DC Comics artist Brett Booth decided to target Brand co-creator Antonio Brice and Jamie Bigg’s parody cover of Joelle Jones’ Mockingbird #8 cover. Booth claims the cover for Brice’s IndieGoGo project, Brand, invokes violence against all women.

The discussion began with Booth asking for context.

The character in the cover is Santana or Dark Santana. Antonio Brice describes him as “an agent of chaos who seeks the [Judas] crown for his own sinister purposes.”

After an explanation was given about the piece of art, Booth said it doesn’t work and suggested adding in a suntan lotion bottle.

However, he would quickly begin to read the piece of art as “violence against women.”

Booth would then quote tweet former DC Comics artist Pete Woods who believes the cover is about violence against feminists.

He would continue to voice his disagreement with the piece of art work.

He would then also take a jab against Comicsgate claiming, “I thought CG was against politics in comics… or is it only their politics that are OK?” If you’ve read any of our articles on here, you would know most Comicsgate members have no problem with politics in comics, they have an issue with agenda driven politics in comics.

Booth would then claim the cover isn’t satire.

Booth would then try to state that if satire has to be explained it doesn’t work. This is simply not true.

He would elaborate that satire has to have a “comical vibe.” However, while satire can have a comical vibe, it’s not required. Satire can also employ exaggeration, irony, or ridicule. It’s quite obvious that the image is using irony to show a sadistic bad guy wearing Mockingbird’s T-shirt drinking a glass of bloody lemonade.

However, Booth probably knows that the piece is ironic and he probably knows about the Mockingbird #8 cover. It’s more than likely he is trying to blow up the artwork to make his own political point against Comicsgate members and more specifically Antonio Brice. Some people would describe Booth’s behavior as “Fake Nice.”

In fact, Booth would work his way back to one of his initial arguments where he claimed the cover was about implying violence in a reply to Brutas the Badass artist Donal DeLay.

Booth would then lie stating “other pics didn’t have blood.”


You can clearly see in the image below that there is blood.

And while the following image doesn’t have any blood, he’s sitting on a throne of skulls.

Antonio Brice would eventually defend himself, but Booth would dismiss him.

Booth would then reiterate his belief that “the implied violence is to women in general.”

However, when one user noted the violence was targeted towards Mockingbird, Booth would take it a step further and note the cover is “implied violence to women in general.”

And if you didn’t think he was lying about the covers, he admits he saw the other covers. Meaning he saw the other cover with the blood on it.

I want to reiterate what I stated previously. Booth is using a different tactic to target Comicsgate supporters. Instead of shouting from the heavens like Bill Sienkiewicz, Tim Doyle, Kieran Shiach, Taneka Stotts, Jonathan H. Grey, and many others, Booth is trying to be Fake Nice. However, by being Fake Nice, he’s easily caught in his own lies. Not only did he lie about the other covers not having any blood, he’s now saying that the original Mockingbird #8 cover was not an attack, but he finds a parody of that cover to imply violence.

He would make his Fake Niceness crystal clear in two back to back Tweets.

He would try and get back in character to close out the debate.

Antonio Brice would defend himself in an impassioned YouTube video:

There is a difference between stating an “image went a bit too far” and saying that it “implied violence to women in general.” Booth isn’t just criticizing the artwork, he’s criticizing the artists behind the artwork. He’s implying that the artists are trying to promote an agenda of violence against women in general through the artwork.

We’ve seen people try this tactic before and it was actually successful in getting DC Comics to pull Rafael Albequerque’s Batgirl variant cover. If you don’t remember, the cover depicted Batgirl in a position of vulnerability with the Joker looming beside her. The cover was an obvious reference to The Killing Joke where the Joker shoots Barbara Gordon in the abdomen paralyzing her.

DC Comics caved to people who claimed the cover promoted “rape culture.”

There is nothing wrong with Antonio Brice’s idea for the cover and the art by Jamie Biggs.

Now if Booth wanted to call out someone for actually promoting violence with his art, he might want to look to Bill Sienkiewicz who actually called for violence when he created a number of pieces of art with Republican political figures as well as sexual deviants like Harvey Weinstein with targets behind their heads. He would note they all needed, “corrective head spankings.”

What do you think of Booth’s claims that the cover promotes violence against women? Do you agree with him? Do you think he’s trying to imply that Antonio Brice and Jamie Biggs are promoting violence against women through the pin-up?

(Visited 42 times, 1 visits today)

About The Author

John F. Trent

John is the Editor here at Bounding Into Comics. He is a massive Washington Capitals fan, lover of history, and likes to dabble in economics and philosophy.

Related Posts