Read Injustice: Gods Among Us [I] comic online free and high quality. Fast loading speed, unique reading type: All pages - just need to scroll to read next page. Read Injustice: Gods Among Us: Year Two comic online free and high quality. Fast loading speed, unique reading type: All pages - just need to scroll to read. Read Injustice 2 comic online free and high quality. Fast loading speed, unique reading type: All pages - just need to scroll to read next page.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||17.79 MB|
|PDF File Size:||10.84 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
A sequel series to tie-in with Injustice 2 was announced at the San Diego Comic Con panel, with series creator Tom Taylor returning to. Injustice - Gods Among Us - Year One #1 - 36 Free Download. Get FREE DC and Marvel Comic Download only on GetComics. Read Injustice: Gods Among Us: Year Five comic online free and high quality. Fast loading speed, unique reading type: All pages - just need to scroll to read.
Meanwhile, the kids may not be without resources of their own. A powerless Flash travels to Australia to try make amends for an incident that happened early in Superman's reign. Korea Deal Apr. See Lee, O-Soo v. But with victory in the heroes' reach, tragedy strikes.
As Superman continues his world-spanning crusade, Batman and Catwoman have a secret rendezvous—with the President. Possible recruits for the resistance movement are debated, including a few surprise candidates. After a hard-fought battle against Black Adam , Superman and Wonder Woman decide on a desperate tactic to ensure that he remains subdued. But Shazam and his alter ego, Billy Batson wonders if this is the right thing to do.
How much longer will he remain loyal to Superman's campaign? When the Joker nuked Metropolis , it was assumed there were no survivors. But now a distress call comes from the ruins. Is it an automated signal, a hoax, or a trap? No one is sure if Superman should respond. Who or what will he find? Batman 's resistance team goes on the offensive, targeting Hawkgirl.
Inside the Watchtower , Superman and his allies consider their response. But it may be Lex Luthor who comes up with a plan. Lex Luthor proposes his vision for how the Justice League might implement Superman's peace keeping mission. Meanwhile, storm clouds gather on far off Apokolips , as Darkseid 's son Kalibak plans an invasion.
Superman 's out to establish peace on earth. But what happens when the planet is overrun by alien hordes? Will former allies put aside their differences for the common good? Millions are dying from the invading hordes of Apokolips. Superman is forced to remove any remaining inner restraints and unleashes a truly terrifying display of power. Superman's standing with the public is on the rise after responding to a surprise attack by Apokolips.
That development has forced Batman 's rebels even further into the outsider role—and now their teams are about to face off! In the Fortress of Solitude , the Kents confront Luthor over his plans to give other people super powers. Meanwhile, Superman confronts the Flash over Luthor presents the pill that will produce an army of super-soldiers.
Robin takes matters into his own hands, leading to a deadly encounter in the Batcave with his father. In a deadly game of one-upmanship, Superman is about to reveal Batman's identity to the world. But Batman will do anything to stop him, even if he has to bring down the JLA's satellite headquarters. Superman and his team head off to confront Batman. But who they find turns out to be much deadlier.
Once again, former allies clash with deadly results. The angry Man of Steel who now proclaims his grim agenda to the world is a far cry from the smiling hero who once helped a boy with a broken bike.
In "The Man of Yesterday," a young man reminisces about his hero in happier times. Batman launches a dangerous gambit to break into Superman 's Fortress and steal the super-soldier pill.
Everything's on the line as he and his team have only minutes before Superman sees through their distraction. Superman has caught Batman 's team inside his fortress.
But before he can unleash his fury, he suddenly finds himself in the greatest battle of his life, going head-to-head with Captain Atom. It's an epic battle with deadly consequences! Tragedy follows tragedy as Batman 's disastrous assault on Superman 's Fortress comes to a brutal end. Even if he gets what he came for, will the price prove too costly for his team?
Batman now possesses one of Superman 's super pills, but he knows his former friend is coming for him. It's a race against time to see if he can manufacture more pills and shift the balance of power. It's a deadly showdown between Batman and Superman —two former best friends now turned deadly enemies.
Batman has run out of time to replicate the pill that will give anyone Godlike powers. He's about to pay a terrible price. Soon, no one will be left to get in the way of Superman implementing his New World Order. But a surprise may be lurking in the shadows of the Batcave.
As the series returns, the Black Canary is still dealing with the death of Green Arrow. And Superman issues a threat. On the planet Oa , the Guardians are concerned about Superman 's new role on Earth.
An unlikely ambassador is summoned to pay a visit. Ganthet of the Guardians of Oa visits Superman to confront him about his rule over Earth. But Superman has his own issues with Ganthet—concerning Krypton. Superman 's peacekeeping force takes control of Gotham.
With Batman gone, Gordon seeks help from the Birds of Prey. Imprisoned by the Justice League , Sinestro tells the story of how he once ruled Korugar and notes the parallels to Superman 's current situation.
Only one Lantern stands in their way: Hal Jordan. The Green Lantern Corps strikes in full force, putting Superman on the ropes…with shocking results.
Superman must decide the fate of the Green Lantern Corps. Meanwhile, in Gotham, Gordon steps up the resistance. Time jumps ahead seven months and the regime of Superman remains in place. New life begins at the same time that a new potential menace hurtles towards the Earth. Guy Gardner brings an entire planet to attack Superman. On Earth, a crippled Batman works with Oracle to rally the resistance.
Meanwhile, in space, Guy Gardner has brought together an army of Green Lanterns to confront Superman , including the biggest GL of them all.
In space, a severe blow is dealt to Superman 's forces.
Back on earth, the resistance in Gotham makes its most daring move yet. Hal Jordan vs. Guy Gardner. Ganthet vs. And then… a deadly choice. As the battle between the Green and Yellow Lanterns spreads out around the world, Commissioner Gordon makes his last stand in the Watchtower. Ganthet of the Guardians takes a direct hand in the battle with fearsome results.
And Black Canary moves in for the kill. Hal Jordan faces the consequences of his fateful choice while Superman's titanic struggle with Ganthet rages.
In this penultimate chapter, Sinestro's evil machinations result in the corruption of another hero and the deaths of even more. Year Two comes to an end, leaving the rebellion more devastated and demoralized than ever. Where will Batman and his allies go from here? The war with the Green Lanterns is over, but it claimed a civilian victim--one whose death John Constantine will not let go unavenged. John Constantine confronts a deadly demon and later takes a meeting with Batman.
Batman and Constantine try to unite a disparate team of magical beings, super-heroes and ordinary humans. Meanwhile, an ominous threat approaches. Disaster strikes in the house of Jason Blood as Batman and his allies face the greatest threat of all.
It's up to Batman to confront a god. The battered resistance regroups in the Tower of Fate while the status of the long missing Wonder Woman is revealed. Batman and Constantine search out a new ally in Madame Xanadu. But there's no warm welcome in the mystic's parlor. Superman demands the return of his captured allies -- Flash, Cyborg, Robin, and Raven. But Constantine sets a trap, using Raven as bait. Lured into a trap by Constantine, Superman struggles to hang on to his very soul.
But it's the mage's life that may be forfeit. The tables are turned on Constantine, who is about to feel Superman's wrath. Can anyone save him? Deadman confronts the Spectre and gets a shocking surprise.
Batman and Constantine face off against Swamp Thing. A new Deadman rises and tries to find out who really the Spectre really is. Meanwhile, Constantine and Batman set a new trap for Superman. But with Jason Blood dead, just who is "the form of man"?
Superman continues to experience his alternate reality while in his magically induced coma. But a loyal ally is about to shake up his world again.
Superman remains in his dream state, living in a reality where none of the tragic events that set him on his present course ever happened. Who will awaken him? Wonder Woman finally wakes from her coma, but she's not at all happy. Much has changed and what she finds doesn't please her. A revived Wonder Woman doesn't like the changes she's seeing in Superman since her departure, leading to a face-off with Sinestro.
The new Deadman finally tracks down the Spectre and learns his terrifying secret. Constantine summons forth Trigon, and not even the combined might of Superman and Wonder Woman seems capable of defeating the enraged demon.
Doctor Fate and Trigon battle against Superman's powerful, mysterious benefactor. Swamp Thing enters the battle on Superman's side, while the Man of Steel has his hands full battling his greatest adversary Poison Ivy enters the battle, and Batman has a final goodbye with Nightwing. With the battle between Trigon and Mxyzptlk threatening to engulf the Earth itself, combat is brought to a halt between Batman and Superman's two teams.
Fate forms a desperate plan to stop Mxyzptlk and Trigon, but he's going to need one of Superman's allies to make it work. Can the new Deadman get them to cooperate? The final chapter of Year Three. Differences are temporarily put aside to stop the threat created by Mxyzptlk and Trigon. And the final fate of John Constantine is revealed. Superman has battled against an army of Green Lanterns and the assembled forces of magic and remained standing.
But how will he fare against the Gods themselves? And Harley Quinn visits an old friend. A distraught Renee Montoya decides to escalate the battle against Superman. Meanwhile, Harley pays a visit to Billy Batson's school. Barbara Gordon makes a critical decision and Harley Quinn contemplates what to do next with the captive Billy Batson. Robin, Flash, and Cyborg's friendships are strained, while a new force is drafted in the war against Superman—the full might of the Amazon army.
Lex Luthor plays a dangerous game, while Batman walks among the gods and picks a surprise champion for a trial by combat. Broken and beaten after his brush with death, Batman finds an unlikely friend-a down-on-his-luck Gothamite, who, like Batman, longs for the brighter days of Gotham's past. And an old ally returns to the fold in the nick of time. The Gods now directly enter the fray and order Superman to step down.
Will his call for help go unanswered? Let's see how his "Strength of Hercules" matches up against the real thing! His warnings were ignored and now he's taking matters into his own hands—Zeus returns to lay down the law and make a proclamation that will not sit well with the world.
Learn the origins of the God of War while, in the present, he teases Superman with the road to ultimate victory-"In order to fight Gods Battle rages on Themyscira, where Poseidon is about to sink the entire island! Relative Time Conflict techniques also proceed from the strong normative assumption that legal time is relative. In our hypothetical, the judge must choose between the statutes of limitations of three potentially relevant jurisdictions California, Japan, and Korea.
This decision does not entail a normative choice of one over the other; it is not that one is superior or preferable in some universal sense. Rather the choice is more narrow and technical: Other legal perspectives on time can thus be relevant without being applicable, and inapplicable without being wrong.
What intrigues us here is the normative assumption behind such strategic possibilities. Underpinning this view was the traditional common law characterization of statutes of limitations as part of the legal process and as a limitation on the remedy, rather than the right to recover.
See Walker, supra note , at ; David G. During the twentieth century, this approach met increasing criticism, much of which focused on the meaninglessness of suggesting that the legal right in a cause of action remained even though a remedy was unavailable. Another concern was the incentive that existed to forum shop for long limitation periods if the statute of limitations varied with the forum. Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, 25 S.
Symeonides, Louisiana Conflicts Law: Approximately half of U. The first is to treat statutes of limitation as substantive: This approach has been codified in the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, which has been adopted by seven states.
Outside of the United States, much of the common law and civilian world also follows this model. In general, unless the exceptional circumstances of the case make such a result unreasonable, the forum will apply its own statute of limitations barring the claim.
The last modern alternative is the approach followed by California courts. See Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in What if, as between California, Japan, and Korea, the rules of conflict of laws themselves conflict?
Can we have a conflict of conflict of laws —a thinking in multi-temporal terms about that very act of thinking? The answer is yes. The result is that some sub-issues may be time-barred, while others are governed by a longer limitation period.
To some, this mixing and matching of time may sound absurd and possibly dangerous. But the mixing and matching of time takes for granted something that pervades the experience of the Comfort Women issue: Spatio-temporal Diffusion The three conflict-of-laws techniques described in the previous part enable us to appreciate the challenges, consequences, and opportunities posed by spatio-temporal diffusion in new ways.
In this part, we bring them to bear on the Comfort Women trouble that we illustrated earlier with the case of the statue. Noticing Time Across Space: Proliferation, Dispersion, and Undecidability Let us start with the most basic conflicts insight: Rather than inscribing the following snapshots in a movement toward the comprehensive resolution of the Comfort Women issue stemming from World War II, we now focus on them as refracting the issue, changing time by changing place, opening it where it was closed, spreading it into locales where it had no history, making past and present into their own conflict of laws: The Constitutional Court of Korea holds the Korean government liable for violating the present-day constitutional rights of the Comfort Women plaintiffs because it has not done enough to seek compensation from Japan.
South Korean activists representing Comfort Women work with their North Korean counterparts on a statement calling for an apology from Japan. A photography exhibit featuring close-ups of the aged faces of living Comfort Women creates political controversy for Nikon, which owns the gallery.
Japanese and Korean activists file suit demanding that the Japanese government release historical documents related to the Comfort Women. Tawara, N. Schaefer , http: Trauma brings about a dissociation of affect and representation: Working through trauma involves the effort to articulate or rearticulate affect and representation in a manner that may never transcend, but may to some viable extent counteract, a reenactment, or acting out, of that disabling dissociation.
Undecidability dictates that the signification and effect of events or representations can never be self-present insofar as they always remain open to what befalls them, always liable to be placed elsewhere: Which has terrifying consequences for those who would like to correct situations or contexts here and now, and once and for all. What the principle of undecidability implies is that the control over either the reception or the effect of events is out of our hands.
As such, there is no "one" historical time or temporal structure within which diverse histories are all embroiled. On the contrary, there will always be multiple, shifting patterns of historical time, as different histories have their own mixes of time and their own temporalities. Moreover, the concreteness of conflicts expression of polytemporality helps us to notice it in other legal projects. Consider the construction of time in the following remarkable effort by the NGO community to address the Comfort Women issue—a legal fiction that passed virtually unnoticed, or at least unremarked, other than by one of us whose analysis of this initiative reflects a conflict of laws sensibility.
The postwar Tokyo Tribunal had long ceased to exist, and the International Criminal Court, established in , had no jurisdiction over earlier international crimes. Legitimate or Rough Justice?
Memory, Identity, and Society, 19 East Asia: An International Quarterly ; Indai L. Sajor, Challenging International Law: Asian Stud. NHK, Ju No. This fiction also had the moral and political effect of showing that the original tribunal could have convicted with the legal and evidentiary resources available at the time.
It is not only that Comfort Women trouble keeps reappearing; it is that each time it seems to be put to rest in one locale, it reappears somewhere else. As space-times proliferate, a new kind of problem—a new kind of harm—comes to characterize the trans-local experience of injustice: One of the features of this condition is that events seem continually out of sync with one another.
They argue that Korean women face more pressing problems, such as economic inequality, and they worry about the appropriation of the issue by Korean nationalists. In other words, it is the Korean people, not the women, who are taken to have been abused by the Japanese. Since the nation is problematic, the crime of rape is not given much meaning in the national discourse until it is committed by the Japanese colonial rule. This curious and disjunctive temporality is in part a condition of the spatial diffusion of the event itself, accelerated by the global circulation of people, resources, and ideas—a diffusion that becomes more intensified and pronounced by the very time lag between the events at issue and the present.
Here, a conflicts approach echoes insights from parallel fields such as critical geographical sociology, phenomenological anthropology, and postcolonial theory.
Feminist legal sociologist Mariana Valverde has powerfully argued that space and time need to be treated together in socio-legal studie. Uncomfortable Connections: Feminist theory emphasizes the significance of context and positionality.
Professor Chinkin told one of us of a reason that young Japanese activists often gave her for their involvement with the Tribunal. Relative Time: Ghosts Once we notice time across space, we cannot avoid the second premise of conflicts reasoning that we described: In East Asia, one particularly salient way of talking about Comfort Women trouble is as the trouble that the Comfort Women as ghosts will pose for the living.
One often hears throughout East Asia that if nothing is done about the Comfort Women problem before the death of the last living Comfort Woman, their ghosts will haunt the living forever. At other times it is expressed in a tone of dread, as if one can never be sure of how or what type of revenge an angry ghost might take. This observation comes from men and women, Id. See IVY, supra note , at Yoneyama finds that survivors of another war atrocity, the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have been pressed into national service to tell their stories carry the burden of speaking for, connecting with, and even consoling their dead classmates, family members, or neighbors who did not survive the bombing.
If this is the case, then it is useful to pay attention to the specific character of the trauma at issue here. Ghosts are different from gods in the East Asian conception. Ghosts can torment anyone and everyone all at once.
They strike with impunity, in an excessive manner, without respect for rules of standing, or res judicata, or due process. The fear of Comfort Women ghosts is thus symptomatic of a broader political, existential, and ontological condition. As problems Id. This condition is not so much a problem of the past but a problem for the present.
It is not a problem for victims, as Eunshil Kim suggests for the Jeju Island massacre case, so much as it is a problem for all of us, everywhere, interpolated into the past in the present. If the vocabulary of ghosts and ghostliness captures something about the often traumatic experience of the spatio-temporal diffusion of violence and injustice, then it also cautions against the sometimes celebratory tone of certain feminist theories of temporality.
Living with spatio-temporal diffusion can be disorienting and painful. In this part, we describe how a conflicts approach might help us to manage, and act within, this spatio-temporal diffusion.
What form might this take in the context of feminist futures? Here, we return to the relatively humdrum and technical field of conflict of laws for a possible way forward. We propose as a form the sequence that conflict of laws applies to an ordinary issue of legal time, the statute-of-limitations issue in our hypothetical. Each moment in the sequence has its own spatio-temporal orientation and yet also anticipates a moment in which that orientation will be superseded by a different space-time altogether.
Through the constraint of form, as anthropologist Marilyn Strathern has called it, a conflicts approach enables us to inhabit each of these spatio-temporal positions in turn. In what follows, we first describe this sequencing effect and then return to its wider potential for a feminist politics of the future.
The private space-time of the wrong As already noted, a choice-of-law analysis begins with the parties, who must define for themselves the spatio-temporal horizon of the wrong at issue. Plaintiff alleges that an injustice occurred at a particular time and place. She takes us to that time and place. Defendant, in turn, has multiple doctrinal vocabularies available for rejecting this temporal frame or offering another. The point, however, is simply that the analysis begins with an event, sometime, somewhere.
This is the private space-time of the wrong. The present duration and ambit of state interests While conflict of laws is driven by individual claimants, its choice-of-law techniques recognize that it is also potentially foreign affairs in a private-law key. That is, states are involved, and the agency of individual parties must yield, at key moments, to that of states.
In the next steps of a choice-of-law analysis, a court adjudicating our hypothetical lawsuit would reframe the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as a conflict between states. Ventriloquized by the parties, each state is assumed to be asking to have its law—in our hypothetical, its statute of limitations—applied. This is a delicate question. Given the comparative and reflexive analysis that came before, the court is well aware that its perspective is a partial, situated one.
The court therefore scrutinizes these assertions of authority on their own terms. To do so, it employs the core modernist assumption that laws are tools with purposes.
On this reasoning, statutes of limitation, like all laws, are tools of state policy. What are their purposes? Commentators usually identify states of limitations as serving three purposes. Two concern substantive justice and pull in opposite directions: There was a presumption that after a certain amount of time the debt must have been satisfied. See Laura E. A third purpose is more practical and utilitarian.
Lawsuits are expensive, and states must make choices about how to allocate their judicial resources. Claims that exceed the statute of limitations will not be heard because the forum cannot afford to allocate resources to this issue at this time and in this location. The plaintiffs are Korean and Korea has a legitimate interest in assuring that Korean plaintiffs have a chance to have their claims heard.
The wrinkle for Japan in this case is that Japanese law actually works against the Japanese defendant since under Japanese law, as under Korean law, the claim could go forward. Since the Korean and Japanese statutes of limitations are functionally identical, an application of Korean law would not be objectionable for Japan because it cannot really be said to have a stake in not applying its own law.
In other words, the only relevant purpose of the Japanese statute of limitations in this case—to protect defendants from stale claims—does not come into play since the Japanese statute of limitations does not bar the claim. Thus Japan has no legitimate interest in seeing its law apply. Finally, California has a legitimate procedural interest in ensuring that its judicial resources are not wasted on outdated lawsuits since California is the forum.
If the purpose relates to scarce judicial resources, then the plaintiff presumably should be free to pursue the claim in a jurisdiction where judicial resources are available. Dismissal should have no res judicata effect. In contrast, dismissal on the basis of the first two purposes should have more universal implications and be binding on future disputes. This principle should hold firm in cases in which the first forum state follows the traditional procedural characterization of statutes of limitation.
In contrast, the premise underlying this principle is weakened when that state. See also Donald T. And the purposes of statutes of limitation, being myopically domestic, entirely ignore the ways the harms, the interests, the parties, and even the truth spill over from one place to another—the very complexities that the previous analysis highlighted. But missing the complexities is precisely the point. The trick of the technique is its claim to momentarily turn a complex, multifaceted question about individual time in a particular place into a narrow technical one about state time and state space.
We will elaborate on the value of this sequencing after we canvas two further steps in a choice-of-law analysis.
See supra notes and accompanying text. Cal 3d P.
Adoption Media, F. Continental Oil Co. Likewise, in contrast to real negotiations centered on a particular issue—claims arising at the close of a war, for example—we now imagine this claim alongside every kind of case, from garden-variety contracts disputes to environmental issues and so on. Coming after governmental interest analysis, comparative impairment analysis reverses the narrowing and flattening of the issues involving states by explicitly bringing in the international dimension of the case.
The notion of comparative impairment reframes the problem of time once again, not as a matter of domestic policy needs, but in terms of its iterative dimension in the foreign affairs context. Deutsche Bank AG, Fed. In the United States, this is a check in the form of a due process review. Is the application of Korean law by a California court foreseeable enough to this defendant that there is no unfair surprise?
Hence there is no unfair surprise to the defendant. When we add to this that current U. Again, what is important for our purposes is the temporality of this analysis.
In this final step in the sequence, the focus returns to the present time and place. Something powerful, and potentially hegemonic, is happening, here and now, in the actions of the court itself, vis-a-vis the defendant.
Is it acceptable? Is it fair? With governmental interest analysis, the focus moves to the space and time of the nation-state and its laws. Then, both of these unilateral perspectives are obviated by a multilateral focus on the imaginary time of the international system of states projected into the future.
Finally, we return to a particularized, narrow focus on the space-time of the present day encounter between the defendant and court. As one spatio-temporal horizon after another is foregrounded, the set of actors also changes. This way of thinking about agency and responsibility is not as a zero- sum game. Instead, it treats agency as successive sets of positions in which individual and state can displace one other. In short, conflict of laws does not so much resolve as sequence the colliding spatio-temporal worlds at play in the Comfort Women issue.
Gods Among Us Comic". Electronic Gaming Monthly. Retrieved August 30, Comic Book Roundup. Retrieved August 13, Retrieved August 6, Best Digital Comic Series". Retrieved February 13, Retrieved February 6, Retrieved from " https: Interactive Entertainment video games.
Cover of Injustice: