Dark X-Men #5 annotations
As always, this post contains spoilers, and page numbers go by the digital edition.
DARK X-MEN vol 2 #5
“The Mercy Seat”
Writer: Steve Foxe
Artist: Jonas Scharf
Colour artist: Frank Martin
Letterer: Clayton Cowles
Design: Tom Muller & Jay Bowen
Editor: Jordan D White
COVER / PAGE 1: The two Madelyne Pryors fight.
PAGES 2-5. The Goblin Queen tries to persuade Madelyne Pryor to join forces.
“Carmen Cruz wanted nothing more than to be part of the X-Men.” Referring back to her origins in the cast of Children of the Atom, basically about a group of human fans cosplaying as mutants. Carmen, the one actual mutant in the group, made it to Krakoa with her heroes but has only come to the foreground in the context of this very questionable iteration of the X-Men.
“You let them neuter your mutant abilities?” We were told in issue #2 that Orchis had used Blightswill to remove the Goblin Queen’s mutant powers, and that she didn’t care, claiming to have long since outgrown them. She claims here that she was also lulling Orchis into a false sense of security.
The Goblin Queen’s interpretation of the Madelyne Pryor character is that in every universe she ends up suffering unless she takes the initiative by seizing power. Despite her supposed alliance with Orchis, she’s interested in working with her local counterpart.
PAGE 6. Recap and credits.
PAGES 7-8. Albert rescues Elsie-Dee.
We saw Krol dismantling and rebuilding Elsie-Dee in issue #2, though quite what he actually gains from turning her into a bazooka is less than clear. Naturally, the sight of his long-time partner in distress prompts Albert to take control of the body he shares with Zero, and rescue her, with Zero absorbing her into the single body. Zero seems more amused by this than anything else, but does at least allow Albert to follow through.
PAGE 9. Azazel kills Vallens.
Basically, she gained her power by selling her soul to a minor demon who Azazel considers beneath him – apparently correctly. Then again, Vallens does say that the demon promised to keep her safe from harm, and while he doesn’t do so, Azazel does die in relatively short order afterwards.
PAGES 10-11. The Bamf Dragon kills Azazel.
The Bamf Dragon is “uncomfortably familiar-looking” because it’s a transformed version of Nightcrawler’s counterpart from the Goblin Queen’s world.
Emplate has made clear throughout this series that he’s only here under duress because of an unspecified debt to Azazel; he leaves as soon as Azazel is no longer around to insist otherwise. A little curiously, Emplate says that his debt is settled – as opposed to just claiming that it no longer applies – but perhaps he considers that his service throughout the story constitutes repayment. It’s a little odd that we never get an explanation of what all this was about, and it comes across as a dropped subplot.
PAGES 12-18. Madelyne wavers but ultimately rejects Goblin Queen’s offer and kills her.
“Twice I’ve nearly conquered this godforsaken world.” Presumably Madelyne means “Inferno” and “Dark Web”.
When the Goblin Queen zaps Havok, and his headdress falls to the ground, page 12 panel 6 shows the vision of Death that Madelyne had on page 8 of issue #3.
Feint impersonates the pre-corruption Madelyne to encourage her to resist; Madelyne quite reasonably identifies this as “trite and manipulative”, but also accepts the argument that her top priority is to take control of her own destiny, wresting control from everyone who has tried to control her. She sees the Goblin Queen as someone else asserting a destiny that dictates the course of her life.
PAGE 19. Epilogue, page 1.
Feint and Gambit apparently leave the Limbo Embassy to hook up with the mainstream X-Men group. This probably takes place during X-Men #28-29 while the rest of the team are off in Latveria.
The guy being greeted at the Limbo Embassy by Zero seems to be a generic. Note that Zero has separated from Albert and Elsie-Dee.
PAGE 20. Epilogue, page 2.
Panel 1 shows Maggott and Calypso on the Morlocks’ yacht, where Maggott chose to stay in issue #3. Panel 2 shows the death mask that the Goblin Queen used to enslave Archangel, who was seemingly killed in issue #3 and… um, stays that way. Panel 3 shows Emplate feeding on the homeless for life energy, and panel 4 shows the Bamf Dragon apparently settling in as a pet in the Limbo Embassy.
Panel 5 shows Flourish from issue #3, along with one of the mutants who was taking refuge with her. And panel 6 is Albert and Elsie-Dee, presumably restored to normal by Zero, off doing their own thing together.
PAGE 21. Epilogue, page 3.
Madelyne declares that the lesson she’s learned is that trying to be the leader of the X-Men was an error – that’s Jean’s role rather than hers. That could be viewed as consistent with her agenda of taking control of her own destiny, rather than trying to take over somebody else’s role. But note that she goes on to repeat the Goblin Queen’s “born to suffer” routine, and uses the Goblin Queen name – none of which is very encouraging.
PAGE 22. Trailers. The Krakoan reads FALL OF THE HOUSE OF X.
Note that the Goblin Queen says that the Mercy Crown can touch every mutant “on Earth. Perhaps even beyond.” I have a feeling that the Mercy Crown is going to come into play later- maybe as a way to contact the White Hot Room?
“It’s a little odd that we never get an explanation of what all this was about, and it comes across as a dropped subplot.”
The St.Croix family owing Azazel a debt was first mentioned in Weapon X and we never got a clear explanation there., either.
It’s nice to see that Maddie does feel guilt over what she’s done and gratitude toward Scott and Alex for giving her a second chance.
It might have been nice to actually SEE the Mercy Crown used as a weapon.
it’s also nice to acknowledge that Maddie was the X-Men’s ally once and the goal should be to get her back to the woman she used to be. The problem people had with Dark Web was that it used Jean’s memories to turn Maddie good, instead of trying to return Maddie to the person she used to be.
“And panel 6 is Albert and Elsie-Dee, presumably restored to normal by Zero, off doing their own thing together”
On page 14, we saw Albert and Elsie-Dee cutting Zero off while he was frozen (not that he minded) and on page 18 we see Zero on the floor.
The idea that Maddie calling herself the Goblin Queen again is ominous might work better if it had been clear that she ever STOPPED calling herself the Goblin Queen.
One thing to note- Maddie seemed to have created the Mercy Crown to find mutants- it was the Goblin Queen who thought she created it as a weapon of destruction. But whoever wrote the “Fall of the House of X” data page in issue 2 seems to think it was created as a weapon. That was suggest that whoever wrote the page was a member of Orchis who was reading Krol’s and Vallens’s reports. That’s more evidence that it’s Moira who’s writing the “Fall of the House of X” manuscript.
One other thing to note about the data page- it mentions the feats Maddie accomplished- particularly in the days after the tragedy of [REDACTED}. Note that this couldn’t have been referring to the invasion of the Limbo Embassy, since she didn’t accomplish any feats after that. This suggests that whatever tragedy is redacted has yet to occur.
I agree that Maddie turning evil was a bad thing, and should have been reversed. But at this point she’s been Evil far longer than she was normal, so maybe she should stay that way. What would you even do with OG Maddie these days? Everything that made her interesting is long gone.
Re: what could be done with Maddie – This is a deep cut, but I feel like there’s an interesting story to be written revisiting the X-Men/Alpha Flight crossover from the 80s where Loki gave a bunch of random people, Maddie included, superpowers.
Which begs the question: did Loki know about Maddie’s origins when they did that?
Which also begs the question: what would happen if she confronted them about it? (Especially since they’re currently two of the most unpredictable characters in the MU.) Seems like there’s an interesting conflict that the right writer could do something compelling with.
My personal theory regarding Azazel and Emplate is that Azazel was somehow responsible for the St. Croix family becoming as rich and powerful as they were, and/or the ridiculous spread of mutant powers among this generation of St. Croixs, especially Monet with her S-Tier power set.
A deal with a devil, as it were.
@Si- I think there’s several issues here. First, what people are complaining about is that none of the books ever acknowledged that Maddie was turned evil via a magic spell that gave her a different, “sluttier” personality that was performed without her informed consent. You couldn’t get away with that today. Maddie’s really unique in that I can’t think of a heroic/ heroic supporting character that got a spell that gave them a different personality and stayed that way. There are villains that have a similar origin, like the Corruptor, but we never really knew them before their origin.
Second, the books weren’t really using Maddie as a villain between X-Man and Hellions. She only appeared in two storylines in two decades. They were trying to pretend she didn’t exist.
Third, other villain have been reformed after decades of evil. There’s Loki but there’s also Greycrow and Apocalypse.
Fourth, the current Maddie doesn’t really show any of her pre Uncanny 237 personality. Nor has she interacted with people she knew before Inferno.
As for what might be done. one possibility is some sort of split personality, where she’s Maddie part of the time and the Goblin Queen part of the time. Another possibility might be to split them into two beings, like Betsy and Kwannon. (Of course, the problem with that is that Kwannon got most of the characteristics people associate with Betsy, forcing the writers to try to reinvent Betsy.)
Potentially controversial opinion.
Maddie is a terrible character from the jump that’s best swept under the rug.
The only reason anyone cares about her is here revealing costume and don’t mommy shtick.
For a character who began life as Jean-lite, both in story (for Scott) and in reality (for Claremont), I think Maddie actually became pretty interesting against all odds. She certainly has understandable motivations for her actions, or at least she did 30 years ago.
Whether it makes sense for her to be trotted out once a decade to rehash those same character beats is another story. She’s been treading water for a looong time. But you can say the same thing about a lot of X-characters at this point, including Jean.
And if no one has advanced her story at this point, given the general Krakoan amnesty, then maybe it’s just a lost cause. She’s evil “I’ve been wronged!” Barbie, and sadly that’s all writers have to say with her.
How many times has Jean gone through the Phoenix redemption/understanding arc?
Like four or five?
Phoenix really broke the character forever, like Wanda and No More Mutants.
@Michael: Point of order, Madelyne was also the leader of the first Sisterhood of Mutants (I know there’s a suggestion floating around that she was actually Queen Jean from Ellis’ X-Man, but that doesn’t line up with what actually saw print at all). So that sits comfortably between Inferno and Hellions in terms of her villain trajectory.
As for why her corruption held where it usually doesn’t, I think there are two reasons: the obvious one is just that she died almost immediately after it happened, so there was no opportunity for her to break free (the closest she gets might be smashing Sinister’s psychic projection in Jean’s mind at the end of Inferno, but that’s treated as more of a last spiteful stab at Sinister than a genuinely redemptive moment).
The other might be that, despite being in Claremont’s Uncanny for dozens of issues pre-Inferno, the Outback team doesn’t mourn her at all (aside from Havok, of course). 244-245 are lighthearted adventures, and 246 kicks off the dissolution of the X-Men; Madelyne’s death isn’t treated as a loss or a tragedy by the author who wrote her the longest (Simonson at least gave her a funeral in X-Factor), so of course the image of her as the Goblin Queen is what stuck around afterwards.
@Uncanny X-Ben: Of all the “girls with nebulous powers” on major Marvel teams, Sue Storm is the only one who has come away more powerful *and* a stronger character. Jean and Wanda have to go through their cycles of doubt, recrimination, and temporary redemption every few years it seems.
Interestingly, John Byrne was at the helm when all three of those characters turned evil. We talk about how Claremont was obsessed with rehashing the Dark Phoenix saga (to the point of creating a Jean look-a-like in Maddie), but Byrne was spreading that story across the Marvel universe for years after as well.
I think one of the reasons Madeline Pryor still has a following (and I count myself among them) is because she’s known to be one of the characters whose storyline was derailed by editorial control. What happened to her with Inferno wasn’t what would have happened if Claremont had his way. Now if she stuck around for another 20 years, would she have survived the 90s or been fridged in a more horrible way? Hard to say, but we can wonder about it and dream that it turned out better for her.
@Diana – the two storylines I was thinking of was the Sisterhood story and the story in the female X-Men title.
And other characters have died while being mind-altered and brought back for a redemption a few years later- Roy Thomas trying to redeem Dr.Druid in Avengers Spotlight comes to mind.
The real answer is that Marvel was using Maddie’s transformation into the Goblin Queen to make readers forget how bad Scott’s actions were. When Hodge tricked him into thinking Jean was Phoenix, he shot his optic blasts at her with enough force to blow a hole in a wall. And Leech, who was a child at the time, had to stop him from killing Jean.
But Marvel wanted to use Maddie’s transformation to keep readers from viewing Scott like Hank Pam. And it worked. Nobody remembers Scott nearly killed Jean while everyone remembers Hank.
Also, let’s be honest here. Destiny and Mystique got a retcon DECADES later to make them Kurt’s parents. But no one ever pointed out how offensive Maddie’s transformation story is. She was transformed into a baby-killer because she IMAGINED harming someone. Millions of women suffer from post partum OCD, where they’re afraid of harming their babies. The problem with post partum OCD is that the therapies that work best for treating it involve the women imagining hurting their babies. So a story where a woman is transformed into a. baby killer because of imagining hurting someone is basically like a story where a character is magically turned evil because they took a COVID vaccine.
But modern leftism, and especially modern feminism, take LGBTQ issues seriously. They don’t take OCD issues seriously.
So we get pressure to use the correct pronouns but no one suggests putting a warning on trigger warnings: “Warning, the Surgeon General has determined avoiding your triggers is harmful for people with OCD.” So Kurt gets his origin rewritten but no one wants to undo a story where a woman was turned into a baby-killer because she imagined hurting someone.
In-story, Madelyne’s corruption was brought about by outside forces (N’Astir, Sinister), as well as the traumas (being abandoned by her husband, her baby being kidnapped, etc). She didn’t start out evil or having any powers. She was used as a tool by various forces, while the woman she was cloned from got to (in Maddie’s eyes) live her best life. Now, she wants to carve out a life for herself. She can’t erase or forget what happened in the past or the effect it had on her. Instead, she’s trying to create an identity that feels right. Embracing her darkness is her choice. I hope we get more of anti-hero Maddie. Foxe & Schraf did a great job making the concept work.
@Michael: OCD doesn’t get the attention or understanding it should. I don’t connect that to pronouns or LGBTQ+ rights. I assume trigger warnings can be followed or not? (e.g. if gun violence is likely to trigger me, I can turn off a show about a mass shooting, while someone who would benefit from confronting such material can continue to watch) I hope people living with OCD get the mental health guidance that is best suited to them.
@Mike Loughlin- The problem is that people with OCD often go DECADES without realizing that avoiding their triggers makes them worse. Often no one tells them that in plain English. So using trigger warnings without warning that avoiding your triggers could make your problems worse is irresponsible at best.(Google “trigger warnings encourage avoidance”.) I should have worded my complaint differently but my point was that the Left doesn’t make the accommodations for people with certain mental health issues that it does for other groups of people and that’s why Maddie’s original corruption story has never been treated like, say, Snap Wilson.
@Michael: I see, thanks for explaining how OCD health care can be mismanaged. I agree that more needs to be done to advocate for people with mental health conditions, and I think a big part of the problem is a lack of understanding/ prioritizing on the part of the general public.
As for the Left,
(and why can’t it also be the Right’s responsibility? *thinks for 5 seconds about the Right* ooohhhh, man, yeah, let’s leave them out of it)
we’ve come really far on minority rights, including LGBTQ+ rights, but are constantly fighting pushback (and much, much worse) from (mostly) the Right. Attention, advocacy, and action aren’t being allowed to wane. We’ve also made strides in mental health advocacy and action. There’s still so much to do, as you note. The focus doesn’t get as much coverage from the media, possibly because the political attacks aren’t usually as blatant.
I think the social stigmatizing of mental health conditions is the biggest obstacle. The fact that people living with said conditions are far more likely to be harmed than cause harm is not recognized by a large part of the population. It’s truly unfortunate that the work to educate people (including myself) on mental health conditions doesn’t end.
“People with OCD” is a misnomer, in itself. Which is often a problem when discussing mental health issues with those who do not deal with such a condition or have adequate training to fully understand said conditions. A writer may think they understand said condition and present it in a “one size fits all” manner which can make a person who actually has the mental health issue feel that their own struggles are being misunderstood or a professional to read such a presentation as reductionist and misleading.
Unless the writer has OCD symptoms, themselves, the amount of research necessary to adequately present an individual dealing with the exact aspects of a specific mental health issue would most likely be a daunting task, which is why most pieces of fiction presenting mental health usually revolve around pop psychology ideas.
There are different ways that people with OCD may exhibit or deal with their symptoms.
Avoidance is one type of OCD presentation. However, the idea that it’s harmful for all people with OCD to avoid their “triggers” is incorrect.
It is when avoidance becomes another compulsion that it can be considered the wrong type of action. It is also dependant on how this avoidance may impact the individual’s life. If someone has a compulsion that revolves around anxiety related to crowds so that their use of avoidance involves staying away from public places, this can lead to obvious problems with the individual living their life. In this way, the use of avoidance as a coping mechanism is not helpful and can develop into a compulsion of its own (they need to stay away from all public places).
The idea that with OCD, one should always expose themselves to an anxiety producing situation is not conducive to helping manage symptoms.
First, people with OCD need to be treated as individuals, not as one lump sum.
Secondly, this sort of catch-all advice needs to be tempered with common sense. If a person with OCD has anxiety related to germs, there are positive and negative aspects to avoidance. If a person is avoiding visiting all stores due to anxiety over contamination, this type of avoidance is obviously defeating, plus it is developing into another compulsion (must avoid all stores). However, forcing oneself to not watch videos of patients with Ebola or a movie like Outbreak is actually a sensible and positive type of avoidance. Simply triggering anxiety should not be considered any type of solution.
Thinking about it another way, if one has an anxiety relating to flying on an airplane, but needs to take a flight for work, ERT might focus on exposing a person to the idea of flying but would avoid showing the person repeated videos of plane crashes. Even an individual without OCD may end up feeling that flying is a dangerous endeavour if all they see is negative images associated with airplanes.
The importance is in not avoiding speaking openly about their anxieties in a place of safety. If they have anxiety specifically related to an airplane crashing, it is important that they can speak openly with a professional about this anxiety (I visualize a plane crashing) rather than outright avoidance of the subject (I cannot speak to others about why flying on a plane is anxiety producing). It would be harmful advice to tell a person to go watch the most graphic videos of airplane crashes though.
@Chris V- I’m sorry if I was oversimplifying. But let me clarify what I meant. Often, if someone with OCD is afraid of germs, and they specifically go out of their way to avoid disease movies, for example, by skipping Outbreak when all their friends are watching it, their OCD will worsen. Because avoiding the negative thoughts makes them worse in the long run. (Which is not to say that they should specifically seek out disease movies.) The point is they shouldn’t change the channel when their favorite show has a disease plot, not that they should specifically watch disease shows. I agree that exposure and response therapy should only be performed by a professional. And again, anyone with OCD should consult a professional, since I’m just talking in generalities.
I think the bigger problem with the Outbreak movie scenario is the stigma that goes with mental illness. One may feel that it will be a negative experience to see this movie, but may find it hard to explain this to said friends. The friends may mock the person for saying that the movie could increase their anxiety. It should be perfectly acceptable to say “no”.
Truly caring friends may offer an alternative movie so their friend can be included.
It’s not a pleasant sensation if an individual is going to find themselves dealing with disturbing obsessive images simply to please their friends.
@Chris V- From my experience, the bigger problem is changing your routine because of the illness usually makes your illness worse. If you usually go to movies with your friends, then you should go to this movie. If you think the actors in Outbreak are horrible actors and were planning on skipping it anyway, then skip it. (Again, I realize we’re both talking in generalities.)
Nobody should be mocked for avoidance like not seeing a movie, even if it does increase their anxiety in the long run. We’re all human. But it works both ways. If Alice is afraid of cutting people with knives, and her friends suggest she should avoid the latest slasher movie, she might be ashamed to admit that her anxiety actually gets worse when she avoids slasher films- they might think she’s a budding serial killer. That blade cuts both ways (pun intended).
Part of what’s essential, though, is honesty. If Bob wants to skip Outbreak because of his illness, the proper response from his friends should be not to mock him but to say “I’m not a doctor but I’ve read that sometimes avoiding your anxieties makes it worse. (and sometimes It doesn’t). Maybe you should ask a doctor.”
And Chris, plenty of people with OCD DO find that behaviors as trivial as looking at a picture of a scantily clad woman to try to forget a scary thought wind up worsening their anxiety. And nobody made that clear to them. And they DO feel like their experiences are erased. Again, I know you’re not trying to erase their experiences but your response seems to privileging people who want to avoid scary thoughts over people who find that avoiding scary thoughts just makes their condition worse and nobody told them that. And that’s basically the problem with trigger warnings- they’re only ethical if you acknowledge that some people find that skipping class because of a traumatic subject makes their OCD/PTSD/ whatever worse. I guess the real answer is you have to acknowledge everyone’s trauma, as difficult as that can be.
That was my point. There’s no “one size fits all” answer. It’s not as simple as “trigger warnings don’t take into consideration people with a certain mental illness”, as trigger warnings can also be helpful for certain people with OCD. I was trying to open up the conversation that this is extremely simplified.
If Right-Wingers have a problem with “trigger warnings”, they shouldn’t try to hide their objections in “PC” language used by the Left. It usually doesn’t work.
I am opposed to trigger warnings, myself, on libertarian grounds of free speech. It doesn’t make me angry though, as I really don’t care either way. I think it’s a minor hot topic played upon by elites of both sides of the political spectrum for their own divisive ends. In the grand scheme of things, trigger warnings are not the great saviour of society or the downfall of “Western civilization”. I, myself, do think it’s unnecessary. I think this is a perfectly acceptable response to the issue, and I’m not Right-Wing in the least.
Another objection is that “people are too soft”.
There’s no reason to attempt to hide Right-Wing objections to trigger warnings in language like, “Oh, I’m just looking out for the disadvantaged being harmed by liberals!”. Nine times out of ten this objection doesn’t hold up to criticism and is more defeating than just opposing something honestly on free speech grounds.
Another reason that it’s important for a trained health professional to treat using ERT is that ERT is used in a gradual and safe manner as treatment for OCD symptoms. If one has anxiety produced by germs, the health professional is not going to recommend exposing themselves to information about Ebola on the first day.
Just as if a person has a fear of snakes, one wouldn’t tell them to go into a nest of vipers as a solution.
Something else to consider is that health professionals usually state that ERT for OCD symptoms tend to be effective in conjunction with medication*. So, taking into consideration whether an individual is using medication to help control their symptoms should probably also be figured into the equation. A person’s friends probably don’t have the necessary qualifications to address their friend in the manner you suggest (which also sounds as if they are talking down to their friend).
A better, caring response would be, “I hope you are currently getting treatment for your condition. We could always go see another movie.”
*No. I’m not on the side of “Big Pharma” either.
@Chris V- And I’m saying that it’s not just right-wingers that have a problem with trigger warnings. If you read this blog, you’ll see that plenty of people with OCD have a problem with them:
https://alisondotson.com/2014/12/16/trigger-warnings-and-ocd/
(Although others with OCD disagree.)
And if you read this blog, then you’ll see that an actual psychologist specializing in anxiety has a problem with them:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/liberate-yourself/202305/trigger-warnings-and-the-stifling-of-emotional-growth
And the problem with your “better” response is that many doctors don’t use ERT. One study found that ERT is used less than 30% of the time when it should be:
https://kids.iocdf.org/from-the-experts/why-therapists-dont-use-erp-for-youth-with-ocd-and-what-we-an-do-about-it-insights-from-a-national-survey-of-private-practice-therapists/
So if we used your “better” response the friend probably wouldn’t get proper treatment. It’s a Catch-22- people with OCD shouldn’t talk publicly about ERT, even in general terms, because people might misapply it. But if they can’t talk publicly about it, and the medical boards won’t punish doctors who don’t use it, how are they supposed to advocate to change this situation or tell their friends which therapy they should be getting?
But I think maybe we should move this elsewhere, since this blog is supposed to be about comics.
I’d say you are reading what you want into the psychologist’s words. She isn’t necessarily saying that trigger warnings are positive or negative. She is saying that if a person feels it necessary that they need trigger warnings, it could be a sign that they need professional therapy. It is more a call for helping those who may be going undiagnosed than saying that trigger warnings are harmful.
I’m not saying it is wrong to offer advice or help to a friend by alerting them to the existence of ERT. I just know how well most people dealing with mental struggles feel about having someone without their condition acting as if they know better than them. How many times has a person with clinical depression been told, “Hey! You need to exercise more.”?
If you simply ask the person if they are familiar with ERT and they could research it, I feel that is dealing with the subject in a respectful way, where it doesn’t come across as condescension.
And I just know how well people dealing with OCD react when they learn no one told them about ERT, even the psychologists/ psychiatrists that were treating them. It’s a betrayal that’s difficult to forgive. And I have no problem with drugs in conjunction with ERT, or even without ERT- but the point is the patients should be aware of the option.
I guess that both are arguing from different perspectives- I’m arguing from patient choice (or at least patient knowledge), you’re arguing from avoiding patient condescension. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
I enjoyed this series more than I expected, but I’ve given up hope that Maddie will ever be rehabilitated as anything other than evil Barbie, as someone said above.
Also really enjoyed that every issue was titled after a Nick Cave song.