Volcaos

June 1, 2012 2:19 pm This. The only way to meaningfully diversify the DC universe is by tweaking established characters. New characters not only rarely sell, but do little to change the company's image. This is not the only new "new 52" gay character, there's that guy from teen titans as well, but no one cares about him because he's new and there's no emotional attachment. What people have to learn is that the fact that some character is gay does not in any way diminish him, and in the hands of someone as talented as Robinson it can only be a good thing.

June 1, 2012 8:52 am Basically it comes down to this: I trust James Robinson both to write golden age characters well and gay characters well. He has proven he is an expert at both. So I am happy.

May 30, 2012 10:45 pm @vadamowens Bah I enjoy it, many years in forums and IRC. If one person comes out of this understanding what my point is, even without agreeing, but at least respecting it, I'm happy.

May 30, 2012 10:02 pm @Andrew Gaboury If you'd read what I wrote you'd notice I said it is not comparable, it is just like the example of thekendon a way of showing that illegality is not necessarily morally wrong. Rosa Parks is simply a clear cut example of illegality being morally right. What I am questioning is: if the choice is between a) not buying and waiting for trades and b) pirating and buying the trades, who is injured and why? In none of the cases do issues get bought and in both cases the revenue for the artist and company is exactly the same.

May 30, 2012 8:56 pm @gobo In the end, however, the artists, who are the people who matter here, are making the same money whether you wait for a trade or if you pirate and then buy the trade. No one is injured. So I have to maintain my position, it is not morally wrong if the choice is between not buying or pirating, if and only if you buy the trades after pirating.

May 30, 2012 8:26 pm @thekendon ah some good old logic. Rosa Parks also didn't have the right to sit at the front of the bus. Of course it's not comparable, but illegality does not make wrong. Of course there is the very strong argument for the artists being paid for their work, but that is something I'm defending here, only in this case by buying trade paperbacks. If a person would never buy digital issues because that is not their preferred way of reading comics, is it really wrong to pirate while they wait for their preferred format. Isn't it even more wrong to be coerced into paying twice for the same item?

May 30, 2012 6:18 pm @Smasher thanks, interesting stuff there. @Nightwalker never going to win with this crowd.

May 30, 2012 5:38 pm @wallythegreenmonster If these studies are valid for both music and movies, and some, like Neil Gaiman, claim that the same happens to books (http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/03/15/is-pirating-the-new-advertising/) will the conclusions for comic books be that different? Really, that would be very interesting and very strange.

May 30, 2012 5:34 pm @CarlosFF I think there is a substantial difference if you are talking about physical issues. Those have bigger physical production costs (paper, staples, distribution, printing), wear and tear, etc. Also it would be very un-ecological to waste so much paper. I am only talking about digital comics.

May 30, 2012 5:26 pm @Conor I think part of the solution has to do with companies having their own digital distribution, yes it is costly, but it pays off, and it's not like WB or Disney can't afford the investment. And I still don't think it's either impractical or unrealistic you'd end up paying a premium of 3 dollars over cover price for your trade, I don't see how that is bad for the company.