Annotated 29-7
If the Champions were the high-level antagonists introduced unexpectedly late in the game, JJ was same for Sepia World. We got a few accusations of padding the story out with his introduction, and wellll kinda, but it was more like we already knew how long Shanna’s investigation had to take and we needed a compelling antagonist to go after her, not a bunch of faceless contractor goons or a wildly out-of-character Carol.
Carol’s cognitive dissonance and the way JJ enables it are what sell this scene for me. She cannot think very much about what methods JJ will use, not if she wants to cling to the tattered remains of her self-image as a good person. He very much knows this, and he will do his best to help her avoid thinking about them. All part of the service.
Finally, A+ job on lettering that dialogue in panel 1 and 2, Phil. That’s a lot of talk, and it all fits in seamlessly, even when the reader’s eye has to go up to keep reading.
JJ’s character design is fantastic. He is model of calm deliberateness, but his personal stylings look like a teenage lost restraint on a RPG’s character modeller and threw in all the ‘badass’ features they could get their hands on. How did you wind up going this way with him?
Honestly, I spent several years expecting to find out that this guy was Ardaic’s player or something. They looked a lot more similar to me the first time through.
That’s kind of why I liked this guy. He’s the sort of professional that will avoid violent means, as they tend complicate things, but won’t shy away from them. He’s also courteous, even to his targets, and tries avoid anger for a more clear thinking mindset. It makes him both very dangerous, and charismatic.
I keep thinking he’s wearing a toupé, or a false beard. Something about him just looks wrong. Which might be intentional on his side.
Isn’t his dialog in panel 3 too direct for that purpose, though? He implies pretty clearly he’s taking on things she would morally object to so she can wash her hands of them; she carefully bristles at this implication in panel 4; his response is a long-winded version of “Uh, forget I said anything.” So all in all, it reads to me like he’s not as skilled at assuaging clients’ worries as he fancies himself to be.
This is how I read it: The Rule says you don’t talk about the means he’s using so you can claim ignorance, and she’s violating that Rule. He’s basically saying “I’m the expert, don’t tell me how to do my job. I won’t tell you what I did anyway – so stop trying to be specific.”
In addition, he’s got a part in hushing up the original inquiry, so limiting his arsenal of methods now would also be against his own interest.
Effectively, there is no way of telling him to solve the issue in a bloodless way because that permits for a scenario where he needs to discuss with Carol that plan A failed and request permission to use other tactics — which would then break the Rule
I suppose that makes sense – you can’t be too elliptical when you’re doing crimes for money for a range of different clients who may communicate in different ways, so even if she bristles at it, he probably needed to get to that level of near-directness to convey to her to stop being so specific.
I’m not sure what I think about JJ, but there’s a sort of ridiculousness to him, especially on this page, that I like. It’s the visual contradictions: This really big muscle-bound guy in the suit that doesn’t quite seem to fit, and the ridiculously long hair and mustache that seem to be compensating for a receding hairline. The hitman who fancies himself a philosopher (well that one’s a bit of a trope at this point).
Meanwhile, the back of Carol’s hair seems to be getting more and more spider-like.
In addition to the other wonderful art accomplishments here, I also must praise the steak in panel 3. Despite being black and white you’ve done a fine job of conveying how juicy it must be.