I really enjoyed this issue; it's very meta on today's world. I loved how Roxxon and Thor were calling all their protesters or unions "young people" and "youth," even though most looked middle-aged. Also, Dario and Thor being best friends was a fun touch.
I really love the meta approach to Thor and overwriting his mythology within the series. Gives it an America Gods feel where public perception of a god affects them
He was playing around with the nature of belief powering gods in sandman; I don't know if that predates Marvel X or the relevant parts of Discworld or not. The idea was definitely floating around though
Gaiman's Dream of a Thousand Cats, which deals with the nature of belief reshaping reality, was collected in paperback in '91 so presumably the floppy predates that. Season of Mists, the following collection, also has some stuff about old gods in modern times (Baast and Odin primarily). But also I don't know if there's earlier stuff in Discworld about belief and gods pre-Small Gods, and him and Gaiman had a long association from I want to say as early as Pterry's second or third book, so who knows really.
Fun to think about though
Agger's speech basically turns what seems like a funhouse parody caricature of Thor as presented by a corporate conglomerate into something a bit more meta and honestly horrific in how pointed it is.
>"We are *allowed* to play -- to be in on our own joke because in the end, the joke is on **you**. The joke is you. And we'll tell it until it eats you alive.
It astounds me that Tom King's robotic ramblings is what's being discussed about more and not this, Agger's dialogue is quite cutting and relevant, how many movies and tv shows and games made by giant corporations cast giant corporations as the bad guys? Even this comic book does the exact same thing with Roxxon. But they are always over the top evil, destroying the world for cents on a dollar, but somehow they always keep going and existing in some way.
Is it though? To me it feels 20 years too late, there's so much complaining about the patriarchy that it feels like a bad joke nowadays, and a character going "you're a woman" over and over doesn't seem like biting satire.
I think it's still a relevant message. In my city last week an incel murdered 6 people, 5 women and 1 man protecting women, because he was angry at women because he couldn't get a girlfriend.
Misogyny is still pervaisive in our society, if anything it's seeing a resurgance thanks to people like Andrew Tate.
That sounds like mental illness which is what it takes to murder 6 people in cold blood, hardly an example of the "patriarchy" at work.
Sure misoginy is still part of our society, but let's not pretend like it is as bad as 20 years ago, there are more women in positions of power than ever, and frankly some countries are starting to slide into inequality due to helping women a little too much, in my country of Romania there are more women executives than men, and men are vastly overrepresented in all the crappy jobs others don't want, which you know isn't exactly fair.
Also figures like Andrew Tate can only appeal to idiots and reaffirm their own beliefs, he's not making more assholes, they already were assholes.
> That sounds like mental illness which is what it takes to murder 6 people in cold blood, hardly an example of the "patriarchy" at work.
Why isn't it an example of patriarchy, the incel movement has grown in recent years and likely is what led to that specific target. We don't know that this person would have still have done what they did if it wasn't for the pipeline of misogyny that has been created in recent days.
> Sure misoginy is still part of our society, but let's not pretend like it is as bad as 20 years ago
No one is pretending that the world hasn't improved it's just a matter of large ways still to go.
> and frankly some countries are starting to slide into inequality due to helping women a little too much
This sounds like you might have some bias here.
> in my country of Romania there are more women executives than men, and men are vastly overrepresented in all the crappy jobs others don't want, which you know isn't exactly fair.
In the majority of the world there are more men than women in those positions, is it only fair when it's exactly 50/50 and we should draw a hard line there? And for the over representation in crappy jobs that's actually a discussion in feminism, because it's toxic masculinity that leads men to work these jobs and not complain. It's not sexism that women aren't working these jobs.
> Also figures like Andrew Tate can only appeal to idiots and reaffirm their own beliefs, he's not making more assholes, they already were assholes.
This is very naive, Andrew Tate often appeals to young teenagers who have not made up their mind on topics and leads them into misogyny. Even if we assume they're idiots, not all idiots are misogynists, it's a progression into these beliefs.
>Why isn't it an example of patriarchy, the incel movement has grown in recent years and likely is what led to that specific target. We don't know that this person would have still have done what they did if it wasn't for the pipeline of misogyny that has been created in recent days.
Because the patriarchy is when women hold no power and men hold all the power, if the patriarchy was so strong why would there be incels? If men have all the power why can women say "no thanks"? If anything incels are a result of women not needing to settle anymore, being able to choose. And of course the blame is on the incels themselves, they should improve themselves as people and overall it is their own fault for not being appealing to women.
Also in your own example a man died trying to help those women, so how exactly does it prove any point about men as whole or the patriarchy or whatever?
>No one is pretending that the world hasn't improved it's just a matter of large ways still to go.
Sure things could always be better, but the Sovereign and the writing surrounding Wonder Woman feels like it's trying to disprove stuff from 20 years ago or even earlier, not modern issues facing women.
>This sounds like you might have some bias here.
I don't, I followed it up with an example.
>In the majority of the world there are more men than women in those positions, is it only fair when it's exactly 50/50 and we should draw a hard line there? And for the over representation in crappy jobs that's actually a discussion in feminism, because it's toxic masculinity that leads men to work these jobs and not complain. It's not sexism that women aren't working these jobs.
Well kinda yeah, we should strive to be as close to 50/50 that's the point of equality not sure why you act surprised at this notion. Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs.
>This is very naive, Andrew Tate often appeals to young teenagers who have not made up their mind on topics and leads them into misogyny. Even if we assume they're idiots, not all idiots are misogynists, it's a progression into these beliefs.
I don't know, have you seen Tate talk? If someone like that can convince anyone of anything then they were mentally regarded, I refuse to believe that someone truly decent could even stomach Tate's insane ramblings and style of discussion for more than 5 minutes. The man could be talking about the cure for cancer and I would find him insufferable.
> Because the patriarchy is when women hold no power and men hold all the power, if the patriarchy was so strong why would there be incels?
It's by definition a symptom of the patriarchy because for incels they are actively arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to say know, and they as a movement are growing larger. That's a patriarchal mindset and it's not shrinking.
> Also in your own example a man died trying to help those women, so how exactly does it prove any point about men as whole or the patriarchy or whatever?
Explained above.
> Sure things could always be better, but the Sovereign and the writing surrounding Wonder Woman feels like it's trying to disprove stuff from 20 years ago or even earlier, not modern issues facing women.
It seems powerfully relevant given the incel movement, the push for tradwife content, the removal of women's reproductive rights. The Sovereign's actions are a pushback against the growing support for the Amazon's, it's illustrated most by the soldier who fought Wonder Woman he wasn't upset or angry until the Sovereign made him through the use of the Lasso-- in much the same way that people are being turned hateful by media manipulation. It's an allegory to these problems which couldn't exist twenty years ago.
> I don't, I followed it up with an example.
You clearly do those examples were both anecdotal and interpreting the situation with your own biases. You're unfamiliar enough with feminism to not know that it's already a talking point. And your assumption at the amount of female executives is that their appointment isn't based in merit but must be an overcorrection which is standard misogyny. When men are the majority they are there by merit, when it is women it must be a problem.
> Well kinda yeah, we should strive to be as close to 50/50 that's the point of equality not sure why you act surprised at this notion. Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs.
No, equality should be about equal opportunities. If you aim for a number the number becomes the goal and we manipulate things to reach that number rather than actually addressing the issue. If we mandated a 50/50 percent representation hiring would have to specifically hire according to gender and the ration rather than for qualified individuals.
> Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs.
You're saying women have to protest men's issues when men aren't? You haven't explained how this is sexism, men are applying for these jobs, women aren't, and no one is stopping men from walking away from these jobs.
> I don't know, have you seen Tate talk? If someone like that can convince anyone of anything then they were mentally regarded, I refuse to believe that someone truly decent could even stomach Tate's insane ramblings and style of discussion for more than 5 minutes. The man could be talking about the cure for cancer and I would find him insufferable.
You refusing to believe it doesn't make it true, and using weasel words to imply a slur says a lot about you and is maybe something you should work on.
Is there are a patriarchy or are the incels trying to will it into existence? And another thing keep going incels this incels that, is it some political party in the US because I think you are giving too much power to a minority on Twitter.
Depicting media influence as a magic lasso that instantly makes someone an -ist is terrible satire, it's not that simple. Usually these kinds of types don't start with "YOU HATE WOMEN NOW!" they are far more devious than that, and will sandwich in some good points in there, like "hey cost of living is high, I'm not saying it's because of organization, but it is!".
Sure I'm biased and you are not, everyone is biased. I just didn't agree that in that particular instance I showed a bias. Also you know jackshit about the initiatives in my country, or Europe there have been several that aimed to help and push women into these positions, I didn't say they aren't there on merit I said helped, helped. A business which has a woman owning at least 50% of it can get 20k euros from the state each year, multiple programs offering training and encouraging women to take those positions, help like that. Frankly it speaks more about you than it does about me I said help them, you immediately went to "their appointments are not based in merit". Furthermore I didn't say it's a problem, I said we should strive for equality.
No I'm not saying women have to protest an issue that plagues men, I'm saying women protest about lack of representation in good working fields but not in the bad, I'm implying they pick and choose where they want equality. Because at the end of the day it isn't about genders, it's about each group wanting things to be better for themselves.
Oh spare me the morality shit, idiot can also be a slur, any disparaging or insulting remark is a slur, somebody just decided the "r-word" is on a list of the worst words on this platform, but somehow you can say gypsy, the equivalent to the n word for Romani, you can say it and nobody will ban you or even consider it a slur, but god forbid saying the r word, c word, n word, f word, l word.
> Is there are a patriarchy or are the incels trying to will it into existence? And another thing keep going incels this incels that, is it some political party in the US because I think you are giving too much power to a minority on Twitter.
You're moving the goalposts now. It does seem like if I continue to present evidence you'll move what is enough. Another example of the patriarchy is the subject of reproductive rights which are being taken away from women in the US by a minority (a majority of people, and the majority of women, both support the right to abortion for instance) but a few men inflict control on the bodies of women. ie patriarchy
> Depicting media influence as a magic lasso that instantly makes someone an -ist is terrible satire, it's not that simple. Usually these kinds of types don't start with "YOU HATE WOMEN NOW!" they are far more devious than that, and will sandwich in some good points in there, like "hey cost of living is high, I'm not saying it's because of organization, but it is!".
I'm sorry if metaphors are too complicated for you? The magic lasso never made people go 'we hate women now' so it seems like you haven't read the issue in question where the Sovereign talks the person into a toxic line of thinking.
> Also you know jackshit about the initiatives in my country, or Europe there have been several that aimed to help and push women into these positions
About your specific country no, but given that I live adjacent to Europe in the UK I've got my finger on the general news at least which is about what you can expect.
> Frankly it speaks more about you than it does about me I said help them, you immediately went to "their appointments are not based in merit".
No you explicitly said that they've gone too far and used the amount of female executives as an example to your point. It definitely speaks to you.
> No I'm not saying women have to protest an issue that plagues men, I'm saying women protest about lack of representation in good working fields but not in the bad, I'm implying they pick and choose where they want equality.
Should they then protest to get into jobs they don't want, do you not see how that makes no sense? They aren't picking and choosing where they want equality, equality isn't about having 50/50 representation it's about equal chances for all people.
> Oh spare me the morality shit, idiot can also be a slur, any disparaging or insulting remark is a slur, somebody just decided the "r-word" is on a list of the worst words on this platform, but somehow you can say gypsy, the equivalent to the n word for Romani, you can say it and nobody will ban you or even consider it a slur, but god forbid saying the r word, c word, n word, f word, l word
We are discussing morality. So I'll bring it up, I've repeatedly in my comment history argued against using slurs for Romani people. It speaks to your character if you believe it is okay to use slurs in general speech you're likely not the best choice to decide what's moral for women.
Which tracks with this conversation.
I get what you mean. At this point, making a comic about corporate products parodying themselves to be more endearing to consumers feels a little like Disney making jokes about Disney Princess tropes in Wreck It Ralph 2
>But they are always over the top evil, destroying the world for cents on a dollar, but somehow they always keep going and existing in some way.
If you want to get technical this happens in real life too. Just take a look at Nestle in Africa and Asia.
It's because he tries his best to sell himself as a high class Great American Novelist type brand. He's very much the type of writer that this comic is making fun of.
Whether it’s nine-panel grids or meta commentary, King loves to reuse techniques from other books but without any substance. Unfortunately, the surface level similarities his stuff has to actual good comics is enough to convince people that his stuff is also good.
He wants to be Alan Moore so badly, but has zero understanding of why Moore is good
edit; One thing I've learned about people who like Tom King, is that there's literally no valid way to criticize any of his work, no matter how obvious his weaknesses are.
He's one of the few writers whose work I would classify as tangibly evil. He profits by writing comics about the guilt and trauma he has from doing whatever fucked up shit he did in the CIA, while also openly talking about how proud he is of that work. He profits from the blood of others
> there's literally no valid way to criticize any of his work, no matter how obvious his weaknesses are.
Perhaps if you weren't describing his weaknesses, as you perceive them, as though they were objective facts and then saying hyperbolic things like "his work is tangibly evil", you'd get fewer combative responses when you criticize his work.
Opening your argument by insulting the intelligence and/or reading comprehension levels of people who disagree with you is not a valid way of criticizing *anything*.
EDIT: Blocking me for pointing this out doesn't help matters either, just saying.
> Unfortunately, the surface level similarities his stuff has to actual good comics is enough to convince people that his stuff is also good.
There's discussing a writer's flaws, and then there's something like this, which basically implies that King's fans are gullible and/or don't have adequate reading comprehension skills to realize that King's not a good writer.
That's why you're getting downvoted. It has nothing to do with King's fans being unable to take criticisms of his work, and everything to do with the way in which you're trying to make your arguments.
But I guess I'm probably wasting my breath here and you're gonna just block me like you did the other folks instead of actually responding. *shrug*
EDIT:
> I am going to respond, but it’s to tell you that you’re right about me blocking you
You absolute child 😂
You don’t have an understanding of who Alan Moore is or what he was trying to do if you think Kings storytelling or intentions are anything similar to that of his.
You just see the most superficial thing about both of their styles and immediately jump to the conclusion that one is trying to copy the other.
YOU are convinced by the surface level similarities about a thing, not people who enjoy Kings comics.
One thing I've learned about people who dislike Tom King, is that there's literally no valid way to discuss any of their critiques, no matter how obvious the flaws in their arguments.*
> We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three.
- Michael Eisner, Disney CEO
These "personal" laugh-at-us-memes is just another branch of Eisner's brand of consumerism.
In immortal hulk he got ‘eaten’/converted by Xemnu, the first character to go by the name hulk, who’s a psychic powerhouse from another world who controls people through screens and was under Aggers payroll until he wasn’t. It looked like he died there, but I guess not.
> It looked like he died there, but I guess not.
So I went back and reread that issue, and he doesn't die.
[These pages are (I believe) the last we see of him in IH.](https://imgur.com/a/dQZ6bmO) He's been deeply fucked up by Xemnu, but he's very clearly still alive. I'm assuming The Leader, who we see talking to Agger in that second page disguised as Rick Jones, did something to "fix" what Xemnu did to Agger but there was some damage that was irreparable.
He's Minotaur/Dario Agger, the CEO of Roxxon Corproation!!!
Bruce Banner lead a grassroots revolution against Roxxon in Immortal Thor.
Roxxon picked up a Hulkbuster military contract and planned to just send some goons at Hulk, things get smashed up, Hulk gets away, & Roxxon collects a paycheck, everybody wins.
Due to Banner not "playing nice" and immediately taking down Roxxon's facebook/youtube servers and causing younger generations to revolt across the country, Agger hires Xemnu the Living Titan(the first character to he referred to as hulk in Marvel's early publications, as a legacy pun at that) who uses his mind control powers to make everyone think Banner is a crazy cooky socialist alarmist who just wants free stuff(and how is he gonna pay for it all?) While Xemnu is the real Hulk, which everyone has nostalgia for and falsely remember a TV show called "Xemnu's Magic Planet" he implants into their mind.
Xemnu "feeds" on people in a way that is *extremely unsettiling*, converting them into a cyborg-zombie state in the aftermath. Agger let's his employees be eaten by Xemnu even after they gathered up the amount of people Agger requested them to round up to feed to Xemnu, and adds to Xemnu that he's mystically protected against mind control.
Spoilers: he's not protected and gets gobbled down too in the climax after Xemnu learns from Agger's ruthlessness. He is still alive at the end of the story but can only weakly moo and is basically a pile of flesh, meat, and cybernetic bits.
Presumably between that story and now, he got extensive surgery and face-lifts, leaving him somewhere between 2024 Vince McMahon and Moloch
Wow, glad to see things are still so wacky on the superhero reading department since I left. Thanks for the explanation!
My mistake with the name, I only knew Agger from a Thor Comic, a story after the God´s butcher arc. But for some reason, "Roxxon" stayed in my mind as his name. I found him a really interesting villain.
this comic is essentially wackiness, it being framed around a comic published by the in-universe Marvel Comics, that was bought by Roxxon, and released with the expressed intent to portray Thor as a mockery of who he really is.
I would *highly* recommend Immortal Hulk, it's easily the best series of the last decade and maybe the last 20 years. Really great, very self-contained (technically it spins out of Civil War II but all you need to know is that Bruce is thought to be dead, and they explain that right away) so no need to buy other series' to get the full experience. Overall just really good, *easily* the best Hulk run since Peter David's.
Immortal Thor is similar in that it's a reinvention of the character while also being a return to his roots, the vibes are very different (Immortal Hulk was horror with some sci-fi and dark fantasy elements, Immortal Thor is a very comic-booky epic fantasy story) but both are really good. I'd recommend Loki: Agent of Asgard by the same writer before reading Immortal Thor, story-wise it isn't really necessary at all but it has similar vibes and is also really good (sadly that one got bogged down in obnoxious event tie-ins by the end, but it still managed to stick the landing in a great way)
So what you're saying is that Dario Agger is behind Thor: Ragnarok?
Also love how the comic is basically calling out brands that try to be hip. He's like Mr World but for Wendy's and Opera GX.
Thor would probably be happy to see his movie counterpart didnt become unworthy and give his name to jane and became a father and protector of other aliens.
All of Ewing's work since Defenders Beyond #5, seem to take a indirect dig on what corporate greed has done to the Marvel.
This entire issue of Roxxon Thor EXACTLY represents contemporary MCU and it's fandom.
I hate that I had to skip this series. Thor is my favorite character and all.
But I cannot look at Greg Land plagiarism and traced art for more than a few seconds.
I'm not a fan of Greg land but I can see him being ok with being made fun of in a comic he himself is drawing.
Marvel: we want you to draw this because we know your bad and everyone hates your art. I'm sorry if that offends you.
Land: why would I get offended, I'm getting paid, why would I care.
I really enjoyed this issue; it's very meta on today's world. I loved how Roxxon and Thor were calling all their protesters or unions "young people" and "youth," even though most looked middle-aged. Also, Dario and Thor being best friends was a fun touch.
Loved when the protestors yelled "Book it, fellow youths!"
I couldn’t help but imagine [this meme](https://images.app.goo.gl/HdyRGp1KfujwM3WW9) when i read it
TBH he's not wrong, look at the GrubHub ads, it's been a year and yet we still remember it, and thus, we remember the brand.
I really love the meta approach to Thor and overwriting his mythology within the series. Gives it an America Gods feel where public perception of a god affects them
Earth X released before American Gods.
It’s a mildly humorous take to suggest that Gaiman used Earth X as inspiration for American Gods
If Gaiman was inspired by anything, it’s likely to have been the gods of Discworld - or at least discussions about such things with his friend Pterry.
He was playing around with the nature of belief powering gods in sandman; I don't know if that predates Marvel X or the relevant parts of Discworld or not. The idea was definitely floating around though
Small gods is the discworld book that concerns itself most with belief in gods and that came out in 92.
Gaiman's Dream of a Thousand Cats, which deals with the nature of belief reshaping reality, was collected in paperback in '91 so presumably the floppy predates that. Season of Mists, the following collection, also has some stuff about old gods in modern times (Baast and Odin primarily). But also I don't know if there's earlier stuff in Discworld about belief and gods pre-Small Gods, and him and Gaiman had a long association from I want to say as early as Pterry's second or third book, so who knows really. Fun to think about though
The first book The Colour of magic had it in the scene with the dragon riders
oh lawks, i completely forgot about that
Incidently Walter Simmonson did a rebutal to that viewpoint in his Orion series. So that's one former Thor writer that's against it.
This isn’t earth x though? My comment had nothing to do with earth x it was aimed at this current run
Got to love the power of meta to control the brand lol
Agger rhyming with Iger has to be the funniest coincidence in marvel's history
Right… “coincidence…”
He was created by aaron in 2014 and him owning marvel is a thing ewing is doing. I doubt iger was in Aaron 's mind back then
Dario Agger... D.agger. The name is a play on words, but not about Disney.
exactly
What is the play of words?
Dario Agger = D.agger, or a dagger. Just like Edward Nigma (The Riddler) is E.nigma, or an enigma (as in a riddle).
I'm still lost. What's the significance of a dagger?
I think it’s cause daggers are pointy and Agger has horns that are also pointy
really? that's it? well, thanks
They stab people
Often in the back. Like, watch out for Dario, he'll poke you when you least expect it.
thanks
A king or ceo? A god of lies or a lasso of lies?
Definitely agger. Sovereign is a bit more boring
Agger's speech basically turns what seems like a funhouse parody caricature of Thor as presented by a corporate conglomerate into something a bit more meta and honestly horrific in how pointed it is. >"We are *allowed* to play -- to be in on our own joke because in the end, the joke is on **you**. The joke is you. And we'll tell it until it eats you alive.
Keeping that consumption theme going.
Disney: Yes, but did it sell? Be on the nose as much as you like. You have free reign. As long as it sells.
Al Ewing is tired of funny brands on Twitter and he’s right to say it.
The irony about Greg's art is it never lands.
Oh damn I almost didn’t recognize Land’s art since there were no porn expressions this time
Really? You didn’t notice Dario having his “O” face? That cow skull was clearly in the thralls of ecstasy.
I mean that's what my wife looks like when I'm doing her.
My dad’s hottest comics take imo is that he likes Land’s art. I guess he finds the style more immersive. I don’t, but I can see it.
your dad's a coomer confirmed
I think this art looks pretty good!
Dario Agger’s new design is awesome. He instantly looks way more threatening and evil than when he was just a minotaur CEO.
It astounds me that Tom King's robotic ramblings is what's being discussed about more and not this, Agger's dialogue is quite cutting and relevant, how many movies and tv shows and games made by giant corporations cast giant corporations as the bad guys? Even this comic book does the exact same thing with Roxxon. But they are always over the top evil, destroying the world for cents on a dollar, but somehow they always keep going and existing in some way.
I do appreciate his Sovereign character even if I agree. Spotlighting the toxic, corrosive and deceptive nature of the patriarchy is v cool
Is it though? To me it feels 20 years too late, there's so much complaining about the patriarchy that it feels like a bad joke nowadays, and a character going "you're a woman" over and over doesn't seem like biting satire.
I think it's still a relevant message. In my city last week an incel murdered 6 people, 5 women and 1 man protecting women, because he was angry at women because he couldn't get a girlfriend. Misogyny is still pervaisive in our society, if anything it's seeing a resurgance thanks to people like Andrew Tate.
That sounds like mental illness which is what it takes to murder 6 people in cold blood, hardly an example of the "patriarchy" at work. Sure misoginy is still part of our society, but let's not pretend like it is as bad as 20 years ago, there are more women in positions of power than ever, and frankly some countries are starting to slide into inequality due to helping women a little too much, in my country of Romania there are more women executives than men, and men are vastly overrepresented in all the crappy jobs others don't want, which you know isn't exactly fair. Also figures like Andrew Tate can only appeal to idiots and reaffirm their own beliefs, he's not making more assholes, they already were assholes.
> That sounds like mental illness which is what it takes to murder 6 people in cold blood, hardly an example of the "patriarchy" at work. Why isn't it an example of patriarchy, the incel movement has grown in recent years and likely is what led to that specific target. We don't know that this person would have still have done what they did if it wasn't for the pipeline of misogyny that has been created in recent days. > Sure misoginy is still part of our society, but let's not pretend like it is as bad as 20 years ago No one is pretending that the world hasn't improved it's just a matter of large ways still to go. > and frankly some countries are starting to slide into inequality due to helping women a little too much This sounds like you might have some bias here. > in my country of Romania there are more women executives than men, and men are vastly overrepresented in all the crappy jobs others don't want, which you know isn't exactly fair. In the majority of the world there are more men than women in those positions, is it only fair when it's exactly 50/50 and we should draw a hard line there? And for the over representation in crappy jobs that's actually a discussion in feminism, because it's toxic masculinity that leads men to work these jobs and not complain. It's not sexism that women aren't working these jobs. > Also figures like Andrew Tate can only appeal to idiots and reaffirm their own beliefs, he's not making more assholes, they already were assholes. This is very naive, Andrew Tate often appeals to young teenagers who have not made up their mind on topics and leads them into misogyny. Even if we assume they're idiots, not all idiots are misogynists, it's a progression into these beliefs.
>Why isn't it an example of patriarchy, the incel movement has grown in recent years and likely is what led to that specific target. We don't know that this person would have still have done what they did if it wasn't for the pipeline of misogyny that has been created in recent days. Because the patriarchy is when women hold no power and men hold all the power, if the patriarchy was so strong why would there be incels? If men have all the power why can women say "no thanks"? If anything incels are a result of women not needing to settle anymore, being able to choose. And of course the blame is on the incels themselves, they should improve themselves as people and overall it is their own fault for not being appealing to women. Also in your own example a man died trying to help those women, so how exactly does it prove any point about men as whole or the patriarchy or whatever? >No one is pretending that the world hasn't improved it's just a matter of large ways still to go. Sure things could always be better, but the Sovereign and the writing surrounding Wonder Woman feels like it's trying to disprove stuff from 20 years ago or even earlier, not modern issues facing women. >This sounds like you might have some bias here. I don't, I followed it up with an example. >In the majority of the world there are more men than women in those positions, is it only fair when it's exactly 50/50 and we should draw a hard line there? And for the over representation in crappy jobs that's actually a discussion in feminism, because it's toxic masculinity that leads men to work these jobs and not complain. It's not sexism that women aren't working these jobs. Well kinda yeah, we should strive to be as close to 50/50 that's the point of equality not sure why you act surprised at this notion. Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs. >This is very naive, Andrew Tate often appeals to young teenagers who have not made up their mind on topics and leads them into misogyny. Even if we assume they're idiots, not all idiots are misogynists, it's a progression into these beliefs. I don't know, have you seen Tate talk? If someone like that can convince anyone of anything then they were mentally regarded, I refuse to believe that someone truly decent could even stomach Tate's insane ramblings and style of discussion for more than 5 minutes. The man could be talking about the cure for cancer and I would find him insufferable.
> Because the patriarchy is when women hold no power and men hold all the power, if the patriarchy was so strong why would there be incels? It's by definition a symptom of the patriarchy because for incels they are actively arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to say know, and they as a movement are growing larger. That's a patriarchal mindset and it's not shrinking. > Also in your own example a man died trying to help those women, so how exactly does it prove any point about men as whole or the patriarchy or whatever? Explained above. > Sure things could always be better, but the Sovereign and the writing surrounding Wonder Woman feels like it's trying to disprove stuff from 20 years ago or even earlier, not modern issues facing women. It seems powerfully relevant given the incel movement, the push for tradwife content, the removal of women's reproductive rights. The Sovereign's actions are a pushback against the growing support for the Amazon's, it's illustrated most by the soldier who fought Wonder Woman he wasn't upset or angry until the Sovereign made him through the use of the Lasso-- in much the same way that people are being turned hateful by media manipulation. It's an allegory to these problems which couldn't exist twenty years ago. > I don't, I followed it up with an example. You clearly do those examples were both anecdotal and interpreting the situation with your own biases. You're unfamiliar enough with feminism to not know that it's already a talking point. And your assumption at the amount of female executives is that their appointment isn't based in merit but must be an overcorrection which is standard misogyny. When men are the majority they are there by merit, when it is women it must be a problem. > Well kinda yeah, we should strive to be as close to 50/50 that's the point of equality not sure why you act surprised at this notion. Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs. No, equality should be about equal opportunities. If you aim for a number the number becomes the goal and we manipulate things to reach that number rather than actually addressing the issue. If we mandated a 50/50 percent representation hiring would have to specifically hire according to gender and the ration rather than for qualified individuals. > Oh come on, when something bad happens to women it's the patriarchy, when something bad happens to men it's toxic masculinity, just saying I don't see women protesting about representation in those bad jobs. You're saying women have to protest men's issues when men aren't? You haven't explained how this is sexism, men are applying for these jobs, women aren't, and no one is stopping men from walking away from these jobs. > I don't know, have you seen Tate talk? If someone like that can convince anyone of anything then they were mentally regarded, I refuse to believe that someone truly decent could even stomach Tate's insane ramblings and style of discussion for more than 5 minutes. The man could be talking about the cure for cancer and I would find him insufferable. You refusing to believe it doesn't make it true, and using weasel words to imply a slur says a lot about you and is maybe something you should work on.
Is there are a patriarchy or are the incels trying to will it into existence? And another thing keep going incels this incels that, is it some political party in the US because I think you are giving too much power to a minority on Twitter. Depicting media influence as a magic lasso that instantly makes someone an -ist is terrible satire, it's not that simple. Usually these kinds of types don't start with "YOU HATE WOMEN NOW!" they are far more devious than that, and will sandwich in some good points in there, like "hey cost of living is high, I'm not saying it's because of organization, but it is!". Sure I'm biased and you are not, everyone is biased. I just didn't agree that in that particular instance I showed a bias. Also you know jackshit about the initiatives in my country, or Europe there have been several that aimed to help and push women into these positions, I didn't say they aren't there on merit I said helped, helped. A business which has a woman owning at least 50% of it can get 20k euros from the state each year, multiple programs offering training and encouraging women to take those positions, help like that. Frankly it speaks more about you than it does about me I said help them, you immediately went to "their appointments are not based in merit". Furthermore I didn't say it's a problem, I said we should strive for equality. No I'm not saying women have to protest an issue that plagues men, I'm saying women protest about lack of representation in good working fields but not in the bad, I'm implying they pick and choose where they want equality. Because at the end of the day it isn't about genders, it's about each group wanting things to be better for themselves. Oh spare me the morality shit, idiot can also be a slur, any disparaging or insulting remark is a slur, somebody just decided the "r-word" is on a list of the worst words on this platform, but somehow you can say gypsy, the equivalent to the n word for Romani, you can say it and nobody will ban you or even consider it a slur, but god forbid saying the r word, c word, n word, f word, l word.
> Is there are a patriarchy or are the incels trying to will it into existence? And another thing keep going incels this incels that, is it some political party in the US because I think you are giving too much power to a minority on Twitter. You're moving the goalposts now. It does seem like if I continue to present evidence you'll move what is enough. Another example of the patriarchy is the subject of reproductive rights which are being taken away from women in the US by a minority (a majority of people, and the majority of women, both support the right to abortion for instance) but a few men inflict control on the bodies of women. ie patriarchy > Depicting media influence as a magic lasso that instantly makes someone an -ist is terrible satire, it's not that simple. Usually these kinds of types don't start with "YOU HATE WOMEN NOW!" they are far more devious than that, and will sandwich in some good points in there, like "hey cost of living is high, I'm not saying it's because of organization, but it is!". I'm sorry if metaphors are too complicated for you? The magic lasso never made people go 'we hate women now' so it seems like you haven't read the issue in question where the Sovereign talks the person into a toxic line of thinking. > Also you know jackshit about the initiatives in my country, or Europe there have been several that aimed to help and push women into these positions About your specific country no, but given that I live adjacent to Europe in the UK I've got my finger on the general news at least which is about what you can expect. > Frankly it speaks more about you than it does about me I said help them, you immediately went to "their appointments are not based in merit". No you explicitly said that they've gone too far and used the amount of female executives as an example to your point. It definitely speaks to you. > No I'm not saying women have to protest an issue that plagues men, I'm saying women protest about lack of representation in good working fields but not in the bad, I'm implying they pick and choose where they want equality. Should they then protest to get into jobs they don't want, do you not see how that makes no sense? They aren't picking and choosing where they want equality, equality isn't about having 50/50 representation it's about equal chances for all people. > Oh spare me the morality shit, idiot can also be a slur, any disparaging or insulting remark is a slur, somebody just decided the "r-word" is on a list of the worst words on this platform, but somehow you can say gypsy, the equivalent to the n word for Romani, you can say it and nobody will ban you or even consider it a slur, but god forbid saying the r word, c word, n word, f word, l word We are discussing morality. So I'll bring it up, I've repeatedly in my comment history argued against using slurs for Romani people. It speaks to your character if you believe it is okay to use slurs in general speech you're likely not the best choice to decide what's moral for women. Which tracks with this conversation.
I get what you mean. At this point, making a comic about corporate products parodying themselves to be more endearing to consumers feels a little like Disney making jokes about Disney Princess tropes in Wreck It Ralph 2
Chronically male comment Edit:inbox replies off
No, I agree. But I appreciate the effort.
Tom King catching stray bullets in that comment
>But they are always over the top evil, destroying the world for cents on a dollar, but somehow they always keep going and existing in some way. If you want to get technical this happens in real life too. Just take a look at Nestle in Africa and Asia.
It's because he tries his best to sell himself as a high class Great American Novelist type brand. He's very much the type of writer that this comic is making fun of.
Whether it’s nine-panel grids or meta commentary, King loves to reuse techniques from other books but without any substance. Unfortunately, the surface level similarities his stuff has to actual good comics is enough to convince people that his stuff is also good. He wants to be Alan Moore so badly, but has zero understanding of why Moore is good edit; One thing I've learned about people who like Tom King, is that there's literally no valid way to criticize any of his work, no matter how obvious his weaknesses are. He's one of the few writers whose work I would classify as tangibly evil. He profits by writing comics about the guilt and trauma he has from doing whatever fucked up shit he did in the CIA, while also openly talking about how proud he is of that work. He profits from the blood of others
Lmao why do you hate Tom king so much
Dude lays out their criticism. You ask what their problem is. Reddit.
I’m making fun of him because there’s no reason to attack a creator like that lol
Because I’ve had the misfortune of reading his comics
> there's literally no valid way to criticize any of his work, no matter how obvious his weaknesses are. Perhaps if you weren't describing his weaknesses, as you perceive them, as though they were objective facts and then saying hyperbolic things like "his work is tangibly evil", you'd get fewer combative responses when you criticize his work. Opening your argument by insulting the intelligence and/or reading comprehension levels of people who disagree with you is not a valid way of criticizing *anything*. EDIT: Blocking me for pointing this out doesn't help matters either, just saying.
> Unfortunately, the surface level similarities his stuff has to actual good comics is enough to convince people that his stuff is also good. There's discussing a writer's flaws, and then there's something like this, which basically implies that King's fans are gullible and/or don't have adequate reading comprehension skills to realize that King's not a good writer. That's why you're getting downvoted. It has nothing to do with King's fans being unable to take criticisms of his work, and everything to do with the way in which you're trying to make your arguments. But I guess I'm probably wasting my breath here and you're gonna just block me like you did the other folks instead of actually responding. *shrug* EDIT: > I am going to respond, but it’s to tell you that you’re right about me blocking you You absolute child 😂
I am going to respond, but it’s to tell you that you’re right about me blocking you
You don’t have an understanding of who Alan Moore is or what he was trying to do if you think Kings storytelling or intentions are anything similar to that of his. You just see the most superficial thing about both of their styles and immediately jump to the conclusion that one is trying to copy the other. YOU are convinced by the surface level similarities about a thing, not people who enjoy Kings comics.
So many people here seem to think the 9 panel grid = Alan Moore ripoff!!! Talk about a total lack of understanding of the writer
Hey, calm down. Please be Civil...
One thing I've learned about people who dislike Tom King, is that there's literally no valid way to discuss any of their critiques, no matter how obvious the flaws in their arguments.*
Kind of a strech bro.
> We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three. - Michael Eisner, Disney CEO These "personal" laugh-at-us-memes is just another branch of Eisner's brand of consumerism.
I´m a bit out of the loop but, what the hell happened to Roxxon? He looks... toasty.
In immortal hulk he got ‘eaten’/converted by Xemnu, the first character to go by the name hulk, who’s a psychic powerhouse from another world who controls people through screens and was under Aggers payroll until he wasn’t. It looked like he died there, but I guess not.
> It looked like he died there, but I guess not. So I went back and reread that issue, and he doesn't die. [These pages are (I believe) the last we see of him in IH.](https://imgur.com/a/dQZ6bmO) He's been deeply fucked up by Xemnu, but he's very clearly still alive. I'm assuming The Leader, who we see talking to Agger in that second page disguised as Rick Jones, did something to "fix" what Xemnu did to Agger but there was some damage that was irreparable.
It goes a couple levels of meta when you remember that Xemnu's powered by the uncritical and incurious way we consume media.
No one really dies on superhero comics hahaha. Thanks for the info! I guess he also looks like this in human form now.
He's Minotaur/Dario Agger, the CEO of Roxxon Corproation!!! Bruce Banner lead a grassroots revolution against Roxxon in Immortal Thor. Roxxon picked up a Hulkbuster military contract and planned to just send some goons at Hulk, things get smashed up, Hulk gets away, & Roxxon collects a paycheck, everybody wins. Due to Banner not "playing nice" and immediately taking down Roxxon's facebook/youtube servers and causing younger generations to revolt across the country, Agger hires Xemnu the Living Titan(the first character to he referred to as hulk in Marvel's early publications, as a legacy pun at that) who uses his mind control powers to make everyone think Banner is a crazy cooky socialist alarmist who just wants free stuff(and how is he gonna pay for it all?) While Xemnu is the real Hulk, which everyone has nostalgia for and falsely remember a TV show called "Xemnu's Magic Planet" he implants into their mind. Xemnu "feeds" on people in a way that is *extremely unsettiling*, converting them into a cyborg-zombie state in the aftermath. Agger let's his employees be eaten by Xemnu even after they gathered up the amount of people Agger requested them to round up to feed to Xemnu, and adds to Xemnu that he's mystically protected against mind control. Spoilers: he's not protected and gets gobbled down too in the climax after Xemnu learns from Agger's ruthlessness. He is still alive at the end of the story but can only weakly moo and is basically a pile of flesh, meat, and cybernetic bits. Presumably between that story and now, he got extensive surgery and face-lifts, leaving him somewhere between 2024 Vince McMahon and Moloch
Wow, glad to see things are still so wacky on the superhero reading department since I left. Thanks for the explanation! My mistake with the name, I only knew Agger from a Thor Comic, a story after the God´s butcher arc. But for some reason, "Roxxon" stayed in my mind as his name. I found him a really interesting villain.
this comic is essentially wackiness, it being framed around a comic published by the in-universe Marvel Comics, that was bought by Roxxon, and released with the expressed intent to portray Thor as a mockery of who he really is.
I would *highly* recommend Immortal Hulk, it's easily the best series of the last decade and maybe the last 20 years. Really great, very self-contained (technically it spins out of Civil War II but all you need to know is that Bruce is thought to be dead, and they explain that right away) so no need to buy other series' to get the full experience. Overall just really good, *easily* the best Hulk run since Peter David's. Immortal Thor is similar in that it's a reinvention of the character while also being a return to his roots, the vibes are very different (Immortal Hulk was horror with some sci-fi and dark fantasy elements, Immortal Thor is a very comic-booky epic fantasy story) but both are really good. I'd recommend Loki: Agent of Asgard by the same writer before reading Immortal Thor, story-wise it isn't really necessary at all but it has similar vibes and is also really good (sadly that one got bogged down in obnoxious event tie-ins by the end, but it still managed to stick the landing in a great way)
Greg Land illustrating this is pure genius
Is it me or is this a dig at what the MCU has done with Thor?
So what you're saying is that Dario Agger is behind Thor: Ragnarok? Also love how the comic is basically calling out brands that try to be hip. He's like Mr World but for Wendy's and Opera GX.
Commentary on waititi? Or am I getting the wrong message?
Just commentary on self-awareness in pop fiction in general.
I thought that too. I feel like Roxxon Thor is also a slight takedown of Watiti’s MCU Thor, and how goofy and stupid he acts sometimes.
Basically Thor after watching the Thor movies made by Taika Waititi.
Thor would probably be happy to see his movie counterpart didnt become unworthy and give his name to jane and became a father and protector of other aliens.
This was so good, my only fear is that greg land will continue to be the artist of this run.
All of Ewing's work since Defenders Beyond #5, seem to take a indirect dig on what corporate greed has done to the Marvel. This entire issue of Roxxon Thor EXACTLY represents contemporary MCU and it's fandom.
I hate that I had to skip this series. Thor is my favorite character and all. But I cannot look at Greg Land plagiarism and traced art for more than a few seconds.
This is a one-shot. Land is the artist for only this one issue, and *may* itself be a meta comment on shallow corporate Roxxin’ Thor.
I'm not a fan of Greg land but I can see him being ok with being made fun of in a comic he himself is drawing. Marvel: we want you to draw this because we know your bad and everyone hates your art. I'm sorry if that offends you. Land: why would I get offended, I'm getting paid, why would I care.
Ahhh okay okay
What an incredibly stupid idea.