I know very little about Power Girl but that has got to be the dumbest excuse for showing your cleavage that I've ever heard.

EDIT: And apparently I can't spell "canon" correctly either. Oh well...

It is.

AH HA HA HA HA HA!

That image always makes me grin and roll my eyes.

That Power Girl doesn't exist anymore so it doesn't matter.

@Teerack: Explain.

@Reignmaker: it is. still better than the "fill my hole superman" version. THAT one is just creepy

but that's pre new 52 Power Girl. the New 52 Powergirl is a cybernetic version and/or clone who is nothing alike and thus a failed experiment that should be terminate, but alas, the heroes (and writers too) have yet to find out about this and do something about it

@Teerack: I don't understand how anything you just said has anything to do with Power Girl.

Well, in JSA (v2 or 3, I forget) there was reasoning that it was to distract bad-guys with her obvious assets so her actual great-ability as a super-hero would overwhelm them (they'd think she's just some shallow bimbo, when in fact she's tough, a great leader, smart, "strong woman", etc etc). Chalk it up to different writers giving different reasoning.

@End_Boss said:

@Teerack: I don't understand how anything you just said has anything to do with Power Girl.

*steps in*

New 52 reboot...so technically speaking this character- and the explanation- doesn't 'exist' anymore in current continuity. Though she is going back to the old outfit in #12 of Worlds' Finest...so maybe we'll have a proper explanation for the return of the boob window.

@End_Boss: Oh oops xD I just made a post in another thread and I thought you were responding to that :P Sorry.

All of Power Girl and Supergirl's history got whipped in the new 52?

@RedQueen: Ah, that makes sense. I kind of assumed that was the case, but just wanted to be sure since I've never followed Power Girl all that closely. Because she's silly.

@Teerack: I was seriously confused, haha.

That's...pretty sad actually.

well on the bright side, it isnt cannon.

on the down side...it is canon

It WAS canon. However, I'm 99.9% sure it's no longer canon following Flashpoint.

@Wolfrazer said:

@Jorgevy: A cybernetic version? A clone?...Seriously?..../facepalm...You know what I find hilarious? Is the fact, that Krypto's backstory is the most reasonable out of all the others aside from Superman that isn't boardline ridiculous in cashing in on a Kryptonian character that is related to Superman.

i was joking about the cybernetic clone thing, it was fine sarcasm to show that this version of PG by fan standards is the complete opposite of the old one.

although I agree krypto's "origin"

was super awesome and the story around it super emotional

It WAS canon. However, I'm 99.9% sure it's no longer canon following Flashpoint.

@Wolfrazer said:

@Jorgevy: A cybernetic version? A clone?...Seriously?..../facepalm...You know what I find hilarious? Is the fact, that Krypto's backstory is the most reasonable out of all the others aside from Superman that isn't boardline ridiculous in cashing in on a Kryptonian character that is related to Superman.

i was joking about the cybernetic clone thing, it was fine sarcasm to show that this version of PG by fan standards is the complete opposite of the old one.

although I agree krypto's "origin"

was super awesome and the story around it super emotional

@Timandm said:

@TheCannon said:

It WAS canon. However, I'm 99.9% sure it's no longer canon following Flashpoint.

This, although DC has yet to explain why Power Girl has that hold there in her uniform... I do believe we the readers all know exactly why it is REALLY there, but DC hasn't come up with a "super hero" reason yet... Not in the new 52...

There was a reasonable-ish explanation pre-52, though I can't remember the issue. Karen explained it was there as a distraction.

People seem to be missing the important point, which is that this did in fact happen officially as an explanation in the comic, not just someone making it up as a joke; that blatant cleavage-bearing was actually justified using an excuse this bad.

And whether New 52 has actually, or will actually, directly address and try to come up with a better reason, it's fairly clear that there will only ever be one actual reason. The most compelling I've ever heard is anti-sweat ventilation, but seeing as pretty much every other female heroine ever has dealt with that without having an absurd costume element of this sort, that's not really a good excuse. These days people require it because it's "iconic," but saying why people like it and why it's actually there are two different things.

(I don't think anyone actually disliked her with a different costume just because her outfit was different; by all accounts it was the writing that did that version in...and the constant stripping of said costume)

@Timandm said:

@TheCannon said:

It WAS canon. However, I'm 99.9% sure it's no longer canon following Flashpoint.

This, although DC has yet to explain why Power Girl has that hold there in her uniform... I do believe we the readers all know exactly why it is REALLY there, but DC hasn't come up with a "super hero" reason yet... Not in the new 52...

There was a reasonable-ish explanation pre-52, though I can't remember the issue. Karen explained it was there as a distraction.

@akbogert said:

People seem to be missing the important point, which is that this did in fact happen officially as an explanation in the comic, not just someone making it up as a joke; that blatant cleavage-bearing was actually justified using an excuse this bad.

And whether New 52 has actually, or will actually, directly address and try to come up with a better reason, it's fairly clear that there will only ever be one actual reason. The most compelling I've ever heard is anti-sweat ventilation, but seeing as pretty much every other female heroine ever has dealt with that without having an absurd costume element of this sort, that's not really a good excuse. These days people require it because it's "iconic," but saying why people like it and why it's actually there are two different things.

(I don't think anyone actually disliked her with a different costume just because her outfit was different; by all accounts it was the writing that did that version in...and the constant stripping of said costume)

not exactly. although the writing and the stripping were the main reasons, the new costume was pretty stupid looking and no longer iconic. I mean, if they wanted the boob whole out, they could have just removed the whole, and leave everything else there, which would make a still iconic and awesome costume

@Jorgevy said:

@akbogert said:

People seem to be missing the important point, which is that this did in fact happen officially as an explanation in the comic, not just someone making it up as a joke; that blatant cleavage-bearing was actually justified using an excuse this bad.

And whether New 52 has actually, or will actually, directly address and try to come up with a better reason, it's fairly clear that there will only ever be one actual reason. The most compelling I've ever heard is anti-sweat ventilation, but seeing as pretty much every other female heroine ever has dealt with that without having an absurd costume element of this sort, that's not really a good excuse. These days people require it because it's "iconic," but saying why people like it and why it's actually there are two different things.

(I don't think anyone actually disliked her with a different costume just because her outfit was different; by all accounts it was the writing that did that version in...and the constant stripping of said costume)

not exactly. although the writing and the stripping were the main reasons, the new costume was pretty stupid looking and no longer iconic. I mean, if they wanted the boob whole out, they could have just removed the whole, and leave everything else there, which would make a still iconic and awesome costume

yeah I don't think I've seen anyone say that they liked the new costume

@danhimself: Nor did I actually mean to imply people liked it. Just that it alone was not a reason for the "new" Power Girl's unpopularity -- had the writing been stellar, I don't think too many people would have skipped the book just because of the outfit. Just like while I loathe Starfire's outfit I still love her and the book she's in.

@akbogert said:

@danhimself: Nor did I actually mean to imply people liked it. Just that it alone was not a reason for the "new" Power Girl's unpopularity -- had the writing been stellar, I don't think too many people would have skipped the book just because of the outfit. Just like while I loathe Starfire's outfit I still love her and the book she's in.

I get ya.....yeah I honestly don't know what happened with Worlds' Finest.....Levitz did a reasonably good job on the Huntress mini but Worlds' Finest just doesn't seem to be going anywhere at all story wise

Eh, makes about as much sense as anything else in comics.

I really don't see the big problem with it. The distraction explanation isn't any less ridiculous.

@TheCowman: It'd just be nice for the industry to acknowledge when it's blatantly misogynistic and isn't even trying to take its female representation seriously. This explanation is so bad; it'd have been better to have no explanation at all than to try to pass this off.

^ this.

It'd feel more authentic if she was truly using her "assets" to seduce people. There are plenty of strong women who aren't ashamed of going that route and they don't apologize for it. Not saying that's always the way to go, but this "justification" comes off as weak and just terrible.

@Reignmakersaid:

I know very little about Power Girl but that has got to be the dumbest excuse for showing your cleavage that I've ever heard.

EDIT: And apparently I can't spell "canon" correctly either. Oh well...

What else do you expect from Palmiotti and Grey? There have been a number of explanations. I think the one below is the best and the most honest explanation. However, let's remember that in fiction there is never really any "canon". Individual writers and editors use a lot of license.

Not that there needs to be an explanation for a female superhero's costume having a boob window. It's just the design of the costume It's there to show her boobs.

@Teeracksaid:

That Power Girl doesn't exist anymore so it doesn't matter.

The New 52 PG doesn't exist either - she's a fictional character. Both pre-52 and post-52 PG have equal claim to existence; they were just written at different times. It's not like we don't read her older stories anymore. Have you thrown out all of your back issues? Many of them are even still in print. It's not the first time the DCU has been modified or revised (or just inconsistent and contradictory) and it won't be the last.

@Jorgevy said:

@Reignmaker: it is. still better than the "fill my hole superman" version. THAT one is just creepy

but that's pre new 52 Power Girl. the New 52 Powergirl is a cybernetic version and/or clone who is nothing alike and thus a failed experiment that should be terminate, but alas, the heroes (and writers too) have yet to find out about this and do something about it

LOL. Okay, DC, what have you done with the real Power Girl? But - characters have had their personae changed before without any story explanation. If asked, the writers could just say "Oops, she was back on the diet sodas there for a while but she's back to normal again".

@Timandm said:

@TheCannon said:

It WAS canon. However, I'm 99.9% sure it's no longer canon following Flashpoint.

This, although DC has yet to explain why Power Girl has that hold there in her uniform... I do believe we the readers all know exactly why it is REALLY there, but DC hasn't come up with a "super hero" reason yet... Not in the new 52...

There has to be a "super hero" reason for the style of cut of a superhero's costume? Is there aa "sper hero" reason for why Superman wear's his underpants on the outside of his long-johns? Or why he wears a big cape?

There is only one reason why a female superhero's costume has a hole over her boobs and that is to show off her boobs. It's stupid to even give an alternative explanation.

@akbogert said:

People seem to be missing the important point, which is that this did in fact happen officially as an explanation in the comic, not just someone making it up as a joke; that blatant cleavage-bearing was actually justified using an excuse this bad.

And whether New 52 has actually, or will actually, directly address and try to come up with a better reason, it's fairly clear that there will only ever be one actual reason. The most compelling I've ever heard is anti-sweat ventilation, but seeing as pretty much every other female heroine ever has dealt with that without having an absurd costume element of this sort, that's not really a good excuse. These days people require it because it's "iconic," but saying why people like it and why it's actually there are two different things.

(I don't think anyone actually disliked her with a different costume just because her outfit was different; by all accounts it was the writing that did that version in...and the constant stripping of said costume)

The real issue is that showing a female character's boobs doesn't need to be justified excused. Anybody can see that PG's boob window is there to show her boobs but there is nothing bad about that. It's not "absurd". They are just boobs. It's not like PG is the only woman, real or fictional, ever to wear clothing or costume which shows off her boobs.

@Jorgevy said:

not exactly. although the writing and the stripping were the main reasons, the new costume was pretty stupid looking and no longer iconic. I mean, if they wanted the boob whole out, they could have just removed the whole, and leave everything else there, which would make a still iconic and awesome costume

The would have had to cover her legs as well, since the new policy was for female characters not to show any leg. They may as well have designed a new costume. They just did a bad job of it. Really, PG would look good in any properly designed costume.

@akbogert said:

@TheCowman: It'd just be nice for the industry to acknowledge when it's blatantly misogynistic and isn't even trying to take its female representation seriously. This explanation is so bad; it'd have been better to have no explanation at all than to try to pass this off.

So they tried to put a new spin on it. Why not? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

After all, you know why Wonder Woman wears those bracelets? It's not to deflect bullets. It's because her creator was into bondage.

And why is Power Girl's silly explanation for her boob window any worse than Starfire's silly explanation for her lack of clothing?

I'm not saying it isn't contrived, I'm just saying it doesn't seem any more contrived than anything else in comics.

LOL

There has to be a "super hero" reason for the style of cut of a superhero's costume? Is there aa "sper hero" reason for why Superman wear's his underpants on the outside of his long-johns? Or why he wears a big cape?
There is only one reason why a female superhero's costume has a hole over her boobs and that is to show off her boobs. It's stupid to even give an alternative explanation.
 
Yes, there really does have to be an explanation...   We all know the hole is there to show off her.. let's stop calling them boobs.  They're being pushed up, squeezed together, and forced out a hole in  her shirt....  We're not talking about breasts, we're not talking about boobs....  That hole is there to show off her 'tits.'  Everyone wants to tap dance around the fact that the writers and artists are being a bit vulgar...  Would her costume be out of place in say:
A strip club?  No, it'd be quite normal I think.  
In a dance club?  Depends on the dance club...  
In a restaurant?  Depends on a restaurant...
 On the street in a busy city, in public, on a Saturday afternoon...  No.  
How about McDonald's?  No.
How about a children's hospital?  No.

I'm not saying it would be illegal, but definitely inappropriate...  Would I want to take my wife and daughters to Brewster's for an ice cream cone and sit next to a woman with her tits spilling out the front of her shirt?  No...  
Now, when I was 19 I probably would have enjoyed that... 
And, honestly, if my kids were in a burning building, would I object to them being saved by a woman with her tits spilling out the front of her shirt?  No...  Not even if she were completely naked...
But that doesn't change the fact that her costume (designed and worn by her choice) is inappropriate...  
 
that hole isn't there for ventilation...  It's not there to make a political statement.  It's not there for religious reasons.  It's not there because it makes the ensemble pretty...  It is there for the purpose of letting her tits spill out....
 
Now comic book artists and writers want to perv on their own drawings....okay...and most readers seem perfectly fine with that...okay...
but there needs to be SOME sort of logic in the story.... If the character wears a hole in her shirt because she WANTS to show her tits off, then... well... okay, that is who she is....let it be a part of her character...  However, if that's NOT supposed to be who she is, then there has to be SOME sort of pretend/logical explanation that she walks around putting herself on display like that....  Else it simply makes no sense within the framework of the character and story...

Weak metaphor and an average writer wrting poorly. Headcannoned into oblivion.

@Timandm said:

@PowerGirlFan:

There has to be a "super hero" reason for the style of cut of a superhero's costume? Is there aa "sper hero" reason for why Superman wear's his underpants on the outside of his long-johns? Or why he wears a big cape?
There is only one reason why a female superhero's costume has a hole over her boobs and that is to show off her boobs. It's stupid to even give an alternative explanation.

Yes, there really does have to be an explanation... We all know the hole is there to show off her.. let's stop calling them boobs. They're being pushed up, squeezed together, and forced out a hole in her shirt.... We're not talking about breasts, we're not talking about boobs.... That hole is there to show off her 'tits.' Everyone wants to tap dance around the fact that the writers and artists are being a bit vulgar... Would her costume be out of place in say:
A strip club? No, it'd be quite normal I think.
In a dance club? Depends on the dance club...
In a restaurant? Depends on a restaurant...
On the street in a busy city, in public, on a Saturday afternoon... No.
How about McDonald's? No.
How about a children's hospital? No.

I'm not saying it would be illegal, but definitely inappropriate... Would I want to take my wife and daughters to Brewster's for an ice cream cone and sit next to a woman with her tits spilling out the front of her shirt? No...
Now, when I was 19 I probably would have enjoyed that...
And, honestly, if my kids were in a burning building, would I object to them being saved by a woman with her tits spilling out the front of her shirt? No... Not even if she were completely naked...
But that doesn't change the fact that her costume (designed and worn by her choice) is inappropriate...

that hole isn't there for ventilation... It's not there to make a political statement. It's not there for religious reasons. It's not there because it makes the ensemble pretty... It is there for the purpose of letting her tits spill out....

Now comic book artists and writers want to perv on their own drawings....okay...and most readers seem perfectly fine with that...okay...
but there needs to be SOME sort of logic in the story.... If the character wears a hole in her shirt because she WANTS to show her tits off, then... well... okay, that is who she is....let it be a part of her character... However, if that's NOT supposed to be who she is, then there has to be SOME sort of pretend/logical explanation that she walks around putting herself on display like that.... Else it simply makes no sense within the framework of the character and story...

We've been through all of this many times before. Why do you prefer "tits" to "boobs" or "breasts" when they mean the same thing?

I said the same thing as you in the comment you quoted there: The hole is for showing her boobs. No alternative explanation required. However, it is also part of the style of the costume. That's not a contradiction, since costumes are for enhancing the wearers' own appearance, i.e., for showing off their bodies..

You are exaggerating by saying PG's boobs are forced "out" of the hole in her costume. Yes, they are pushed up and together. So what? That's what bra's do too. Do you think they should just hang free to bounce around whenever she moves? That would be worse, wouldn't it? If you have to exaggerate to make a point, the point is invalid. If her boobs really came out of her costume, it would be vulgar. But they are really just pushed up and made visible through a hole, not "spilling out".

Wonder Woman's costume pushes her boobs up and squeezes them together and partly exposes them. The only difference here between WW's and PG's costumes is that PG's has a hole and WW's is low cut. It's just a difference in the style or cut of the costume. Catwoman, Black Canary and many other female superheroes have their boobs pushed up and together and exposed. Would you say they are "spilling out"? Most women on the planet have their boobs pushed up and together, because the alternative is to have them completely free to move around. (Maybe you are posting from Africa or one of the Pacific Islands.) So yes, women do push their boobs up and together in normal society and very often partly expose them at the same time. It's not inappropriate.

What superhero costume is appropriate in normal life? Superman's costume would be considered ridiculous if worn in normal life. Try wearing a Superman costume next time you go out. Robin's original costume, with the shirt, vest, cape, small pants and little booties, would be considered indecent in normal life. He would look like he lost his way to a gay mardi-gras. Same goes for Hawkman's costume - it looks like an S&M costume. Wonder Woman's costume is probably the most popular stripper costume - without any modifications.

What you forget in making this type of criticism is that these are NOT normal clothes, they are costumes. Remember? They are comic book characters, not real people. Do you want comics to be like real life?

Clothing which exposes parts of a woman's body is not necdessarily for the purpose of letting people "perv" at them. Yes, men like to look at boobs, but that is not a reason to cover them up. It's actually a good reason to show them off, and that is not necessarily vulgar - in either costumes or regular clothing. One can "perv"at a woman's boobs even when her clothing fully covers them. Should women wear loose overalls just so nobody can "perv" at their boobs, behinds or legs? What a fun society that would be.

It is perfectly in line with PG's character for her costume to show her boobs, because there is nothing wrong with it in the first place. No explanation needed! Why would it be out of line with her character? What has her costume got to do with the framework of the story? Obviously it is in line with "who she is" because the window has been there from her very first appearance.

The only thing which needs explaining is why you think it is vulgar. Perhaps you were just bottle fed.

@PowerGirlFan: I cant agree with you at all

Palmiotty and Gray are awesome and they wrote the best PG in ages, and they keep doing it in Ame comi girls.

also, that explanation sucked IMO. it made no sense and she sounded really bad when saying all that stuff that it's men choice to look and degrade themselves. that's why Palmiotti and Gray were awesome, their PG assumed the responsability (lol)

of having the boob window and was fine with it.

and last but not least, for the same reason you dont completelly change Batman or Supes costumes, you can't do that with PG. you could remove the boob window, maybe change a few details, like the boots or the gloves (though Id prefer they wouldnt) but you can make super changes overall. the legs thing wasn't for all females, they mainly tried that with Wondie, but it didnt last for long either, so they could have had the suit without legs.

the new52 costume sucked, not only because of the artists but also because of it's concept. bringing Ame comi girls to the table again, the suit there is different (and still has the boob window, but that aside) it's still the iconic costume we know PG for even though it's a different PG, who is more of a superman female analogue for that universe than exactly the Earth 2 supergirl, but it still looked good.

they totally changed the color padrons, the shape of the boots and gloves, the cape/shoulder thingie.... it was just weird

@Timandm said:

@PowerGirlFan: I don't recall ever talking to YOU about this... So, I don't think "we" have been through this... Was I bottle fed? I don't remember. My three daughters were all nursed by my wife, but my wife has never walked around in public with a hole in her shirt... I don't see a connection. It doesn't matter that her 'outfit' is a costume. Even as a costume, it would be inappropriate for her to wear that to a children's hospital, McDonald's, a state park.... Some performers wear crotchless catsuits as costumes. Those costumes would be inappropriate in many places. Simple as that....

When I said "we have been through this" I meant people on these boards in general. I haven't been through it with you, but others have often discussed the same points you made.

Not only is PG's outfit a costume, but PG is herself a fictional character, who lives in a fictional world, with fictional children's restaurants and hospitals. Things happen in fiction which would be ridiculous, impossible, inappropriate or unacceptable in the real world. Especially superhero comics. So if, for example, PG visits a children's restaurant, the writer just has to ensure that the little boys and their dads don't notice her boobs. PG has appeared in public and around children in her comics and there weren't any problems. She even visited a comic book store. A few adult males ogled her and made comments but that's acceptable

Even if PG's costume had no boob window PG's boobs, because of their size, would stand out. Perhaps you would like her to wear a sweater over her costume? There are other female superheroes with costumes which would be out of place in a children;s restaurant, e.g. Black Canary.

The only performers who wear crotchless catsuits are porn actresses/models and strippers. They are not the kind of performers or costumes I was thinking of. Exposing genitalia is not the same as displaying cleavage. (PG's boobs are completely bare.) So it's not simple at all. Again, you are using extremes to try to prove your point.

@Jorgevy said:

@PowerGirlFan: I cant agree with you at all

Palmiotty and Gray are awesome and they wrote the best PG in ages, and they keep doing it in Ame comi girls.

also, that explanation sucked IMO. it made no sense and she sounded really bad when saying all that stuff that it's men choice to look and degrade themselves. that's why Palmiotti and Gray were awesome, their PG assumed the responsability (lol)

of having the boob window and was fine with it.

and last but not least, for the same reason you dont completelly change Batman or Supes costumes, you can't do that with PG. you could remove the boob window, maybe change a few details, like the boots or the gloves (though Id prefer they wouldnt) but you can make super changes overall. the legs thing wasn't for all females, they mainly tried that with Wondie, but it didnt last for long either, so they could have had the suit without legs.

the new52 costume sucked, not only because of the artists but also because of it's concept. bringing Ame comi girls to the table again, the suit there is different (and still has the boob window, but that aside) it's still the iconic costume we know PG for even though it's a different PG, who is more of a superman female analogue for that universe than exactly the Earth 2 supergirl, but it still looked good.

they totally changed the color padrons, the shape of the boots and gloves, the cape/shoulder thingie.... it was just weird

Why is PG responsible for men staring at her boobs? All she is saying in that panel is that she doesn't care what people think of her costume, she is proud of her body. In other words, there doesn't NEED to be an explanation for the boob window, because superhero costumes are for displaying their bodies.

I don't particularly want PG to have a different costume either. Just removing the boob window would be okay (her original costume sometimes didn't have it) but if they are going to cover her legs, that changes the whole costume design, so she may as well have a new costume if they did cover her legs.

I don't like the new costume either. But I am not against them designing a new, GOOD costume.

@Reignmaker: HAHAH THE WRITERS MADE HER A DUMB BLONDE

This is why I love Power Girl, her expression in the last panel..priceless.

Honestly if it was Worded right it would have been more of an emotional scene

@PowerGirlFan: did you even read what I said?

I never said she was responsible for men staring, I said she took responsability of having the boob window for what it was, not for some weird explanation, and she was okay and confident with it.

and the path for them to make a new costume can only go through the iconicism of the old one. that's how they did with Supes or Wondie or Bats or anyone else in N52, they changed, but they kept what made them that super hero/heroine's costume

@Jorgevy said:

@PowerGirlFan: did you even read what I said?

I never said she was responsible for men staring, I said she took responsability of having the boob window for what it was, not for some weird explanation, and she was okay and confident with it.

and the path for them to make a new costume can only go through the iconicism of the old one. that's how they did with Supes or Wondie or Bats or anyone else in N52, they changed, but they kept what made them that super hero/heroine's costume

I read it. The "explanation" in the panels I posted is basically that she doesn't need to explain it, it is what it is: a window which displays her boobs. That's why I like it. She's saying that it's nothing but a costume feature which represents part of who she is. Nothing weird about that. She's not trying to explain or justify it. She was merely denying Fox's accusation that it is undignified.

I like PG's original costume too. But PG is not a big icon like Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman. Their costumes have always been the same. Even other, bigger icons like Green Lantern and Flash changed their costumes from what they were in the Golden Age (and were actually separate people). PG is not even as iconic as they are. PG has always been the alternative female Kryptonian. (Even Supergirl was just the female alternative to Superman.) For most of her history PG has been an Earth Two character or some type of alternative universe origin. They could afford to give her a new costume without confusing or upsetting very many people. They already have given her two new costumes before changing back to the original. If the new costume were a good one I'd be fine with it. I liked the yellow/white costume and the basic design of her blue/white costume. I think it is a good thing that PG's lower icon status allows her writers the freedom to change some things about her.

@Timandm said:

@PowerGirlFan: Wait! Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!!!!!! Power Girl is... fictional? She's... She's just... MAKE BELIEVE?! YOU'RE LYING!!! How cute it is, that people feel the need to say such things in COMIC VINE.... As if the rest of the world isn't aware that all of the characters in the comic books are make believe... Often times, people use the "It's just fiction" argument to say that something about a character isn't important... Well...the fact that Power Girl isn't real applies in every single discussion about her,does it not? "Is power girl as strong as Super man?" - It doesn't matter, she's fictional. "Is Power Girl an interesting character?" - It doesn't matter, she's fictional. "Could Power Girl really have a relationship with a normal earth human?" - It doesn't matter, she's fictional... When you fall back on the "It doesn't matter, shes' fictional" argument, then NOTHING about her matter... That being the case, why are you even in here with the icon "PowerGirlFan", because... she's just fictional... Therefore, nothing about her matters....

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see. Fiction, especially in comics, allows a certain degree of license with many things, like families in children's restaurants not being embarrassed by PG's cleavage. Even questions like "Is she as strong as Superman" are not important to the stories. Just like people talking about who is fastest out of Flash, Superman and Wonder Woman. Those questions are for people who buy the detailed engineering manuals for the Enterprise. And we all know that one other Kryptonian has managed a relationship with a human. We know that PG has too: Michael Holt; and she has alluded to others.

But the question of whether PG is an interesting character is important because (1) that is nothing to do with how realistic she is and (2) fiction has to be interesting. That is a compeletely different issue. It's poor logic to confuse that with the point I made.

You are apparently not worried about the possibility of WW walking into a family setting in probably the most popular stripper costume. In real life, I would be bracing myself for a stripper-gram and herding the wife and kids to the exit. What if the Flash walked in with his genitals bulging in full view beneath his spandex body-suit? Would PG's boobs not stand out at all if they were just bulging beneath tightly-stretched spandex? Silly question.

@PowerGirlFan: Is she as strong as Superman"

Pre-crisis not as strong as superman and even very weak

Pre-52,she not as strong as superman

New 52,maybe she is

@a88378438 said:

@PowerGirlFan: Is she as strong as Superman"

Pre-crisis not as strong as superman and even very weak

Pre-52,she not as strong as superman

New 52,maybe she is

If she is a Kryptonian her strength should be in the same range. Who is stronger depends on other things besides planet of origin. She lost some of her strength It doesn't really matter tot he story who is strongest. She's super-strong either way. Superman is a male and much bigger, so we'd expect him to be the strongest. In that panel you posted, she doesn't necessarily mean she has equal strength. She probably just means she also has Kryptonian super-strength.

@PowerGirlFan: Eeh..maybe..but she says as strong as superman~

@a88378438 said:

@PowerGirlFan: Eeh..maybe..but she says as strong as superman~

Aren't they talking about Lois in those panels? Which title and issue number is that in? If they are talking about Lois, then Kara just means that she is Kryptonian like Superman and not human like Lois, not that she has equal strength to Superman.

@PowerGirlFan: well...at least she very close superman ,right?