In what ways is Marvel more realistic than DC?

I really have only read DC stuff and the only experience I've had with Marvel is with the movies and cartoons and to me, I don't feel that stuff is an accurate portrayal of comics.

So, I'd like to know, when people say Marvel is more realistic, exactly what do they mean? Is it the superheroes, the villains, the stories, or just the whole Marvel universe as a whole? More importantly, could you provide some examples?

Since the silver age, Marvel has had better personalities and more realistic personalities for its super heroes bec. of the genius of Stan Lee who started the marvel age. In the silver age, dc superheroes all had the same cardboard personalities and dc has been trying to catch up with Marvel ever since. Marvel does lots of unbelievable stories such as mind swapping stories, time travel stories and space stories like Thanos stories.

The bad guys can win a lot

Characterization is a big thing. While DC's heroes are (for the most part) - noble and self-sacrificing with high moral standards, Marvel heroes are more 'human' because of their obvious flaws. This was something that Stan Lee really wanted to introduce - so he made the FF a bickering family, Spidey have teenage problems, and the X-Men being hated and feared. They were still heroes, but unlike the infallible icons of the Silver Age DC heroes, they felt more 'real' to readers because of their personalities and problems. In a biography of Kirby, it was mentioned that readers of Marvel at the time felt like Marvel was the best stuff, while DC's was still stuck in the Stone Age.

Marvel actually has thorough battles with prep and all. DC is all about "Hey guys, Doomsday's here! Let's go fight him without knowing anything about him so we can get are ***es handed to us! Yeah!"

Without Batman, DC would be down the sh*tter.

So is it still like that today? I definitely have noticed the moral, noble feel in DC now that I think about it.

How about the actual stories? Is there a difference between the way DC stories go and the way Marvel stories are done? Like do they do different kinds of stories and do they have a different feel to them?

Also how long are Marvel stories before they move on to the next story compared to DC?

The only reason I am asking these questions is that I'd like to know more about Marvel to see if I would like to start reading their stuff, I know there have been some characters that have interested me but I am worried that I won't like it since I know next to nothing about Marvel outside of cartoons and movies.

I think it's evened out a fair bit. Since the Bronze Age, DC has begun introducing flaws into even their most infallible heroes. Superman struggles with his legacy and with doubt nowadays, Batman has his paranoia about superhumans, Aquaman is torn between his surface world heritage and Atlantis. So on, so forth. Overall, DC's heroes seem to be held to a more higher standard, but that's changed in recent years.

The stories have changed as well. Marvel started doing multiple issue long plots in the Silver Age, while DC was still stuck doing single issue stories. Now, both are experimenting with various storytelling styles. 'Writing for the trade' was popular in the early 2000s, but now there's a variety. Both companies have some titles that write the traditional six-issue arc, and other titltes that have one issue stories that tell one larger tale.

My advice is go for it. Superhero comics thrive on variety, and some days I feel like DC and others I feel like Marvel.

@kramotz: that's like saying Marvel would be down the shi&@er without Hulk.

Both companies would be at a tremendous loss without such characters but that doesn't mean they don't have plenty of other great heroes. DC has the Green Lantern books, the Superman family of books and the Justice League titles just to name a few. Batman's a great iconic character, but lets not undervalue DC heroes for the sake of Marvel fanboyism.

My impression is that Marvel tends to link stories more to make the customers buy more titles and those who are more susceptible to addiction end up buying all of the marvel comics every month.

How in the hell would Marvel be down the sh*tter without Hulk? Hell, if you ask me, Hulk is the most hated main Marvel character on the Vine.

@colonyofcells: and this has what to do with what the OP asked?

@kramotz: have you read anything else I've said?

Based on your other posts on this forum thus far I'm calling this a TROLL.

Those who don't believe can check it out themselves.

I swear someone creates a thread similar to this every six months...

To answer the question, yes, there was a time when Marvel was more "realistic" than DC. Meaning they actually confronted real world problems in their comics. The X-Men were a metaphor for racism, The Hulk was a metaphor for unchecked anger, Spider-Man was the first hero who was a teenager and not a sidekick first, Stan Lee managed to incorporate alcohol abuse, drug use and many other ''naughty'' themes into his comics. BUT, that was like 40 years ago. For the most part, the two companies are now equal in their realism, or lack of realism in this case. So people who prefer Marvel and still use that excuse as a reason why are living on outdated concepts.

@juliedc: Only in terms of naming conventions

but in world application DC is better, as new comic technology is integrated into the world. Marvel is stagnant

@the_stegman: Well said.

It isn't/ Marvel hasn't been more realistic than DC since the start of the Modern Age. Majority of Marvel's heroes aren't "real world". Whereas with DC, you have Batman, Green Arrow, Huntress, The Joker, Luthor, Bat-Family, Static, Freedom Fighters, Ras Ahl Ghul, Doom Patrol, Outsiders, Oracle, etc.

I'm confused. You said real world and then listed totally unrealistic characters. Ha! Kidding. Whether someone has super powers or is superhumanly dedicated to training and learning skills or whatever, none of them are realistic in that sense. What makes the characters in Marvel (and we are generalising) more realistic, or at least has done, is their flaws and foibles. DC characters have traditionally been icons of an ideal, where as Marvels have always been more grounded by having real people's problems. Spider-man is the obvious example; struggling with income, being thrown out of home for not making rent, and even having to wait until his neighbours stop sunning themselves on the roof before he can use his skylight to get into his apartment are all problems that Spider-man has faced that I doubt Superman or Batman have ever had. These little problems make the character more relatable.

I always thought DC was the more realistic of the two.

So a universe where the most powerful being are the writers, second being is a three headed golden dude who doesnt even have a neck, where there are whole level of infinities and being on transfinite power scale and most concepts like Death, Time, Space, Order, Chaos, Love, Hate have their own physical personifcation and more than 1 being who preceed all of creation [Nemesis (one before all) and Chaos King], where big bang was created not because of some scientific reason but because of humanity's desire to be born. A universe nurtured and judged by a flying unfathomable robots, where Gods are just the lifeforce from Earth biosphere shaped by man, is somehow more realistic?

Dc universe as a whole seem a lot more realistic and subsumed as compared to Marvel, its just that major earth heroes are relatively less powerful and arguably more relate-able and flawed.

Not buying the whole Spidey is poor argument. Guy is friends with a billionaire.

Oracle-Symbol for Handicapped People.

Batman-Parents were killed in a crime-ridden city..

Arrow-Liberal of the common man

Huntress-Daughter of the Mafia, again parents killed.

The Joker-Classic case of a bad thing happening to good people, or those who are insane

Luthor-Representative of the American Dream, Came from the slums to becoming a businessman, Just watch Shark Tank

Bat-Family: All affected in tragedies due to their environments

Static: Mom is killed in a crime-ridden city. Average black guy

Uncle Sam: The spirit of the US, American patriotism/nationalism

Ras Ahl Ghul: Eco-terrorist

Doom Patrol/Outsiders: Outcasts of society with familial problems.

DC heroes aren't relatable?

LOL. That is actually the way I feel about Marvel. I find that DC has had much more well-thought out plots and characterization in the past, while Marvel seemed like one brainless grudge match after another. Civil War? AvX? Fear Itself? Age of Ultron? All incredibly stupid with nothing but punch 'em fights that didn't make a lick of sense. Compare that to stories like Final Night or Identity Crisis with deep character work and emotional revelations that are actually well thought out and not thrown in there so fans could see which of their favorite heroes would win in a fight.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the following is a full-blown FACT:

DC Comics would have deteriorated a long-time ago if it wasn't for Batman! That's why the poor guy is milked to death! DC is like Nintendo: without Zelda or Mario, Nintendo might as well kiss their ***es goodbye.

PS: How did Age of Ultron make no sense to you when it's not even finished?

@kramotz: The same could be said for Marvel. If there was no Spider-Man they would've went down also. Cap, Wolverine, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & others didn't become popular until the 2000s.

Uh.....no. Its not a fact actually. In fact, there was even a point in history when the Batman books didn't sell and DC almost cancelled them. DC still has the Justice League, the Green Lantern corner, and, yes, the Superman books. Believe it or not Superman is actually a widely popular character, despite the misconception that he's "lame." People will still go see his movies, buy shirts with his emblem on it, etc.

DC also has many lesser known properties that have followings: Teen Titans, Outsiders, Justice Society, Adam Strange, Hawkman, etc.

If Dark Horse is a relatively comic company, while their most popular character is Hellboy, whose books definitely sell FAR below many of those characters I mention, then DC would still be around even if they didn't have Batman.

I agree; they wouldn't be "the sh*t" right now, but they would be like DC is now, while DC would be the one on top, because the cast of Marvel characters would be able to carry the load, IMO. If this scenario were to happen with DC and Batman... I don't feel that the other main characters could carry such a load... because they're so damn similar to each other (major do-gooders, overpowered as hell). I'm telling you, DC would have got boring a long time ago if Batman wasn't there.

And the funny thing is... The Avengers still would have been good even if Marvel didn't have Spider-Man... because he wasn't in the movie! (This has nothing to do with discussion, I know; I was just saying that Marvel would also still be on top movie-wise as well)

@jnr6lil: I wouldn't say Peter Parker is friends with Tony Stark, (read civil war) and I wouldn't say any of the "street level" characters in either universe are in any way realistic when it comes to their motivations and what they can do. (Otherwise there would be thousands of Batmans and Punishers running around the real world). When you think of it, Batman and Ironman aren't all that different really. Neither has powers but rely on their wealth and brains to create gadgets to fight crime. The main differences are that one is a guilt ridden alcoholic while the other is a vengeful psychopath. I don't think the powers or abilities are where the distinction between Marvel and DC lays anyway, and I myself imagine it all comes down to what grabs you personally, but as this seems to be a discussion that continually comes up and therefore must have at least some weight to it, I must say that I think it comes down to the writing focus. Marvel, to my mind, focusses on giving many of its characters realistic, down to earth, relatable problems like those I mentioned with Spidey. Now again, this seems to have changed somewhat, and I can't really comment on current DC titles as I haven't read much DC since the 80's for the exact reason that I found the characters uninteresting, unrelatable and too lofty. Spider-man at the time was in a one room apartment, trying to dodge his landlady, desperately trying to make some cash, having his clothes stolen from where he hid them, messing up his relationships, pissing off his aunt and getting hammered at school. Batman was loaded with cash, he was a suave ladies man, and he had anything he wanted, (including apparently a little kid in green underpants which was always weird.) I have however followed a number of Vertigo books such as Hellraiser and have found them to be quite well characterised. When John Constantine is written well, he is just like an old buddy of mine in London almost to the T.

But look is this a bad thing?

Probably not. I used to enjoy Superman every now and then for the simple immensity of the character. He's the atomic bomb. The guy who turns up and you hear the music and its like "Phew...he's here." And that's cool. Do I want Superman to have relatable problems? I don't know if I do. DC were always good at creating gods and that's perfectly fine. I always thought that Marvel did their worst stuff when they were trying to emulate DC because that wasn't what I wanted out of Marvel.

So... even though I chose to read more Marvel because I found I could personally relate to the characters more, I'm not sure its always important to everyone, and hey, I still pick up the odd Superman. He's just such a hero in the extreme.

@filthythebear: Except that relatable argument hasn't been true in 40 years. Spidey isn't even a teenager anymore, and is not the same poor kid he was when he first came out. Outside of Spider-Man & The X-Men, who can anyone relate to. That relatable argument is a played out cliche. I just named 12 heroes/villains in DC that correlate with today's society. The fact is you really have no room to comment because like you said you haven't been reading DC since the 80s rendering your whole point moot.

Kingdom Come > Civil War

Hell if you want to go with Batman, he's only a suave ladies man on the outside. Deep down inside he's a man trying to find love, while trying to make good over a bad situation that happened in his childhood, that haunts him till the present.

Ok so like I said I think it probably has changed. I don't agree that it has been changed for 40 years. If so, this argument wouldn't still be doing the rounds, but I imagine it HAS changed. Peter was in University on and off when I started reading him...mainly off. I actually think your list works against your argument in many ways. You've basically listed a number of them as icons of an ideal, such as Uncle Sam and even Luthor. Ideals do not equate to relatable characters. They might be what we strive for and what we want to be, but that is beside the point completely when it comes to how relatable they are. The relatability comes in the little things, the character foibles, the flaws and the idiosyncrasies. Listing characters and what they stand for just supports my point. Captain America is a very DCish character. He's an icon, an ideal. DC was never as good as Marvel at focusing on character building, but again...THIS HAS PROBABLY CHANGED.

I was commenting on the debate for the reason that it continually comes up and I believe the reason it comes up is because of how it started. It was valid THEN. Let me make myself clear again and say that I IMAGINE THE DIFFERENCES HAVE CHANGED. If you don't agree that there was ever a difference, then perhaps go back and read some of the old stuff and see what you think. If you still think its bollocks then thats cool. It is, after all, an opinion.

"Uh no" my ass.

When I say Batman, I don't mean Batman individually (though I did mean it in my previous posts), but I mean as a comic itself. Without Batman, the Justice League would be boring, IMO; without Robin, Teen Titans would be sh*t (Robin/Nightwing is the leader for a reason); I agree Green Lantern is alright, but it can't hold up the company by itself, and Superman may have a few fans from the WWII era (damn geezers), but he's still lame, IMO (his suit's LAME, his powers are LAME (he's overpowered as hell), his personality is LAME (he's an f-ing do-gooder from head to toe).

And I swear, if anyone brings Wonder Woman's boring *** into this... I'm just leaving this thread.

Intent is a big one to me. Many DC and Marvel writers, editors and artists acknowledge and echo a sentiment that can very easily translate as Marvel being more "realistic" because they try harder to mirror reality and ground their characters (grounding characters in reality) and DC trying harder and consciously putting more effort into giving their characters an air of idealism and hope that works as far as what a person wants from the future rather than now.

Forgetting how people can get defensive, emotional or apologetic for things they favor, above is very generalized but nothing really anything positive or negative. Its generalized because both companies know the best way to write a grounded and relatable character is to occasionally give them highs, big moments, hopes, have them be inspired or inspirational, because even the most grounded, cynical, normal, typical everyman has hopes, can have optimism, have highs, and they may get crushed but its a bit of a cycle. A super idealized character they likewise know as well, despite how godlike and seemingly perfect they are, prone to victory and winning and success in all facets, even they need to be endearing, and a bit clumsily or inept. Experience struggles and lows and have the ability to easily install the reader with relatable qualities now and then. What characters get designated one or the other basically comes down to balance and how their cycle repeats - oh and other subjective elements naturally too.

Realism isn't so easily a negative or positive for one company to claim. Realism to me otherwise usually manifests itself in writers abilities to accurately and realistically depict realistic consequences, realistic personalities (but not necessarily realistic powers and abilities) and or attempting there best to provide solid reasoning to justify differences between reality and attempted reality. I usually think X-Factor (Marvel), Jonathan Hickman stuff, Warren Ellis stuff, Secret Six (DC) Grant Morrison stuff, X-Men (Chris Claremont stuff mainly as opposed to say Fraction) but other people have different criteria for aspects of realism they consider more realistic. Some of my favorite stories in Marvel and DC indulge in their silliness and fictional nature - with really only the human condition presented as real.

Dc does have more superheroes without powers so dc can do realistic Batman movies and realistic Green Arrow TV show which are more similar to James Bond movies. Many of the golden age super heroes had no super powers such as Red Tornado Ma Hunkel, Atom Al Pratt (gained atomic powers later on), Sandman, Wildcat, Mr Terrific, Black Canary. Bronze age black canary had the sonic power.

Wow. Have you....even read any of the characters you're talking about? Honestly, I want you to let me know if you have ever picked up a Superman, Teen Titans, or Wonder Woman comic in your life. Cuz its obvious from your post that you haven't and you're a blind little Marvel zombie.

FYI, Captain America and Superman have pretty much identical personalities, and yet you don't find people running around calling Cap lame. And what's so lame about Superman's powers? He has pretty much the same amount of strength as Thor or Hulk.

You've pretty much shown that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If you could leave the thread, that'd be great actually.

I don't see how that's not relatable. Just because youyourself don't find it relatable doesn't mean other people won't especially with the diversity of comic fans. We can all relate to the pride we have for America. Some people can relate to coming from nothing and still making it as Luthor did. Many people who are handicapped can relate to Luthor. Many black kids can relate to Static: a guy who has to go to school, while at the same time lives in a underfranch ised neighborhood. Many kids who are excluded from social cliques can relate to the Outsiders. Families can relate to the Doom Patrol. Alot of kids who live in New York, where the Mafia is active can relate to a character like Huntress. You can't just go around saying characters aren't relatable just because they don't relate to you, who are only one person.

You have no right to be claiming DC isn't relatable when you're 30 years out of touch.

It's called being a Marvel fanboy from hell... not a Marvel zombie, smart one... though I do happen to be kinda' blind... literally, my glasses have a sh*t-load of medication!

And since when did stating your opinion mean you have no idea what your talking about? I don't like Supes, or anyone on DC (excluding everything Batman and Luthor), and I don't know what I'm talking about?

And you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. I called Cap lame already on another thread, so there's SOMEONE out their calling him LAME.

To answer your question: Yes, I have... and I will never make the mistake again.

And when you put it that way, I think I'll stay. :)

Kramotz is just a Marvel fanboy stuck in the 70s. He doesn't realize Cap is not the icon of America he was in the 40s.

Nerds turning into raging green monsters, for one.

Same difference, really. All it really shows is that you're ignorant.

And even if its you're opinion, you seriously don't think that in 75 years, DC has been able to publish a good Superman story? a good Wonder Woman story? Flash, Green Lantern, or Justice League stories? Because they have. There are hundreds of different DC stories and runs that have received critical acclaim: Mark Waid's Kingdom Come, Tower of Babel, Superman Birthright; Morrison's JLA, Doom Patrol, Animal Man, and All Star Superman; Geoff Johns' Green Lantern, Flash, Teen Titans, and JSA; the Giffen/DeMatteis run on Justice League; John Byrne Superman; George Perez Wonder Woman; Alan Moore's Watchmen and Swamp Thing; Wolfman/Perez New Teen Titans (which competed directly with Uncanny X-Men back in the day). Hell, even some current runs, like Azzarello's Wonder Woman and Lemire's Animal Man, get a lot of critical acclaim, especially on this site.

So, if you really need it spelled out for you. Your comment is ignorant because it shows that you have closed your mind to the possibility of enjoying good stories just because you've already decided what to feel about the characters, which is just really stupid. Any character can be interesting if given the right creative team. I have never been fond of the Hulk or even had an opinion on Daredevil, yet I like what Waid's doing with them right now.

Marvel originally dealt with more realistic problems about being a superhero/different than dc did. Now that DC is doing it too, the distinction can't be made anymore.

OK. You won. :) I'm an ignorant ****er (Sorry man; I saw my alerts, read to first sentence of your post, looked at how long it was and said to myself, "Oh hell naw."

@jnr6lil: what's hilarious here is that you are totally missing the fact that I have said, over and over again, that I imagine its all changed. I even typed it in capitals to make it clear, but apparently its not going to get through, so I'm just going to give up on that. We are talking about why people think that Marvel is more relatable than DC and I have made a case that Marvel made a conscious effort to make their characters more flawed and human. THIS is what makes characters relatable. Its commonly understood in writing. You can relate to a character's cause but that doesn't mean you relate to the personality and the humanity of the character.

Its what we are all taught in writing at college. What a character stands for is nowhere near as important as their personality, their flaws and their downfalls...when it comes to relatability.

Here's a quote from Louis D' Esposito, the producer and director of a number of superhero films on his choice to do mainly Marvel movies- "They're not perfect characters. They're very relatable. They're interesting without their superpowers. People, when they walk into the movie theater, they come from all walks of life. They can have that relatability. You put yourself in their shoes. You live vicariously through them. "

THAT is what is important to Marvel readers! They have to be interesting characters that you would find interesting even if they were just working in K-mart and pushing trolleys.

DC has compared their JLA to greek gods and have concentrated on their characters being the biggest. They have the fastest, the most powerful, the most everything pretty much (we can debate the Hulk some other time) and that is exciting! But ask yourself why Marvel, coming after Superman and Batman, didn't just make their characters MORE powerful and MORE perfect. Its just not what makes a really good character in the long run and hey, I guess it shows in the sales of books.

Actually as a little aside to this, I was talking to a creator at a convention here about a month ago and though I won't say who, I will give you a choice- Nicola Scott, Gail Simone, Terry Dodson, Tom Taylor, Billy Tan, Dave Gibbons, Colin Wilson and Joe Jusko. Its one of those, but I don't want to start any trouble between creators and employers so I won't say who. Anyway, they said that they thought the new 52 showed a failure by DC in their ability to write interesting stories with their characters. He/she said that continuity shouldn't be a problem for good writers of good characters and that they were bummed that DC felt the need to wipe the slate every 20 or so years like they did with Crisis years ago.

Oh and I wouldn't say I'm out of touch with DC. I do pick up a superman here and there, also a batman and I read some of the new 52 for a few issues to see what the hype was about, but DC just hasn't done anything to get me interested in reading more. But hey, I'm glad other people are into them and I hope DC does well.

Basically, enjoy your books. If they fullfill your needs and you enjoy them, then good. A lot of people like both DC and Marvel and though I read mostly Marvel, Darkhorse and even Vertigo (well...until they recently watered down Constantine and made a kiddy version), I get that. I do like the DC characters. I like the movies and I can't wait for the new Superman film, but when it comes to relatability, I have, IN THE PAST AND IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, found Marvel more so.

Basically its a personal opinion, if a personal opinion that a google search shows many people share, and I'm pretty sure neither of us is going to change ours. What books do you currently read out of interest?

I don't even know why are argue with you. You're 30 years behind. You have no right to be commenting on a product you don't read. All you did is repeat the age old stigma that Marvel is more relatable when I've named 10 DC characters that were relatable, while you've only named 1. Fact is you're trying to use what is relatable to you, and generalize it over a broad audience.

It can be hard to relate to some dc super heroes. The New 52 Clark Kent has been humanized or marvelized even more so dc is certainly trying hard to catch up with Marvel. Hard to relate to Wonder Woman who was raised in a weirdo all female amazon community (similar problem with Thor). There are many fanatics in america who might relate more with the fanatic Batman. There are many boring people who might relate more with the boring Barry Allen.

Dawwww. Was it the big words that were the problem??

@extremis: If you want to call me "TROLL", that's fine, but I much prefer to be called Kramotz.

@zeeguy91: I wouldn't know.

@jnr6lil: Argument? I thought this was a debate. The reason you shouldn't debate with me, and probably people in general, is because you don't seem to understand basic points of view and totally ignore sentences. Its funny to read your responses which continually miss the point. You listed heroes but made no case as to their relatability other than to say that you relate to their cause, but perhaps that is all that you find important in your books. Perhaps once you've read more and gotten bored of the baseline of your characters, you may decide you want more out of comics and books in general. Anyway, enjoy your books, keep reading.

Tell you what. Here is a list of Marvel Heroes and the character traits that make them relatable.

Fantastic Four- A common family with all the problems of a normal family, marriage difficulties being a big one. Its relatable to anyone in a family.

Hulk- Banner fights to control his anger, he's afraid of losing it and flipping out like a lot of people.

Spider-man- I've already gone into this in the above posts.

Ironman- Fights alcoholism and his own fears of not being good enough. Who doesn't have an issue with not feeling good enough? That's relatable.

Thor- Father issues. Struggles to come out from under his father's shadow and prove himself. That is relatable to a just about every guy I know.

X-Men- Thats obvious. They're all about inequality and being an outsider. Everyone feels like an outsider at some point and can relate to it.

Do I need to go on?

How do "eco-terrorist" and "parents were killed in a crime ridden city" make them relatable as characters, on an emotional level...unless your parents were killed in a crime ridden city or you are an eco-terrorist...in which case fine.

@filthythebear: Thing is those aren't they're causes. They're who they are. You're just another ignorant Marvel mark, who shouldn't be commenting on a company they haven't read in 30 years. You know how many terrorists there are in the world. You know how many people can relate to not having no parents as Batman could? You know how many people can relate to being in a wheelchair (Oracle)

@jnr6lil: And THAT my friend is what makes a character most relatable. Who they are! Its common knowledge in writing that who a character is, their reactions to things and how they deal with problems is what makes them relatable. This is first year creative writing at university. Batman, though a great character, is not relatable to many people because his reaction to having his parents killed is not normal. He is, in the words of Geoff Johns, a psychopath. Now if you relate to a psychopath, you might want to get some help.

"Do I know how many terrorists there are in the world?" This has no bearing on the conversation at all but not a great deal, and the ones that are around are pretty bloody lazy. I personally could have killed the British and Australian Prime Ministers on at least one occasion and a comedy team called the Chaser just walked into an APEC summit dressed as Osama Bin Ladin without being stopped until he was in the hotel where George Bush (who was leader at the time) was staying. He drove straight past the guards with a fake sticker on his car. Thats all it took. He could have easily blown up a score of the leaders of the Western world in one hit. They did that to show how low the actual threat is because the terrorists just don't bother.

Oracle may be a very relatable character. I've never said there aren't relatable characters in the DC universe, and from talking to Gail Simone I know they are making great efforts to make their characters more relatable to a wider audience with transexual batgirl and the like. That's good. "****I BELIEVE THINGS HAVE CHANGED********" Look, that time I added some stars and quotation marks just to make sure that you wouldn't miss it, because you seem to miss that point every single time I have made it.

You are arguing like I have said DC has no relatable characters, which makes me think you can't read very well, because I have constantly, in capital letters (as above. Remember the stars?) and small, said that I imagine they have relatable characters now. I've written that a number of times, but you seem to keep ignoring it which leads me to think either A; You are being a troll, which is pathetic, or B; you are ten and I have used too many big words.

But look either way, you obviously have a general definition of relatability that is contrary to what is taught in universities, understood by publishers I have spoken to, and also taught in writing workshops. This I know through personal experience, so I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree until you get a better grip on the art of writing. Its not a big deal. I don't think either of us will lose sleep.

I just had a premonition. In my mind I saw you replying to this with a comment about me being 30 years out of the loop (which is ridiculous), a psychopath being relatable, you'll say something else about terrorists that marks you as paranoid and then you'll say something to support my argument again like "Those aren't their causes. That's who they are."

It makes me chuckle that you think that actually supported YOUR argument. Causes don't count for much in relatability. Adolf Hitler gave to charity and believed that every person should, by law, give to those in need, for the greater good of his country. That sounds pretty good. Everyone giving a little of their wages to the less fortunate. I'm sure you'll agree, but do you then relate to Hitler?

They're not all OP.