LordofBrooklyn
Senior Member
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've made a huge mistake.You've made it clear you're moving the goalposts at this point.
There's no reason at all that Stan Lee should be "supporting" Kirby's "heirs." I've made it very clear why.
It's actually a creepy thought that Stan Lee should be supporting another man's children (oh, wait, we are moving the goalposts with word games so "heirs"😉. That he doesn't know them. He didn't raise them. He's not their godfather.
The only reason you have provided that he should be supporting Kirby's heirs is you just want him to.
Right. Words have meaning.
You clearly didn't read my post. So you don't know what my words mean. Go back and read it. Understand why using cowardly word games is very unmanly. Understand what the bible says if you are such a strong/devout Christian. Then understand why you trying to force Stan Lee to "support" Kirby's "heirs" is not only creepy, it's odd as hell.
Answer this: are those heirs impoverished?
Here, read this:
https://deadline.com/2014/09/jack-kirby-marvel-settlement-lawsuit-supreme-court-hearing-841711/
Oh, so they were just money-grubbing scum who wanted some of the success from Kirby's work. Kirby was a contractor and Stan Lee was an employee.
So there it is. There's what actually happened.
Stan Lee owed them nothing. Not support of any kind. They deserved nothing.
So what's your problem? 🙂
The ONLY person moving the "Goalposts" here is YOU!
Once again I NEVER stated that Stan Lee was obligated to financially support Jack Kirby or his heirs. I have reiterated that point several times now.
What I ACTUALLY stated and will continue to reaffirm is that Lee FAILED to support Kirby in his legitimate attempts to gain royalties and original artwork. As the figurehead of Marvel comics since its inception, Lee had a unique place to publicly call for Marvel to address Kirby's claims.
Again, you seem limited in your grasp of vocabulary as demonstrated on your insistence in confining the word 'SUPPORT" here to that of Lee paying money to Kirby and his heirs.
Here is an easy primer for you on the varied usage of the word "SUPPORT:
Scenario- You and your good friend Quan attend a Girl Scout convention. At said convention a 12yr old girl proceeds to beat Quan into unconsciousness after a heated confrontation.
Once Quan is revived on the ground he looks up and says to you..
"HEY, WHY DIDN'T YOU SUPPORT ME BACK THERE?!!!"
What do you think is the most likely use of the word SUPPORT in that scenario?
a) Why didn't you pay the 12yr old for the cookies so she wouldn't annihilate me?
b) Why didn't you offer the 12yr old money to stop beating me?
c) Why didn't you physically intervene in the altercation?
Please post your answer for all to see!
There is so much flawed thinking in your posts it is hard to keep track but I will do my best to address it once and for all.
1.Stan Lee should have paid Kirby and his Heirs directly-
This makes no sense from purely a logistical perspective. Why would I or anyone who was in support of Kirby and his heirs limit compensation to that from Stan Lee?
For the 20 years that Kirby sought restitution from Marvel the corporation was a MULTI-MILLION dollar business. It would make no sense for Kirby or his advocates to call for Lee to provide compensation as it wouldn't address the issues of royalties and artwork to be handled in perpetuity.
When Kirby's heirs sought compensation from Marvel the corporation was now a BILLION dollar entity. AGAIN, what sense would it make to limit redress to Stan Lee when the fundemental issues of royalties and artwork wouldn't be addressed?
LOGIC 1 Dadudemon 0
2-It would be "Weird" "Unmanly" "Cucking" for Lee to support Kirby.
This is asinine on its face but I will address it nonetheless.
Siegel and Schuster the creators of Superman had received no royalties from the character. Neal Adams, the biggest name in the industry at the time in the 70's took up the mantle for Siegel and Schuster and publicly petitioned DC to pay them.
Neal Adams had never worked with Siegel and Schuster in any capacity whatsoever. He was potentially sacrificing his career by calling for this action. NOW, Juxtapose this with Stan Lee's actions.
Lee was the spokesman, publisher and most iconic figure at Marvel on TOP of being a collaborator with Kirby and he said NOTHING on Kirby's behalf!
Using your logic men like Miller, Steranko, Adams, Starlin and a myriad of other creators would have to be "Cucking" Kirby in order to defend him.
RIDICULOUS
LOGIC 2 Dadudemon 0
3.Scripture- Your use or more appropriately MISUSE of the talents parable is terrible!
Kirby never failed to maximize his talents or circumstances so to ascribe the parable of the talents to him negatively makes no sense.
In regard to Kirby's heirs both The Bible and your own standards make your argument nonexistant. By blood the Kirby heirs are entitled to the proceeds of the father's estate in all its forms.
You stated that one is "Obligated" to make the best of their circumstances per the parable of talents. The Kirby heirs did just that by availing themselves of the court system which allowed them redress.
LOGIC 3 Dadudemon 0