The weirdest and worst Supergirl you may not have heard of is the late 90s and early 2000s Supergirl known as Linda Danvers.
Linda Danvers is a strange Supergirl whose backstory requires a lot of explanation, which may be her greatest weakness. I may need to talk about two other Supergirls just to explain her significance.
First, to go fast and simple, DC Comics wanted a line-wide reboot affecting every comic in the mid-80s so 1985 and 1986 brought Crisis on Infinite Earths which removed the continuity-confusing multiverse and killed off many characters, including Superman’s cousin, Supergirl, in a story that made many people realize that they loved her, and quickly became one of many people’s favorite Supergirl stories. She heroically sacrificed her life to mortally wound the Anti-Monitor and stop him from destroying more universes.
Superman’s Krypton heritage was part of why the reboot was being done. After the fallout of COIE, the universe started to change and adapt and I suppose alter its own history to sort of make sense of itself, which would include a new history for Superman. Since so many people survived the destruction of Krypton before, now Superman was the lone survivor, and future writers wanted to be more selective about how they went about explaining what survived the explosion of Krypton. Other fictions have a similar problem. How many Saiyans survived the destruction of Planet Vegeta? Initially, less than a half dozen. Later, more and more, including some no-names. Extended universe material suddenly makes Saiyans in Dragon Ball seem less special. How about Order 66 in Star Wars? Every Jedi in the galaxy was supposed to die in the Order. Except for all of those who didn’t. And the more stories get mad, the more they try to squeeze in more force sensitives who survived.
So now Superman is alone. However, later writers did want to make a Supergirl without breaking the new soft rules. So a complicated new Supergirl appeared. In a future timeline taken from a destroyed Crisis world (if you don’t understand just ignore it and move on), some Kryptonians from the Phantom Zone end up destroying all life on Earth. Lex Luthor is the sole survivor alongside a handful of others, including a clone he made from Kryptonian physiology in the form of a Supergirl who was based on this good Lex Luthor’s true love, Lana Lang. This Matrix Supergirl was strong, but couldn’t face the Phantom Zone prisoners alone. With no life left on Earth in the final battle against the Phantom Zoners, Matrix was taken into the main DC Universe after being orphaned from the future pocket world.
Sad and dark story. Some people object to the Pocket Universe storyline, namely where Superman is forced to kill the Phantom Zone criminals and no life is left on this Earth, but Matrix Supergirl, or Mae as she is referred to, is a beloved character by many.
Her years of service would last a while until 1996 where we can finally get to the actual subject of this post. Linda Danvers. An ordinary, notably brown-haired girl who got involved in some bad business with some blood cults and was on the verge of being sacrificed. Linda was about to die, but Matrix Supergirl rushed in and stopped the bad guys and tried to save Linda from her wounds. As a protoplasmic matrix being, she can transform into goo which can reform and regenerate, so she tried to use her matrix body to heal Linda, but ended up merging with her. Now, Linda was able to turn into Supergirl.
This is a very bad concept that sacrificed a character people liked. The story would only really get worse from there. This is a very different Supergirl who involves herself in stories involving fighting demons and magic, unlike normal Superman and Supergirl adventures usually being about teaming up with other heroes, going around Metropolis, going on cosmic scifi adventures, and so on. In fact, this Supergirl would later be revealed to be an Angel of Fire capable of channeling some great holy power, being the female aspect of the Presence? Basically DC God?
The first event she was in was Final Night which features Gorilla Grodd trying to hit on her. She is underage, by the way.
It also features some great dialogue.
But in any case, after a few events, Supergirl meets Steel in the very boring Behold! The Millennium Giants! event and next meets him in Issue #23 of her own series, Double-Edged Sword, written by Peter David.
The issue has some story-related things for Supergirl, like her speaking to her own mother and struggling to make it clear she is not some imposter because Matrix Supergirl powers allowed her to shapeshift and thus confused and frightened her loved ones, meeting with a guy who had lunch with her and tried to hit on both her and Supergirl (there is a shocking amount of ephebophilia in this series), a withered zombie woman mysteriously jolts awake and is on a rampage at the hospital, you know, normal stuff. But none of this is important to the overall issue as it is to Supergirl, so for the remainder of this post I won’t talk about it.
The actual plot as soon as you open the book up is a protest at Stanhope University where sociologist Doctor Landers is making a controversial appearance while on tour across the country. The black community is incensed, but why?
Yeah.
So, if you don’t know, this story is highly reminiscent of the controversial book The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. In this case, I suppose Dr. Landers is a stand-in for Charles Murray (Herrnstein passed away before the book was at its apex). The book argues many of the same things Landers argues for here, including controlling or limiting births of the black population, but not just them, but ANYONE deemed low IQ. The general argument of the book is that IQ is genetic and thus those with low IQ should have less access to welfare and should not be allowed to have children. The book attempts to distance itself from eugenics in a way that comes off as a distinction without a difference. Although this book seems to mostly target people based on race, it also will target anyone deemed low IQ.
Recall that the comic opens up with a quote from Samuel Johnson and Thomas Jefferson. “Every man has a right to utter what he thinks is truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.” and “For God’s sake, let us freely hear both sides!” respectively.
Landers is on a tour across the country, and a journalist, Cutter Sharp, is doing his job investigating both sides of the argument. One young black lady named Mattie, a friend and one night stand of Cutter’s, is contributing to the protest. Cutter clarifies immediately that he is having an interview with Dr. Landers because even if he is a slimeball, it is his job to pursue the truth and hear all sides to hone in on it. Standard.
The above page I showed happens during the interview. Note that Landers is being listened to because he could influence public policy and is touring nationwide.
The protest began to ramp up in scale. One protester called Steel, an engineer who created a suit allowing him to replicate the powers of Superman after his [temporary] death to take up his mantle, to speak on the issue as he is a prominent black man.
Steel made his unexpected appearance and spoke on it. According to the protester, they did not genuinely expect him to make it because he is very busy, likely serving on the Justice League and saving the world and so on, but he did anyway to give his statement.
Steel states that he does believe in free speech as defined by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, but does not believe that all opinions ought to be listened to and be given a platform. He also encourages a peaceful protest, and that violence ought not be used.
Cutter approaches him and presses him as a journalist. He asks if he believes in the heckler’s veto, and that unpopular speech should be shouted down. Steel clarifies that the rights of African Americans are on the line, and that the freedoms that they have fought so hard to enjoy and have not fully received yet are put in danger by Landers’ speech, and thus is a public safety issue. Cutter presses further with more hard questions. If unpopular speech or what is perceived as a public safety issue is shouted down, could not the same have applied to them when they fought for their rights, including leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.?
The crowd starts getting upset and Mattie gets concerned for Cutter’s safety. One man is outraged Landers is compared to King and throws a rock at Cutter. Supergirl, who happened to observe the protest, deflected the rock with her telekinesis. Steel defends Cutter while he is escorted away to safety.
Cutter laments that he was trying to pursue the truth, and that few seem to appreciate that. Supergirl, as Linda Danvers, is there along with Mattie, who is chewing him out for his actions which riled up the protest.
Cutter clarifies that part of what encouraged his actions was a Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois where the ACLU controversially stated they respect Neo Nazi’s right to assemble and protest, which caused membership to plummet and respect for the institution to go down. In order to protect the rights of Jews to free speech, Neo Nazis must be allowed to speak as well, where Cutter also revealed that he himself is Jewish.
Mattie understands what Cutter is saying but reinforces the position that Landers is dangerous because, although Mattie did not know Cutter is Jewish, Mattie’s skin color is clear as day and is part of why she is being targeted.
The protest continues and the crowd has created a blockade to stop Landers from leaving the University and continuing the tour. Police are there to keep things under control, including some black officers which the comic notes, from the perspective of Steel, that they must feel deep pain but the fact that they continue their service is respectable. Steel stands with the protesters to also be sure that the protest does NOT get violent.
For the record, the comic takes place in the real life town of Leesburg, Virginia. Most states (including Virginia) define assault as not necessarily putting someone into harm’s way, but actions involving force where a victim can reasonably believe that they are being harmed. Remember that, now.
Supergirl steps in and tries to let Landers through. She uses a gentle telekinetic push to push both Steel and make a way for the crowd for Landers to leave. Steel is mystified by what happened, and fights back to get Supergirl to stop. Steel throws his hammer, which Supergirl deflects, but the hammer hits her back as it returns. Landers then angrily confronts Steel by stating that he is starting a riot (he literally didn’t, but okay) and that he is proving the point he made that this is “the danger your people present.”
Steel calmly retorts that, actually, Landers’ beliefs are what is dangerous, but Supergirl then tackles Steel into the sky before he can finish his response. The two fight while arguing. Steel explains he wants a more thoughtful and polite society. To be clear, both are fighting pretty hard. Steel blasts Supergirl, Supergirl shoots Steel with fire, and both are standing off and pushing against each other in the sky.
Both stop and notice that the Student Union building has been blasted to smithereens. A black officer is caught under rubble, but is unexpectedly saved by Landers. Supergirl goes down with her wings, explaining her true identity is that of a guardian angel (yes, this is a major plot point of Linda Danvers Supergirl) and that she can absorb the fire and minimize the damage. She does so, but is exhausted in the end.
Steel offers her help up, but Supergirl refuses. Steel then scolds her that because of the intolerance, violence results and she merely says “Yup.” When pressed further, she tells Steel twice to “work on it.”
The black officer later meets Landers, who is being sent to the hospital with a respirator and gives his thanks to him for saving his life. Landers rudely dismisses the thanks, bewildering the grateful officer.
Steel is in the college with some protesters, disappointed that he did not get another chance to tell Supergirl that she is wrong-headed. One fellow protester, Giselle, claims she had nothing to do with the violence and that she merely wanted to protest, upon Mattie asking her. She also notes that they want to ramp up the protest next month with fliers and more action, before one man stumbles in and asks if Dr. Muhammad Santos led the protests. Giselle says yes, he is one of the notable thinkers of the Nation of Islam, but the man interrupts her and says he is also a notable anti-semite. Giselle responds that he is an inspiration, so one cannot just single out one poor aspect of him to reject him, but the man states that the protesters do not have the allegiance of the Stanhope Jewish Alliance if they are going to tolerate his bigotry. Giselle is in disbelief at the man’s actions, stating he just does not “get it,” but then notices Cutter Sharp nearby is erupting in laughter, confusing the people in the room.
So that’s the end of the issue.
Something I cannot help but notice is that the good guys in this comic are not very good and, in fact, do quite a bit of wrong.
To get this out of the way, the overall thesis of this comic I thought could be, and this would be defensible, is that the truth is very complicated and hard to pursue. This would be an okay thesis, but I don’t know if the comic tells it well, and could very easily have told a different story that communicates this message better without also being very strange about one of the most controversial sociology books of all time.
I don’t think this is the overall idea, however. To be more specific, I thought maybe the comic is not portraying anyone in the story as unambiguously in the right and another side as unambiguously in the wrong, but this is false. Supergirl and Cutter Sharp are portrayed as unambiguously right, Supergirl’s moral superiority being symbolized by her being a guardian angel and telling Steel to “work on it.” Cutter had a speech defending enlightenment liberal values of debate, even featuring a quote misattributed to Voltaire as describing his position by the “antagonist” side, so to speak. This feels somewhat ironic and hilarious in a way I cannot describe. The ending of the comic has the Jewish Cutter laugh after the Jewish Alliance announces its rejection of the student protest due to its leadership’s anti-semitism, while the others, who generally do not know he is Jewish or do not pursue the truth the same way he does as a journalist, are confused by his laugh riot. The narrative is clearly constructed to portray the liberal centrist side as morally superior to the protesters.
So there is my problem with the comic. These ideas will not be foreign to many of my European readers, but they are a specific American blend that is a bit unusual for them.
The UK has some control or sway over what type of speech is allowed and what type of actions may be met with punitive measures. This is not super unusual in other countries, either. While it is true that some of these laws have strange, vague, and problematic applications, such as the ASBO, there is something to be said that the American idea of free speech where all types of speech, including hate speech, are protected, so long as it is not defamatory, which has a heavy burden to be proven in court, is relatively isolated just within the country’s borders. This comic is, essentially, just going up to bat for the First Amendment.
In hindsight, this message has aged worse and worse with time. The radical American idea where the worst examples of speech are used as examples of free speech and something to be defended has also largely ignored that they are also being amplified. Recently, belief in the validity of marriage equality in the United States of America has gone down quite a bit because of a 15 point decline from Republicans due to a very deliberate push from extreme conservatives to demonize LGBT people, a push which was much more quiet two or three years ago but is now very prominent in 2023. They are amplified by platforms such as Twitter thanks to free endless handouts from Elon Musk, but policies from the days of Jack Dorsey prohibiting pro-abortion speech for example have stayed in effect. Essentially, one side of the aisle (the American right, in this case) representing a minority opinion has grown due to being unfairly given more power and sway than it would get normally, while the other side is suppressed. The playing field is not even, and this is not taking into account other factors. Liberalism has not done us much good because power and wealth are in play, interfering in the marketplace of ideas.
So the narrative, to me, begins to crumble when we question the legitimacy of disruptive peaceful action.
But is it really peaceful if twice it broke out into violence when faced with dissent?
At least with the case of Supergirl, I would argue it was. Although certainly not intentional, to me, it seems like violence only broke out because, legally speaking, Supergirl assaulted Steel and an entire crowd of people.
Was Steel justified in throwing his hammer at Supergirl? It is not the same as shooting to kill someone, although certainly an escalation from shoving a lot of people around. However, Steel knows Superman’s invulnerability and also is familiar with Supergirl’s invulnerability. He knows that his hammer will not seriously injure her. In that case, you could argue Steel believes he is under attack and still wants to talk things out. His comments while throwing his hammer support this notion. He notes that Supergirl is still relatively new to Earth customs and understands why she may be unfamiliar with why a crowd like this might be causing an uproar, but it’s not as bad as it looks. Quite reasonable and patient words. If he thought his hammer would seriously hurt her, he would not still try and speak to her like this. In fact, Steel is still trying to keep the peace in general. He is still trying to talk it out even to the guy he says has dangerous beliefs. He is not trying to kill him.
Regardless of your interpretation, what happens next was literally only possible BECAUSE Supergirl intervened. A riot would not have broken out if Steel was still there helping out to make sure the protest does not turn violent.
Supergirl telling Steel to work on it is as bold as it is stupid. If she hadn’t intervened, people may not have been seriously injured. Perhaps a riot would have still broken out, but someone as powerful as Superman would have been there to stop it. Or, better yet, if she merely remained impartial, TWO people as powerful as Superman would have been there to calm the riot down.
As for Cutter, he mostly remains in line with his duty as a journalist. I think his sole flaw is how the story portrays him, or perhaps the conflict around him. It is a little hard to complain about Cutter’s actions and what happens to him, other than personally finding it hard to believe someone would venerate Martin Luther King and also engage in an act of violence in his name, while also promoting the Nation of Islam. MLK opposed both violent action and black nationalism, though he understood both as reactions to oppression.
Cutter is essentially the mouthpiece for the message of the comic, basically repeating old enlightenment liberal values, i.e. Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson. On the other hand, despite the anachronistic words attributed to Voltaire of “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it,” people who believe in such enlightenment liberal values also often tend to have a sort of mentality that their own perspective is thus unassailable. Often times centrist liberals believe that they have less blindspots than the average person does, when in fact they often have new ones.
As well, some values and ideas are presupposed upon or established by a sort of tautology. They come more from a tradition and not a complete failure. I personally find myself having trouble with ideas like liberalism where I enjoy some of its aspects but I also find that it has several lazy and naive spots. I think hearing people out is to some degree a good idea, but I would side more with the protesters in this story. Although it is okay to have rational debate and discussion and consider other perspectives, power and money changes this otherwise good dynamic entirely, and this is precisely why I side with the protesters.
Dr. Landers is going nationwide obtaining capital for his new book and it will potentially affect legislation. This has serious consequences that in a sense almost goes against liberal ideas. An ideal liberal may suspend judgement and hear out both sides, ignoring their own biases, to discern the truth the best that they can. Even if they do not come out with their beliefs changed, they will have their beliefs more informed. There is a danger in not doing this, in that it can potentially make people more confused and make the truth harder to get at.
Enlightenment values come from a more Protestant Christian tradition and thus part of their ideas and presuppositions is in the Christian narrative itself. Caring for the poor and weak is a duty because by throwing them out and leaving them to die, it is like sentencing the savior Christ to his death. We don’t know the story of every stranger or what good they could do, so it is potentially in our best interest to help the needy.
However, in a sense, it is oddly parasitic how Landers benefits from liberalism while also being able to potentially bring about social policies that will allow for its suspension. If Landers had his way, births of the black community would be limited, and more people would be sentenced to their death on the cross, so to speak. He is dangerously close to obtaining power to hurt people despite holding an extremely minority position. Despite that, as the comic opens up, it is apparently a great outrage to be appalled by the need to “hear both sides!” However, I must have my sympathies for the protesters. It is very difficult to hear any of this and be totally in control.
It is also hard to object to Enlightenment Liberal values when they are a pillar of what much of us in the Americas believe. However, either the way they are applied or the values themselves are insufficient or should also be subject to some scrutiny. What the correct perspective on anything here about our existing values and what we ought to do to reassess or change them to more accurately interpret reality is very difficult. No matter what your perspective is, it seems like the protesters really do have a totally raw deal. What action can they meaningfully take to counter Landers? He is being promoted by colleges and even legislators. If recent times are any indication, regressive statistical minority positions that subjugate a social minority as a sort of scapegoat are hard to stop from a liberal perspective. It seems that often the philosophy of individualism is invoked here: just because a law is followed does not mean it is wrong, merely that it is up to the responsibility of each individual to follow it the best that they can.
Interesting point, but one I hate. Under this framework, no ideology that uses this defense can ever be truly falsified. Only the death of the entire human species and the ideology’s failure to save them, I suspect, would be sufficient to falsify it as a fundamental value.
There is a good demonstration in the weakness of liberalism in natural human biases in the use of examples of old thinkers like Voltaire. Voltaire also believed slavery was justified and on rather poor reasoning. In a sense, Voltaire’s social situation may serve as a bias. I do not subscribe to radical ideas that some who believe all ideas or truths are socially situated do and in fact I think such ideas are dangerous as well, but it is nonetheless true that many people do have socially situated biases that must be kept in check by others.
It is also strange that one of the protest leaders is a member of the Nation of Islam and an anti-semite. One could apply the same liberal principle as say, Francis Fukuyama, that one does not need to prioritize materialism here. As Francis Fukuyama, one of the bulldogs of liberalism in the late 20th and 21st century to this day put it, that just because the example of liberalism is not followed does not mean that it is debunked. The protesters may choose to reject Dr. Muhammad Santos for his beliefs that would also put Jews into harm’s way. I know I would. Alternatively, Giselle’s weak argument at the end of the issue may be defensible in a sense. Dr. Santos’ anti-semitism is invisible, but if the protesters learned of it naturally, they may reject him, as they see the present danger of it. The stance of the protesters in the comic itself is that they see a present danger in Dr. Landers. In this sense, this conclusion, the ironic ending that proves Cutter right, is unearned.
Francis Fukuyama for a while championed the Iraq war before leaving the neoconservative movement and, in recent years, has moved more to the left. Although he is always generally in the relative center of political affairs, he has moved around and changed his views. However, for years of supporting war in the Middle East, him giving intellectual support to an indefensible position that brought about one of the largest organized protests in the history of the world due to how unpopular it was, had consequences that can be measured in a number of lives. Although Fukuyama can have his views changed, when wealth and power are thrown into the equation, it can come much too late. Fukuyama insists that we must maintain liberalism despite all the decline and unrest we have seen after the so-called “End of History,” but if we let him be an example, liberalism acts too slow and seems to be hung up on its own biases much of the time.
So, it seems the comic oddly resolves with no ending. The side I would argue is closest to the truth is humiliated, a racist keeps his bigotry even as a man he is bigoted towards offers his thanks, and the centrist liberal attitudes toward the entire affair are reinforced despite being entirely wrong, and in a sense, they made the situation worse both through action and inaction. At least, Supergirl did. The comic can only justify her with a spiritual, not material, argument: she is a guardian angel, thus she is symbolically correct. To defend and toot the horn of liberalism in the most bizarre way, I call Linda Danvers Francis Fukuyama’s Supergirl.
Mokey's Den 