As if one MODOK wasn't enough, a second one almost may have been MODAM trouble than she was worth! I'm all for equal rights, but did we really need a chick version of MODOK? I think not, my friends, I THINK NOT.
MODAM stands for Mental Organism Designed for Aggressive Maneuvers), or perhaps for M'oh DAMN, you ugly! MODAM did serve the vital function of Aggressively Maneuvering Mentally in MODOK's stead for that dreadful decade or so that he was "actually dead" in continuity, but you know, there's nothing like the real thing, baby...
FUN FACT: This delicate little flower may or may not in fact be ANT-MAN'S first wife! The believed-deceased Maria Troyvana reappeared in Pym's life for a time before turning out to be a spy, then being mutated into S.O.D.A.M. (Specialized Organism Designed for Aggressive Maneuvers). When MODAM appeared later, it was assumed that she was a further mutated Maria/SODAM, but then that was further thrown into question when X-Men foe Omega Red, spreading mutant ambiguity with him like a contagion, interrupted a battle between MODAM and Iron Man, to confront MODAM and accuse her of being Olinka Barankova, a spy-type lady who had betrayed-him decades ago. As far as I know, they never went anywhere with that plotline, save to muddy up MODAM's story a bit, for no apparent reason. Anyway, I prefer to think that Ant Man used to bang MODAM, basically.
.
5 comments:
M.O.D.A.M... I'd totally hit that.
With a brick.
Lots of bricks, really.
Then there was the short-lived "Ms. MODOK." Yes, really. She was the girlfriend of Bruce Banner, Kate Waynesboro, mutated by MODOK for a few issues of the Hulk in the early eighties.
You see where this is going, don't you?
MODOK chick-fight! Ms. MODOK versus MODAM! Woo!
(You know that such a story (a) has been written already by someone, (b) it's on the internet somewhere, and (c) at least one person somewhere found it -ahem- arousing. Yeeg.)
Hey, Brian Hughes! I like how you shut off the comments on the "Red Hulk's Offensive Line" article to avoid giving an answer to a simple question--an answer which you obviously do not possess. Pretty cowardly way to handle the whole thing. I wonder if you thought that would solve your problem of being held accountable for what you write? I'm thinking it won't.
Okay, anonymous, this seems to have really upset you, so on the off-chance you're Jeph Loeb's mom, here goes:
I cannot cite any specific examples of Jeph Loeb violating continuity. Not because he hasn't, but because I haven't the time to research it, and if I did, I'd rather produce a new article. So you "win". Your full refund is in the mail.
Oh wait, no it isn't, because you're ANONYMOUS, and because I've never been paid a fucking penny for doing this. Never mind.
I guess since you don't get paid it doesn't matter what you write, true or not. I applaud you for growing a pair and actually responding at all--even if it was to say "I don't have any examples, but they do exist" (which is also pretty pathetic). I say it's not because you "haven't the time to research it"--it's because there are no examples of it happening. I don't look at this so much as me "winning" as I do "you being forced to admit you were talking out of your butt"--which you were.
Post a Comment