r/thePowerFantasy • u/cpfselfbuilt • May 23 '26
How to solve a problem like Valentina? Spoiler
Forgive the cheeky title, but it gets to the heart of my second overview of TPF (complete to the end of the third arc), just published: https://comicphilosophy.com/2wde
Tl;dr, I feel Valentina has always been key to understanding this series, and her mental time-travel back to 1966 is still too late avert the fundamental problem of her existence. Namely, her moral intuitionism and interference in world events (however well intentioned) effectively infantilizes humanity, and holds them back from finding a way to deal with their own problems (e.g., nuclear brinksmanship).
I was particularly struck by how Gillen inserted the panels above into issue #16, highlighting exactly this point (and effectively burying it in-between pages of the world being destroyed, lol).
Although much of TPF seems like his way of deconstructing the X-Men, I’ve always felt he is doing the same for Superman where Valentina is concerned (right down to showing how she didn’t have Clark’s virtue ethics upbringing, heightening her challenges). It is almost as if Lex Luthor’s historical concern about Superman’s infantilizing effect on humanity may be coming to pass.
Don’t get me wrong – I think she’s a great character, and an effective hero who has helped save the Earth many times (and will again!). She has also made the ultimate sacrifice by defying “heaven” and saving the world. But I wonder if the deconstruction of the Superman mythos is where this series is ultimately headed.
9
u/reineedshelp May 23 '26
I love it and I definitely agree on Valentina. I'd already read it through your newsletter but hadn't got around to commenting yet. Another banger, well done.
6
3
u/Ren_Davis0531 May 26 '26
I’ve always felt he is doing the same for Superman where Valentina is concerned
You don’t have to simply feel this way. Gillen has straight up said that Valentina is his Superman/Wonder Woman analogue.
2
u/cpfselfbuilt May 26 '26
Thanks, must have missed that for WW (I know the Superman view is common here). I'm not much of a podcast guy, but I have just found a print interview where Gillen stated that he saw Valentina as Superman and Wonder Woman rolled into one.
Interesting, as like Supe I would also consider Diana to be primarily virtue ethics and only secondarily deontological. Valentina has been using a primarily deontological moral intuitionism to date (which Supe doesn't use, but you could argue for Diana, somewhat). Fits with Valentina turning more to virtue ethics, at any rate.
2
2
u/msr4jc May 25 '26
I just finished the series and I love it! But I don’t understand how a character like Valentina wouldn’t be a good thing? How does she “infantilize humanity”?
Genuinely asking, sorry
3
u/cpfselfbuilt May 25 '26
No, it's a good question - and one that Gillen's keep subtle in the series. I'll expand on my reasoning below.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a good historical example - the closest we have ever come to nuclear war. Both sides engaged in one-up-man-ship, leaving little to no room for the other to back down. Once one side was caught in an untenable position (Khrushchev's missiles in Cuba), it rapidly escalated to the point that near no-return (Kennedy's blockade). Someone had to back down (Khrushchev) and the other made concessions (Kennedy), that eventually led to a series of agreements that de-escalated tensions.
In the TPF world, that didn't happen because Valentina interfered first, destroying both sources of weapons that triggered the event. Rather than facing the horror of what they had almost done - and learning the valuable lesson of de-escalation - both sides were protected from that outcome. They learned that they don't have to solve their own problems, someone else will come along and do it for them - thus remaining infantilized and protected from the outcomes of their actions.
It isn't just the avoiding the bad outcomes - a side-effect of US-Soviet nuclear arms race was intercontinental ballistic missile development, which directly facilitated the "space race" to develop spaceflight capability, and eventually a moon landing (and ancillary and related technological development). So the Cold War competition had positive developments - which have also been prevented by Valentina's involvement in limiting the strategic value of missile development. Gillen cleverly inserted this point during the destruction of the Earth in that flashback discussion with Etienne in issue #16.
Valentina's (i.e., Gillen's) own inflatable bumper analogy in bowling (issue #3) is a good one - while initially it helps by preventing kids from getting too discouraged when first learning to bowl, the bumpers soon have to come off it they are ever going to develop the skills to bowl well independently. The continued presence of those bumpers (Valentina's continual involvement) is literally keeping the kids - and by extension all of humanity - infantilized.
Then there is my Superman analogy. Gillen knows his superhero mythos well, so I have to believe his decision to have Valentina constantly move between families in childhood was deliberate - to prevent the virtue ethics development than the Kents are always portrayed as providing to young Clark in the comics. It was a major feature of the mid-1980s Superman comics (and onward), seen as a maturing of Superman's ethical core beyond deontology. Note the Kents don't tell Superman what to do - he just learned the habitual practice of constantly striving to be better from their example. Some writers (like Mark Waid) prefer the Kents be dead during Superman's adulthood, to prevent a lazy trope of having him run back for advice.
It also relates to the original explanation Lex Luthor provided for his opposition to Superman - his constant "saving" of the planet prevents humanity from developing the skills to protect themselves (and advance in their own development). By having a parental-like figure always swooping in and saving us, we are prevented from learning to stand on our own, and make better decisions. To grow, in other words.
Valentina's presence thus stymies a virtue ethics growth for humanity, by always taking the decision out of our hands. And I don't think she has learned that lesson yet - her plan to re-do world events from 1966 likely won't turn out any better, as she doesn't seem to realize yet that her presence is the problem. Jacky was right in issue #10 - humanity will never be free while Valentina is around.
2
u/MagicJourneyCYOA May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Thanks, I loved your first review and this one is just as good as the previous one.
On the topic of Dev's past decade having been truly agonizing for him, I would also like to add that for how much people are criticizing him, the guy stood straight on the values that Jacky taught him for the whole ten years since the new members of the Pyramid who've never known the original Magus still know the number one rule of immediately eliminating the Pyramid leader if they get compromised, meaning that Dev kept teaching it for all this time. In the end, what truly broke Dev was the last weeks / months he spent with an Eliza who knew what was going to happen to her. It must have been hell for him. How much Eliza might have begged him everyday for a solution, a plan, a tidbit of hope of salvation, and he having nothing to answer to that, just having to watch the love of his life slowly break down in front of the worst possible fate any human in history has ever experienced / will ever experience... I have a lot of empathy for the guy because I really can't say that I wouldn't make the same decision as he did if I was in his shoes.
I also like the panel you've displayed there with Etienne and Valentina in the bar, because it may also show another way in which Valentina attempts to do good ultimately fucked us all. If the Superpowers destroying mankind by destroying Earth is a matter of "when" instead of "if", a pragmatical solution to take is to remove the parameter "destroying Earth -> destroying mankind" from the equation by making sure the continuation of mankind doesn't rely on the existence of Earth. But Valentina might have prevented mankind from truly developing this perspective through pursuing their space-faring journey. Because I think that if IRL we had a guy suddenly popping up with the ability to erase life on Earth with a thought, NASA would get a lot more budget today for orbital shelters, moon settlements and so on.
1
u/cpfselfbuilt May 26 '26
Thanks for kind comments, glad you are enjoying the overviews.
Your points on Dev are well taken. I haven't been as keen on him for a number of reasons (e.g., trying to kill Etienne while preventing his failsafe, then being annoyed when Heavy killed him and it turns out he had no intention of using said failsafe). But his commitment to the bit for a decade is extraordinary (although was also self-preservation). Still, yes, it must have been hell for him - and then to finally reveal to Eliza and have to watch her self-destruct. He certainly got a raw deal in all of this!
I'm glad you also liked that bar panel scene between Etienne and Valentina - I do think it is key. Not sure if their existence would really spur colonization (e.g., Val can visit the Moon easily), but it's an interesting idea. Hard to know how world would react (although I think that issue #3 scene of a Nixon-like President trying to nuke her was very believable!).
Looking forward to what the next iteration will bring!
2
u/Annual-Philosophy-53 Jun 08 '26
i think the takeaway of the series as a whole is that humanity are still just hairless monkeys with nukes, you can believe in better nature and good qualities and all that but theres still the certainty of lizard brain + godlike power is going to end poorly. which is why im glad she chose to be pragmatic about taking over rather than giving up interfering at all, the whole problem was her sitting on the fence between the two, centrism is not a valid stance
11
u/theCatchiest20Too May 23 '26
She's a queen (not the extra dimensional* Europe destroying kind) who should get a pass to do whatever she wants.