New Avengers #35 has been a big topic around blogs this week, particularly the issue’s treatment of the superheroine Tigra. As expected, the reactions are decidedly mixed.
Plok of A Trout in the milk really disliked the issue. (There’s a follow-up here.)
But let me ask you: having read New Avengers #35, do you not want the Hood to be brutally slain?
Yeah. Well, that’s a problem.
Because in mainstream superhero comics, vengeance is typically deferred, turned over to (for want of a better word) God — and I’m not talking about Superman. A skilled writer can make this work beautifully: revenge comes indirect, as poetic justice, boomerang comeuppance, or what-have-you. The reader, begging for the villain’s blood one second before, is satisfied by the tremendous last-minute moral save of the creator…and usually, even has their heroic illusions left somewhat undisturbed into the bargain. The world turns; characters develop.
But I don’t see any way Bendis can pay this off in the future. Not respectably if satisfying; not satisfyingly if respectable. As far as I can see, he’s painted himself into a corner, and there’s no way out.
Cheryl Lynn of Digital Femme Online is not upset. (She’s got a follow-up too.)
Tigra’s beatdown was brutal. Beatdowns should be brutal. That’s what happens when you mess with villains who roll deep. But in my opinion the incident wasn’t depicted as sexy. Yes, there were one or two panels where there was entirely too much exposed cleavage (side-eye for Yu), but it was a straightforward ass kicking for the most part. Nasty. Ugly. Clinical.
I suppose the scene doesn’t upset me because I am thoroughly convinced that Tigra is going to heal and wreck shop for weeks because of this. I can’t imagine that any writer currently at Marvel would let Tigra weep in a hospital bed while someone else fought her battles. The character has superpowers. And someone just threatened her mother. Do you know how many people would straight up disappear if my mother had been hurt? I’m sure there’s a Tigra miniseries already lined up. And many, many characters will be cursing the fact that they do not have medical plans when it hits the shelves.
The Fortress Keeper reminisces about Greer Nelson’s origins.
Yes Fortress Fan, years before Tigra gained fame (?) for her uncontrollable libido - thanks a lot, Mr. Englehart - and complete inability to defend herself - we’re looking at you, Bendis - Greer was a shining example of Marvel’s one-time ability to absorb and manipulate the Zeitgeist for the sake of comic-book awesomeness.
According to Back Issue! # 17 - a special heroines issue of the comics-fan mag - Greer, a.k.a. The Cat, was thought up by Stan The Man himself as a response to the burgeoning Women’s Liberation movement of the early 1970s.
Finally, Smith Michaels has sharp criticism for both issue and a certain Newsarama interview.
What you have here is a man beating the living hell out a barely dressed woman while he threatens her family and another man video tapes the whole thing. How fuck can a decent person not think that’s misogynistic? The ‘fight’ scene could have easily been taken straight out of a snuff film.
But the honest to goodness best (worst) part of the whole interview is this little exchange:
NRAMA: And to cap that it wasn’t sexual, The Hood explained why he was going to do what he did beforehand…BB: And he didn’t veer off course. Probably the most shocking thing is that he accomplished it. No one tapped him on the shoulder as he was about to give her the punch that would knock her unconscious, there was no one swinging in the window to her rescue. It happened - and it was awful.
Because you how a person rationalizes something they do automatically makes the reality of it that way. And it seems to me that Bendis and Brady are denying the existence of a little thing called subtext.
So what do you think?
October 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
On the one hand, if equality means that men and women should be able to handle the same risks and consequences, then female superheroes should be able to take a beating as well as male heroes do. If we insist that women should be treated with kid gloves in literature and fiction and not subject to the same kind of crises as male protagonists are, to me, that’s just as denigrating as saying they can’t handle it.
Over in “Mighty Avengers,” Ms. Marvel just grabbed a nuclear missile, flew it up into the atmosphere, and apparently got blown up. Is that misogynistic, or do we give that a pass because it’s obviously beyond the realm of the possible, whereas pistol-whipping a woman is not?
The Hood is a bad guy. He caught Tigra completely off guard (when she was already having a bad day) and used the element of surprise to beat her, then humiliated her to prove that his method of “get ‘em before they get you” worked, and to win the loyalty of his recruits. Plus, the Hood is clearly more capable than he was in the initial miniseries, and may be physically stronger as a result. You don’t take on Wolverine and survive with just a pair of .45’s and an invisible cloak.
On the OTHER hand, I do find it telling that Bendis picked Tigra–one of Marvel’s more overtly sexual and self-confident heroes–to be the victim, especially in light of his plot development that she’s been sleeping with Hank Pym–a character Bendis has admitted a vocal dislike for. Why? Because of his hitting Jan. Things that make you go “Hmmmm….”
Bendis has a weird way of looking at female empowerment, particularly when you consider how he took Jessica Jones–a strong, complex and interesting character that he created–and reduced her to being Luke Cage’s baby mama and comic relief for “New Avengers.” Not to mention that the other female lead of “New Avengers,” Spider-Woman, is constantly acting in ways that would appear shady and traitorous, and that Echo has pretty much been a nonentity for the series since her introduction to the team.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I hadn’t read the comic, so I can’t comment on it directly. I just wanted to verify something: Didn’t the Hood recently shoot a ton of bullets into Wolverine’s crotch?
October 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Yes he did. Also I’m wondering how all these whiners expect Bendis to buildup a villain without him doing horrible evil things to heroes. Where are the complaints about how Bullseye killed Elektra? It works a lot better than “Lex Luthor, the really REAL one, thinks we should have a Secret Injustice League of DOOM so why not?”
Maybe Bendis should’ve spent half the issue introducing Tigra’s new, less sexy costume before the beatdown. Maybe he has a specific story to tell with Tigra. Maybe we should all shut up and let the story breathe.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hi. I’ve been blogging about comics for a good three years now, and I posted twice regarding the Tigra debacle this week, along with…probably half of comics fandom that resides on LiveJournal.
The post is here, and as a lot of people point out, one of the most problematic issues with Bendis’ brutalization of Tigra was the fact that he depicted her as not fighting back. Tigra, a seasoned warrior, a seasoned hand-to-hand combatant, not fighting back? Absurd. I also included liberal amounts of scans showing that she can outrun bullets and generally kick some ass or fight to the last millisecond trying if anyone screws with her.
That post is at a hundred and twenty comments and counting.
There’s a follow up post here, with lots of Tony Isabella’s Tigra, showing again how she’d clearly not go down without a fight.
That was the most disturbing aspect of Bendis’ Tigra and Hood scene - he used her as a screaming female victim trope, gratingly out of character with virtually all of her previous continuity. Tigra is a supremely self-confident woman, and he wrote her as a stammering victim.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“Yes he did. Also I’m wondering how all these whiners expect Bendis to buildup a villain without him doing horrible evil things to heroes.”
It’s rather silly to think that the ONLY way you can establish a character as evil and/or threatening is through explicit and brutal beatings. Anything from personality and dialogue to rumors and off-panel events can build up a villain.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Evan, personality is made up of two things: what someone says and what he does. If a villain never actually does anything evil, then that only leaves what he says, and that’s just words. Dialog, rumors, and descriptions of stuff that happens off panel are also just words.
You have to actually show a villain doing something bad or readers will think it’s all just talk. Can you actually name a villain that readers think of as threatening, but was never shown hurting someone?
October 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Kali,
I think you hit the nail on the head. The essential problem with the scene, to me, is that Tigra was so completely victimized it robs the scene of its dramatic power. Had she fought back, even a little, I could buy it completely–and Tigra should have even less problem handling a dude with two guns than Wolverine.
I think the essential point Bendis was making is a good one–that the Hood was willing to go to extreme, brutal lengths to prove his “street cred”–and I think a lot of the fandom objections to Bendis (as typified by some of the comments on your journal) are a little over the top. But I also think it does strong female characters a disservice to be so completely victimized and castrated, so to speak.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
There’s a difference between “hurting someone” in general and what we’re shown here. A scene of someone hurting someone else can be played a number of ways- what’s specifically being objected to is Tigra being utterly helpless and shouting things like “No! Stop! Aieee!” which contributes to the image of her as being entirely a victim and evokes general cultural perceptions of male-on-female violence. She acts like the battered spouse in a Lifetime movie more than like a superheroine caught off guard.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Martin said:
“The Hood is a bad guy. He caught Tigra completely off guard (when she was already having a bad day)…”
—–
Perhaps she also was having her period?
==========
Martin said:
“Bendis has a weird way of looking at female empowerment, particularly when you consider how he took Jessica Jones–a strong, complex and interesting character that he created–and reduced her to being Luke Cage’s baby mama and comic relief…”
—–
Because strong women need to be humiliated? Not that I am saying you think that way, just maybe Bendis does.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Will this comic caused as much reaction if the victim is a male?? C’mon man, it’s just an issue of NA!!! When did women become the ’sacred relic’ that can’t be touch? It’s okay to torture men but not okay to torture women?? The mind boggles….
October 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am
I’m not really sure what the Hood’s powers are but I assume he was using them during this fight. Its invisibility or teleportation or something right? I don’t think it was explicitly shown during the fight but I figured that is how he got the upper hand.
I see the complaints, but I’m not sure if I agree with them. For one, any visceral beating of a female by a male character is going to seem slighly sexist. Second, to single her out for wearing a bikini or underware… thats the fault of the editors and artists that give super-heroines terrible, lewd costumes. You couldn’t have helped but to see Tigra as sexual during the fight… thats all she is.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As I stated on another blog, my problem is that Tigra should have been able to rip off this guy’s face before he could get near her.
She’s already caught his scent. She’s super-fast, she’s got razor-sharp claws and superhuman strength. From what I can see, the Hood has a gun–Ooooo–and a cloak of invisibility, both useless against somebody who is essentially a lycanthrope.
Turning Tigra into a sacrificial lamb for the sake of showing how nasty the Hood is just doesn’t work because the fight wasn’t evenly brutal as it should have been.
On another blog I used Goldeneye as an example. Bond is fighting Alec Trevalyan aka Janus, a former 00, and the finale has them beating the crap out of each other. Bond wins, but just, and he’s exhausted by the battle.
Had Tigra actually been in a brutal fight and beaten rather than just beaten brutally without putting up a fight, I would have no qualms about the scene.
Tigra is simply better than Bendis wrote her, but he really should have at least treated her like as a generic super heroine. The generic super heroine would have at least gotten a few good shots in before being overcome. Bendis didn’t even afford Tigra that luxury. So, yes, Bendis is sexist, but he’s blind to it apparently.
Ray
October 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“So, yes, Bendis is sexist, but he’s blind to it apparently.”
He’s blind, but *you* know. You know Brian Bendis’s subconscious like the back of your hand. Because you didn’t like a comic book he wrote.
Look, attack the work all you want, but if you’re going to attack the person, the burden of proof is on you, so you’d probably want to have more to back up your analysis of some guy you’ve probably never met’s psyche than a pop-psychology reading of one of his comic books.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I believe that Bendis’s treatment of Tigra in NEW AVENGERS #35 constituted misogyny, but that belief is based on, not NA #35 by itself, but a pattern of mistreatment of female characters in “Avengers” titles that began with the flagrant mischaracterization of Wanda in “Avengers Disassembled” and has continued to the present.
Having a woman hurt or characterized as weak within a story isn’t misogyny if the plot development or characterization serves a thematic purpose. Unfortunately, the plot mechanics of Bendis’s “Avengers” stories have been so terrible that the stories are, basically, themeless. When the plots depend on mischaracterization, scientific illiteracy (the repeated mishandling of EMP, for example), or discontinuities for their impact, one has to conclude that the publisher effectively has no editorial standards. So, one is left with the characterizations of the women–and Bendis’s treatments of Wanda, Jan, She-Hulk, Yelena Belova, Lindy Reynolds, and even Spider-Woman are all negative. While Jessica Drew is nominally one of Bendis’s favorite characters, she’s been written as conniving and manipulative–far from admirable.
There isn’t enough space to even begin to go into all the problems with Bendis’s writing, but one thing that’s become obvious over the last few issues of NEW AVENGERS is that he would much, much rather be writing crime fiction than superhero fiction and, towards that end, is trying to write superheroes and their foes as if they were crime fiction characters. Mechanically, the results are terrible; the heroes have been unsuited for their roles within the plots, as if someone tried to shoehorn romance fiction characters into hard SF stories. Bendis is so obviously a genre writer (competent or not) in the wrong genre that there’s no way for Brevoort, et al., to justify publishing his stories from an artistic quality standpoint.
SRS
October 21st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
My bad, Captain. I didn’t mean the man is sexist. I don’t know him personally. I should have said, his writing is sexist.
Ray
October 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
As a corollary to this, I find it interesting that Ed Brubaker–who’s even more of a pure crime genre writer than Bendis–has done some really terrible things to Sharon Carter of late, namely turning her into a spineless mind-controlled puppet that killed Steve Rogers, and then finding out that she’s seemingly knocked up by Steve as well, and yet no one finds this odd or sexist.
Not to mention Sharon’s ex-SHIELD agent costume is hardly what one would call modest, although it offers more protection than Tigra’s bikini. Yet all one ever resoundingly hears is how great Bru is and how his writing justifies any plot twist.
I’m not saying this to slam Bru at all–I love his work. I just find it fascinating to watch where fandom chooses to plant their collective flag and decide that Writer X is horrifically sexist and a pig, and Writer Y absolutely rocks and can do no wrong. It really is all in the eye of the beholder.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I think the shock-factor of killing Captain America probably masked the idea of Sharon Carter being a mind-controlled drone. Not exactly her finest hour though. From one-time Director of SHIELD to stunt puppet.
At the same time, after reading the Comics Journal interview, I can see that Darwyn Cooke was mostly responsible for the newly minted Catwoman. Brubaker though could have been seen as a feminist writer because of that title.
Ray
October 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Ray,
That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. Where’s the outrage about Sharon’s treatment?
October 21st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Sharon probably gets less outrage because she’s a less popular character. She’s not even a superhero, she’s support cast.
With Tigra, the main problem people are having is that she is a superhero who has kicked ass in the past, so they don’t want to see her written as a victim.
It really has nothing to do with her being a female character. When the Blue Beetle died, there were people who were very upset. That story showed all the other heroes ignoring him, then he died on his knees from a bullet to the head. Lots of people hated that, which was reasonable. They liked the character, so they didn’t want to see him such lousy things happen to him.
This is the same thing, but since it is a woman, people are looking for reasons why a character they like got written in a way that isn’t heroic, and this is what they came up with.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 am
It’s the same with anyone. Misogyny for a lot of people has been the label of choice to attach to comic book writers they don’t like. Don’t like Avengers: Disassembled? Bendis’ writing is sexist. Of course, that would also mean Joss Whedon is sexist for Dark Willow (pretty much the same thematic story), but where’s the outrage over that?
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“Don’t like Avengers: Disassembled? Bendis’ writing is sexist.”
It’s not clear whether you read the stories you’re casually commenting on. If a well-written story can be likened to a sturdy two-story house, “Avengers Disassembled,” was a bare foundation broken into pieces. The plot and characterization were disastrously inept.
Some people (not necessarily you) seem to have the impression that since comics stories have art, the art doesn’t have to support what the text describes. If there’s a conflict, the reader just rationalizes as necessary for things to make sense, or forgets about the plot and characterization and reads the “story” for the art. Either approach is what a preschooler reading a picture book does.
SRS
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
People love to have these slap-fights. I really think people get some kind of righteous satisfaction of superiority from these “sexism in comic” discussions.(Look at Martin and Ray’s man love) But, I guess that’s the message Superman has been pushing for 70 years. The righteous way is the right way. Despite the law of man.
And just so people can look at their own biases Wolverine was castrated in the last issue. Yes, the Hood deliberately shot his penis and testicles off. With that in mind what would happened if the Hood cut off Tigra’s breasts seeing how she a healing factor too. That’s the equivalent. Well sorta anatomically speaking breast don’t enable sex. That’s situation would equate to a major slice to a male’s chest. But, sexest enough for this crowd to explode.
That’s just another example of your sexism. Superhero Comics are super violent get over yourselves.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It’s not clear whether you read the stories you’re casually commenting on. If a well-written story can be likened to a sturdy two-story house, “Avengers Disassembled,” was a bare foundation broken into pieces. The plot and characterization were disastrously inept.”
I hated Avengers: Disassembled. Before that, I used to read Powers, Daredevil, and Alias and Alias was probably my favorite book. So I was a Bendis fan until the Avengers, which every issue I’ve read has been mostly bad with a glimpse of genius every once in awhile.
I just don’t get the need to demonize people over comics stories they don’t like or editorial directions they don’t like. I personally hate the direction DC has been in ever since the start of Infinite Crisis, but I don’t think Dan Didio’s mess is any deeper than making bad editorial decisions. I don’t think Avengers: Disassembled is any more sexist than the Dark Phoenix Saga or the Dark Willow Sage in Buffy, but people think it’s “misogynist (not even sexist…misogynist..demonstrating a hatred of women) because it’s a bad story. That leaves a bad taste in mouth.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
A couple of follow ups.
I don’t know Martin, but if I’m to judge him from his posts, I think it’s safe to say that we both have a love for kickass female characters and find it difficult to believe in their constant victimization by hack writers, who may or may not be sexist.
Now in terms of “Man Love,” based on your example with Wolverine, I’d have to say that Bendis has an unhealthy one for the Hood for some reason, because in both cases it’s not plausible that the Hood could actually hit Wolverine and Tigra.
Tigra is faster than Wolverine. Even setting aside the impossible simple beating she takes, The Hood still manages to cap her in the knee, as she’s leaping.
Does this magic cloak the Hood wears give him any super-power that’s needed for a plot contrivance? Do you realize how difficult it would be to shoot a regular person in the knee as she’s leaping at you? Do you have any idea how impossible it would be to stop a big cat intent on tearing out your throat by shooting it in the knee with a pistol?
See, Tigra falls in both those categories. So, she’s been depowered just to serve Bendis’ stupid plot. Like I said, had she actually put up a fight. Had Bendis respected her abilities enough to put her in a knock down, drag out fight against the Hood, you would have heard no complaints.
Bendis purposely ignores her history. He ignores her abilities, just to give her up as a gift to his “summer love” the Hood.
In re: Wolverine
Wolverine is still very fast. Exactly how far away and what type of weapon did the Hood use to hit Wolvie in the ghoulies? Was Wolverine tied up or drugged? Seriously. We’re going into not just sexist writing territory but also dubious writing ability.
Wolverine has a superior healing factor than Tigra. So I’d imagine his mutant chemistry will rapidly whip him up another set of naughty bits.
I doubt though Bendis will be so kind to Tigra, who will likely be hospitalized and whimper a lot in bed while being helpless, and possibly a target.
Ray
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Ray you understand you’ve just admitted to not reading this book. So, you can’t understand the context of the situation in this issue. Meaning you are on a tirade on a topic you should not be involved in. It’s really that simple. None of your points made since.
You are using a bias opinions to validate you argument and build up your points.
Get some facts then come to the table and argue your side. Otherwise, I can’t walk you through this topic’s points.
BTW, knowing the maximum level of the bad-guys power never made a good story and is almost never used. So, why do you expect to know and complain when he(the bad-guy) decides to ups his depravity in a style that reflects modern times and modern fiction with knowing how? Then whats the point in reading the rest of the story?
October 24th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Keep in mind that although Wolvie’s testicles were shot off, he was still kicking Hood’s ass and making jokes about it. He took a pretty painful injury and basically went “Oh yeah? Wait’ll you see what I do to YOU.” Hood ended up having to turn into a giant demonthing, throw Wolverine across the room, and run away. Having Wolverine defiantly laughing off his injuries and threaten the bad guy, who ends up legging it, isn’t exactly “what happened to Tigra, only with a guy”. It doesn’t prove that Bendis WOULDN’T do something like that to a guy either, but trotting it out to “prove” anything is absurd.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Misogyny in prose can be very straightforward. A hardcore porn story will have a man tell the woman being abused, “You’re a piece of meat with holes to be filled,” have her say, “I’m a slut,” “I’m a whore,” and so on, and eventually have both the man (or men) and woman believe it. Many porn stories use that basic template and just change the names of the characters.
In stories that aren’t porn, the misogyny isn’t as obvious, of course–but in the case of Bendis’s stories, his mistreatment of characters is still evident. “Avengers Disassembled” destroyed Wanda as a character; in NEW AVENGERS, Bendis portrayed Yelena Belova as a criminal, had her beauty taken away, and then had her seek revenge (as a variation on the Super Adaptoid) on the New Avengers because her beauty had been taken away.
Fictional characters aren’t real, of course; they’re (normally) used in stories to make points of some sort. There was no ethical or moral point made in “Avengers Disassembled.” Wanda’s power, memory, and state of mind weren’t what Bendis claimed they were. It’s hard to believe he didn’t know that. Choosing to write Wanda as he did, writing Belova as he did, writing Tigra as he did, writing other women (e.g., She-Hulk in “Avengers Disassembled) as he did–what was the point? Was the depiction of Wanda supposed to be entertaining? Who, knowing how false the depiction was, would find it entertaining? In allowing herself to be beaten up, Tigra was treated as a piece of meat; she could have been any woman or heroine.
Bendis has been said to dislike various characters, such as Tigra. Writing a story only to express one’s dislike of a fictional character is–ahem. NEW AVENGERS #35 lacked a theme. The criminals “empowered” themselves artificially; the core of the story was the abuse of Tigra. If the only point of the story is the abuse of a woman, or women, and the abuse is presented as entertaining, then the story defines itself as misogynistic. Events in a story don’t just “happen”; there has to be a reason, even if the reason is unsavory. The readiest explanation for Bendis’s treatment of women in his “Avengers” stories is misogyny.
SRS
October 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I think people are missing the point that, if Tigra were to fight back, the Hood would have went ahead and killed her family… How does THAT get lost in translation???
October 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“I think people are missing the point that, if Tigra were to fight back, the Hood would have went ahead and killed her family… How does THAT get lost in translation???”
That’s an example of using genre elements in a story incorrectly. The “classic” Avengers and their fellow heroes were characters in superhero fiction. Bendis has been trying to write them as characters in crime fiction. He’s basically ignoring their powers or using them as little as possible, avoiding fight sequences, favoring scenes with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents over scenes with the heroes, etc.
The heroes and paranormals generally don’t exist in the “real” world. They’re an overlay on the real world, and interact with the real world as necessary for plotting purposes and to make ethical and moral points. Marvel has never attempted to rationalize the heroes’ powers and mutations comprehensively, although that could be done (I’ve designed a system for specific mutant genes); if they did so, the result would be SF-type stories with elements of fantasy and mainstream fiction. What Marvel writers are doing now are ad hoc attempts to insert “realism” into their stories by redefining HYDRA and A.I.M. as terrorists, placing much more emphasis on S.H.I.E.L.D.’s operations, having the heroes operate as government agents or cops, etc. The problem is that the heroes and cosmic characters are still paranormals.
It’s obvious that at least some people at Marvel believe that superhero fiction as written from the ‘60s through the ‘90s, and epitomized by Busiek and others is passe. Bendis and others (Millar) want to write stories as crime fiction; elimination of narration and thought balloons make the stories more like screenplays, whereas before, structurally, Marvel stories were more like prose, with the art functioning generally as descriptive text.
NA #35 represents the worst aspects of Marvel’s changes in editorial policies, at least where NEW AVENGERS is concerned. Having the equivalent of common criminals neutralize heroes (permanently?) by threatening their families and loved ones, if one extrapolated it, would make the heroes’ crime fighting activities nearly impossible. However well Bendis thought the Hood’s threat worked within the story, it was totally wrong for the genre he is (nominally) working in.
He shouldn’t be writing superhero stories, IMO, because of his inability to adapt to genre conventions. There’s no reason for heroes to have powers if they don’t use them to counter menaces that are also using powers.
BTW, the Hood and his gang resemble the Vicious Circle that the Savage Dragon dealt with for years in SAVAGE DRAGON, with some success artistically, but Larsen handles the Dragon, his family, and the villains much differently.
SRS