- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The Gemworld bits do interest me.
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Lex Sedet In Vertice: A Supervillain in the DCU CK2 quest
- Thread starter King crimson
- Start date
- Superhero
Kir the Wizard
The Sun King
- Location
- Ukraine
The ideas were already there, indeed, and this core idea that is "The Good Must Be Ready To Punch With Fists".
Some people grumble about the "horseshoe theory", but this is a moment where it actually works more like a "circle". As in, people inferring that Miller is somewhere along the right-authoritarian from TDKR. Oh, so macho, so brutal, he probably hates femininity and the LGBT movement too ("gay Joker"). Problem is, KNOWING Miller's political views before reading the books actually cast a lot of things in a different light. Miller is probably best described as neo-liberal: he is pro-rights, pro-democratic, but he is also pro-intervention (with some definite Muslim panic, as much as he'd like to think he only dislikes terrorists). So with the whole "Batman cult taking over" aspect of TDKR, he PROBABLY thought he was actually writing about a popular revolution against the bad government (since he disliked pretty much all Republican administrations, which is not so different from Captain America defeating Nixon in Marvel). Of course, any popular revolution requires some sort of a cult of action, of victory, of triumphing over the overwhelming odds. As such, this sort of "revolutionary" imagery and narratives is easily interchangeable, regardless of the meaning behind "the revolution". Heck, the fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, started out as a socialist, before going deeper on the path of national populism. When a liberal democratic party's newspaper tried to troll him about his apparent lack of decisive political views and goals, he replied: "Our political views is hanging all the members of your party" (paraphrasing). Confrontation instead of discussion, action instead of reason. This is something inherent in superheroes, thus making them associated with "revolutionary passionarios". Take the fascists, or take the bolsheviks, the core similarity with superheroes is "imposing OUR order with force, taking down the old system". Might be strange why anything like this appears in the work of Frank Miller, who mostly supported the most mainstream centrist Democratic candidates possible, until you understand that this "rage against the [old order] machine" that is present in superheroics and in left/right populists actually builds upon the base human desires of wanting to stomp down injustice, to make things right by force, to find simple answers to hard questions. You do not even have to be an actual voter or supporter of populist or revolutionary political groups to vent about how'd you like to see X politicians killed, Y government toppled down, Z institutions shut down.
And I do think Miller noticed these ideas about his old works (that they are celebrating fascism and painting him as some right-wing extremist) and sort of "gazed into the abyss fighting monsters". His newer continuations of the TDKR franchise were definitely made with "wanting to prove he's not a Republican" arguments in mind, honestly hilarious ones, like including not!Greta and not!Hillary as good guys in the comic ("See!? I'm not a fascist, I'm a Democratic nature-loving normie, just like you!"), while the main story was, once again, about plucky revolutionaries fighting an overwhelming force (I think it was a Kryptonian imperialistic invasion). But then he released his newest Superman AU comic, and you can see some deeper changes. I've only managed to read the first two chapters right now (should find out the final issues, probably released by now), and you can see that Miller still appeals to his own core identity issues (pro-military, US patriotic), but the feeling of it all is much more... relaxed? Instead of a troubled Batman and his Bat Team wanting to fight against the overwhelming odds with any methods available, thus turning further and further radicalized, you get the invincible Superman wanting to discover the world, to ponder love and identity, to prove his will, and to protect people from injustice (Miller puts Clark in high school, where he, despite having all the looks to be "the cool kid", ends up joining the disenfranchised LGBT kids friend circle).
Honestly, I always try to look at a work of fiction with an open mind, to see what the author was trying to show, and what they actually ended up portraying. Some would say that the author is "dead", and the "sense" of the work is in the eye of the beholder, but I would never discount the original author's message as far as the discussion of a work Mr. goes (fan works can pretend that things are way different, of course). Sometimes it is a challenge to honestly understand a book written by somebody with a way different views system (try the legendary Steve Ditko's Mr. A comics, for example). But with Miller specifically, I think the weirdest part is, his views are not that different from those of people that critique his "views", as perceived through his works.
In the end, though, I do not think I have seen any person, who cited TDKR as inspiration for their fascist views. All I see is it being praised as "the start of more serious era in comic books" (along with "Watchmen")... which, in itself, is bogus, since the Bronze Age has already been going for a while, yet some think like it's been all Adam West show before TDKR.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I have heard it alleged that neo-liberalism has a strange potential to slide into a sort of 'soft' version of fascism.
That is, there is potential for the enfranchised slice of the population with rights and privileges to a tighter and whiter circle of elites, while the designated "scum" of society ('freaks, perverts, the unemployable, the foreigners') are cast out and targeted for destruction.
The elite may nominally have rights and there may be legal equality within the elite, much as the Spartiate class of Sparta had rights, privileges, and elite status (relevant given that Miller wrote the definitive modern popularization of ancient Sparta in visual media)... But that same elite is also entitled to exploit or destroy (or both) a sizeable class of Untermenschen, in Sparta's case the helots, for instance.
In the English-speaking world we see this kind of 'soft fascism' echoed in the plantation culture of the antebellum American South, where the plantation-owning aristocracy was loudly pro-democracy and prickly about their rights and 'honor...' while also being one of the most brutal and blatant class of slaveowning bigots the world has ever known.
Classically, fascism and democracy are imagined as being diametric opposites. But many of the elements of fascism can justify and consolidate themselves within a ruling elite that ties the protective mantle of liberty and enfranchisement tightly around itself.
And yet when you look at the Bolsheviks' internal processes, you find a lot of theoreticians. There is, at the least, the pretense of intellectualism going on there. I am reminded of a passage from Spufford's Red Plenty:
But the Soviet experiment had run into exactly the difficulty that Plato's admirers encountered, back in the fifth century BC, when they attempted to mould philosophical monarchies for Syracuse and Macedonia. The recipe called for rule by heavily-armed virtue – or in the Leninist case, not exactly virtue, but a sort of intentionally post-ethical counterpart to it, self-righteously brutal. Wisdom was to be set where it could be ruthless. Once such a system existed, though, the qualities required to rise in it had much more to do with ruthlessness than with wisdom. Lenin's core of original Bolsheviks, and the socialists like Trotsky who joined them, were many of them highly educated people, literate in multiple European languages, learned in the scholastic traditions of Marxism; and they preserved these attributes even as they murdered and lied and tortured and terrorised. They were social scientists who thought principle required them to behave like gangsters.
But their successors –the vydvizhentsy who refilled the Central Committee in the thirties – were not the most selfless people in Soviet society, or the most principled, or the most scrupulous. They were the most ambitious, the most domineering, the most manipulative, the most greedy, the most sycophantic; people whose adherence to Bolshevik ideas was inseparable from the power that came with them. Gradually their loyalty to the ideas became more and more instrumental, more and more a matter of what the ideas would let them grip in their two hands. High-level Party meetings became extravagantly foul-mouthed from the 1930s on, as a way of signalling that practical people were now in charge, down-to-earth people: and honest Russians too, not those dubious Balzac-readers with funny foreign names. 'Ladies, cover your ears!' became the traditional start-of-meeting announcement.
In a way, the surprise is that Bolshevik idealism lasted as long as it did. Stalin took his philosophical obligations entirely seriously. The time he spent in his Kremlin library was time spent reading. He held forth on linguistics, and genetics, and economics, and the proper writing of history, because he believed that intellectual decision-making was the duty of power. His associates, too, tended to possess treasured collections of Marxist literature. It was one of Molotov's complaints, after Stalin's death, that by sending him off to be ambassador to Outer Mongolia, Khrushchev had parted him from his books. And Khrushchev, in his turn, tried his best to talk like the great theoretician one magically became by elbowing and conniving one's way to the First Secretaryship. It came even less easily to him, but the transition to utopia by 1980 was all his own work, and so was the idea of peaceful competition with the capitalists. He was not a cynic. The idea that he might be committing an imposture bothered him deeply: he worried away at it, out loud, in public, busily denying and denying. A sculptor dared to tell him he didn't understand art: 'When I was a miner,' he snapped, 'they said I didn't understand. When I was a political worker in the army, they said I didn't understand. When I was this and that, they said I didn't understand. Well, now I'm party leader and premier, and you mean to say I still don't understand? Who are you working for, anyway?' Stalin had been a gangster who really believed he was a social scientist. Khrushchev was a gangster who hoped he was a social scientist. But the moment was drawing irresistibly closer when the idealism would rot away by one more degree, and the Soviet Union would be governed by gangsters who were only pretending to be social scientists...
But their successors –the vydvizhentsy who refilled the Central Committee in the thirties – were not the most selfless people in Soviet society, or the most principled, or the most scrupulous. They were the most ambitious, the most domineering, the most manipulative, the most greedy, the most sycophantic; people whose adherence to Bolshevik ideas was inseparable from the power that came with them. Gradually their loyalty to the ideas became more and more instrumental, more and more a matter of what the ideas would let them grip in their two hands. High-level Party meetings became extravagantly foul-mouthed from the 1930s on, as a way of signalling that practical people were now in charge, down-to-earth people: and honest Russians too, not those dubious Balzac-readers with funny foreign names. 'Ladies, cover your ears!' became the traditional start-of-meeting announcement.
In a way, the surprise is that Bolshevik idealism lasted as long as it did. Stalin took his philosophical obligations entirely seriously. The time he spent in his Kremlin library was time spent reading. He held forth on linguistics, and genetics, and economics, and the proper writing of history, because he believed that intellectual decision-making was the duty of power. His associates, too, tended to possess treasured collections of Marxist literature. It was one of Molotov's complaints, after Stalin's death, that by sending him off to be ambassador to Outer Mongolia, Khrushchev had parted him from his books. And Khrushchev, in his turn, tried his best to talk like the great theoretician one magically became by elbowing and conniving one's way to the First Secretaryship. It came even less easily to him, but the transition to utopia by 1980 was all his own work, and so was the idea of peaceful competition with the capitalists. He was not a cynic. The idea that he might be committing an imposture bothered him deeply: he worried away at it, out loud, in public, busily denying and denying. A sculptor dared to tell him he didn't understand art: 'When I was a miner,' he snapped, 'they said I didn't understand. When I was a political worker in the army, they said I didn't understand. When I was this and that, they said I didn't understand. Well, now I'm party leader and premier, and you mean to say I still don't understand? Who are you working for, anyway?' Stalin had been a gangster who really believed he was a social scientist. Khrushchev was a gangster who hoped he was a social scientist. But the moment was drawing irresistibly closer when the idealism would rot away by one more degree, and the Soviet Union would be governed by gangsters who were only pretending to be social scientists...
You don't get this in fascism.
All this, though, is very interesting to hear you say.
Perhaps the issue is that Miller wrote a couple of books with... let us say, "muscular neoliberal leanings," in the form of The Dark Knight Returns and 300. And unfortunately for him, we have learned things in the decades that have elapsed since he created these works. We've learned that muscular neoliberalism tends easily to slide into a form of, as I said, 'soft fascism.' And so there are inevitably a lot of parallels between "muscular neoliberal" comics and "kinda fascist" comics, when viewed through the lens of the past quarter century of political evolution in the Western world.
One is easily mistaken for the other.
A complication of this, though, is that there's a difference between "this work has fascist overtones" and "I know this is when I started being a fascist."
For instance, one thing we have seen since the 1980s is a very slow rise of a component of fandom (including science fiction, comics, anime, and so on) that is, as I've been saying, "soft fascist." And this may be caused by external sociopolitical pressures, but it may also be caused by a sort of subtle gateway opening up. A gateway that passes, subconsciously, through settings and works that implicitly authorize more violence, more disdain for the "freaks and mutants," more ritual affirmation of the idea that while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
And that no one is equal the way Marx said we all are.
Only in the way Jefferson said we are all equal, while sitting on his plantation, with the sex slave (seven-eighths white, by all accounts!) that he fathered several children on, the one who was his dead wife's half-sister.
You know, the Spartan kind of equality.
Kir the Wizard
The Sun King
- Location
- Ukraine
Well, it is hard to do a thing you understand to be wrong for a long time without justifying it, at least for yourself. Stalin's writings have been very much "what can I quote from Lenin in such a way that supports a centralized partocratic dictatorship?" Hitler tried to quote German philosophers and spoke of building "the real, German Socialism". I will concede that Mussolini relied moreso on his anti-intellectual, pro-public persona. But with the other dictatorships, I see it as a struggle for self-justification and an appeal to intellectuals, including foreign intellectuals. Soviets had to handle PR very carefully, including clandestine intelligence operations that relied on the White emigre convincing the West that "the USSR is turning around". Meanwhile Germany and Italy relied on pre-informed opinions on their countries that already existed in Europe.
There is also this thing how nowadays Communism is suddenly seen in the West as this pro-equality ideology that got a bad rep unfairly, while here in the post-Soviet countries we have Communist parties that are more or less concerned with "Soviet nationalism", as weird as that sounds, the restoration of the old USSR policies: the symbols, the government economy control, the russification, the anti-LGBT policies, the distaste for "the decadent bourgeois West". So to me that feeling of danger is still real.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
That's quite fair.
I think, though, that there was still a certain difference. It's not even something I'd call a virtue. Arguably it is worse to be an educated, highly literate person, or even one who aspires to that, and then to slaughter millions. The scholar has even fewer excuses for such actions than the illiterate brute, and the brute already has a negative number of excuses!
But the Bolsheviks, as I quoted, even while behaving like gangsters, had this aspiration of being social scientists. Not something that made them harmless in any way, or good in any way. But something that moderated the cult of action in a way not found within fascism.
After all, as you yourself point out, the cult of action is not one of the worst things about either fascism or Bolshevism! It is simply a necessary component of both, and present in both. I merely argue about matters of degree, I suppose.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
Your argument as a whole is solid however I will disagree with this point
Your overall argument isn't wrong. And I agree with a few of the points made. I do not think Frank Miller is a fascist. I think Frank Miller wrote books which unintentionally espouse really nasty things like fascism and those things grew to become massive influences on the industry (hell Batman V. Superman is a major movie that came out in 2016 screams Miller influence). Regardless of whether or not it is the true start of "serious comics" the DNA of the Dark Knight Returns is in the modern industry and has negatively affected things as a whole.
I do think that there needs to be a separation from the author and their work but I also think that there needs to be an acknowledgement of "there are significant problems with this". Like even with people like Wagner or Neitzche whose work wasn't meant to be tied to the Nazi's but in the end was I think an acknowledgement of which elements were taken and twisted to appeal to these groups is important to understand so you can separate the good from the bad in a problematic piece of media. The problem I have seen is that there hasn't been much acknowledgement of the bad elements of the Dark Knight Returns which is why I wanted to shine a spotlight on it especially since I will stand by the fact that its general tone and ideas have to some extent been incorporated into the DC comics culture in an unhealthy way. Miller might not have meant for the work to end up being fascist and pushing comics as a whole more in that direction but that is the effect it has had (in my opinion) hence why I think its worth discussing.
Yes, you cannot separate an author from their work entirely but on the other hand I cannot know what Frank Miller thinks as opposed to what he wrote and said at the time. He could have changed but that doesn't change what is already out there and that it has problematic elements. My issue is less "this exists" and more "this exists and is still very popular and mainstream and praised as a classic amongst the community with no discourse being made about many of the extremely problematic elements within it".
I don't know much about Communist "intellectuals" but I can tell you that a lot more lasting forms of art came out of the USSR than Nazi Germany. Part of that might be due to time scale but I'm inclined to believe that the USSR was less anti-intellectual in policy if not in spirit (note that this in no way makes the USSR morally superior to Nazi Germany).
This more comes about because I do not think he has written a single female character that was not a prostitute or sex appeal in some way with the arguably singular exception of Carrie Kelly (who got sexually assaulted). His newer work might be different but I haven't read anything he's written post-2010.
Your overall argument isn't wrong. And I agree with a few of the points made. I do not think Frank Miller is a fascist. I think Frank Miller wrote books which unintentionally espouse really nasty things like fascism and those things grew to become massive influences on the industry (hell Batman V. Superman is a major movie that came out in 2016 screams Miller influence). Regardless of whether or not it is the true start of "serious comics" the DNA of the Dark Knight Returns is in the modern industry and has negatively affected things as a whole.
I do think that there needs to be a separation from the author and their work but I also think that there needs to be an acknowledgement of "there are significant problems with this". Like even with people like Wagner or Neitzche whose work wasn't meant to be tied to the Nazi's but in the end was I think an acknowledgement of which elements were taken and twisted to appeal to these groups is important to understand so you can separate the good from the bad in a problematic piece of media. The problem I have seen is that there hasn't been much acknowledgement of the bad elements of the Dark Knight Returns which is why I wanted to shine a spotlight on it especially since I will stand by the fact that its general tone and ideas have to some extent been incorporated into the DC comics culture in an unhealthy way. Miller might not have meant for the work to end up being fascist and pushing comics as a whole more in that direction but that is the effect it has had (in my opinion) hence why I think its worth discussing.
Yes, you cannot separate an author from their work entirely but on the other hand I cannot know what Frank Miller thinks as opposed to what he wrote and said at the time. He could have changed but that doesn't change what is already out there and that it has problematic elements. My issue is less "this exists" and more "this exists and is still very popular and mainstream and praised as a classic amongst the community with no discourse being made about many of the extremely problematic elements within it".
Hitler's regime also burned books and denied most modern forms of art as "illegitimate" and paid archeologists to give false information to get things wrong (looking at some of the incredibly batshit ways someone like say Himmler attempted to justify what he was doing for an example of how they'd sometimes just make things up to justify themselves). Nazi Germany was strongly anti-intellectual with exceptions being made for intellectuals who advanced the party line and gave those in charge the answers they wanted to hear. Much like how Mengele's "scientific" experiments are complete garbage because the results were messed with to arrive at a conclusion he had already determined (his hypothesis was never proven wrong), most Nazi "intellectual" efforts were straight up lies and alterations made to reach a conclusion those in power had already decided on.
I don't know much about Communist "intellectuals" but I can tell you that a lot more lasting forms of art came out of the USSR than Nazi Germany. Part of that might be due to time scale but I'm inclined to believe that the USSR was less anti-intellectual in policy if not in spirit (note that this in no way makes the USSR morally superior to Nazi Germany).
This isn't an old thing. It's been around at least thirty years (I can find you children's television shows from the 90s that claim that Lenin just wanted to give everyone Peace, Land and Bread and it was Stalin who made everything so much worse and ruined it all).
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
In hindsight I probably shouldn't have responded to more than the Miller stuff. Not going to delete the post but I'm preemptively getting a bit leery of us going wildly off topic. This was my bad.
Last edited:
- Location
- Singapore
And then you hear about Stalin promoting a man to head of agriculture because he applied socialist theory to vegetables. Naturally, there was a famine and a lot of people died.
Edit: he imprisoned and killed a lot of biologist because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
Last edited:
Torgamous
Aspiring Gynoid
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Cassandra's dedicated actions are generally better for that, in this case teaching her leadership. I'd like Lex to be put on that action, since it's the only one on the list that definitely translates to points in Stewardship and I just like how things went with him teaching her science and diplomacy and would like to keep the tradition going. That does mean not taking the action next turn, but we've probably got some time before Cassandra needs to be in charge of something.
Good point, might as well take advantage of her unique kid action's while they are still there. Another alternative for a steward boost may be to teach her about politics. though that may just increase her intrigue.
Kir the Wizard
The Sun King
- Location
- Ukraine
Guys, do not discount Claude as not-interesting. He may actually be a DOMA undercover agent, as in canon he was one of the first people that ever ventured to Themyscira:
"Paraplegic Canadian architect Henri Claude Tibet, recipient of the I.M. Pei award for his designs that provide access to the physically disabled. (He was curious as to how the Amazons would react to his and Rovo's "physical imperfections.") "
"Paraplegic Canadian architect Henri Claude Tibet, recipient of the I.M. Pei award for his designs that provide access to the physically disabled. (He was curious as to how the Amazons would react to his and Rovo's "physical imperfections.") "
Uh, could you specify which Stalin famine are you talking about? Because the reasons for most of those were, well, much less "hilarious and unintentional". Lysenko was a hack, but he's the last person in the Stalinist regime I'd blame for the famines (most of which were government-controlled acts of genocide and/or enforcement of collective farm policy)
Last edited:
You mean Lysenko, the guy who chilled living plants to make them grow faster? The guy who rejected the idea of Mendelian genetics and tried to graft dramatically different species of plants together, resulting in loss of entire crops?
Who made farmers plant very close together, because "Plants of the same class dont compete", resulting in most of the crop not surviving till harvest because they really do compete for root space?
The guy who invented Lysenkoism, which, when attempted by Communist China, immediately resulted in a famine?
The guy who set the secret police on all of his detractors (Many of whom where qualified biologist.)? Many of whom where imprisoned or killed for not renouncing, of all things, genetics. We're talking thousands of individuals.
The fact of the matter is, Stalin didn't grok biology, and hired people for the job who also didn't get it, but talked a big game and had the party line downpat.
Anyway, This is getting way, way off topic.
- Location
- Singapore
Which is why if we get him, he would be the perfect "Face" for all our big PR civil construction projects.
Kir the Wizard
The Sun King
- Location
- Ukraine
What if he is a deliberate plant to investigate inside LexCorp? Remember, Diana was trained by old man Bones himself.
Lysenko being a hack, a jerk, and a party favourite who destroyed genetics development is one thing. Stalin, Kaganovich and Molotov enforcing genocide is another. Even with Lysenko's hackery and crappy conditions there'd be no famine if the Bolshevik leadership did not want to deliberately target people to: a) enforce collective farms; b) acquire funding for forced industrialization; c) destroy local ethnic majorities and patriotic political support in the countryside. With differences here and there, this form of genocide was used in Ukraine, "Cossack lands", and in Kazakhstan. It wasn't happening because "oops, we failed agriculture". It was a deliberate destruction of a huge part of population, with the intention to subjugate and pacify the rest (Stalin was afraid of a resurgence of "Petliurovtsy" and Cossack rebellions against collectivization like in the 1920s).
Last edited:
- Location
- Singapore
Does not matter. So long as we keep him busy with big building jobs. Plant or not, there are legal and ethical requirements he needs to fulfill as Head of Future Construction. The man-hours will restrict his attention.
- Location
- North Carolina
I have just finished binged reading this and I have to say that it's a pretty good quest and I'm glad that we got time to develop and increase our strengths before Superman showed up. As for dealing with Superman, Direct confrontation is bound to have us lose and for Superman to tell Lois that LexCorp attacked him. Lois disliking and maybe even hating us would lead to her investigating and bad Pr.
So we have to sadly do things through proxy and try to turn PR on Superman.
So we have to sadly do things through proxy and try to turn PR on Superman.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
Brief status update. I'm not dead. I hope to get out at least two updates by Monday. An update is definitely coming out tomorrow as I'm currently about 65% through it.
My warning for this plan is simple. Do not count on events occurring exactly as they have in other forms of media. While I do draw pretty heavily on the DCAU for inspiration the quest already is significantly distanced from it that things cannot go exactly like the show (for example Bruno Manneheim is not in Metropolis so Toyman cannot attempt to get revenge on him meaning that his interaction with Superman will be significantly different than it was in the show). The butterfly effect will keep on stacking up over time and so predicting something will go exactly as it did in another source can backfire on you. It's still solid for general ideas but it might be best to plan for alterations and complications.It is my fondest dream to find out Superman's civilian identity before "Legacy" happens and release it on Handshake after it does... after securing the Kent farmstead to keep Pa & Ma Kent and their property secure from lynch mobs and vandalism of course.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Yeah. Just as some examples, we've butterflied the shit out of Batman's entire career by removing several of his major allies and enemies from play. Anything involving A.M.A.Z.O. has been butterflied into oblivion, and that includes some significant events in the history of most incarnations of the Justice League.
- Location
- Singapore
We really should work on these next few turns.
The rations is good for Pamela to pad her resume and be eligible for the Nobel Peace/Science prizes.
The Space Rovers and Telescopes are good products to get closer ties to NASA.
Of course the Tracking Chips are not for LexCorp to track customer locations at all times! It's for the upcoming GPS app for the next-gen L-Phone and the in-development augmented reality mobile game!
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Eh. Pass on the ration package. I want to put Pamela (if she's available, remember that her EPA duties will keep her busy sometimes) on "restore damaged environments" or something like that. I bet we can get assistance on that from the EPA itself, and free bonuses on the die roll are always nice.
One or both of these is not a bad idea at all. I'm honestly thinking of making a "Lex can into space" push next turn with some of the lower-DC aerospace-related actions, enabling us to get some leverage out of the "expand Ferris aerospace" action we'd want to take anyway, while saving our high-end heropower for whatever high priority actions we need to take for our own needs.
Actually that is not a bad idea at all, though we do already have the ability to track customer locations when they're carrying our L-Phones.
Yes, the Flash has been stupid enough to carry a cell phone while zooming around Central City at super-speed for the past five years. I think we're dealing with DCAU Wally West here, not comics Barry Allen, to put it mildly.
- Location
- Singapore
On the other hand, putting Katherine + Pamela on this would further improve their Co-op and deeply impress on Katherine on how LexCorp intends to make the world better by making easily accessible disaster relief products.
Of course, making these military rations would also embed us deeper with the US Armed forces since LexCorp would be feeding their men on the ground.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I suspect that's overthinking it. Plus, Katherine has a LOT of things she could usefully be doing for us in terms of Martial and Intrigue.