the "right side" could be a good starting point for some interesting stories. That said when I heard about this story I felt sickened. Seriously aside from misogynistic it is gridmark at its worst. Just torture and kill the people around Superman to make him his worst. It takes away everything Lois is or could be and reduces it to angst fodder. Also they have to through in the pregnancy to make it all worse, because a woman's life isn't worth much if she's not expecting. And playing up a domestic abuse angle on a love story that for the past couple of decades has been one of the most gentle in comics is vile. With the Scarecrow/nerve toxin "excuse" it makes the whole thing pointless. It's okay to kill your spouse under the influence? No one should agree with that.

[TonyStark1012]

So far this seems to be shaping up to be a great story. Good art and it really does hit a heart string or to as well. Issue three came out today, and is most definitely worth a read.

Agreed. I really enjoyed the first issue. Looking forward to the next one. I also enjoyed the DC Universe Online Legends comic that came out as well. DC is doing good with their comics based on their games

[Charlus]

Superman unbound

Green Lanter was knocked out pretty easily...

[Dexx707]

Honestly I've never been a fan of Lois Lane. What ever superman stories I was introduced to her through just did not make her appeal to me. I've later learned an appreciation of her, but she doesn't connect to me emotionally. Most of the complaints about Lois being treated poorly in the New 52 I've shrugged off. I don't care that she is no longer the romantic love of Superman/Clark Kent's life. I think have stories about the complicated state of contemporary journalism is fine for the character, and not having her on the "right side" could be a good starting point for some interesting stories. That said when I heard about this story I felt sickened. Seriously aside from misogynistic it is gridmark at its worst. Just torture and kill the people around Superman to make him his worst. It takes away everything Lois is or could be and reduces it to angst fodder. Also they have to through in the pregnancy to make it all worse, because a woman's life isn't worth much if she's not expecting. And playing up a domestic abuse angle on a love story that for the past couple of decades has been one of the most gentle in comics is vile. With the Scarecrow/nerve toxin "excuse" it makes the whole thing pointless. It's okay to kill your spouse under the influence? No one should agree with that.

I can relate to you on the Lois thing. Never really felt close to the character other than in a few incarnations (smallville and flashpoint). I like that fact that in the new 52 I may have a chance to know her beyond that of just being Superman's love.

As for the story? I like it. I like the fact that it set up a happy life for Superman and his newly expanding family, only to have the Joker roll into town on an insane whim to feel like a winner and tear Superman's whole way of life to shreds. But to be honest this isn't the first time that we've seen the Joker do this. He did it the Dark Knight movie, he did something similar in the killing joke to Barbara (didn't kill her but there are worse things than death sometimes). While Rachael wasn't as iconic as Lois she did mean just as much to Batman. The Joker made several good points in the latest issue. Can Superman endure if everything he loves is rip away from him when he's at his happiest? No, no he can't. When every light that makes up a person's life is snuffed away(the brightest by one's own hands no less) all your left with is rage and darkness. If a person doesn't learn how to focus that rage it will destroy that person. Batman is a rare exception to this. He found darkness very early in his life and it took decades for him to focus it properly and not be taken by it. Superman doesn't have that will. He's a great symbol for what a hero can be, but he's not a symbol for how to overcome darkness and still be the hero you need to be, that's Batman. Batman made the mistake of thinking that just because Superman is (was now) the greatest hero on earth that the Joker couldn't corrupt him. Just as Batman is a master tactician, the Joker is a master at breaking people's mind's and souls. The Joker even said that this was an easy win for him and yeah it was because compared to everyone other than the Bat-Family most heroes are easy to break, you just have to know where and how to hit them.

As for the domestic abuse angle. Is a man beating his wife under most circumstances excusable? No. Is a man killing his wife under most circumstances excusable? No. However if a man is poisoned by pure fear (and alien radiation) then yes as sad and unfortunate as it is it is excusable. I'm not talking about some douchebag that snorts a bag of ecstasy mixed with acid and cocaine then beats his wife with a bat because "the fairy's wouldn't stop singing to him", I'm talking about being intentionally poisoned by a third-party and killing her accidentally.
If we really want to get technical about then yes Superman did kill his wife, because the moment he decided to team with Batman he put her in a realm of danger that he wasn't prepared for.

[Jake Fury]

Read the first 4 issues via Comixology and I can't say it was particularly impresive. There were a few good moments but overall nothing to write home about.

[Mr. Holmes]

The idea of using the S-shield in the place of a swastika really bothers me. I mean I'm not one to get offended easily at all, but it just feels really distasteful.

[Seresecros]

The idea isn't, as some have said, that Superman's wife dies. It's that he loses everything which connected him to stability and the 'normal' life he aspired to since coming to Earth. His ideal is peace, a family, a home, and everything regular. Joker takes all of those from him, and he snaps. Lois dies as part of it, but this is a standard 'what if' premise and is certainly nothing new - and nothing targeting female readers or characters. She is part of the story structure, because that's what the story calls for.

The more damaging part of the issue is the artistic depiction of Wonder Woman, which is all breasts and no waist. The story was fine

[stk]

The idea of using the S-shield in the place of a swastika really bothers me.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. You mean on banners in the dystopian future? Are the Nazis the only totalitarian regime to put their symbol on a banner?
I don't get how you make the leap from Superman's repressive regime straight to Nazis.

[Mr. Holmes]

You can replace "Nazi" with any other facist regime, it doesn't really change my point.

I don't have a problem with Superman as a fascist (it's hardly a new idea), but it's not a nuanced fascism, it's pretty clear he's going nuts here.

[Mr. Wayne]

... I mean I'm not one to get offended easily at all...

Ummm, well you clearly are if seeing Superman's S-shield on a flag is that upsetting to you.

@Metropolis & @LostinFandom I find it perplexing how easily upset and offended you are in response to the fictional events portrayed in this story. While the events to which you're referring are clearly tragic and devastating, it does not warrant such a, frankly, childishly hysterical reaction.

Tragedy is, and always has been, a very important part of good storytelling. Shakespeare's famous trajedies being prime examples of just that. It helps to create empathy for the characters and to strengthen their motivations among many other things. I would have thought that you may have noticed this by now, being comic book readers, but I guess not.

I sincerely hope you don't ever read The Walking Dead, because, despite being an incredible story and an excellent comic overall, it contains so many tragic elements that I'm afraid you might have a nervous breakdown.

[Fonecrusher]

This series seem to be creating a lot of buzz and getting some good reviews so decided to get the first 4 issues yesterday, definitely glad I did. It's been great so far, really dark and watching Supes fall, it's kinda like you know what's coming next but don't want to look.

Batman with the flash was definatly awesome.

Indeed, it's always nice to see a bit of Bats humour!

[The Valeyard]

How many issues is this?

[stk]

You can replace "Nazi" with any other facist regime, it doesn't really change my point.

I don't have a problem with Superman as a fascist (it's hardly a new idea), but it's not a nuanced fascism, it's pretty clear he's going nuts here.

Firstly, I think you're wrong. Secondly, there are other kinds of totalitarianism besides fascism. There is even such a thing as a benevolent dictatorship. I don't think that method of government is tenable long term, but hey, we've never had Superman. And thirdly, I don't think it's clear he's going nuts. I don't think that is clear at all. I don't think he's right, but I don't think it's necessarily an unreasonable premise that he's starting from. We don't know yet.

I'm waiting to see how things unfold, what form his takeover takes, and if the people of Earth support the idea. I think you are making a lot of assumptions, starting with the idea that Lois dies and he immediately conquers Earth on a mad tear, and I don't think that is what is going to happen.

[Robotman4]

Firstly, I think you're wrong. Secondly, there are other kinds of totalitarianism besides fascism. There is even such a thing as a benevolent dictatorship. I don't think that method of government is tenable long term, but hey, we've never had Superman. And thirdly, I don't think it's clear he's going nuts. I don't think that is clear at all. I don't think he's right, but I don't think it's necessarily an unreasonable premise that he's starting from. We don't know yet.

I'm waiting to see how things unfold, what form his takeover takes, and if the people of Earth support the idea. I think you are making a lot of assumptions, starting with the idea that Lois dies and he immediately conquers Earth on a mad tear, and I don't think that is what is going to happen.

im hoping there is more to the plot than just Superman goes crazy with grief and conquers the world. it's rumored that Ares is involved. perhaps Superman is being manipulated by the god of war.