“It’s something I’m good at. It’s war.”

Plus, a new CRIMSON CORSAIR backup feature from writer LEN WEIN and artist JOHN HIGGINS!

Written by Brian Azzarello
Backup Written by Len Wein
Art by J.G. Jones
Backup Art by John Higgins
Cover by J.G. Jones
Variant Cover by Tim Bradstreet

Price: $3.99
iFanboy Community Pick of the Week Percentage: 0.0%


Neb07/25/12NoRead Review
Avg Rating: 3.3
Users who pulled this comic:


  1. Heard a joke once: Man goes into doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says “Treatment is simple. Before Watchmen: Comedian #2 is out. Go and read it. That should pick you up.” Man bursts into tears. Says “But, Doctor…I just read it.” Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains

    • I think the punchline is supposed to be, but I am Watchmen: Comedian #2! But both I and Pagliacci heartily approve nonetheless.

  2. not too crazy about JG’s art, but i’m looking forward to this all the same. 😀

  3. I’m not sure why the first issue was so reviled, when it’s been one of the strongest thus far.

    • I think a lot of people are looking for a reason to complain – or they are assuming things before this story is over.

      Or it’s just the idea of the Comedian playing football with JFK is way outta character. I am giving Azz the benefit of the doubt for now.

  4. First Before Watchmen book I’m skipping. Didn’t quite dig the first issue. If I read good reviews I may change my mind.

  5. This was the first issue of a BW title that I thought was weak. The art just doesn’t pop like it does for every other BW series. I usually love me some Azzarello but I felt like this was clunky and hard to follow. I’m all in with BW but Comedian is at the bottom and by a long way.

  6. Loving this series and loving the fact that it’s infused with real-world events from JFK’s assassination to now the Gulf of Tonkin false flag attack.

    • not to mention the first Ali vs Liston fight in Miami.

    • I actually felt like the infusion of our real history beat-for-beat in the series is one way that this misses the mark. Watchmen wasn’t set in our world, within our real history. This feels more like Forrest Gump than Watchmen to me. If read as entirely its own thing it’s an okay story, but for me, reading it as a new addition to the Watchmen tapestry, it feels “wrong.”

    • Moore’s Watchmen mentions the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam and a few other “real world” references associated with Blake. so i don’t see your point.
      and if loving Forrest Gump is “wrong”, i don’t wanna be right.

  7. What I meant was that in the Watchmen, when Moore shows his superheroes getting involved in real historical events he shows how their involvement changed history, and the resulting changes define a new variation of our world (with electric cars, cheap power, air ships, a US victory in Vietnam, no presidential term limits, new mega-corporations, mutant animals, and so on, right down to pirate comics replacing superhero comics). In Forest Gump we see real history unaltered but with a new element simply retconned over it. I’m not suggesting that Forest Gump is bad, just that it is a different story mechanic and result from that of Watchmen. And this series is Before Watchmen, not Before Forest Gump, so I assumed a different mechanic. Like we might have seen how Marilyn Monroe was saved and taken into hiding, rather than just learning that her real-world death was actually the work of Blake. This series isn’t creating new outcomes in a new world so far, it’s just retconning the causes of real history. And that doesn’t have the same feel as the world of the Watchmen, at least not for me. Thus my reference.

    • well sir, let me start by saying that you seem to be very well-spoken and have made some very fine points. and i’m not trying to convince you to like this book, but i see a few discrempencies.
      you said Moores’ hero’s involvement changed history. Blake’s(and Nixon’s) implied involvement in the Kennedy assassination in the book didn’t change the outcome from the real world’s. just like how Blake’s(and Jackie O’s) involvement in Monroe’s death in this book is the same outcome as the real world’s, which speaks to both having the same “mechanics”. on the other hand, Moore and Azz are two different writers, so Watchmen and BW shouldn’t give you the ExacT “same feel”. i mean, we want something a lil’ different, right?
      “No presidential term limits”. Moore’s Nixon isn’t the first example of an American President exceeding the presidential 2 term limit precedent put forth by George Washington(even though it wasn’t put into written law in the form of the 22nd amendment until 1951, which Moore’s Nixon repealed). FDR was elected 4 times. granted, that was before the 22nd amendment, but that doesn’t change the aforementioned precedent that was broken, just like in Watchmen.
      and though this might not be creating new outcomes or effects, they certainly are tweeking some causes.
      this book feels right to me.

  8. Thought it was boring. So far no insight into why Eddie is who he is. Agree that this is the weakest BW series right now, and this was its weakest issue. What is eddie’s personal motivation to “start” the Vietnam war? Is he gung ho against communism? His love of violence is treated like a force of nature, azz is making no attemp to explain this guy.

  9. I am not digging this title, the first issue was alright but this one just makes me want to drop it.

  10. What I don’t get about this book is how the Kennedys would associate so closely with someone who seems so diametrically opposed to their beliefs. Blake’s attitude and demeanor were modeled after G. Gordon Liddy, and I can’t think of someone less likely to associate with a family of Democrats in that time period. Now maybe it will turn out Blake was putting on an act to dismantle the Kennedy agenda from the inside, but otherwise it stretches credibility. Blake is never demonstrated as being so calculating or cunning, nor is he shown to be capable of acting enough to fool anyone. With the Comedian, what you see is what you get, even back in the Crimebusters days. He was a punk and a bully from early on. I think this portrays the Kennedys as stupid that they would be duped by someone who is so overtly nihilistic and cruel.

  11. @kennyg Not Really. If you read “A History of Ashes” on the history of the CIA you will find that the Kennedy Brothers were bloodthirsty bastards that ran clandestine operations all over the world, overthrew several democratically elected governments in Central and South America, were complicity in torture and murder in those countries and on and on and on… The whole “Kennedy values” were basically a sham as far as the rest of the world was concerned, so it actually makes perfectly sense that Eddie would hang out with them. What surprises me is that Moore bought into the whole thing and that this series is the one to bring it to light.

Leave a Comment