No explanation on how Angel can muster the US army, but I don't really care about that. We aren't going for realism here.
I care much more about whether Whistler is intended as a genuine explanation that's supposed to exonerate Angel. But I really don't think it reads that way. Whistler gives us a way to understand why Angel might do this. But once the text explicitly points out that Angel's plan de-protagonizes Buffy in a comic where the contrast character is still her loyal soldier, I think it's clear that Angel's plan cannot and will not be vindicated. Or if it is Joss has swallowed a ginormous stupid pill and accidentally trashed the feminist cred he's got.
I've got no love for IDW, but am really puzzled by Allie's manner of announcement.
no subject
I care much more about whether Whistler is intended as a genuine explanation that's supposed to exonerate Angel. But I really don't think it reads that way. Whistler gives us a way to understand why Angel might do this. But once the text explicitly points out that Angel's plan de-protagonizes Buffy in a comic where the contrast character is still her loyal soldier, I think it's clear that Angel's plan cannot and will not be vindicated. Or if it is Joss has swallowed a ginormous stupid pill and accidentally trashed the feminist cred he's got.
I've got no love for IDW, but am really puzzled by Allie's manner of announcement.