PK htiw klaw eriF

The rich-hating elder jew knows what these trade deals are about.

That game looks stupid.

"It makes no sense to break up the big banks" - Guy whose family are bankers

Biggest laugh of the thread.

Well I guess it's good I already have the originals. But that's some real bull****.

No problem. I'd say those things would be an improvement over the current scheme, but far from ideal.

Neither.

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people? It's of small consolation to the sheep that the election was fair when the wolves vote to have lamb-chops for lunch. The founders were acutely aware of the importance of avoiding the "tyranny of the majority". But we're not talking about wolves voting to eat sheep, we're talking about the power of citizens over their supposedly representative government. I fail to see how removing power from people and handing it to the state is a good thing, or how tyranny of the minority is superior to tyranny of the majority.

What?

Wouldn't the counter argument be that you're increasing the power of rural voters compared to city dwellers? In theory, under the popular vote system wouldn't everyone's vote count the same and failure to secure the popular vote be representative of a failure to have the backing of the majority of the people?

Get out the Bern Cream, DNC chair DWS is being primaried by a Bernie supporter

From what I've been able to glean is that it's essentially a megamod with more polish and a new class. I haven't played it yet and this is what I'm getting from others, so perhaps posters who have played the game will have a different opinion.

That explains how the level 9 sorcerer was able to take down a Devil Lord.

That sounds bad but are the encounters good?

So how is it? Was unimpressed with the original content in EE so if its like that I'll pass on this expansion to a 16 year old game.

My argument is that despite whatever emotional reaction Batman has, he has no threat to his material situation and doesn't have to change course. He may feel very bad at consistently failing to solve the rampant crime plaguing Gotham, but unlike the citizens he is removed from immediate danger. At most he will lose some money and maybe get bloody beating someone up, but the people of Gotham are the ones being routinely terrorized, having their livelihoods destroyed, and killed. The point is that Batman has the luxury of clinging to his morals and continuing ineffective efforts because he will never be personally affected the same way a working-class guy trying to get by in Gotham would. I'm not following you, are you arguing that you can't be an idealist and a Capitalist? If so I don't think you've ever encountered an objectivist or have a romantic view of what an idealist is. He does. But it's comics so they can't have him cure AIDS or cancer to preserve the concept of a fictional universe in sync with current times. Similarly to Batman not using his massive resources to fix what appears to be a warzone of a city. Blame the nature of comic book publishers. The point of Superman is being the "man of tomorrow", a Christ-like figure on Earth to show humanity what they could and ideally should be. While Superman represents the spectacle and awe of this, Clark Kent represents the idealized normal man. I don't know where you're getting this mentor stuff from, he exists more as an ideal to strive for, not as a mentor to man, and the reason for that is he is what man ideally should be. You can argue that in reality and fictional universe reality man is not like that, and you would be right, but the point is to keep striving for the ideal and not to stop at only what we know to be possible. I can and will. Superman doesn't exist in a vacuum. If there were no Lex Luthors or Doomsdays or Sports Masters or whatever other villains and creatures exist in the fictional universe he inhabits you may be right, but he is consistently challenged in his beliefs by these obstacles in a way that has shaped him and shaped said beliefs. EDIT: I should be clear that this isn't my personal feelings about the characters, but rather what I believe they were intended to represent.

Good or bad has nothing to do with it, the point is that Batman is using his wealth to attempt to shape the world, with Gotham City functioning as his world, to fit his ideals. Batman's tactics and Bruce Wayne's charity has fundamentally failed to solve the problems facing citizens of Gotham, the problems Barman is concerned about. It's arguable that both efforts have only exacerbated the problem, with criminals being pushed into an arms race with Batman and Gotham residents being encouraged to stay in a ****ty place because the charity. The point is that he will never be directly affected material by the problems he aims and fails to address and that despite how he may feel on a personal level the people of Gotham who are being victimized by an increasingly powerful and malicious criminal element are the ones who are ****ed, not Batman and not Bruce Wayne. I would argue that is the case. My argument is that Superman ceases to be Super without the yellow sun. And Kryptonians aren't more intelligent than humans. But I believe this is ultimately a road to pedantic power lawyering. I would argue that he is the ideal humanity should strive for, both as Clark Kent and Superman. While Superman represents divinity and benevolent power, Clark Kent represents the everyman doing his best to improve the world. To the fictional characters of the DC universe Clark Kent may not represent the power and almost savior like status of Superman, but he does represent a man doing his best to help others out. In this dualistic nature, he represents the idea that we're all in this together and that everyone has an important part. Superman wouldn't be Superman without being Clark Kent. There's been more than few kryptonians who aren't superman, General Zod springs to mind, so we must assume that there is something different about Superman. Clark Kent being raised on Earth by the Kents is likely the reason for this. Batman is the same, as theoretically any extremely intelligent and extremely fit guy with a lot of money could put on a silly suit and beat up criminals, but it takes a traumatized child like Bruce Wayne to grow into the broken man that becomes Batman.

Batman is very similar to Bill Gates, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and various other billionaires in that he uses his fortune to attempt to shape the world to fit his image. In a way he is just as removed as they are, as his life will be largely unaffected by the organized crime and occasional supervillain he faces while those who live in Gotham without the benefit of vast riches and security systems are the ones vulnerable to the various schemes Batman attempts to thwart. I'd go as far to argue that by applying ineffective measures to these issues he is complicit in the continuation of them and the inability of the people of Gotham to solve it themselves, similarly to how certain charity can result in underdeveloped areas becoming reliant on charity and unable to become self-sufficient. In this way Batman is very much a capitalist, unless you have an anal definition where anyone but an Objectvist is a true capitalist. Superman is better because the radiation from the yellow sun empowers him, take him out of that and he's pretty much a normal human with highly advanced technology. Not to mention a small chunk of rock is able to kill him fairly easily under this particular solar radiation. And there's also the consideration Superman exists in a universe where there are many villains physically superior to him, rendering the genetic superiority argument contextual depending on who he is matched up against. So this pedantic comic book guy brings us to what is Superman. I'd agree with the Kill Bill interpretation in that Clark Kent is what humanity is, with the caveat Superman is what humanity should be and his purpose is that of a savior figure here to show how things should be. Their existences shape the beliefs they represent. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, including belief systems symbolized primitively by fictional characters in children's entertainment. And of course depending on who is writing said belief systems can be warped to be unrecognizable, Snyder's recent cluster**** proved that pretty well.

Actually Speed Demon was a three-way between Flash, Ghost Rider, and Etrigan. Which sounds like some slashfic from a mentally disturbed person when you type it out.

There's been comics, but there's some issue in getting Disney and WB to agree to a partnership involving films.

Nope, Ambush Bug is a character created 10 years before I was born.

Ambush Bug springs to mind.

I'd argue Superman was originally a populist with some anti-business tones and the Fantastic Four was originally packed with cold war paranoia. But for the most part the current situation of superheroes is largely politically neutral, with support for status quo, and mainly about producing IP to make into media and cartoons and games. Of course non Marvel or DC comics(and their sub-publishers) are a completely different story.

Honestly, you're reading too much into it. These fictional characters are amorphous and any political leanings are going to either be projection of the reader or bias of the writer.

John Kasich dropped out and has endorsed Donald Trump.