Will we ever get the official scoop on who VIP was/were?

[jedimarley]

Oh yeah?

[/i]!

[/i]!

[depluto]

Oh yeah?

[/i]!

[/i]!

Me either.

[Geomancer]

any other relevant follow up questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[jedimarley]

Oh yeah?

[/i]!

[/i]!

You're one of us now.

[ManofTheAtom]

[jedimarley]

any other relevant follow up questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Coward!

[The Harbinger]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

[myron]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

only if he was part of the lawsuit.

[Geomancer]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

only if he was part of the lawsuit.

i agree. Thats why it might work in his case. He was approached by VIP, but never officially worked for them.

So he is in a unique position of knowing who they are but not being affiliated directly with either party.

Now it could be that VEI prefers not to have him say anything - especialy if they have plans to hire him in the near future for fresh Quantum & Woody material.

But barring that, I believe that if they were not legally restricted from speaking, VEI wouldn't mind doing so - and would not have any liability or hurt feelings of Priest chose to go on the record about what he knows. But this is all total supposition on my part.

[ManofTheAtom]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

Sued by who?

It's been inferred in this thread that VIP no longer exist.

The only ones who could sue him would be VIP's owners, and to do that they would need to reveal their identity.

[myron]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

Sued by who?

It's been inferred in this thread that VIP no longer exist.

The only ones who could sue him would be VIP's owners, and to do that they would need to reveal their identity.

If he was involved with the lawsuit in a Non-Disclosure type instance I think it would be contempt of court... ...but WTF do I know...where's woogie when you need him...

[Todd Luck]

also, several of us have looked at the art in the VIP "tr"ashcan and said, "damn...that looks a lot like jae lee."

check this link homeskillet...

http://books.monstersandcritics.com/com ... ed_in_July

Dynamic Forces president Nick Barrucci said he was proud to have helped bring Hellshock back to comic-reading audiences.
"Jae is not only a top talent in this business, but he’s also a close personal friend," said Barrucci. "Working with him on this project, and presenting a completed HELLSHOCK to the fans has been a truly rewarding experience."

it's been my experience that 1 + 1 almost always = 2.

"hey jae, remember when i helped publish that hellshock book for ya? how about knocking out some 5 minutes sketches for me! you da man pal!"

suck on that VIP.

Times have changed. I remember when the ashcan first got on the internet and someone on a news site posted "That looks like Jae Lee." and people on this board accused him of being pro-VIP. LOL

frankly i could care less whether jae lee, pat lee, jim lee, bruce lee, or lee majors drew those pictures...it matters not to me.

most likely if jae lee did do that that work, he was paid for it and i doubt that would label him as "pro-vip".

now if he sought them out and offered to do the work for free then yes...that would be what i personally would call "pro-vip".

it's entirely possible that he asked personally for his name not to be associated with the project.

also, this very easily could've been some young artist who idolizes jae's style...hence the strong resemblance to his work.

i'm not going to waste time getting all worked up over who the artist was...it was crap, whoever it was...regardless of the product involved.

honestly i think the "tr"ashcan was the worst thing vip could've done...they showed everyone exactly what they were planning right there, and really...did anyone like it?

did any fan anywhere look at that monstrosity and go, "holy hell! that's badazz!"

somehow i doubt it.

Oh no, I meant the poster on the news site who pointed out the obvious ("That looks like Jae Lee") was labeled "pro-VIP." Don't recall anyone on this site bringing up the similarities in artstyle to Lee before this thread.

[ManofTheAtom]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

Sued by who?

It's been inferred in this thread that VIP no longer exist.

The only ones who could sue him would be VIP's owners, and to do that they would need to reveal their identity.

If he was involved with the lawsuit in a Non-Disclosure type instance I think it would be contempt of court... ...but WTF do I know...where's woogie when you need him...

Why would he be involved at all?

The only role he could have been would have been in VEI's side to accuse VIP of trying to subvert the Q&W copyright, and that's a big assumption.

VEI's case may not have involved Q&W at all, in which case Priest would not have been involved.

In any case, Brian could still contact Priest and ask him.

At worst he'll get a "no comment, I can't say anything because of an NDA", and at best he'll spill the beans.

[xodacia81]

Looking over the VEI site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

[ManofTheAtom]

Looking over the VEW site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

Great, more Goat month comics

[xodacia81]

Looking over the VEW site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

Great, more Goat month comics

"Q&W-sans goat. Got it, Chris?"
"Yeah, got it and gladly. It was Fabian's idea anyway"
(and the truth is finally revealed)

[ManofTheAtom]

Looking over the VEW site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

Great, more Goat month comics

"Q&W-sans goat. Got it, Chris?"
"Yeah, got it and gladly. It was Fabian's idea anyway"
(and the truth is finally revealed)

I'm pretty sure that is half true

Priest probably came up with the goat as a one time joke to add to the joke about Q&W not being a couple, but when the comic proved to be the only popular series out of Nicieza's pile of crap (I remember that Q&W was the only VH 2 comic that broke the top 100 or a higher list than that), Fabian, desperate to have a hit, milked it for all it was worth, hence the one shot, the Goat month, and the inaction figure.

[xodacia81]

Looking over the VEW site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

Great, more Goat month comics

"Q&W-sans goat. Got it, Chris?"
"Yeah, got it and gladly. It was Fabian's idea anyway"
(and the truth is finally revealed)

I'm pretty sure that is half true

Priest probably came up with the goat as a one time joke to add to the joke about Q&W not being a couple, but when the comic proved to be the only popular series out of Nicieza's pile of crap (I remember that Q&W was the only VH 2 comic that broke the top 100 or a higher list than that), Fabian, desperate to have a hit, milked it for all it was worth, hence the one shot, the Goat month, and the inaction figure.

I've always thought that pretty much WAS the story.

[ManofTheAtom]

Looking over the VEW site, doesn't it say that one of the TBA announced-and apparently filled positions-is someone who "loves the material"? Could they maybe have hired Priest? He was good with the material and has experience as an editior. Just a thought.

Great, more Goat month comics

"Q&W-sans goat. Got it, Chris?"
"Yeah, got it and gladly. It was Fabian's idea anyway"
(and the truth is finally revealed)

I'm pretty sure that is half true

Priest probably came up with the goat as a one time joke to add to the joke about Q&W not being a couple, but when the comic proved to be the only popular series out of Nicieza's pile of crap (I remember that Q&W was the only VH 2 comic that broke the top 100 or a higher list than that), Fabian, desperate to have a hit, milked it for all it was worth, hence the one shot, the Goat month, and the inaction figure.

I've always thought that pretty much WAS the story.

Comic writers and editors tend to be have two facets to the quality of their work.

For instance, Mark Waid wrote a great story in Kingdom Come but a piece of *SQUEE* in Superman Birthright. Same for Busiek with Astro City and (again) Superman.

In Priest' case, he had near-perfect runs on various DC titles prior to Q&W, like Justice League Task Forc,e The Ray, Xer0, and many others (and as James Owsley he was responsible for Green Lantern: Emerald Dawn, which introduced the Post Crisis Hal Jordan, a drunk driver looking for redemption in a story that was a far cry from the Silver Age stories and was more grounded in a reality).

Back then, Priest (Owsley) was a serious writer... but then came Q&W and other "joke" comics, that instroduced the "jokester" Priest, whose stories were more in line with the kind of material that we saw in Q&W.

Were Priest to be the guiding force behind VEI's VALIANT line, I'd want it to be the serious writer Priest, the one that had no qualms about making Hal Jordan a drunk driver, over jokester Priest, the guy who can't write a serious story for nothing.

[BloodOfHeroes]

You ever read Priest's BLACK PANTHER?

[ManofTheAtom]

You ever read Priest's BLACK PANTHER?

I read it up to issue 33, when I had to drop the title.

It read like a joke book.

The guy, the liason, was the butt of the humor in the series. Whatever serious events took place were eclipsed by the humor or lost to it.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Maybe the mods can clarify this, but this community is based on a shared interest in Valiant comics. And as the community grows and as valiant becomes more a part of the present there will be more people coming for talk about the comics who find certain brands of humor extraneous and peripheral to that objective. I've always believed there are other fellow members who don't find it their thing. But perhaps I can adjust by coming into the non-Valiant based threads and offering critiques on the value of those threads.

Instead, I'd rather just see some threads [not all] for straightforward discussion that don't don't get sidetracked on some inane [sorry, but thats how I see some of them] tangent. Is that more important than having a place to enjoy and discuss Valiant comics together?

Mutual respect seems the better option to me.

It's true, this is a community based on our shared interest in Valiant. Keep in mind though, that the biggest part of things that are discussed around here have been done to death. The jokes and friendly non topic posts help to lighten the tone a bit and keep people more interested in participating with discussions vs reading the same topic being talked about again and again.

It's not a method that everyone takes a shine to, but it's the way we have been doing things around here for some time now and actually works quite well. You won't find a nicer bunch of people to talk Valiant with.

I absolutely respect that, thank you.

I have not posted more often during my time here for 2 reasons. The first is that it is hard as you say to bring up anything that hasn't already been brought up once or perhaps several times before.

The survival mechanism, the in-humor, etc. - is something i can respect from people who have kept the torch lit through dark times. However, that same mechanism can become counterproductive if it isn't dialed back a little or at least used a little more selectively when there actually are discussions going on.

Don't we all hope to see more people coming back to Valiant? When they do - sure they are going to repeat things previously discussed by others here - but its new for them. For those who have been here, sure they can say 'we've already talked about what you are discussing now time and time again.' But would it not be better to just appreciate their enthusiasm for valiant, and if we've become jaded to a particular topic, simply spend our time instead in other topics we prefer?

The second reason I hadn't posted more - not sharing certain types of humor - does not interfere with my ability, interest and willingness to discuss Valiant with those same individuals. And I look forward to that very much, as i always have.

You, my friend, need to dial it back a lot. All of this...several posts worth now, all of this sturm und drang, all of this "you don't respect me, you're mocking what I'm saying, you're derailing a serious discussion"....all of this is about your reaction to THREE SENTENCES...one from The Leaf, which was completely defensible, and a COMPLIMENT from me ON that statement.

THAT'S IT.

Talk about making Mt. Everest out of a molehill. You are being ridiculously oversensitive.

The way you speak, you act as if someone came here and not only completely belittled and insulted you, personally, but they trashed everything you've ever held dear, and then proceeded to insult the loved ones of every other person on this board.

Pick your battles. This certainly was not a well chosen one. Please get some perspective. No one here has disrespected you (at least in this thread), no one here has derailed the thread, no one here has done anything except make a simple statement, and no one has (as far as I know) any intention of disrespecting you.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

<cracking knuckles>....ahhhhh....this will be good.

So, The Leaf DOESN'T crack me up...?

I'm glad you enjoy his posts.

Thank you, I do.

Or, his post wasn't pithy and well timed....? .

It was pithy, but the timing and relevance are what I personally disagree with.

That's fine....but you're wrong. The Leaf's statement was dead spot on, and couched in a humorous observance to drive the point home.

Who VIP is/was is the proverbial elephant in the room...or used to be...and no one can talk about it directly.

The question here was will we ever get an official response - for the record, now that that VEI has gotten over the legal hurdle. There have certainly been discussions of it, and well constructed ones

No. You've already been told that, several times, by several members. Clearly, you have little or no experience with Non-Disclosure Agreements. A Non-Disclosure Agreement means NO ONE CAN SAY ANYTHING, under penalty of litigation.

Now you're trying to ask the same question, over and over, hoping for a different response.....?

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Cause the first is indisputable, as it's MY analysis of MY reaction....and the second is a matter of opinion.

So, where's the "no, not really" part come in....?

I wasn't referring to the first part. That really doesn't matter to me one way or another. The second is indeed a matter of opinion, and as to that we seem to disagree.

The Leaf's statement was accurate, whether or not you think it was well timed or not. Really, we're engaging in pointless rhetoric, now.

[quote="geomancer]]Unless the central question of this thread has been officially and clearly addressed somewhere else. If so, I'd be grateful for a link.

You got the answer. The answer is this: VEI cannot comment. However, those "in the know" have stated, OFF THE RECORD, that VIP was, in fact, DF. No one will confirm or deny this publicly.

I certainly don't know for sure, and if I did, I wouldn't tell you.

It's entirely up to you whether you believe that or not, but you're certainly never going to get a better, clearer answer from VEI OR VIP, unless you get it "off the record" from someone in either camp.

I read the response by Brian Cronin myself, and am appreciative of it as I was of each and every post from those genuinely joining in the dicussion.

The "if I knew it I wouldn't tell you" comment is childish of you, but you seem to appreciate that sort of thing. Perhaps your version of pithy and well timed.

Again....you clearly have little or no experience with NDAs. If I knew anything, which I do not officially, I couldn't tell you EITHER WAY, even if I knew officially (<---see the paradox that NDAs make?) I would have to TELL you I didn't know, even if I did (meaning, I would have to lie.)

NO ONE can tell you anything. They can't even tell you IF they DO know. That's the POINT of a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.

If you think that's childish, you must think every person who's ever said that to anyone else must be "childish" as well. Frustrating? YOU BET! Of COURSE it's frustrating. Not being able to disclose the details of a settlement, and not even being able to say whether you even KNOW the details of that settlement is the main POINT of an NDA. It's FRUSTRATING, but it's certainly not "childish."

Welcome to Tort Law in the United States in the 21st Century!

As far as your comment regarding what I do and do not appreciate, THAT was rather petulant of you. In one paragraph, you state you "don't know what you are used to in here", but in another, you feel confident enough to be able to state what you think I "seem" to appreciate.....?

NICE!

I thought I'd check and see what kind of answer I could get, so I opened a thread. I can accept that trolling or post padding responses will happen. But when I see them I will always point them out for what they are. Online or face to face.

No one here is trolling or "post padding." I would suggest, when you BELIEVE you see them, instead of making a federal case out of nothing, you refrain from "pointing them out for what they are."

I don't know what you are used to in here.

Then, my friend, I would suggest you take some time and LEARN what "we" are used to, in here.

Let me give you a quick primer: this board has a DISTINCTIVE fraternal and convivial atmosphere, an atmosphere carefully cultivated by the board's owner, and now its moderators. 999 times out of 1,000, if a comment can be considered two possible ways, jovially or confrontationally, it will have been intended jovially. It is a nice environment and has led to a solid regular membership, MANY of whom have stated, at many times, that THIS is the only board they post on with any regularity precisely BECAUSE of this fraternal atmosphere.

That, then, is what this board is "used to."

I don't really care.

Those who don't care about the reactions and concerns of the people on this board quickly find themselves no longer part of this board, either voluntarily or forcefully. This is not a threat, but an observation of fact. Those who "don't care" cannot possibly integrate themselves successfully.

But if I ask a question or get involved in a discussion and see comments that challenge or mock the discussion itself - I will respond the way I have every single time. Count on it.

Well, isn't that precious...?

You should, as should everyone on the internet, expect everything to be challenged...and rightfully so. If an opinion is not worth fighting for (and I don't mean aggressively, I mean vigorously), then it is not worth having at all.

As far as "mock"...nobody here was mocking you OR the discussion.

One more time: if you don't understand the environment here, or are OPPOSED to it, you are going to be fighting an uphill battle by taking things seriously that were not meant to be taken so at any time. You cannot change it without changing the foundation of the board, because this board's atmosphere is as much an expression of the owner's personality and philosophies as it is fraternal, so it would be fruitless to even try.

TRUST ME, I know this from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

You apparent angst over this whole situation has NOTHING to do with my side compliment on what The Leaf said. *I* wasn't even the one who made the "objectionable" observation in the first place! I merely COMPLIMENTED it! And now, we have several lengthy posts because of a side compliment...?



Finally...and I mean this quite seriously, so please do not misunderstand: LIGHTEN UP.

You'll find the board FAR more enjoyable that way.

i ended with the same sentiment and got there in 40,000 less words...i rock!

or possibly i'm too lazy to go into the depth zwh does.

regardless, i rock!

[/quote]

You have always rocked, my friend, and you always will...

[mrwoogieman]

Couldn't Priest be sued for giving out this private information?

Sued by who?

It's been inferred in this thread that VIP no longer exist.

The only ones who could sue him would be VIP's owners, and to do that they would need to reveal their identity.

If he was involved with the lawsuit in a Non-Disclosure type instance I think it would be contempt of court... ...but WTF do I know...where's woogie when you need him...

Here I is!

A non-disclosure agreement is typically something that governs the exchange of information/ideas between potential business partners, while a confidentiality agreement is something that typically comes into play in the context of settling a dispute.

Mr. Priest and VIP may have signed some sort of non-disclosure agreement when they were discussing the possibility of his working on Q&W under their banner which may prevent him from discussing their identity or anything associated with their interaction.

Less likely is that Mr. Priest is subject to a stipulation containing a confidentiality clause, mainly because he was not a party to the litigation between VIP and Valiant Entertainment. While it is not unheard of for non-parties to be part of a settlement agreement between litigants, the usual contexts which give rise to that sort of resolution do not appear to be applicable to the VIP/VE/Priest dynamic.

Finally, the remedy for a breach of a settlement agreement can sometimes be a type of 'contempt' (an action to enforce a money settlement springs to mind), however, more typically there is some clause in the agreement itself which dictates what happens if one of the parties to the agreement breaches its terms.

I'll PM you my bill...

[slym2none]

I'll PM you my bill...

But, but... you're already Bill.....???





-slym