Latest Posts

Bob Ingersoll used to write a column in The Comics Buyer's Guide called "The Law is a Ass" in which he analyzed how the law is portrayed in comics then explained how it would really work. (He's since moved the column over to ComicMix.) In 1983, he took a look at the Fantastic Four as a legal corporation and how they would have had to have incorporated and why it made sense. For today's "On History" installment, I thought I would re-run this older piece that originally caught my eye because of my interest in the FF...

Fantastic Four #160
I first learned about it in Fantastic Four #160, Page 16 Panel 3, to be precise. Sometime, several months before that issue and at Reed Richards' suggestion, the F.F. had quietly incorporated. Even at the time, though I was but a lowly college student and unknowledgeable about the ways of the real world, I wondered why. Why after years of existence as whatever type of organization it had been, did the Fantastic Four suddenly incorporate? (I knew the reason had to be more than that the writer had a story line or two whose actualization required that the F.F. incorporate. Comic writers wouldn't have their characters suddenly do something which the characters had, until that point felt, totally unnecessary, simply to advance a plot, now would they?)

Now I know the reason. One law school course on corporate law revealed it. So, in the honored comic book tradition of the secret origin of Flash's masked identity and the untold story of Warlord's helmet, I offer the untold story behind the secret origin of the Fantastic Four's incorporation. Besides, I'm a peach of a guy. Rather than force any of my loyal readers to cough up the tuition for law school and suffer through a corporate law class for the answer, I'll give it out free for nothing. All I ask is that you name your first born male child after me. (Not too difficult, really, it's already far too late to name him before me.)

The F.F.'s incorporation has to do with money, first making it and then keeping it. I know that talking about money is plebeian, even crass, and that super-heroes should be above that sort of thing. But they're not. It takes money to keep Johnny Storm stocked with hot sauce or to maintain Reed Richards' one hundred pairs of stretch socks.

The F.F. has no trouble making money. Reed's patents, which supply the money, are of such number and quality that the Fantastic Four-or a small army in Bolivia-can live off of their sales and applications. Considering the F.F.'s expenses, however-the electric bill on the Negative Zone portal alone must he staggering and the Fantasti-car can't get good mileage-one can only conclude that Reed Richards has a patent on the letter E.

Keeping the money the F.F. makes is another matter, one in which incorporation would help considerably. First incorporation creates tremendous tax advantages for the Fantastic Four. Exactly how the advantages come about is complicated, so you'll just have to trust me on this one. I can't explain it to the lay public; mostly because I don't understand it myself.

(I beg your pardon, Don and Maggie? I won't get what if I don't come across with a legitimate reason? Paid? I won't get paid for the column? Okaayyy...)

It has to do with who is liable for the taxes owed by a corporation versus those owed by a partnership. Partners in a partnership share the profits and are individually liable for paying the income taxes on said profits. A corporation, on the other hand, is a separate legal entity, a fictional person which is liable for the taxes on all corporate income. Thus, it is Fantastic Four, Incorporated which pays the taxes on the income generated by Fantastic Four, Incorporated, not Reed and the gang.

The tax advantage that this situation creates comes with the realization that along with a patent of the letter E, Reed Richards obviously has political clout. Lots of political clout. Remember we're talking about a man who was able to swing enough zoning variances to permit jet plane landings, rocket ship take-offs, and nuclear generators in the Baxter Building, a mid-town Manhattan address only a few blocks from the United Nations building. All of that in mid-town Manhattan requires more pull than a Coney Island taffy concession. Reed must have enough connections, that he could get Congress to Vote itself a pay cut. With such pull working for him, Reed would have no trouble in getting the F.F. declared a non-profit organization. As a matter of fact, they are. Check The Amazing Spider-Man #l.

The point of all this is that non-profit corporations do not have to pay income taxes, because they don't have any income. So if it is Fantastic Four, Inc. which is liable for the income taxes-not Reed, Sue, Ben, or Johnny-and if Fantastic Four, Inc. is a tax exempt non-profit organization, no one pays the taxes. Indeed, there are no taxes. And if you don't think there's a tremendous tax advantage on not having to pay the taxes on fifteen quintuplatillion umptuplatillion multiplatillion impossibidillion fantasticatrillion dollars, you need to study H&R Block's 17 reasons again.

Saving on taxes isn't the only advantage that the corporate structure offers the Fantastic Four. There's an even bigger one in what's called limitation of liability. Your average super-hero/super-villain contest produces repercussions that don't go away, when the gendarmes cart off the bad guy. To quote from John Byrne in Fantastic Four #260 Page Panel 1, "Leaving [the site of the battle] will not prove quite so easy, the consequences of a major battle in the middle of a highly populated area being many. There are accounts both economic and emotional that will take years to settle." In other words, your average super-hero/super-villain contest levels your average city block. So when the F.F. trashes a supermarket, freeway and a taxicab in one issue, someone's got to pay far all that damage.

Damage to someone's property due to a super powered fight, has always been a problem, especially at Marvel, where the heroes are more destructive. If you don't believe me there, take the same test Don once gave me: picture a closed door and imagine how the heroes would go through it. Flash would vibrate through. Atom would shrink and walk between the atoms. Batman would pick the lock. Even the DC hero most likely to break down the door, Superman, you know would return later and repair it at super speed, because we've all seen him do it several times. (Which brings up a side complaint from the movie Superman II. At the film's beginning Clark Kent jaywalks and carelessly allows a taxi to smash into him. The result is a large V shaped dent in the front end. Superman never fixed the damage he caused, a fact I know, because the same damaged taxi appears later in the movie. Its dent, incidently, giving a new meaning to the term V-8 engine.)

Now imagine the Marvel heroes going through the same door. Iron Man would blast it with Repulsor Rays. Thor would smash it with his hammer and not even have to retrieve the hammer. Cyclops, Iron Fist, Power Man, Hulk, Thing and virtually everybody found in The Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe, volumes 5-11 would break down the door.

This problem of destruction has reached epic proportions under John Byrne's run of the Fantastic Four and The Thing. Case in point Thing #6. Pages 18, 19, and 20, where Ben Grimm seems to have taken out one-third of mid-town Manhattan. Only the destruction to Tokyo in Toho Production's classic, Godzilla Vs. Mecha Ruta-Baga rivals Ben's clash with Puppet Master for pure mindless destruction.

Now, someone has to reimburse the owners, so that they can restore their rubble. And it's probably not Nationwide that's on their side. If the insurance companies were smart they would already have incorporated clauses in their policies specifically exempting damage caused by super powered battles from coverage. Even if the owners do have a peace of the rock, the insurance companies wouldn't sit on their losses. No, the Rock would sue the persons responsible for the damage for what we lawyers call indemnification. (Don't ask, we had to call it something and what's coming to me was already taken.)

Your average super-hero/super-villain fight leaves your average super hero with a big law suit on his hands. Many times the hero would have a defense, the Doctrine of Emergency. This is a common law doctrine which most, if not all states, have adopted. It says, if a person causes property damage or personal injury while acting in an emergency-particularly a life threatening emergency-said person is not liable for said damage or injury. Constant reliance on this doctrine, however, is impossible.

Remember the hero must be acting in an emergency and what was an emergency once might not be so forever. I can just picture Judge Wapner's ruling. "I'm sorry, Mr. Richards. I realize you destroyed Sea World of Orlando protecting the Earth from Galactus's recent attack. But this Court must also take judicial notice of the fact that Galactus has already failed to eat the Earth some forty-seven times to date. This Court rules that Galactus has proven himself to be ineffectual, incompetent and not an emergency at all. Judgement for Shamu."

Even if the Doctrine of Emergency could he invoked over the damage caused fighting such notables as the Ringer or Leapfrog, the Doctrine does not cover all super hero caused damage. How many times have you seen the Thing get mad and rip up a Rolls? Or the Torch slag a pike in a pique? Several, right? So, when Ben Grimm levels Levitown in a jealous rage, because Silver Surfer was having tea with Alicia again, that wouldn't count.

Reed Richards must have seen several persons whose property had been so destroyed file suit against the Fantastic Four, even if Smilin' Stan and Jolly Jack didn't show us the suits. Perhaps that's why the F.F. went bankrupt back in Fantastic Four #9. And, maybe they were feeling another monetary crunch in issue 160, paying for all the property the Thing and the Torch destroyed.

Reed is, if nothing else, an intelligent, farsighted man. He saw that he had to insulate his personal fortune from the antics of this two-man wrecking crew under his command, before someone successfully sued him for not controlling them better.

Incorporation provided the perfect insulation. A corporation, such as F.F., Inc. is a legal entity, which can be sued in a court of law. Moreover, the corporation, not the board of directors is liable for the wrongs committed by its employees. In other words, when your Chrysler blows up, because of a faulty frammistat-Frammistat? I'm a lawyer, Jim, not a mechanic-you could sue Chrysler. Inc. and win all its assets. You might even win its debt to the Feds. But you couldn't collect a cent from Lee Iacocca, because he's not personally liable. This nifty little legal loophole is, as I said, called Limited Liability and is the reason so many "suits" incorporate. In the event of a lawsuit, it saves them the shirts off their backs. (After all what good is a suit without a shirt?

In the same way the Yancy Street Gang could sue Ben Grimm for the injury he caused them. They could sue Fantastic Four, Incorporated. But they could not sue Reed Richards. Reed gets to keep his one hundred pairs of stretch socks.

So there you have it, the untold story behind the secret origin of Fantastic Four, Incorporated. Maybe next time I'll tell you the real reason that Bruce Wayne abandoned the Wayne Foundation. But if you think about it you should see. I mean would you want to head an organization that sends its top executives into an eastern European country just forty-eight hours before a major revolution. The liability potential there staggers the imagination.
I was out running a couple weeks ago and came across a Chick Tract lying on the sidewalk! I could down to Quimby's and purchase any number of them, but there's something more visceral about stumbling across one out in the wild somewhere. Buying them at a shop, one has a distinct sense of the ironic way in which most people (I think) view them. Finding them in the wild is a reminder that there are people out there who genuinely believe in the fire-and-damnation, holy roller approach to religion that the tracts espouse.

This is actually the second Chick Tract that I've come across this way. I found one in a hospital waiting room not quite a decade ago. I'd heard of them before, but had never seen one in person. It was amazing to see just how crazy these are. Setting aside whatever religious beliefs you might actually hold, they're filled with such simplistic storytelling and flat characterizations, they make Dick and Jane look like the works of Shakespeare. Reading through them, I simply cannot imagine anyone being converted by the arguments in them. They're just so poorly presented that you pretty much have to already be a complete believer in their particular theology to gloss over all the problems in the tracts without a healthy dose of irony or satire.

In thinking about that, though, I started to wonder about the business model here. Jack Chick sells these from his website to essentially two different sets of constituents. First, the aforementioned readers who read these ironically. Second, they're bought in bulk by religious organizations to be distributed apostolically. To be handed out as a way to bring people into their church. Since I seriously can't fathom the tracts actually working in this way, I can only believe their actual purpose is validate the churches' own beliefs. "See? What you're preaching is true because we have this printed booklets that agree with you."

And in that mindset, it's hard not to view Chick himself cynically. Like a television evangelist who rakes in millions of dollars in 'tithes' that he uses to buy his own jet. But if you actually go to buy some, they cost sixteen cents apiece. Doesn't matter which one, it's sixteen cents. Six pieces of paper folded in half, double-sided printing, two color cover, single staple. It's not a huge outlay of costs, but I suspect the actual production of these booklets is very nearly sixteen cents. Without actually going out to get price quotes, I'd bet they cost somewhere between fifteen and sixteen cents to produce when they're done in bulk. Meaning Chick's profits off them would be one cent for every two, maybe as many as four, copies.

If Chick's claims of printing 800,000,000 tracts in 50 years is accurate, that would translate into $2,000,000. Which sounds like a lot as a lump sum, but comes down to $40,000 a year. Now, clearly, I'm doing some back-of-the-envelope math here based on some very loose figures, so I'm sure that estimate is inaccurate. But it points in the direction of Chick not making a whole ton of money on these. Enough to live on, probably, but he's not likely to be buying his own jet.

For me, when I see those televangelists raking in huge dollar amounts, I see them very cynically. I don't think they necessarily believe whatever it is they're preaching, but they know that saying those things gets them lots of money. You wave enough money in front of almost anybody, they're going to believe whatever gets them that money. But if Chick isn't raking in those huge amounts that the guys on television are, if he's making a living but maybe not much more, that's not much different than freelance comic artists selling their work at SPX or wherever. They're doing it because they love it. Chick must, too. Whether he believes he's genuinely getting converts with his comics, or simply avowing the faith of those already converted, he seems to truly believe in the messages his printing.

He must, because there sure as hell doesn't look to be much money in it!
Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: On Business: Income Fluctuations
http://ift.tt/1mzZQyL

Kleefeld on Comics: On History: Speech Balloon Patterns
http://ift.tt/1Ox1fB1

Kleefeld on Comics: Weekly Comics Links
http://ift.tt/1VInxBb

FreakSugar: Webcomics Wednesday: Risk & Reward
http://ift.tt/1mFUqSH

Kleefeld on Comics: On -isms: Empathy
http://ift.tt/1S60EbP

Kleefeld on Comics: On Strips: All That Running
http://ift.tt/1Roob85


Jef Mallett's Frazz from May 30, 2014...
I don't recall the first time I encountered Frazz but it's one of those strips that I've consistently enjoyed for many years now. It's occasionally suggested that it almost acts as a sequel to Calvin & Hobbes (in large part because of Frazz's hair style and color) although Mallett certainly never intended it as such. And, though his humor strikes a similar chord as Bill Watterson's, it's markedly different in that where Watterson celebrated life through imagination, Mallett celebrates life through being an active participant in it, both mentally and physically. The comparison could be made of the creators as well -- Watterson is a notorious recluse in much the same way that Calvin spent so much time in his own head, and Mallett is somewhat infamous for competing in marathons and other more extreme types of activities.

As you may know, I myself started running in 2011. I wasn't at all inspired by Frazz or Mallett to be honest. I had a friend who was going to run a marathon, and I said to myself, "Hey, if Chris can run a marathon, so can I!" Turns out that I enjoy running and the sense of empowerment I get from completing marathons is immensely powerful. I also connect more with Frazz (and his runner girlfriend Jane) than I did before I started getting into distance running, but that was mostly an ancillary benefit.

As I said, my running was never really inspired directly by Frazz. But I've grown to appreciate him more, and I find myself echoing some of his sentiments about looking forward to running in bad weather or for crazy-long distances. Also like Frazz, I find myself on the receiving end of "you must be nuts to do that" comments from time to time, although that tapers off as people see and accept distance running as a thing I do.

Right now, I'm in Walt Disney World. Yesterday, I ran a 5k through Epcot. Earlier this morning, I did a 10k. Tomorrow, I'll be in a half-marathon that runs through both Epcot and the Magic Kingdom. And on Sunday, I'll be doing a full marathon that winds through all of Disney's theme parks. That's a total of 48.6 miles over the course of four days. It's called the Dopey Challenge and I understand about 6,000 people signed up for it.

I've said before on this blog that I've been taking some running signage to heart by trying to DO EPIC SHIT! And while Frazz's actions as depicted in the comic generally don't seem very epic, there's plenty of references to the fact that does do epic things like compete in triathlons. (I could make a joke about newspapers being so wary of offending people that they couldn't even depict something that merely showed Frazz DOING EPIC SHIT!) But what Frazz does when he's not being epic is still a life of deep and meaningful engagement, as I said, both mentally and physically. Maybe newspaper comics aren't completely dead yet, and there still is a lesson or two that can be learned from them!
I have a post that's been sitting in various forms of draft mode for probably the better part of a year. It's not about comics, but more of a general rant against people higher up the food chain than you and I who have no real concept of what kind of struggles anyone else is dealing with. I've returned to work on that piece several times, but it always seems to turn into an unfocused, old-man-shouting-at-the-clouds rant that doesn't really have a point. I used examples ranging from people I have to work with on a regular basis to Soylent Green.

Rather than try to explain everything I was trying to touch on, though, let's just take it as wrote that, by and large, the people running the governments and the corporations care about you not at all. They don't hate you, or even dislike you; you are just so insignificant to them that you never even enter their thoughts. If you're not pulling down at least a half million every year, you do not rate.

I hate that. Not so much that there's someone out there who feels so superior as to never even consider me, but that any human can be so casually dismissive of another. To think and feel so selfishly that the very notion that someone has a set of experiences different from their own is mind-boggling. I've seen this first-hand.

One thing I've actively tried to do in recent years is cultivate more empathy in myself. Rather than slough off someone's words or actions with cynicism and satirical jokes, I've tried focusing more on what kind of mindset a person might have to be in to say or do those things. I'm not always successful, of course, and I can get maddeningly frustrated when someone is actively dismissing my point of view, but the attempt is to be more empathetic.

My wife has been a big driver in that. She's the most open-hearted, optimistic, forgiving person I've ever met. But she's still only able to offer her perspective on things. I've tried complementing that by reading a diverse selection of comics.

That sounds a little hokey, but I really have spent much of my time over the past several years actively seeking out different voices in comics to better understand different types of experiences. It can be awkward flatly asking even close friends about difficulties and hardships they've faced in coming out, or how they've dealt with being raped, or how they spent their life ridiculed or dismissed because of their accent or skin color, or the practical challenges in transitioning, or what it was like to live homeless on the street for a year, or... By actively looking for creators who use their comics to share those experiences, it not only provides them with a degree of financial support but it helps me to appreciate where people who aren't me are coming from. I can't ever know what it was like to do any number of things because I'm not a woman, I'm not Black, I'm not gay, I'm not Latino, I'm not anything other than the cis-hetero white guy I've always been. But I can at least read about those other people, and absorb their stories. And, in absorbing them, I can better understand why people might act the way they do.

"Oh, so that's what it's like to live with depression!"

"Wow, I didn't realize how body dysmorphia might impact someone who's trans!"

"Wait, so their self-destructive behavior is a result of PTSD from being raped?"

It's easier than ever now to cocoon ourselves in an echo chamber, and filter out any ideas and opinions that don't match our own. And in doing so, that cuts off wide swaths of people from our empathy. If we don't seek to even try to understand them, how can we possibly even sympathize with them, much less empathize? It's innately walling off their thinking, their feeling from our very perception and allows us to dismiss them as non-beings.

I'm not one of New Year's resolutions. I find it's a pretty arbitrary time to try to change something about yourself; if you want to make a change, you have to be emotionally ready for it. And that comes when you've wrapped your head around the whole thing, not because the calendar says it's one number higher than last year. But something to think about might be tracking down different comics espousing different points of view for the sake of exposing yourself to those different outlooks. You could do that in any number of ways of course, but comics' pervasiveness, particularly webcomics, means there's plenty out there to work with, and the visual aspect tends to hit home harder than if you were just dealing with words. So if you are the type that's looking for New Year's resolutions, I might suggest trying out some different comics for the express purpose of understanding people who have a notably different background (and perspective) than you.
A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a collection of Lyonel Feininger's Kin-Der Kids comics. It's not a long book, since the strip itself only lasted about seven months and was only a weekly strip. The strip had some wonderful renderings and is somewhat reminiscent of Winsor McCay's Little Nemo with regards to style and originality. (Although I can't find any evidence of such, it strikes me that Kin-Der Kids was a direct response from the Chicago Tribune to New York Herald's Little Nemo.)

In Little Nemo, Mccay originally erred on the side of legibility with regard to his storytelling. Even though it's always abundantly clear how the action is taking place and in what order, he still went to the trouble of numbering all of the panels, so readers would never need to worry about what order they were to be read in. A bit overkill, really, and it detracts a bit from the art in my opinion, but he was trying to ensure his story could be read easily in a format that many people were unfamiliar with.

But I found the opposite approach in Kin-Der Kids. While the overall page layouts were straightforward enough, and the illustrations did a good job depicting the actions, the speech balloons proved to be very problematic. Feininger, it seems, expected his audience to read the speech balloons in the order he drew them, which may or may not have been left to right or top to bottom. Even after only a few strips, I found repeated instances where the upper-left-most speech balloon came across like a complete non-sequitur, relative to the story. Until I read the rest of the panel and discovered that it was in fact a response to another speech balloon further down and to the right. It happened enough that if I read anything that didn't seem like it flowed directly from the previous panel, I would scan through all the rest of the dialogue in the panel to see if I should start somewhere else. Sometimes, the initial balloon was indeed just a random bit of background business, but frequently it was a response to something later in the frame.

I had to stop reading pretty soon after starting just because it got annoying and tiring to basically have to read an entire panel just to figure out what order it needed to be read in, and then go back and re-read the panel in the correct order.

Given the early date of comic strips' history we're looking at here (1906) I'm left wondering if A) this was a widespread issue among comics at the time, and B) when did artists eventually agree that left-to-right, top-to-bottom made the most sense for their readers? (Obviously, I'm only talking English-language comics here.) Is there a point we can look to and say, "Yup, here's where everyone agreed that random balloon placement is not the way to go"? It's certainly before we get comic books in play, and I don't know that I have enough insights into comic strips to pinpoint it beyond "sometime before the 1930s."