Comic Book Resources

No. No No No. I think Marvel should do more tentacle covers even. The last thing they should do is cave in to the uptight PC crowd. In fact, if a boycott is organized of that issue, I'm going to organize a "Buy extra copies" movement to offset.

It would violate their "listen to money, not what people say" policy that has served them pretty well in the past few years.

Actually, this will probably be the best-selling "Heroes for Hire" issue since #1. All this "tentacle porn" business might just have saved the book from cancellation.

Well, I know it's a bit of a tangent, but you might be interested in a more... sensible webcomic on zombies...

Check out the archives on Jonas Diego's site: http://www.jonasdiego.com

But Curious Cat, Joe Q told you to focus on the fact that the leads are ass-kicking women, not on the tentecles that are rapping them.

Why won't you do what he says?

(and why does he think that by saying 'it's not tentecle rape' that we will believe him? Does he really think the people who buy comics can't spot a hidden (or not so) meaning in a picture?Bugger the lack of respect to female characters, it's the lack of respect for fans intelligence that bothers me).

Careful - Marvel's response might be to run a Ms. Marvel cover in which a Brood critter is helplessly hanging from bound tentacles and it's being felt up by Carol Danvers.

"(and why does he think that by saying ‘it’s not tentecle rape’ that we will believe him? Does he really think the people who buy comics can’t spot a hidden (or not so) meaning in a picture?Bugger the lack of respect to female characters, it’s the lack of respect for fans intelligence that bothers me)."

To be totally fair, I find it very hard to believe that Quesada has never encountered tentacle rape manga, being not only an artist, but the gatekeeper for an entire stable of pop-culture icons. However, I'm willing to admit that it's *possible*.

The thing that gets me is that when he heard all of these concerns, when he heard about all of this "tentacle rape" stuff, that he didn't just look it up - especially when it's as easy as opening Wikipedia and typing in "tentacle rape." If he HAD done that, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't at least consider the idea that some of these concerns might be valid.

And his reasoning behind his argument is ridiculous. Does it really MATTER to whom the tentacles belong or how "kick ass" the female leads are? No. Odds are, most people who are upset about the cover know enough about the book to be aware that the tentacles belong to the Brood and that the girls are ass-kickers (which makes their position of submission all the more insulting) - and yet they're still upset.

I can imagine someone coming up with an Amazing Spider-Man cover featuring Mary Jane tied up in a compromising position and covered in a white sticky substance, and Joey Q going to bat for it by saying, "C'mon, you guys! It's just web fluid! See? Web fluid!"

Ridiculous.

-M

I can imagine someone coming up with an Amazing Spider-Man cover featuring Mary Jane tied up in a compromising position and covered in a white sticky substance, and Joey Q going to bat for it by saying, “C’mon, you guys! It’s just web fluid! See? Web fluid!”

He's such a company man he's compared the carry-on like 'Rawhide Kid: Slap Leather!' to Brokeback Mountain, so it's quite likely he would.

Curious Cat,

This is Memorial Day...a day we pay tribute to soldiers who died fighting for our freedom to have Tentacle Porn!

What is the current war in Iraq about, if not Tentacle Porn....they hate us for our Tentacle Porn. Why would you have us show weakness in front of our enemies? Who's side are you on, Al Cat-ia?

If you look, you'll see that the tentacles really aren't raping anyone. We're just assuming they're ABOUT to rape someone.

Why? Is it just because they're tentacles?

This fan outcry doesn't signify anything but anti-tentacle bigotry among a western audience, and it pisses me off. Sure, some tentacles are rapists, but most are just normal, law-abiding, decent tentacles trying to make their way in the world. I'll have you know that some of my best friends are tentacles.

I don't think Marvel should kowtow to the anti-tentacle segment of the audience. Support positive depictions of tentacles in media and don't apologize for it. Tentacles are people, too.

FYI: I have it on good authority that the tentacles in that H4H cover aren't even going to hurt the captive heroes. No, they're there to SET THEM FREE!

See, you didn't think of that, did you? You just went ahead and assumed all tentacles are evil.

*shakes head*

if Grant Morrison's name was on a comic with the EXACT same cover, nobody in comics would mind, they're just go "Oh that wacky guy!"

T. said:
"No. No No No. I think Marvel should do more tentacle covers even. The last thing they should do is cave in to the uptight PC crowd."

And here I thought that "PC" meant letting all those unpopular people say and do whatever they wanted, and keeping people like me (who find this sort of soft-core porn extremely disturbing) from speaking out.

So now a white b Southern Christian conservative like me is PC? I guess this proves that the label means nothing anymore.

I'm sorta with T on this one. I hate hate hate the Tipper Gore/pro censorship aspect of the American Left. To see intelligent people demand that this cover (and the Mary J statuette) be removed from shelves makes my brain hurt.

I disagree with T's proposed action, though. It's a stupid cover and I'm not going to buy the issue. If some people like this kind of thing, then more power to them, let them buy it. Are these kinds of portrayals of women harmful? Probably yes. Should they then be censored? Hell no. Should we ridicule the people who make and buy this kind of thing? Of course. Should we refuse to spend our money on this stuff? Obviously yes. Should we call Marvel out on their obvious sexism and pandering? Sure. Should they be allowed to continue to operate as a sexist, pandering company? As long as people keep buying this crap, of course.

And here I thought that “PC” meant letting all those unpopular people say and do whatever they wanted, and keeping people like me (who find this sort of soft-core porn extremely disturbing) from speaking out.

No, "political correctness" refers to the knee-jerk reaction of stifling any expression that may potentially offend someone. For example the Heroes for Hire cover may offend a lot of women, so people want to rush and pressure Marvel to take it off the market. I don't know anyone who subscribes to your definition of PC personally.

Please correct me for wrongness: I believe changing the cover makes it immediately returnable for not matching the solicitation.

Who.
Cares.

But sgt pepper, this wouldn't count as censorship, would it?

Censorship is when you make someone take something out.

Certainly people complaining about something does not lead to Marvel being MADE to change the cover (especially as, odds are, they WON'T be changing the cover).

Here, the question is why doesn't Marvel just want to do it themselves, due to the fairly reasonable outcry?

The idea of saying "If we change anything we do, then it would be akin to censorship" certainly is a position folks take in these spots (T certainly seems to be taking said position), but the only principle that that really seems to be sticking up for is, as mentioned before, stubbornness.

I don't think it serves any good, even the vaunted "first amendment" principles, to say, "No matter what we do, we won't change it, because that would be censorship." Because then you are forced into a situation, like Quesada, where you have to attempt to formulate an argument, no matter what, for stuff like Heroes for Hire.

"No, you see, they're strong women! So it's okay! I've never heard of this tentacle stuff, so it's okay! It's drawn by a woman, so it's okay!"

Not a pretty result, and I don't think one that propagates fairness, either.

Please correct me for wrongness: I believe changing the cover makes it immediately returnable for not matching the solicitation.

You are correct.

But making a book returnable, outside of major titles, really isn't that big of a deal nowadays, as you're dealing with such low orders to begin with.

Excuse me good sirs, but I appear to be lost. I'm looking for directions to the place where I can complain about Turners Power Girl. Please speak slowly in a very loud voice.

Oh, for god's sake...
That MJ statue has turned everybody into reactionary feminists, honestly. And Brian, surely you've heard of self-censorship? That's what changing the cover now would be, IMO.

salamurai said:
"Please correct me for wrongness: I believe changing the cover makes it immediately returnable for not matching the solicitation."
-----
Marvel doesn't do returns.

They refunded a bunch of money after the class-action lawsuit a few years ago, but no longer do returns.

Self-censorship really isn't censorship, it's common sense.

Depends on the case, I think, Alan. In this case, I honestly don't care whether or not they print the cover on its artistic merit- I don't even read Heroes for Hire- but not printing it just to be PC seems silly to me.

I don't really think PC or not PC is even that relevant. Whether HoH really has any young readers, appropriate for young readers is what it says on the label. The question is, then, is this appropriate? In an anything-goes environment, it wouldn't be a question; if the book were specifically marketed toward adults, I think most people would still consider it tasteless, but I'd like to think those same people would agree that adults are allowed to buy whatever tacky piece of shit strikes their fancy. But Marvel itself has made the determination that this is not an anything-goes environment. That this book is intended to be appropriate for kids. Presumably, the -- self-imposed, lest we forget -- rating on the cover means that if the HoH editor were to receive a script in which the Black Cat called someone a cocksucking motherfucker, that editor would politely request that the writer change the line. If the writer refused to do so, the editor would then change the line for him. Would this be censorship, or simply an instance of an editor ensuring that the book conformed to the standards set for it by the publisher? Which is to say, an instance of an editor, you know, doing his job?

In this environment, how meaningful a term is censorship -- and certainly a term like self-censorship -- at all?

Censorship is when you make someone take something out.

Certainly people complaining about something does not lead to Marvel being MADE to change the cover (especially as, odds are, they WON’T be changing the cover).

Here, the question is why doesn’t Marvel just want to do it themselves, due to the fairly reasonable outcry?

What's the difference between being made to take it out and taking it out due to outcry? Either way, they are doing it due to outside forces. In this case it would be in the form of self-censorship.

But there are several reasons why they shouldn't do this. If the sensitive-guy and radical feminists PC crowd bitches about this and Marvel caves, that crowd will be emboldened to complain more about EVERYTHING and make Joe Q's life miserable because now they'll see it leads to results. Tamora Pierce and Lea Hernandez will have open letter tirades on their blogs nonstop complaining about every cleavage shot under the sun. The last thing they should do is try to please the chronically-offended crowd.

Also, what does Marvel have to lose. Someone said it's common sense for Marvel to change the cover, but why? This book was a T&A book from the start, so I doubt anyone who would be offended by this picture would be regularly buying the book. I'm willing to bet the people crying out about this book don't buy it anyway, therefore their boycott would mean nothing. The people who already buy this book obviously already like cheesecake, so they won't care either. But cheesecake fans that were holding off on trying the book? This controversy and cover might be the push that gets them to try it. Thus, I think if anything keeping the cover has more of an upside for them than a downside.

Self-censorship really isn’t censorship, it’s common sense.

Exactly.

Self-censorship is an absurd word.

If you are not being literally FORCED to change something, then you are flat out not being censored.

Anything else is simply weighing the options, and deciding it better (Financially, Morally, Public Relation-y, etc.) to make a change than to not make a change.

The 'young readers' label is a good point, Mike. Given that this volume of Heroes for Hire apparently has a reputation for cheesecake and T&A, it's weird that that label would even be on there in the first place.

Self-censorship came up because Brian argued that this wouldn't count as censorship, which is only true if you don't include self-censorship in that definition.

You're right that editors have the right to make changes- hell, it's their job- but in this case, it wouldn't be the editor making the change of his own volition, it would be the blogosphere forcing a policy of 'self-censorship' onto a company which has already come out and stated that they have no problem with the cover. Had the editor decided, before the solicitation was released, that the cover went too far, that would be different.

So, really, worse than self-censorship, it would be blogosphere-censorship, and given the amount of bowlderism that Scipio at the Absorbascon pointed out goes on in the blogosphere and the fanboy community, that would be heading down a pretty slippery slope.

Marvel doesn’t do returns.

They refunded a bunch of money after the class-action lawsuit a few years ago, but no longer do returns.

Thanks, Alan!

So THAT'S why I only see DC mentioning returns. That's bizarre. Thanks for the info!

I will admit it is weird how this follows so quickly after the MJ statue (and that followed right after DC's Catwoman statue, which offended people less, presumably because of Halle Berry's Catwoman costume setting the precedent for sleazy Catwoman stuff), but that's simply a matter of coincidence.

Heroes for Hire, as I mentioned last week, has had creepy T&A covers for most of the run, and we've (well, I know I've, I dunno about we've) pointed it out the whole time.

This time, though, they went one step further, and were called on it.

That it happened to come out so soon after the MJ statue is just matter of poor timing.

I'm not so sure about the coincidence of the timing, but that's neither here nor there. Either way, it doesn't make the criticisms any more or less accurate.

I do want to pick up on something Jake mentioned near the top of the comments- that publishing the cover would violate Marvel's "listen to money, not what people say" policy.

In fairness, listening to money is actually a much better indicator of what the people are saying than listening to complaints on the blogosphere, simply because the latter isn't particularly representative.

To paraphrase my country's former Prime Minister, the blogosphere is the "unrepresentative swill" of the comics industry. Our comments are much more entertaining to read than sales figures, but if we were truly representative of 'the people', Nextwave would be the best-selling piece of literature in the history of the world and Roger Stern would be writing half of Marvel's output.

To that end, I think you'll find that most people would see this cover on the shelves and not give a damn, no matter how much we complain on their behalf.

That anonymous was me, btw. Using a new computer, forgot to put the name in.

When I saw that you had posted after that fellow, I thought, "Wow, is Rohan just going to say, "I agree," because it sounded so much like you.

I've edited it to put your name on it!

It's amazing how quickly people jump to the "political correctness" argument. Maybe it's because they think it's irrefutable.

But in this situation, it's inapplicable. See, this isn't a matter of something being appropriate or not. It's not even a matter of something being offensive or not.

Really, it's a matter of taste. The issue is why superhero comics are so full of cheesecake, and why some fans seem to be so steadfastly defensive of it. Do you really think it's important that a portion of superheroines be shown in an exaggeratedly sexual manner, while wearing revealing clothes? Is that something worth protecting?

Apparently, for some folks, it is. You sure are awfully protective of your cartoon, superhero, almost-porn.

Why?

That's...not a bad question at all, Apodaca...

And while I hear what you're saying, Rohan, my question is really whether someone in editorial wasn't asleep at the switch -- not that the editor didn't realize that this was pushing the envelope, because I'm sure he did, but whether a line should have been drawn that wasn't. I personally think this is blatantly not age appropriate, and while I guess mileage varies on that, I honestly can't see it varying much. That Marvel is willing to defend the cover, or at least not condemn it as poor judgment, makes me wonder how seriously they take their own ratings.

Cheers, Brian.

Who is that adressed towards, Dan? I don't remember any of the commenters here even saying that they read Heroes for Hire, so it's not their/our "cartoon, superhero, almost-porn."

Personally, I just think it's silly that Marvel would change the cover of any of their comics because of the complaints of bloggers, and think it's sillier again for bloggers to wonder aloud why Marvel hasn't done so.

Now, if someone at Marvel, or the artist themselves, wants to change it because they don't think it's appropriate- not because it's politically incorrect, or unpopular with bloggers, or a violation of some uncodified law of taste that they don't believe in, but because they don't think it's appropriate- that's different. It's not unheard of for a cover to be changed after its solicitation, after all.

It’s not unheard of for a cover to be changed after its solicitation, after all.

The cat's point exactly. Since it really isn't that big of a deal to change covers, this really seems like an instance where there really isn't a good reason NOT to change the cover.

This is not like a comic book that has already been released.

So their decision NOT to change it, when it wouldn't be a big deal TO change it, then, is strange. It seems more like a case of "you can't make us do it!" then actually looking at it, and their own rating systems, fairly.

I guess the problem with changing it now, even if it wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction to the reaction of the blogosphere, is that it would be seen as an admission that, "yeah, the original cover was all about the tentacle rape, sorry about that."

Whereas they've insisted that it isn't. So, you know, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

*Yawn* Seems like we have to have a "Controvery of the Week" these days on the comic blogs. Usually a lot of head and fist shaking about sexist, tentacle raping, offensive, degrading, horrible youth-warping something or others. I already look forward to what pisses one person off next week and incites another pitchfork mob...

Like I said to Rohan, Andrew, it's simply a matter of poor timing. The Heroes for Hire cover just happened to follow the Mary Jane statue very closely, time-wise.

That Marvel is willing to defend the cover, or at least not condemn it as poor judgment, makes me wonder how seriously they take their own ratings.

They don't.
When it launched, around the same time as their own ratings system did, the Ultimate line was meant to be all ages, and was rated as such.
By issue five of Ultimate X-Men, people were being called bastards, we saw a post-coital couple duck under the covers for some more, and then one memeber of that couple threaten to stick a candlestick up the other one's arse, as well as lots of violence.
All fine for teen readers, no argument, butt not exactly all ages.
Marvel's rating system has nothing to do with the content of the book, just how they want to rate it.

For me, what I see on the blogosphere (not the complaining, but the apparent letter writing campaigns to Marvel) doesn't seem too much different from a group of concerned mothers who want to protect the children. If such a group of mothers started such a campaign and alerted the media to the drug content of some of Morrison's work, or the bizarre outrageousness of all of Ennis's or Powell's work, and started calling for the compaines to change the content of those books, we'd all be going apeshit and defending comic book companies' rights to keep on putting bizarre and arguably tasteless stuff out there. It's not for everyone, but some of us freaks like Morrison and Ennis and Powell.

If some people like cartoon super-hero almost porn, then who are we to say that they can't (or shouldn't) have it?

Again -- not the same argument. The biggest excesses of Morrison, Ennis, Powell, et al, take place under mature readers banners. To be honest, if a group of concerned mothers DID get upset about the cover of this book, they would be well within their rights to do so -- because Marvel has explicitly promised that the book is safe for their kids to read. There is a huge gulf of difference between expressing a concern over a book that is supposed to appropriate for kids and isn't, and a book that promises to be appropriate for nobody, and is.

If the only complaint I'd read about were the age-appropriate issue, then I'd agree with you. However, that's not the only complaint I'm reading (and definitely not the main one).

I can't believe people are honestly making the argument that if Marvel changes the cover it'll "embolden" the feminists to DESTROY ALL FUN.

WE HAVE TO DEFEND THIS ONE SHITTY COVER TO THE DEATH OR ELSE ALL BREASTS WILL BE OUTLAWED BY THE LEFTIES AND ALTERNATIVE COMIC PUBLISHERS! I'M ONLY MASTURBATING TO BLACK CAT AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT! HURGBURGLBURGHURGL!

Were it not for the age appropriate label, the complaints might still be there -- that's called criticism, and it's actually okay -- but I doubt the calls to pull the cover would be. I think it's less a suggestion that the cover is inappropriate period, for anyone, ever, than it is that the cover is inappropriate for this particular book.

the fact that black cat was revealed to have been raped in that kevin smith story adds at least 10 "oh dear" points to this cover.

Brian said:
"Like I said to Rohan, Andrew, it’s simply a matter of poor timing. The Heroes for Hire cover just happened to follow the Mary Jane statue very closely, time-wise."

I don't disagree with you there, it does seem to be coming out at just the right time to pick up where the MJ controversy left off. I guess I'm just suffering from "controversy burnout." It seems to take one thing, no matter how slight, to set someone off and that always snowballs into something bigger than it needs to be. (This applies to life outside of comics these days too.)

I totally agree, Sgt Pepper. And as far as the all-ages thing goes, I still think that's a good point, Mike, but if a kid recognises this as 'tentacle porn', it's probably too late for them anyway.

To show up late and play devil's advocate: "self-censorship" is not a word, because it is not a sensible concept. The definition of censorship requires that a governing body force a creator or company to alter their output. If Congress showed up and told Marvel to change the cover or face legal consequences, that would be censorship, and it would be wrong.

Perhaps, at best, "self-censorship" could be practed by a government relative to itself.Marvel cannot practice self-censorship because it is not a legal governing body. It may, at best, make a decision that weighs the pros and cons of publishing the cover versus changing the cover. It's obvious that Marvel does not intend to change the cover, so I don't understand the outcry over supposed "self-censorship".

Real censorship is a serious problem because it promises terrible legal consequences for people who speak out. Serious not in the sense of "oh noes, no more naked boobs", but in the sense of losing one's life, freedom, or livelihood. To use the term "censorship" so cheaply in this debate is extremely shameful, and disrespectful to anyone who ever had to suffer the burden of real censorship. It reflects very poorly on the intelligence, taste, and sensibility of those who use it so loosely and disrespectfully.

Godwin's Law was instated to make people stop bringing up the Nazis in shallow and ridiculous situations, by humiliating them with how ludicrous their own overreacting was. We need a similar internet law to stop fans from pissing themselves over any possibility of something not being released or published as "censorship", because seeing a serious term misused in this way is vile. Boiled Angel was a case of censorship in comics; this is just a case of Marvel being disgustingly disingenuous and skeevy.

I can’t believe people are honestly making the argument that if Marvel changes the cover it’ll “embolden” the feminists to DESTROY ALL FUN.

WE HAVE TO DEFEND THIS ONE SHITTY COVER TO THE DEATH OR ELSE ALL BREASTS WILL BE OUTLAWED BY THE LEFTIES AND ALTERNATIVE COMIC PUBLISHERS! I’M ONLY MASTURBATING TO BLACK CAT AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT! HURGBURGLBURGHURGL!

While I agree with the basic intent of your comment (in that I don't think it really would be a big deal if Marvel changed covers), I don't think it is nice to paint the people who disagree with the assertion as folks who masturbate to pictures of Black Cat.

That's basically the mirror image of "you guys are a pitchfork mob."

Doesn't really help to insult the people you're disagreeing with.

Godwin’s Law was instated to make people stop bringing up the Nazis in shallow and ridiculous situations, by humiliating them with how ludicrous their own overreacting was. We need a similar internet law to stop fans from pissing themselves over any possibility of something not being released or published as “censorship”, because seeing a serious term misused in this way is vile. Boiled Angel was a case of censorship in comics; this is just a case of Marvel being disgustingly disingenuous and skeevy.

Someone could also argue that the offended people are actually overreacting more than the people complaining about censorship. Search the blogosphere and Newsarama and tell me who is more vocal and livid, the "This sets womankind back 100 years" crowd or the "this is censorship" crowd. For the people who started the controversy to begin with to now accuse dissenters of overreaction is rich.

Lynxara, did you actually read the comments in which the word 'censorship' was used, or did you just see the word by itself and decide to go on your rant? Through this entire discussion, nobody had made any of this personal, and then you come in with your whole "reflects very poorly on the intelligence" spiel. Debate my point, not my intelligence, which isn't in question, thanks very much.

Self-censorship was only brought up to illustrate how changing the cover may be considered a form of censorship- as in a lesser form of the type practiced during the time of the Comics Code, when writers and artists would censor themselves for fear of the Code, and I'd love to see you tell those folks that it's not a word.

It wasn't a "OH MY GOD THIS IS CENSORSHIP WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" thing, and there was no "outcry" whatsoever. Like T. said, the outcry/overreaction is coming from the people who were offended by the cover.

If Marvel pulled this cover they would indeed get on a slippery slope for reasons already explained in these comments. If you don't like the cover or even feel offended by it a boycot actually isn't a bad idea, a dip in sales would make a far stronger statement then 'public outcry' on the web.

But I don't think any of the people feeling offended by this were buying Heroes for Hire in the first place so it probably wouldn't make much of a dent. Basically, it's a shitty comic with a shitty cover, but nobody's twisting your arm or forcing you to like it. Just don't buy it if you don't like it.

If Marvel pulled this cover they would indeed get on a slippery slope for reasons already explained in these comments.

I completely disagree.

I do not believe there would be any untenable precedent set at all.

To me it seems fairly simple.
Marvel have the *right* to publish anything they want, no matter how degrading to anyone - right? They could publish Klan propaganda, bestial porn, whatever, and they would be within their rights to do so.
Marvel also, however, are a company, not an individual. Their primary purpose is to make money. If that cover were to lose them one more sale than it would gain them, then they would be within their rights - in fact it would be their duty to their shareholders - to replace the cover with one that would sell more. So it wouldn't be any kind of censorship - self- or other - but a recognition of the realities of the marketplace.
Now I would argue that, even if this cover gains sales of this issue, it, and covers like it, are going to lose sales overall, for Marvel *and* their competitors. Things like this put off many women from even entering a comic shop. Pandering to an audience of horny adolescents too scared to buy real pornography (let alone meet a real woman) at the expense of 50% of the population seems to me to be a losing proposition.
I want comic shops to be places where *everyone* feels welcome, so more people will buy comics, so fewer comic shops and companies will close, so I can still get the comics *I* want to read. I think that covers like this are very, very likely to be counterproductive in that respect.

Plus, the name of this blog is 'Comics Should Be Good'. Does that look like the cover of a good comic to you?

Well, you can't judge a book by its cover, even if it does make for an entertaining couple of posts every month.

Whether or not the comic is any good, though, is irrelevant. I just don't like the idea of the blogosphere taking offence at something and then assuming the cover should be changed because we don't like it, when we make up such a small sample of the audience (hell, most of us DON'T make up part of the Heroes for Hire audience). Seems uncool to let the moral minority choose for the majority and all that, even if those people have the best interests of the industry at heart.

I do not believe there would be any untenable precedent set at all.

I don't know if there are other examples, but over on the CSBG board I pointed out that DC changed the cover to Adventures of Superman #629 after its solicitation (featuring bathroom voyeur Superman) caused a bit of controversy.

And that didn't set a bad precedent. In fact, the change barely got noticed. DC didn't slide into changing lots of covers because of every little complaint.

Excellent point, Loren! Thanks for putting the effort into actually finding an example. I knew there were some, but I was too lazy to find them. Thanks!