Doc Shadow

Yes it could be any of those. Here are some more: Periodically turning into a villain, like Carol Ferris. Being convinced that the Protagonist is guilty of a crime, like Gwen Stacey who believed that Spider-man killed her father. Batman's fear that anyone he becomes involved with will be used against him by his many enemies. Being convinced that the True Love is a loser and doing everything to duck those dates, like Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Tony Stark's reputation as a "player" pretty much keeps any woman but a gold digger hoping to mine him for settlement from getting too close. And of course that good old Secret Identity that the Protagonist can't tell anyone. When you get right down to it, all the ex-lovers are complications as well.

I'm sorry guys but your protagonist must be a published, fictional hero. Although the idea of making the protagonist ourselves is interesting. Maybe next year, assuming this one goes well.

Sorry

No. Although your Protagonist must be your first pick, the rest may be made in any order you choose.

Rosters Owner: Title: Protagonist: Ex-Lover: Ex-Lover: Ex-Lover: Complication: Complication: Complication: Option: Option: True Love:

Ah yes, February, the month of love. Or so the florist industry would have you believe. But often the path of true love is a difficult one. Fraught with many pitfalls, roadblocks, and heartache. Particularly if you're a superhero. From lovers who turn out to be villains, to being dismembered and stuffed into a refrigerator, to editorial interference often your stalwart, upright supers just can't seem to catch a break romantically. And doubly so if your name is Parker! That's the theme of our draft this month. True love and the rocky road to get there. Your first choice will be a heroic Protagonist, this is the guy/girl whose love life sucks. This must be your first pick. Although the idea for this draft came mostly from supers, plenty of other heroes have lousy love lives so you may choose from any professionally produced fictional hero for this all important pick. After picking your protagonist, you will choose (in no particular order): 3 ex-lovers, 3 complications, 2 options and finally your protagonist's True Love. In this draft Options are used to draft more complications or more ex-lovers. All picks may be drafted twice except the Protagonist. True Loves can be drafted by another Owner, but only as an ex-lover. If you have any questions please ask, and I'll do my best to answer them. The Draft will begin on the 4th of February. Picks are earned at 5 pm EST. One pick per day. Picks can be saved to make a double or even triple pick later on.

Technically I believe this is a phase four movie. Phase three ends with Avengers: Endgame. Anything that comes out after that is phase four. Time for a new thread!

That's pretty much what I've been thinking. Trump gets his stupid wall, but we get Universal Healthcare, Tuition Free Public Colleges, and 70% tax on income in excess of $10,000,000.00 per year (from all sources including capital gains and money in offshore accounts).

Excuse me, I don't wish to be rude but you're making an awful lot of pronouncements as though they are the "WORD OF GOD" and above questioning. So I kind of have to ask: who the hell are you, and why should I believe one thing you're saying?

Not at all. A fellow named Jim Wright wrote it. I saw it on facebook and shared it on my page.

Regarding Trump's Wall, I did not write this but I'd like to share it. Let's say we build this wall. Let's say we give Trump the money and we build a wall 30 feet tall, 2000 miles long. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter what it costs, don't worry about the details. Just go ahead and build the wall, right? No. No. Don't roll your eyes. It's not a trap. This isn't me doing that thing where I seem to ask a provocatively obnoxious question, but I'm REALLY fishing for something else entirely. Nope. Not that. I'm saying: we build Trump's wall. 30 feet high, 2000 miles long. Now, bear with me here: The US/Mexico border is 1954 miles long. Currently, about 700 miles is fenced in some fashion. Meaning a bit more than 1200 miles isn't. Why? Well, because most of the border is remote, away from urban development, in rugged territory, deserts, etc. So, if you build this wall, 30 feet high, 2000 miles long, 1200+ miles of it would STILL traverse remote territory. Follow? Now, people being people, it won't matter how high the wall is, or how thick, or whatever passive systems (such as spikes or concertina wire, etc) you include. Given enough time and resources, human ingenuity will find a way over, under, or through your wall in short order. Particularly in remote areas, outside of full time observation. In our case, that's about 1200 miles worth of remote territory. You don't need to take my word for this, you can research the effectiveness of such barriers from the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall, from Hadrian's Wall to the West Bank Barrier... What? What's that? Oh, right. The West Bank Barrier, the wall which divides Israel from Palestine. Yes? It WORKS, you say. It does. BUT it's not just a wall, it's a multi-layered defense system. Barbed wire, anti-sniper concrete wall over part of its length, vehicle ditches, electronic systems, patrols. It's monitored over its full length 24 hours a day, every day. It is patrolled over its full length 24 hours a day, every day. The cost to Israel (and Palestine) is high. It works. Yes it does. It keeps people penned up, keeps them apart, keeps people out, maybe keeps them from killing each other. Just as it was designed to do and a number of American conservatives look to that Israeli model as an example. The American version would have to be 3 times as long and vastly more expensive. That barrier was designed, rightly or wrongly, to separate nations and people at WAR. And the ONLY way a such a barrier works is with constant monitoring, constant patrolling. Because otherwise, as I mentioned up above, all you need to defeat it is a ladder and some quiet time. This is true of the West Bank Barrier. And it was true of Hadrian's Wall. And the Great Wall of China. The Maginot Line, the Berlin Wall, Saddam's line. Etc. They ALL had to be monitored and patrolled. Or they were no more an impediment to movement than any natural barrier, any river, or hill. Up above, I mentioned the Maginot Line. The French spent enormous resources to fortify their border. But once in place, those resources were fixed. They could not move or be used elsewhere. When the Nazis did a rapid end run around the fortifications through the Ardennes Forest, all the enormous resources of the Line were immediately rendered moot, left behind in their fixed, immobile positions. It's still there today, rotting, rusting, useless. By its very nature, a wall is fixed in position. Meaning, the defenses and resources of a wall are only useful AT THE WALL. At the wall. Walls are good for small, limited, controlled areas where the wall is part of a larger system, and continuously monitored, protected, and maintained. Where those manning the wall have a SIGNIFICANT advantage over those the wall is designed to control. Like a prison. Or a fort in hostile territory. For Trump's wall, 2000 miles long, to work, you will HAVE to monitor it in real-time along every inch. You will have to install cameras and sensors, fly drones and aircraft, and put out daily patrols. The wall will be constantly probed. Constantly tested. Constantly watched by those we're trying to keep out. There isn't any way to hide it. 2000 miles long, 30 feet high, and visible in orbit. We become anchored to our wall, constantly trying to find any weakness before the adversary does. Any moment of inattention, any blind spot, any weakness, will be found -- and exploited. The odds are with the attacker, not the defender, especially over that distance. Because that is human nature, ask any prison guard. Of course, the people of the US and Central America are not at war. Those seeking refuge in the US are unlikely to storm the border with a Blitzkrieg of tanks and dive bombers -- and if they were, WE WOULDN'T BUILD A WALL ANYWAY because the US military doesn't fight from fixed positions. Those who build walls in the desert often die on them. As Saddam's army learned -- or didn't actually, given how the second war with the US went. Again, walls are useful for certain limited applications. But they are utterly impractical over thousands of miles. Your assets become fixed, inflexible, unable to adapt, and if bypassed they're useless. You will NEVER get a return on your investment. If you have to have eyes on the border ANYWAY if you have to patrol the entire length in real time ANYWAY if you have to monitor the cameras and sensors and drones ANYWAY if you have to counter any breach anywhere anytime ANYWAY THEN YOU DON'T NEED A PHYSICAL WALL. For a wall to work, to DO what Trump promises, it CAN'T be a simple barrier, no matter how long, no matter how high. Like the West Bank Barrier, or the Great Wall of China, it would have to be a complex system of technology and human beings where the physical wall itself is the LEAST part, its defenses fixed and inflexible, unable to adapt to changing circumstance. And here's the thing: Once you implement the supporting systems and personnel you need to secure the wall, YOU NO LONGER NEED THE WALL outside of a few small areas. And without a wall, those security systems become much more flexible, mobile, unpredictable, and adaptable. They then have the advantage. And it is cheaper. Vastly cheaper. History, our own military strategy, and our national security policies learned over two painful centuries, demonstrate just how useless and ill advised a fixed defense is. A simple wall is a simple solution for simple minds and worthless for anything else.

I've got February for my "Why My Love-Life Sucks Draft". That wasn't a joke, although playing it for laughs is a valid strategy. It's based on the fact that Spider-man's love life really does suck.

No, an imbecile. His plan will not work. In fact it could not possibly work. But he's too stupid to see it.

But Thanos is a sociopath. And a imbecile.

Baloney! Watch the scene again. He clearly gave up.