ALTERNATIVE TITLE: WHO WILL SURVIVE IN AMERICA?!

Here’s the soundtrack. You know what to do.

So, Deadpool Max then. Kyle Baker does the art,  David Lapham’s on script duties.  Never mind the fact that Deadpool is a Rob “Fucking!” Liefeld character turned comedy Wolverine turned corporate ubiquity – is the comic any good?

Bloody right it is!

This is a picture of Deadpool as a demon, as tattooed on a gangster's cock. This comic is published by Marvel, and thus by Disney, which makes it all feel a little naughtier, doesn't it?

(Yeah, okay, it’s a little bit late to write about these books as if they’re a fresh discovery, I know.  As Marc Singer once said, “if you’re going to review a new-release comic two weeks after it was a new release, you’d damn well better have something to talk about” – so, hey, just imagine how great this must be if I’m still willing to post it now!  On Christmas Eve!)

For all the silliness, Deadpool Max is actually a pretty horrible comic, and one that’s not particularly worried about who it offends or how.  Here’s Kyle Baker, “defending” the book against accusations of homophobia:

By the way, one of the reader comments calls Deadpool Max #1 “homophobic”. We’re not homophobes, we just thought it would be funny for a person to get fucked in the ass if he didn’t want it. Pain is funny! We also had the same character get beaten, shot, fall through a ceiling, and forced to hold a turd in his bare hand! Next time we’ll shove a broomstick up his ass instead of a dick, so it will be more PC, okay? By the way, the same comic had a hilarious close up a tattooed yakuza penis, and everybody thought that was hilarious! And it WAS! Because dick jokes are the highest form of comedy! And ass-fucking is hysterical! So anybody who thinks me and my partner Dave Lapham are homophobes can BLOW ME!

Now, this rant is pretty glib and stupid when you get down to it, partially by intention –  Baker’s closing statement, with its references to his “partner” David Lapham and to oral sex, has its tongue somewhere far beyond its cheek – but by design or otherwise, it still rankles.

high-colonic

There’s a difference between active homophobia and the implicit acceptance of certain attitudes which can tilt that way, and the prevalent ANYTHING BUT BUMSEX! tone of much geek discourse is very much an example of the latter. [1]

So is issue #1 of Deadpool Max, though as Baker correctly points out this is complicated by the fact that there’s so much other cruelty going on in the comic, much of it inflicted on poor old “Officer Bob” up there.    But let’s go back to that Baker quote for a second. In particular, I want to focus on this bit:

We’re not homophobes, we just thought it would be funny for a person to get fucked in the ass if he didn’t want it.

Now that’s pretty fucked up when you think about it – “We’re not homophobes, we just think non-consensual sex is funny!” What kind of defense is that?  [2] I want to be careful here, because I am mindful of the difference between joking about something and actually doing/threatening to do/condoning it – which is to say, I’m not an idiotic British Judge!

Also, the situation in Deadpool MAX isn’t quite as Baker makes it sound.  Instead, Baker and Lapham seem to be trying to subvert the cliche of undercover agents getting hot’n'bothered in order to get ahead - just like Jimmy Bond does every day of the week!  Of course, the fact that this “subversion” takes the form of (hrn, hrn!) BUMSEX is pretty damned problematic, so…  this comic is not afraid to go for the dumb, obvious jokes, no matter how icky their underpinnings might be. [3]

So why do I still find it so damned compelling?

Looking back on the Baker quote one last time, I find that it’s actually quite revealing as to what powers this Deadpool comic.  ”Pain is funny” – wow!  That’s a step and a half beyond “Comedy is tragedy that happens to other people“, isn’t it?  What we’re getting here is a looney tunes version of reality, and as any good Animal Man fan knows, that cartoony shit can seem quite sadistic in the right light.

Baker’s colouring is the key here.  Notice the contrast between muted flesh tones and grotesque, almost orgasmic explosions of colour:

KRUNCH!!

You might also want to note that such technicolour gore-fests can exist beside perfectly simplified human faces…

Old Dirty Bastard, Daniel Clowes style!

…the two of them interacting in a way that just isn’t right, not to these eyes at least.

What we’re seeing here is real flesh in a cartoon universe, and it doesn’t always make for pretty viewing.  The “big bad” in issue one is perfectly chosen for this effect.  His name’s Hammerhead, and he looks like this:

Sometimes I scare myself

Ugh! This horrible big bastard has a face like a gnarled fist and a fist like rock monster mid-coitus.  Like most everyone else in issue #1, his skin also has a raw, pornographic sheen to it, which only makes the effect worse.  Let’s face it, no one looks like this outside of comics.  Very few people even looks like this in comics, for fuck’s sake!  This is some David Cronenberg meets Jack Kirby shit right here – it’s ludicrous, but it can also make you feel a little bit queasy if you look at it for too long.

Thankfully (?) the script matches the tone of Baker’s artwork.  Lapham is definitely writing the cartoon psychopath as a real one here – he almost says as much in the backmatter for issue #3, in fact – but even when you think you know what this comic is doing, it’s still pretty squirmy.

See, for example, issue #2, which brings fresh laughs and fresh offensiveness, this time of the “lol, crazy people” variety:

I don't think they are doctors though, lol.

[4]

This is definitely deliberate (again!), but it underlines the sadism of the comic.  In this book, if you’re not mentally ill you’re probably either a creep or a schmuck.  It doesn’t matter cos everyone’s fair game for a laugh, especially when they’re getting tooken out:

Oooh, nice!

Taking pleasure in other people’s pain…  well, like I said, it might be sadism but it’s a beautifully realised sort of sadism. [6] Matt Seneca has already blathered on about the sheer visual inventiveness of the thing in his usual unconstrained manner, and he’s right – this is pure post-DKSA, post-Truth, superhero comics of a type very rarely seen outside of my darkest fantasies. [7]

But even taking into account all of that, what’s Deadpool Max for? What’s the point of all this crazy shit?

Well, that’s a difficult question.  Let’s pass the mike to… a British comedian?  Yeah, why not!

Here’s your friend and mine, Stewart Lee, clowning around for a British newspaper:

Despite our BBC credentials, Native American commentators were reluctant to explain the theory behind any of this practice in detail, partly because, when the white settlers moved into the American south-west, one of the first things their delicate sensibilities required them to suppress were the Pueblo clown ceremonials, but gentle pressure revealed the suggestion of a social, maybe even moral, purpose at work. By reversing the norms and breaking the taboos, the clowns show us what we have to lose, and what we might also stand to gain, if we step outside the restrictions of social convention and polite everyday discourse.

This core idea holds whether it is played out up close in the plaza of a New Mexican pueblo, or miles away by the tiny dots of television stars on the stage of a vast arena. Comedy is about funny faces, and funny noises, and silly words and stupid fun, but it’s also about this more profound idea.

Does the same idea hold up when conveyed in a decadent perversion of the Mighty Marvel Manner?  Mibbae, but as with the pueblo clown rituals, there are no reassurances in this Baker/Lapham collaboration – just anarchic madness from the House of Mouse

Or so I thought, until I got to issue #3, about which -  fucking hell!

Colourblind, surely?  Heh - I doubt I'll ever never get used to your crazy yankee spelling, but whatever.

That saggy sack of piss didn’t see this coming, and neither did I!   I’m not talking about the violence, of course - there’s plenty of the usual cruelty in this issue, but instead of being, dare I say it, “equal opportunities” cruelty, it’s very carefully focused here. [8] There’s a target, which is painted in front of our eyes throughout the first two thirds of the issue, in strokes that are both broad and actually very crafty at the same time:

Portrait of the Zealot as a Young Man, part 1

That panel!  Has there ever been a more concise deconstruction of the self-aggrandising racist than this? [9] Look at that wee fucker, clinging on to his pathetic, disgusting holocaust ornament while shrieking in terror at the sight of two people fucking.

I am the man the white world has been waiting for since 1945.  The jew should fear me because I am smarter than him. The negro should fear me because I am smarter than the jew he calls master.  The homosexual, the spic and the gook should fear me because I am their enemy.

AYE RIGHT PAL! We’ve got your number, ya dirty wee scrote yeh!  With your “Whiteland” and your army of Klansman and your durty fantasies!

Portrait of the Zealot as a Young Man, part 2

This is… well, it reads like Frank Miller’s Inglourious Basterds to me.  Make no mistake, this is a compliment - Frank “The Tank” Miller has written and said a lot of stuff that might get the worst sort of right wing fucknugget hard, but he’s also a bit of a genius, isn’t he?  As for Inglourious Basterds, I know there were a lot of arguments about it, but I thought it was pretty damned great!

Back in 2009 I wrote about it alongside Richard Herring‘s Hitler Moustache, a stand-up set in which Herring tries to reclaim the “facial welcome mat” for Chaplin and use comedy to defeat evil.   Deadpool, of all fucking people, espouses a similar strategy in issue ’3:

You see Bob, this is where your feeble brain gets it all wrong.

Everybody’s studying the enemy. We’re all studying the enemy. Why?  Do you want to be like the enemy? No, Bob, you don’t?  You want to study the opposite of the enemy.  Cancel him out!

Turns out he’s been reading up on Krav Maga and listening to the Fiddler on he Roof soundtrack.  He dresses all orthodox and kills a lot of white supremicists, just like you would.  The amusing thing here, for me, is that Deadpool Max  #3 relies on its readers having a set of shared assumptions, i.e. that racist, anti-semitic, homophobic zealots are hateful idiots and that their opinions deserve to be destroyed.  Which, hey – no arguments here, I’m a PC socialist/feminist sissy boy and proud of it!

It just made me smile to see a comic that gleefully gives the finger to the standards of “politically correct” or polite society reinforcing those ideas, violently, for an issue.  Because when faced with the opposite of these values, well… who actually wants to live like that, eh?

Portrait of the Zealot as a Young Man, part 3

Exactly!  And you wouldn’t want to be mistaken for that guy, would you? Eh? EH?!

Lest you worry that the book, or the title character, has went soft, there’s a further sting in the tail (hrn! hrn!). [10] This is still a loony tunes version of reality, after all, and the rules of the story demand that “Officer Bob” be punished.

Hold on to your genre, your genre's got a hold on you...

Well… that just about handles that then!

Merry Christmas motherfuckers!!   Make sure that you Make Yours Mindless in 2011! I know I will!

[1] To be honest, I get tired of arguing about this, so I think I might just make a cheeky wee graphic to express my frustration and be done with it.

Ah, that was easy!  Here we go:

Seriously guys, chill out about the bum stuff!

All better, right?  Well, not really – if anything I just traded in the sort of Beavis & Butthead style “hrn, hrn, bumsex!” bullshit I’ve spent the past couple of paragraphs ranting against.  Bugger!

Tangent: please check out Laurie Penny‘s write-up of The Social Network, if you haven’t already.  It’s a harsh critique of geek misogyny, which isn’t quite what we’re talking  about here, but this is all part of the same problem.

[2] The comics internet had a fairly frank discussion about the use of rape jokes in casual conversation a while back, but there hasn’t anything like that for a while.  Or if there has been, I’ve missed it so please feel free to point me in the right direction!

[3] My main problem with most anti-pc rhetoric is… what are you actually rebelling against?  I know there are clumsy edges to the whole political correctness thing, most of which get blown up and distorted in the press, but aren’t we just talking about institutionalised politeness in the end?  I’m all for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, all that good shit, but sometimes I wonder – is this really all you want to use it for?  Does anyone else get the feeling that they’re part of a generation that chooses to use the massive resources at its disposal to make ironic or unthinking gay jokes, rape jokes, etc?  I do, sometimes, but then I just start laughing again and it all slides away, a chorus of hrn hrn hrns cheering me all the way down…

[4] See, also: the parody of these Stamp out the Stigma videos that was on Frankie Boyle’s Tramadol Nights the other week.  You can try to watch the sketch here, but the shitty video quality might make it difficult.  An important distinction: like everything else on Tramadol Nights, that sketch was total dogshit, while Deadpool Max is one of the few truly essential superhero comics of 2010. [5]

Frankie Boyle can be pretty funny when he’s on form, but when you take his most “shocking” quips and turn them into a series never-ending sketches the feeling of “Ooooh, you can’t say that!” is soon replaced by “Oh… is he still saying that?”

What does this mean, that it’s okay to say horrible things about disabled people if you’re being funny?  Not quite!  There are other issues to think about – such as what the actual point of the jokes are, what perspective their coming from, what reactions they provoke – but the fact is that no one is going to want to discuss any of this stuff if the jokes aren’t funny in the first place.  Frankie Boyle, take note!

Or maybe you shouldn’t bother, Frankie, since it looks like one of the most purposeful jokes you’ve made recently is the one that’s going to cause the most fuss.  I mean, I can’t lie, I laughed at the joke about Katie Price’s kid, but it’s hard to defend it on any level – you can argue it’s testing the boundries, maybe, but it’s still a guy taking the piss out of someone’s disabled child. This more recent round of jokes, while not especially brilliant or anything, served a definite satirical point, and yet people can’t seem to tell the difference.  Bloody typical, that.

[5] What are the other essential superhero comics of 2010 you ask?

Well, there weren’t many of them, were there?  The ongoing saga of Moz-bats vs. Entropy has been well-documented in these parts, the scattered fragments of The New McCarthyism were like sprinklings of gorgeous flavour in the stodgy broth, and…  a couple of issues of Godland came out, maybe?  Bulletproof Coffin, yeah, but that’s a special case.  I’m probably missing out a few nice things, but let’s be honest, the real action was elsewhere this year.

[6] I think I’m being a little dramatic here. I mean, is this actually a harsher comic than Crossed: Family Values, which David Lapham also wrote this year?  After all, in Deadpool Max you get the suggestion of incest, eventually shown to be a fake out, whereas in the Crossed you get actual incestuous rape.

The cartoonish cruelty of Deadpool Max hits me harder, partly because it’s so bright and energetic, partly because… well, the Crossed books are pretty old-fashioned in the end, aren’t they?  Garth Ennis’ original series was about reinforcing traditional values by showing “what happens” in their absence, and from what I’ve read Lapham has stayed true to this, so… it’s actually kind of heartwarming, right?

"I SMELL CUNT!" and twelve other winning chat-up lines...

Well, maybe not, but you get my point anyway.

[7] Again with the drama!  Well, Deadpool Max is certainly darker than Plastic Man which was Baker’s last extended run on a “mainstream” comic, I think.

Plasticman was similarly irreverant, but it was a bit less brutal with it.  My favourite joke was the one about how Batman couldn’t stop day-dreaming about his origin story:

I really need to go back to Baker's Plastic Man run sometime soon, actually - there are a lot of brilliant, goofy drawings in those strips, and I don't think I properly appreciated them at the time.

The real precursor to Deapool Max, in terms of  Baker’s recent career, is probably Special Forces, which you might remember as being full of tits, satire and  EXCITEMENT!!! Deadpool Max is a little less furious than all that, but the general feel of the two books is more or less the same.  It’s a good look for Baker, and I’m glad that Marvel are paying him to see where he can go with it.

[8] The trouble is, even the best misanthropes tend to show their biases in the end – no one’s really capable of insulting everyone equally, and the uneven distribution of abuse is often quite telling.  See the Mindless Ones podcast on Prison Pit and misogyny plus the entire careers of the South Park guys for more evidence of this.

[9] Probably, but this is a blog post so some hyperbole is to be expected.  Almost everything else I say in this post is 100% well reasoned and factually accurate though, okay?

[10] I should really just face up to the fact that what I’m ranting against at the start of this post is something I see in myself whenever I laugh at this juvenile shite.   As my fellow Mindless Ones can probably attest, I’m the Mindless most likely to “sexualise the Lactus.” So… some of these jokes just make think of Beavis, but others finger my Butthead, and it’s a bit depressing to realise that for all my high falutin bullshit I’m still one of those guys in the end.

19 Responses to ““Pain is Funny”: Deadpool Max #1-3 Reviewed!”

  1. Tweets that mention Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » “Pain is Funny”: Deadpool Max #1-3 Reviewed! -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jog Mack. Jog Mack said: RT @illogicalvolume: "Pain is Funny": Deadpool Max 1-3 Reviewed – in which I spread my PC butt cheeks & wait for glory: http://bit.ly/ejNwMw [...]

  2. Matt Seneca Says:

    straightup hit the bullseye with the soundtrack

  3. Illogical Volume Says:

    Glad you agree Matt. Issue #2 is Jay’s verse, peaking with the revelation of what his achilles heel is (“looove”); issue #3 is Nicki Minaj’s verse, destroying everything.

    But of course, you already know all this.

    Merry Christmas mate.

  4. E-Man Says:

    you use looney tunes cartoons as an example of art that deploys primary hues and moralistic narrative closure.
    both of those cliches are much more typical of comic-books than any other medium.
    very simple, rudimentary color choices(compared to animation) up till the late 70s, as an inherant limitation of the production process.
    much use of “poetic justice,” as best exemplified by EC’s “shock suspenstories” and proliferated, post-comics-code, by their imitators at atlas, dc, charlton, acg etc.
    looney tunes always used relatively subtle palettes containing close variations round a central “key” hue, definitely much too close to reproduce with the 4 color process.
    the morality? what morality? they didn’t have any, just absurdity.
    stop picking on cartoons and face them facts: comic-books are the lowest, most stupifying form of art on the planet, lower even than warner brothers cartoons.
    they don’t even move!
    (wagglng the pages does not count)

  5. Illogical Volume Says:

    E-Man: My use of “looney tunes” as a shorthand is maybe a bit broad, sure, but I was referring to the amoral, cheerfully violent Wile E. Coyote side of the cartoon world. I thought this was clear and fitting in context, especially since I used the term while referencing Grant Morrison’s Animal Man, in which a play on these stories is used as a starting point for the book’s moral and metafictional explorations.

    When I called back to my earlier use of the term “looney tunes” while referring to Officer Bob’s punishment at the end of issue #3, I think my chosen reference is more fitting than the EC stories you mention. Absurdity is the name of the game here, but it’s a cruel sort of absurdity in which no matter what happens, Officer Bob ends up getting hurt. Moral closure? I don’t think you’ve picked me up quite right there, perhaps because you’re unfamiliar with the comics I’m talking about? The ending of issue #3 of Deadpool Max brings amoral closure to an otherwise cheekily moral comic. I have no doubt that poor old Bob winces every time he sees that Coyote take a fall, and maybe you would too, if you were him.

    If you had slightly better reading comprehension, you might also have noticed that I make no comparison between the colour palette of looney tunes cartoons and the colouring of this particular comic. Sorry.

    What else? Well, I wasn’t aware that I was picking on cartoons, and I “face them facts” on a regular basis – just ask my mum, she’ll tell you! As to the idea that comics are TEH STOOPID, well, most of them are pretty shitty, but the one’s I like are alright! (We call this Campbell’s Law around here: do try to keep up).

    Still, I’m not sure what to make of your closing comments about how comics “don’t even move”. They lead me to believe that you might, in fact, be yanking my crank here, in which case – well done! My crank, it has been yanked. Yet, at the same time, this is also contains the only part of your argument that I can’t contest. Comics don’t move, and more’s the pity. I’ve tried rubbing the characters’ faces, but I’m scared to rub too hard. What if it works? What if I rub them to life? WHAT IF A FACE COMES OUT? If you can assure me that no faces will come out at me, I will rub Deadpool’s face until, through a miracle of kinetics, he breaks free of his four colour prison and springs into life as a cartoon character. Until then, Make Mine Mindless!

    See you in the funny pages. Or, you know, not.

  6. Zom Says:

    Hooray!

  7. Illogical Volume Says:

    Indeed!

  8. Zom Says:

    Yes!

  9. Illogical Volume Says:

    Yes?

  10. Zom Says:

    Approved.

  11. E-Man Says:

    yeah, don’t take it too serious, illogical.
    or at least , not so serious that you start to sound like a nob.
    ok, we can all get a bit defensive at times, nevermind.

    this is what i was referring to regarding color:

    “… What we’re getting here is a looney tunes version of reality, and as any good Animal Man fan knows, that cartoony shit can seem quite sadistic in the right light.

    Baker’s colouring is the key here. Notice the contrast between muted flesh tones and grotesque, almost orgasmic explosions of colour:
    You might also want to note that such technicolour gore-fests can exist beside perfectly simplified human faces…

    …the two of them interacting in a way that just isn’t right, not to these eyes at least.

    What we’re seeing here is real flesh in a cartoon universe, and it doesn’t always make for pretty viewing. ”

    so, no need to challenge my “reading comprehension,” after all. even though it does make you look very clever and strong to do so.

    and yeah, i am aware of the roadrunner cartoons and i don’t need the revered mr morrison to point out to me that they are sadistic.
    they are not as violent as mgm cartoons, but i guess morrison hasn’t made reference to those ones yet.
    btw, to be fair to gm, i think he was doing a little more than just pointing out that they are sadistic.
    e.g: the whole sisyphus bit.
    or maybe that’s just sadism too,
    “ha ha, he dropped it again!! a heehee stupid man, go and get it!!”

    now get your filthy crank away from my hand, i don’t want to get crank-oil on the new “mega-hard venge-fest ultra” comics i’m rereading.

  12. Illogical Volume Says:

    Ha, yes, we do all get a bit defensive at points, sometimes over the stupidest stuff. Everyone’s got their own pet peeves – for example, I like to get het up when professional music writers make basic factual errors in reviews of Marnie Stern albums. It’s a little bit tragic, really.

    You seem to be all about avenging perceived digs at old cartoons, and hey – more power to you!

    Still, I notice that the excerpt you’re quoting back at me makes no comparison between the colouring in Deadpool Max and the colours of old cartoons. Indeed, if I’m reading my own work right – and I’m pretty sure I am! – what I’m actually saying is that Baker’s versatile, high contrast colouring is key to making the “cartoony” world of the comic seem so damned sadistic.

    I then go on to discuss how various art choices play into this so yeah, sorry, I’m not going to take back my comment about your reading skills.

    While I was sure that you’d have heard of the Roadrunner cartoons, I mentioned them because you seemed so fixated on the idea that I was using Looney Tunes as a “an example of art that deploys primary hues and moralistic narrative closure” when I really wasn’t.

    As I’ve already admitted, I was using the term “looney tunes” as a slightly-too-broad shorthand, which is something that I normally try to avoid. But hey, writing is normally abandoned rather than finished, right? Also – and it’s my turn to get all aggrieved and snooty now, yay! – you don’t need to tell me that Morrison was doing more than pointing out sadism in Animal Man. That’s why I linked to David Fiore’s essay in my post, and why I said Morrison used his Roadrunner riff as “a starting point for the book’s moral and metafictional explorations.” I brought Animal Man up with you not because I need Grant Morrison to validate my every thought, but because this reference was included in my original post to clarify what I was talking about when I mentioned “that cartoony shit”.

    Once more, without much feeling: this wasn’t some sort of sleazy, oiled up, crank-handed dig at whatever old cartoon you want to talk about today. It was a bit of shorthand that I’m fairly sure was read as intended by the majority of people who will have read this post. If not, I’m sure they get the point now, eh?

    I’m normally a bit more polite on the Internet than I have been with you, but my policy has always been to respond to commentors as they’ve responded to me. So if you think I’ve been weirdly nobbish and defensive here, well…

  13. Zom Says:

    Approved

  14. E-Man Says:

    yeah, cool, well clarified, illogical.
    you’re let off, i wont send elmer round.

    it’s definitely your writing as much as my reading, though.
    “reading (one’s) own work right” shouldn’t be taken for granted.
    it does look like you’re saying that (a significant portion of) the coloring is “cartoony,” and so on and so on. whatever.
    i appreciate that it’s rarely possible to write in a way which only makes sense in one way.
    e.g. i though what i originally wrotewas fairly light-hearted, but that obviously didn’t filter through quite immediately enough to temper the mild criticism inherent in the comment.
    everyone gets the point now.
    they must do, because i do.

  15. E-Man's buddy Says:

    approved

  16. Illogical Volume Says:

    Yeah, I was being tongue in cheek with the “and I think I am!” bit, obviously(???).

    My post definitely plays with the idea that the contrast between bright colours and muted flesh tones is central to the clash between “cartoony” reality and realistic grotesquery in Deadpool Max. I still think that what I mean by this is clear in context – Baker’s art plays with these contrasts in a way that makes what could be harmless, “looney tunes” style absurdity seem genuinely painful, maybe even vicious.

    You obviously didn’t think this was clear in the post, but whatever – there are no hurt feelings here, and I hope we can both agree that the point has been thoroughly thrashed out by now.

    I did read your initial comment as being jokey, but it also seemed quite aggressive to me, so I responded in kind.

    Approved?

  17. Zom Says:

    Rejected. Sorry.

  18. Illogical Volume Says:

    Damn.

    Life is hard, eh?

    BUT NOT AS HARD AS THE RULE OF ZOM!

  19. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Tues Reviews, fuck the winter blues! (featuring Mister Attack) Says:

    [...] MAX has never quite matched the wanton cruelty of its first three issues again, but it’s still fun to watch Baker and Lapham poke fun at TWAT in the Mighty Marvel [...]

Leave a Reply