Why can't this character just be sexy without feeble attempts

>>89039413
Geoff Johns is a hack, more at 11.

File: What am I looking at.png (565KB, 1424x989px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1424x989px

Being sexy for the sake of being sexy is not seen as a positive. There have been a bunch of stupid complaints about innocuous shit that is keeping the big two on its toes about this kind of thing. A good example is that spiderwoman pose and to a lesser extent that killing joke cover of batgirl that got pulled because people complained. What comics can do with women seems to be extremely hindered by the fact that they will always piss someone off so we're stuck with mostly uninteresting inoffensive basic characters until people can get over themselves and realize that women can be just as fucking terrible as men in every regard and it's not sexist to portray a woman not constantly in control.

>I'm an SJW

Please kill yourself

File: IMG_0794.jpg (41KB, 181x279px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 181x279px

>>89039562
A reasonable assessment, but I always considered "sexy" and "sexual" two different (if intertwined) things. Starfire in RHatO, for example, feels like some dude wrote it while saying "This is what female empowerment looks like, right?"
If I recall correctly, one of Black Canary's origins had her design her outfit specifically to make herself feel powerful.
I'm not sure how to balance it myself, but it doesn't seem like it should be so damned difficult for professional writers.
>>89039621
>kill yourself meme
>In the year of our lord, the current year
kys senpai

>>89039736
>but it doesn't seem like it should be so damned difficult for professional writers
"Fake it till you make it" is a thing for a reason. Also they're scared to death of being called misogynists for portraying a female as anything other than a sexually neutral bland borderline self-insert

It's gotten to the point women need to write female characters because they can at least deflect cries of "MUH MISOGYNY"

>>89039736
Well there's no real reason to think that he was going for empowerment rather than just going for sexy.

>>89039816
It's difficult to understand the rules for this. I think some people were mad she was on board for having random meaningless sex, yet if a real woman does it it's empowering

Like how real women should be able to walk around topless but fictional women need to dress modestly

>>89039413
Ignoring the SJW faggotry
Peeg can be whatever the fuck she needs. That's the beauty of a story, it can be whatever you want, sexy, not sexy, whatever.
The real question is, who would you trust to write the story? Who would you trust to do the art?
The industry is full of hacks and jerk-offs right now. Who is competent enough for such a story without resorting to sex jokes or dumb characterization?

>>89039816

Nah, Scott Lobdell's stupid like that.

Back during the backlash he gave the excuse he wanted to portray Starfire as a liberated woman that can do anything and anyone she wants because she's that empowered. The biggest reason for this is because he felt the character was always too dependent on Nightwing.

He hates Nightwing with a passion, by the way.

>>89039955
This. It annoyed SJWs for being pandering and it annoyed everyone else... For being pandering. If we could get people who knew how to write things like diverse casts without being pandering about it, I don't think anyone but the dumbest on both sides would have any issue.

I get what you're saying, but DC has pretty crappy female characterization. Just look at Wonder Woman, who's supposed to be super powerful, can take hits from Doomsday, but can be harmed by really sharp pencils? I mean come the hell on.

But, Power-Girl actually is a wet dream brought to life. That's basically her thing. But, yeah it would be kinda ok with me if they had her use other powers just besides her strength and heat vision. Have her be more inventive or something, because she's eye candy and that's a damn fact, but they could make her a tad big smarter. She's supposed to have a genius intellect.

>>89039562
>A good example is that spiderwoman pose and to a lesser extent that killing joke cover of batgirl that got pulled because people complained.

People complain because it was seriously kinda sexist. I mean, sometimes you gotta call crap out for what it is. The killing Joke was terrible and that Spider Woman pose was just asking for trouble, they got a porn artist to draw pose her, what the hell did they think was going to happen. I mean.... seriously, they messed with fire and go burned; it happens.

>What comics can do with women seems to be extremely hindered by the fact that they will always piss someone off so we're stuck with mostly uninteresting inoffensive basic characters until people can get over themselves and realize that women can be just as fucking terrible as men in every regard and it's not sexist to portray a woman not constantly in control.

Well there is an imbalance, it's kinda the trade off with their silly outfits. If you're gonna have Batman and Superman fully clothed then have Power-Girl with a boob window, people are going to notice that kind thing.

Get over it.

>>89040239
>People complain because it was seriously kinda sexist. I mean, sometimes you gotta call crap out for what it is.
Please go away.

>>89040239
>they got a porn artist to draw pose her
Marvel does this more than you might think, this is just the only time people got mad about it

File: Ce4u3MvVAAEznUc.jpg (29KB, 600x307px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x307px

>>89039413
Will no one help this poor leotard-wearing large breasted woman close her hole?!

>>89040467
I'm not trying to throw shade at you, I'm just saying I understand what people got mad about. It was a silly cover, I personally wouldn't have even noticed why people would have gotten offended. I mean, obscene poses of females are pretty common place in comics. Yet, you have to realize a lot of the new comic reader influx came from people who saw Marvel movies. So you have these people who aren't yet fluent in the comic world.

Just give it time and everything will work itself out. Once the new readers are aware that this is how things usually work, they'll calm the heels.

File: powe-symbol-5.png (11KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 512x512px

>>89039413
I always thought the cleavage kinda emulated the
"Power" symbol.

Fair enough, just as a matter of curiosity because I honestly don't know and can't be fucked to go read a blog with all the scholastic merits of a wet sandwich:

What is female empowerment?
How is it different from male empowerment?
Who is writing Power Girl (and other characters) off as fap bait?

>>89041364
It largely has to do with the issue of agency. Often times, you'll have the male hero who overcomes great trials through strength/skill/wits/whatever and the damsel in distress who is largely a plot device and nothing more.
A great example is how often Bond movies have female characters that could be replaced by an onahole with a sticky note and nothing would be significantly changed.
Now, as an SJW, I tend to level criticism toward the people on my side that are immediately critical of every female character with large breasts and a revealing outfit. My only issue is when that kind of character exists to be about sex in a story not about sex. Ms Fanservice who is only there to be tits on legs is a far cry from a female character who is sexy but isn't about being sexy in a non-sexual context.
As I've said, I don't think this should be so difficult for professionals to do, but I suppose it could be a situation where the subject matter simply hasn't been adequately explored and so it's difficult to break ground. Kind of like how 90% of issues a woman had in the past might be written off as having hysteria and be prescribed a good dicking from her husband.

>>89041364
>>89042813
It's important that female characters are expressly shown to behave however they do because of personal choice, unless not being in control of her actions is a specific part of her character that is explored.
In addition to that, if the character then is mostly just there to pander either to modern feminists or basement dwelling randos, people are going to be upset.
Most SJWs just want a more diverse cast and for it to be written well with the issues relevant to their various demographics to be handled tactfully and with respect.

>>89039413
Honestly trying to justify sexed up character design with some half assed backstory is more insulting than any purposeless boob window will ever be. Stop trying to pretend to be deeper than you are.

>>89042813
You're not an SJW dude. SJWs only care about this bullshit so they can harass other people for not agreeing with them, they don't actually want more diversity in fiction. Because then what would exist to be outraged about?

Has everyone forgotten that the term SJW is a pejorative? It's not something to proudly identify as.

>>89039413
This is the post of someone who only reads the occasional relevant thread on /co/ and is basing all of his knowledge upon a couple of frequently posted panels, while desperately wanting to talk about social justice and women without going to /pol/. I'm bored already.