Marvel Comics recently released their latest issue of writer Matthew Rosenberg, artist Szymon Kudranski, and colorist Antonio Fabela’s The Punisher. However, there is a rather big mistake on the opening page of the comic where Marvel refers to the actions taken by infamous Punisher villain Jigsaw as actions taken by Bullseye.
As readers of Marvel Comics know, each issue of their comics usually provides a brief overview of the character or team’s history, and then provides an overview of what has happened in the most recent previous issues.
In the overview of The Punisher, Marvel Comics writes:
“Now Zemo has the Punisher’s Nemesis Bullseye, disguised as the Punisher, killing political dissidents in his nation of Bagalia while Frank rots in a Bagalian prison. But in a nation of criminals, the prisons are filled with angels, and one, a nun named Sister Mercy, has taken a special interest in Frank….”
You can see it below:
Unfortunately, Bullseye hasn’t appeared in a Punisher comic since The Punisher #224 which released in last May. In that issue, Bullseye’s card game is interrupted by the Punisher, who continued to wage his one-man war on crime. However, at this point in time he was using the War Machine armor to put the bad guys out of business permanently. Bullseye would escape the Punisher due to intervention from Captain Marvel.
What really happened in The Punisher #6 was not the work of Bullseye. It was the work of Jigsaw, who was using one of Chameleon’s masks to make himself look like the Punisher. Baron Zemo explains that it is Jigsaw terrorizing Bagalia while he tortures Frank.
This responsibility to ensure characters are identified properly on the recap page more than likely falls to the issue’s editors which are Jake Thomas and Mark Basso.
We reached out to The Punisher writer Matthew Rosenberg and Marvel for comment on whether this will be updated in subsequent print runs. We did not hear back at the time of publication.
It’s more than likely this is just an innocent mistake that slipped through the cracks.
What do you think happened here? Do you think that this was an innocent mistake? Do you think there might have been a communication problem among the editorial staff? Or could there be some other problem?