NEW AVENGERS #39

[Huh?]

I have been posting about this on CBR, but have read through everything on here also.

This really seems to parallel politics. There are so many times that I have wished a politician would just admit they did something wrong and apologize. I am a forgiving person, and would be more than happy to accept an apology and move on (provided it doesn't happen again). But in Mack's case, he seems to be dodging the issue. He offers no explanation for his use of Watts' photo for the original cover other than to say it was a "screw up" and "never the real cover," and then he posts a long elaborate explanation that holds no water and inside of an hour has been proven to at least contain 1 lie (about Hughes).

If this was the explanation all along, why did he post a public explanation that didn't even hint at the fact that there was some story related reason that he couldn't reveal until the issue was out?

[KoBane]

Originally Posted by Oeming

So the idea/Theme that this is a storyline about ECHO whos entire being is about imitation and being a mirror/copy of other people/characters is lost in all this crazyness I guess?

Michael, I guess the idea that Rainmaker or Gen13 or Flaunt Magazine has nothing to do with Daredevil, Echo, or New Avengers is also lost with you?

Originally Posted by Oeming

In particular, I’ve been friends with Adam Hughes and his girlfriend Allison for many years, and gave them a heads up about this idea, and they seemed to get a kick out of it, and they know I’m not trying to build a career on the look of another artist.

I'm trying to figure out when it was exactly that David Mack claims he contacted Adam Hughes and Allison Sohn to give them the "heads up" about this idea. Was it before or after the Mack the Hack threads started on CBR and here on Newsarama?

I would go on the Bendis board where Mack is hiding right now to ask this but I have a feeling Bendis would just threaten to throw me out for daring to question his buddy like he did to Greg O.

[diablo7]

if you go by mack's explanation that he swiped/"referenced" maleev's daredevil to show that he's a skrull then that would mean you can tell a skrull because they will be in a different art style... which does make sense because skrulls get they're comics in late all the time...i think this book is a skrull that was trying to be gen 13rdinary heroes...

KoBane it would not be wise to go to bendis board...bendis, choi and the gang are out to defend they're buddy at all cost..

[Mike Choi]

Originally Posted by diablo7

if you go by mack's explanation that he swiped/"referenced" maleev's daredevil to show that he's a skrull then that would mean you can tell a skrull because they will be in a different art style... which does make sense because skrulls get they're comics in late all the time...i think this book is a skrull that was trying to be gen 13rdinary heroes...

KoBane it would not be wise to go to bendis board...bendis, choi and the gang are out to defend they're buddy at all cost..

Here's the thing. I've been very careful not to side with anyone on this issue. Whether or not David did anything wrong is not the issue with me. In fact, my first sentence in response to whoever went over there from here was something like "You may have a point with what you're saying." It doesn't necessarily agree or disagree, attack or defend.

The only issue I personally had was someone going to a messageboard that's clearly not a neutral place to talk crap about the close friend of the guy whose board it is. The words chosen by the guy were clearly antogonistic and rude. What did he expect from going there? Did he expect everyone to say David Mack sucks blah blah blah? It's the equivalent of someone literally taking it upon himself to be a journalist speaking for the masses, then barging into your friend's house and telling, not asking, him and his guests to agree with his accusations. What do you think would happen?

It's a matter of politeness. That ____ just bothered the crap out of me.

When I told him to "keep fighting the good fight", it's not a reference to anything relating to his work. It's about having to put up with and answer to people who are literally trying to pick a fight with him. A lot of creators will find themselves in that situation. This is an industry where people think it's no problem to demand that someone loses their job and livelihood because their work doesn't please them personally, just because it's their right to say it.

[Greg O]

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

Here's the thing. I've been very careful not to side with anyone on this issue. Whether or not David did anything wrong is not the issue with me. In fact, my first sentence in response to whoever went over there from here was something like "You may have a point with what you're saying." It doesn't necessarily agree or disagree, attack or defend.

The only issue I personally had was someone going to a messageboard that's clearly not a neutral place to talk crap about the close friend of the guy whose board it is.

That's completely untrue Mike, I didn't go there to talk crap about Mack, I've been at pains to point out that I don't have a problem with Mack just what he did (stealing Watt's work, presenting it as his own); a distinction that's clearly unfathomable for yourself, Bendis and the majority of posters there.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

The words chosen by the guy were clearly antogonistic and rude. What did he expect from going there? Did he expect everyone to say David Mack sucks blah blah blah? It's the equivalent of someone literally taking it upon himself to be a journalist speaking for the masses, then barging into your friend's house and telling, not asking, him and his guests to agree with his accusations. What do you think would happen?

Was Bendis rude? My word's were on a par with Bendis's where he praised Mack for his dignified silence in the face of all the "sh1t". I made certain to balance that language without overstepping any of Bendis's own boundaries.

I'm pretty sure I didn't use anymore offense language than Bullsh1t. You on the other hand described me as a "prick".

The Bendis board ISN'T Bendis's house; it's his forum where supposedly all manner of things can be discussed.

It's actually the equivalent of being invited into an open meeting discussing Mack's swiping (the issue was raised before I joined) and disagreeing with those holding the meeting and pointing out where they're misleading the people attending raising pertinant issues to the subject of the meeting and being abused and threatened for something you haven't done.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

It's a matter of politeness. That ____ just bothered the crap out of me.

Really when I didn't namecall but you called me a "prick". Okay if I now point out your hypocrisy and BS? Or is that just rude.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

When I told him to "keep fighting the good fight", it's not a reference to anything relating to his work. It's about having to put up with and answer to people who are literally trying to pick a fight with him. A lot of creators will find themselves in that situation.

You said that in a discussion where I was the lone voice raising the issue of Mack's swiping of Watt's work; the fact that Mack had never even acknowledged (a month afterwards) swiping another's work; voicing my objection to Bendis portraying Mack as a victim in this whole 'swipegate' and whitewashing the incident calling any who saw swipes as the reason the cover was pulled/issue delayed "silly" and that a "boo boo" was the reason the cover was pulled!

That's what I was railing against despite Bendis accusing me of calling him an "asshole" and Mack a "liar"; something I never did.

I didn't go their to object to Mack, I objected to his swiping, Bendis's whitewashing of his actions and portrayal of Mack as being unfairly treated over his non- actions.

Your comments in that context sure read to me as 'keep swipin' the good swipe'

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

This is an industry where people think it's no problem to demand that someone loses their job and livelihood because their work doesn't please them personally, just because it's their right to say it.

And it's an industry where the images people create are their livlihood too Mike and Mack traced those hard earned images and got paid for them and copied exactly, to the extent that Marvel legal pulled the plug on it, the livlihood of photographer Ben Watts.

A point no-one other than me was making on Bendis's board and Bendis was denying and Mack was hiding from.

What about the swiped livlihoods Mike?

Greg

[Mike Choi]

Originally Posted by Greg O

That's completely untrue Mike, I didn't go there to talk crap about Mack, I've been at pains to point out that I don't have a problem with Mack just what he did (stealing Watt's work, presenting it as his own); a distinction that's clearly unfathomable for yourself, Bendis and the majority of posters there.



Was Bendis rude? My word's were on a par with Bendis's where he praised Mack for his dignified silence in the face of all the "sh1t". I made certain to balance that language without overstepping any of Bendis's own boundaries.

I'm pretty sure I didn't use anymore offense language than Bullsh1t. You on the other hand described me as a "prick".

The Bendis board ISN'T Bendis's house; it's his forum where supposedly all manner of things can be discussed.

It's actually the equivalent of being invited into an open meeting discussing Mack's swiping (the issue was raised before I joined) and disagreeing with those holding the meeting and pointing out where they're misleading the people attending raising pertinant issues to the subject of the meeting and being abused and threatened for something you haven't done.



Really when I didn't namecall but you called me a "prick". Okay if I now point out your hypocrisy and BS? Or is that just rude.



You said that in a discussion where I was the lone voice raising the issue of Mack's swiping of Watt's work; the fact that Mack had never even acknowledged (a month afterwards) swiping another's work; voicing my objection to Bendis portraying Mack as a victim in this whole 'swipegate' and whitewashing the incident calling any who saw swipes as the reason the cover was pulled/issue delayed "silly" and that a "boo boo" was the reason the cover was pulled!

That's what I was railing against despite Bendis accusing me of calling him an "asshole" and Mack a "liar"; something I never did.

I didn't go their to object to Mack, I objected to his swiping, Bendis's whitewashing of his actions and portrayal of Mack as being unfairly treated over his non- actions.

Your comments in that context sure read to me as 'keep swipin' the good swipe'



And it's an industry where the images people create are their livlihood too Mike and Mack traced those hard earned images and got paid for them and copied exactly, to the extent that Marvel legal pulled the plug on it, the livlihood of photographer Ben Watts.

A point no-one other than me was making on Bendis's board and Bendis was denying and Mack was hiding from.

What about the swiped livlihoods Mike?

Greg

Greg, first of all, do me a favor, and read my first response to you. I made sure to be VERY careful to be as polite as possible. Now read your response to it. I took it to be rude and almost antagonistic. If you weren't being rude, then I completely misjudged you and I apologise. Also, I didn't call you a prick, I asked you if maybe your sarcstic tone was unintentional, but personally I thought you were being a dick. In my opinion you continued to antagonize myself and others. In my opinion.

And yet you again come at me with more sarcasm. It unfortunately, erroneously or not, still gives me the impression that you're a dick. It's just my opinion again. You might in actuality be a very level-headed and rational human being. But right now you seem angry at me for a reason I'm not aware of. I mean, read your post again. You tell me it isn't antagonistic. Read all of the posts between us and most of your posts here and on the Bendis board. You tell me who antagonizes who first.

Clearly we differ in our opinions on the nature of Brian's message board. I'm not going to refute you on that. But I think in most contexts accusing someone of feeding you ________ is the same as calling tham a liar. In my opinion it's clear in this case. In my opinion.

Now, again, I'd like to point out that you had an argument worth considering (I think I said you may have some valid points - in fact I think it was the first thing I said to you). I'm not even going to touch that issue with the people involved, because as far as I'm concerned, my involvement in the discussion has nothing even to do with it.

"Your comments in that context sure read to me as 'keep swipin' the good swipe'".

I said "keep fighting the good fight for all of us." So you thought I said "keep swiping the good swipe for all of us swipers?" What context are you talking about?

If you're asking me in the last three paragraphs of the above post for my opinion on swiping, of course I think it's bad. I don't do it. When I see evidence (seen it twice) of it done on my own work I get upset. However, in both cases I talked to the people who did it, heard their responses and thought they were totally valid. It doesn't matter to me what others might think, I thought they were valid. If I didn't, it would be between myself and the other artist, and I personally wouldn't want anyone to come to my defense. That's my opnion on it if you're asking me.

But I don't even consider that here. I don't care if David drew them from memory, homaged them as an integral storytelling device, or completely ripped them off because he's lazy and has no morals. Because it doesn't concern me. How it concerns you is totally up to you. Again, I never said your points may not be valid, I said the opposite.

The only problem I had was how you brought them up, and where. That's it. And when you were rude to me, I felt absolutely fine about being rude right back.

Now, I gave you my honest opinion. I'd like to ask you something I asked on the Bendis Board: what exactly do you hope to accomplish?

Let's say you had a document confessing to swiping every image blatantly and knowingly with no artistic reason other than laziness, and let's say David signed it under no duress, what would you do with it? Is it just that you're accusing him of something and you just want to be right? I'm seriously curious as to people's motivations behind this crusade because a lot of effort and emotion seems to spent on this cause... what do you want to come of it as a result?

Are you fighting on behalf of Ben Watts? What do you think he has to gain from you fighting this fight? (obviously I'm using Watts as a singular example as you did above, although the syntax in that paragraph is a little tweaked, so I might be misinterpreting)

edit: I'm not being facetious at all with my questions. Please take them at face value.

[Mike Choi]

2 more things just to hopefully make my point clearer, after making sure of what I was saying in my last post:

1. I REALLY don't care if David swiped or not. I didn't even read his explanation. It's too long.

2. Your first two sentences ever on the Bendis board were:

"Disclaimer: Greg O from the Newsarama boards here, signed on because I'm blown away by the level of hypocrisy and BS coming from MOB. Yeah there's a lot of ____ thrown at MACK mostly because of people, myself included being unable to believe he's still trying to lie his way out of swiping and stealing other's work and you and Mike are doing your darndest to support him in this."

You're right, that's not talking crap. But you can't say that's not antagonistic and accusatory. Which is rude. Right off the bat, in retaliation to nothing. And I'm sure that you can see where you did in fact call Mack a liar, as well as a thief.

edit: which I guess IS talking crap.

[KoBane]

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

The only issue I personally had was someone going to a messageboard that's clearly not a neutral place to talk crap about the close friend of the guy whose board it is. The words chosen by the guy were clearly antogonistic and rude. What did he expect from going there? Did he expect everyone to say David Mack sucks blah blah blah? It's the equivalent of someone literally taking it upon himself to be a journalist speaking for the masses, then barging into your friend's house and telling, not asking, him and his guests to agree with his accusations. What do you think would happen?

So, you are admitting the Bendis board is not a neutral place? Then don't you think it was cowardly for Mack the Hack to post his response to this controversy there? In a place he knew was going to be blindly loyal to him and Bendis rather than a neutral place like CBR and Newsarama where BOTH sides get to post? A place rife with suckups and ass-kissers and industry pros too chicken to question the Mighty Baldis?

And you know what? Ordinarily you may even have a point. But Bendis (the puppet master) knew this topic has been huge threads both on CBR and here and have invoked some pretty strong emotions and opinions. He never considered that by letting his boy post his "defense" on his board that people were going to go on there and refute it? Instead of asking Greg O what he expected from going there, why don't you ask Bendis what he and Mack expected by posting Mack the Hack's defense there? That people would just accept that BS story? That nobody would attempt to post in response?

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

When I told him to "keep fighting the good fight", it's not a reference to anything relating to his work. It's about having to put up with and answer to people who are literally trying to pick a fight with him.

You may think that but almost everyone has gone out of their way to say what a nice guy Mack is. Outside of one poster who has since been sent to Guatanamo, I would say most people here weren't trying to pick a fight with him. Like I said in a previous post, most of the 'fighting' (if you will), has been in response to his fans and buddies who have put up one inane defense after the other not with Mack himself.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

A lot of creators will find themselves in that situation. This is an industry where people think it's no problem to demand that someone loses their job and livelihood because their work doesn't please them personally, just because it's their right to say it.

Gee, you poor comic industry folks...that's not at all like what "regular folk" have to put up with at all !!! "Regular" folk NEVER have to worry about someone demanding that they lose their jobs and livelihood because their work didn't please that person. Nooooo! How do you guys live like that?
(for the sarcasm impaired: that was sarcastic).

Choi, in the real world, there are people like Mack all over. People without any gifts or abilities but because they are charming and opportunistic they advance in their respective fields by leeching and taking credit for work of others. But the difference is, in the REAL world when that person is caught so red-handed, so convincingly as Mack is here, that person is usually ruined. In the fantasy world of comics, a guy like Mack is defended and shielded by seemingly intelligent and influential people like Bendis and Quesada. In fact, he is made a martyr. I find that part offensive.

[KoBane]

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

If you're asking me in the last three paragraphs of the above post for my opinion on swiping, of course I think it's bad. I don't do it. When I see evidence (seen it twice) of it done on my own work I get upset.

Ding! Yet another artist who defends Mack's swiping but insists that he himself doesn't swipe! Just once I like a Mack defender to come on and say "Sure, I do it too! Here, see?"

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

Now, I gave you my honest opinion. I'd like to ask you something I asked on the Bendis Board: what exactly do you hope to accomplish?....
I'm seriously curious as to people's motivations behind this crusade because a lot of effort and emotion seems to spent on this cause... what do you want to come of it as a result?.

Speaking for myself only, one thing I hope that comes out of this is that people recognize that David Mack is not this genius his fans think he is. I was once a David Mack fan until I realized that he has gotten where he is by riding the coattails of people more talented than himself. I don't want to read about how David Mack turns stuff into art and poetry anymore. I'm sick of the bs.

And what do you hope to come as a result of your defending David Mack? You even go as far as saying you don't even care if he swiped or not, that you didn't even bother to read his post explaining why he swiped! Yet, you are so intent on defending him even going on the other boards to do so. Oh why pray tell, why would you do that? Just to chastise Greg O and the rest of us on net etiquette?

Don't worry, we "regular" folk have to do the same jive. We might have to laugh at jokes our boss tells us or we have to be polite to customers even when we know they're wrong. Don't worry, Mike, we get it. It's a living, right? There's really only two big companies in the industry and you can't burn any bridges right? I can understand that.

Keep fighting the good fight!!!

[SamDiamond]

Mr. Choi.

I agree with alot of what your saying and I can even read between the lines of your posts where you seem to agree to a point that there is a legit issue with Mack, his swipping ect. ect. But challenging one guy (Greg O) and getting into a internet rumble with him is silly.

If you really dont care and never even read Macks response "Too Long" then why respond to thread at all?
Its like your in the school yard with all the cool kids, your finally accepted and now you have the back up of the big boys, so you pick a fight with a loner that you know has no backup and is where he shouldnt belong to get noticed by the leader of the group.

I saw the post you made that Bendis deleted quicker than he can stuff his face with fast food. I couldnt believe a comic pro would pop shitt like that on the internet. That really made me realise the kinda person you were so all your good points went negative to me.You owe Bendis one for the deletion, you really would have looked like a fool.

If I saved it Id post it for everyone but you know the post im talking about, Mike.

Also notice how many other Pros have spoken out for the Great Mack that are not his friends, tied to the bendis Board or are under the Marvel shield of ________?? ____ing none. You know why? Cause they have nothing good to say. They all look at Newserama, Its pretty populiar last time I checked. I can count on one hand all of Macks "peers" that have come to his rescue.

Also save that comic pro crap for when you talk to yourself in the mirror, You really think the comic book industry is the only field where people demand your job after one ____kup?Are you crazy? Holier than thou? Or just plane niave?

Thats it, I think Sam Diamond is turning in his gun and badge on this case. The MOB crew digging their own hole is better than me doing it anyway, so let the lies fly, and remember "The Entire Industry is Watching Us"!

[dudedarama]

nice "homages" David.



















I hope you're going to share that paycheck with Hughes.

[Greg O]

Duderama, first off great Job. Second you read my damn mind with the single line of text damn you.

Mike Choi; let me apologise if I come across as rude or sarcy to you. Wether you believe it or not it's not my intention.

That said I have to ask why are you posting about this, hell, why are you even defending Mack?

I REALLY don't care if David swiped or not. I didn't even read his explanation. It's too long.

I'm in a different time zone to you; hours ahead and was posting on the Bendisboard after a long day at the grindstone. Unlike yourself it does matter to me that Mack swiped and that MOB are doing there darndest that no-one ever knows that he stole others work.

I didn't post until after folks raved about Macks art (which was the work of others) and Bendis started eulogising his pal in the face of adversity, which given that Mack has stolen from other artists (like yourself though you weren't stolen from in this instance) may have contributed to my jaded weariness. That said the other posters calling me a douche, dick. claiming stuff was addressed that wasn't, claiming I called names when I didn't etc. etc.

I fully understand why Macks friends and fans would support him, I don't understand why they are trying to twist the facts and are insulting in the process those artists who have had their work stolen by him.

Here are some facts Mike bulletpointed so you can follow the truth, these are facts that you wouldn't find on Bendis's board and were avoided by Bendis and Mack till I posted there:
1: Mack swiped tons of art in NA #39 from other artists; Hughes, Maleev, Mazzuchelli amongst them.

2: Mack swiped the cover figure from photographer Ben Watts so balatantly that Marvel pulled the cover and delayed the issue with no comment to retailers or fans as to why the issue was delayed.

3: Mack took credit, kudos and praise for simply tracing others work, and the praise for HIS art is still flying at the moment even though he's now been forced to acknowledge that he 'deliberately swiped' for artistic intent.

4: Mack's excuses praised by Bendis et al don't stand up. It was an 'experiment', Daredevil was swiped because he was a Skrull, so why was Maya swiped? Mack has long convolouted wordy (Bendis like?) explanations to try and justify his process but he's been tracing other's work for years, as has clearly been shown on this thread.

Here's an illustration showing how he swiped Maleeve's Daredevil:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rzdB5a4kLAo/...aleev_Mack.jpg


So if he only swiped that as a 'homage', part of an 'experiment' to illustrate 'skrullness' why did he trace it back in 2003 using it 3 times in 3 pages (even getting a full page just out of Maleevs Daredevil)?:
http://davidmackguide.com/portfolio/...ge01-large.jpg


5: Mack didn't acknowledge a single swipe until they were pointed out, outside of the Bendisboards natch, despite the fact that he now claims they were an artistic homage. Bendis raved about Macks art on NA #39 as did his fans despite the fact that the work they were raving about was the work of Hughes, Maleev et al.

When the Hughes swipes were pointed out, he acknowledged them as tribute to his (non-Daredevil artist) pal, end of story. When Maleev posted at the start of this thread that Mack had swiped his Daredevil cover in it's entireity (BG and all); that was a tribute to iconic Daredevil imagery.

When the Ben Watts copyrighted photograph image was pointed out Mck dissappeared while Bendis 'poo-pooed' any notion that it was a swipe that would have screwed Mack and Mrvle legally despite the FACT that the cover was pulled.

6:As you know Choi, artists have to work goddamn hard to be successful, the imagery they (and photographers) create is their livlihood.

Hughes, Mazzuchelli and Maleev have worked long and hard to develop their craft to get to where they are now.

You will understand that for every original image that they created they had to problem solve, figure out composition, figure out anatomy and lighting, find reference and decide how best to render the image.

That's alot of work.

Mack had to decide which of these terriffic images to trace.

And he get's praised and more importantly paid for Hughes, Maleevs etc. etc effort and artistry.

Actually Mack gets paid twice for their artwork, once by Marvel and again when he sells the originals as he does the day the comic sees print.

The people who created the art in the first place get nothing; not even a credit or even a 'thank you' to let readers know that the art folks are raving about isn't Macks.

Maleev shares a board with Mack, I'd guess theyre good pals; he didn't know he was being swiped till he saw the preview art here!

Same with Hughe's agent/girlfriend.

Why am I posting about this Choi?

Because I'm a fan of comic art and the effort and talents of the people who bring it to us.

Your imaginary notion of Mack signing a swipe document is irrelevant; He did swipe, he didn't acknowledge it, he made up excuses for it, his pals applauded him for it. And he reaps the rewards while the original artists get nothing, not even acknowledgement if it weren't for uppity posters on this thread.

That's a fact Mike.

EDIT: Can someone smarter than me pop in the Maleev/Mack comparrison image from earlier in the thread: It's not showing up for some reason?

Greg

[dudedarama]

[eltopo]

Originally Posted by dudedarama

never mind
I like balls

[dudedarama]

How lazy can you be?instead of drawing a hand on his own,he just flipped the other one and traced it. a friggin hand..you can't draw a friggin hand ?

[DiMo1]

Hi,

All of this is really just sad. How Mack can live with this is beyond me, A big apology is overdue, not only from him, but also from Marvel and the responsible editors as well.

Rob

[Choi]

Originally Posted by Greg O

Duderama, first off great Job. Second you read my damn mind with the single line of text damn you.

Mike Choi; let me apologise if I come across as rude or sarcy to you. Wether you believe it or not it's not my intention.

That said I have to ask why are you posting about this, hell, why are you even defending Mack?


I'm in a different time zone to you; hours ahead and was posting on the Bendisboard after a long day at the grindstone. Unlike yourself it does matter to me that Mack swiped and that MOB are doing there darndest that no-one ever knows that he stole others work.

I didn't post until after folks raved about Macks art (which was the work of others) and Bendis started eulogising his pal in the face of adversity, which given that Mack has stolen from other artists (like yourself though you weren't stolen from in this instance) may have contributed to my jaded weariness. That said the other posters calling me a douche, dick. claiming stuff was addressed that wasn't, claiming I called names when I didn't etc. etc.

I fully understand why Macks friends and fans would support him, I don't understand why they are trying to twist the facts and are insulting in the process those artists who have had their work stolen by him.

Here are some facts Mike bulletpointed so you can follow the truth, these are facts that you wouldn't find on Bendis's board and were avoided by Bendis and Mack till I posted there:
1: Mack swiped tons of art in NA #39 from other artists; Hughes, Maleev, Mazzuchelli amongst them.

2: Mack swiped the cover figure from photographer Ben Watts so balatantly that Marvel pulled the cover and delayed the issue with no comment to retailers or fans as to why the issue was delayed.

3: Mack took credit, kudos and praise for simply tracing others work, and the praise for HIS art is still flying at the moment even though he's now been forced to acknowledge that he 'deliberately swiped' for artistic intent.

4: Mack's excuses praised by Bendis et al don't stand up. It was an 'experiment', Daredevil was swiped because he was a Skrull, so why was Maya swiped? Mack has long convolouted wordy (Bendis like?) explanations to try and justify his process but he's been tracing other's work for years, as has clearly been shown on this thread.

Here's an illustration showing how he swiped Maleeve's Daredevil:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_rzdB5a4kLAo/...aleev_Mack.jpg


So if he only swiped that as a 'homage', part of an 'experiment' to illustrate 'skrullness' why did he trace it back in 2003 using it 3 times in 3 pages (even getting a full page just out of Maleevs Daredevil)?:
http://davidmackguide.com/portfolio/...ge01-large.jpg


5: Mack didn't acknowledge a single swipe until they were pointed out, outside of the Bendisboards natch, despite the fact that he now claims they were an artistic homage. Bendis raved about Macks art on NA #39 as did his fans despite the fact that the work they were raving about was the work of Hughes, Maleev et al.

When the Hughes swipes were pointed out, he acknowledged them as tribute to his (non-Daredevil artist) pal, end of story. When Maleev posted at the start of this thread that Mack had swiped his Daredevil cover in it's entireity (BG and all); that was a tribute to iconic Daredevil imagery.

When the Ben Watts copyrighted photograph image was pointed out Mck dissappeared while Bendis 'poo-pooed' any notion that it was a swipe that would have screwed Mack and Mrvle legally despite the FACT that the cover was pulled.

6:As you know Choi, artists have to work goddamn hard to be successful, the imagery they (and photographers) create is their livlihood.

Hughes, Mazzuchelli and Maleev have worked long and hard to develop their craft to get to where they are now.

You will understand that for every original image that they created they had to problem solve, figure out composition, figure out anatomy and lighting, find reference and decide how best to render the image.

That's alot of work.

Mack had to decide which of these terriffic images to trace.

And he get's praised and more importantly paid for Hughes, Maleevs etc. etc effort and artistry.

Actually Mack gets paid twice for their artwork, once by Marvel and again when he sells the originals as he does the day the comic sees print.

The people who created the art in the first place get nothing; not even a credit or even a 'thank you' to let readers know that the art folks are raving about isn't Macks.

Maleev shares a board with Mack, I'd guess theyre good pals; he didn't know he was being swiped till he saw the preview art here!

Same with Hughe's agent/girlfriend.

Why am I posting about this Choi?

Because I'm a fan of comic art and the effort and talents of the people who bring it to us.

Your imaginary notion of Mack signing a swipe document is irrelevant; He did swipe, he didn't acknowledge it, he made up excuses for it, his pals applauded him for it. And he reaps the rewards while the original artists get nothing, not even acknowledgement if it weren't for uppity posters on this thread.

That's a fact Mike.

EDIT: Can someone smarter than me pop in the Maleev/Mack comparrison image from earlier in the thread: It's not showing up for some reason?

Greg

]


If you're apologizing, I have no reason not to believe you. I've never met you, If you had posted in this tone in a very straightforward and direct manner without being rude in my opinion, I'd totally love to have this discussion with you if you wanted the point of view of swiping from a penciler's (albeit not a very experienced one) perspective.

Rudeness that comes out of nowhere bothers the crap out of me. Like being snapped at when meeting someone for the first time. Sam Diamond has a scan of a post which Brian deleted immediately because it was laced with expletives chastising you, which he can feel free to PM you if he and you like. Just to give you a clue, it starts off with "You're an F-ing idiot (use actual expletive)" because as far as I was concerned, you CONTINUED to be rude, accusatory and VERY demanding. In hindsight, I'm very thankful Brian deleted it because it was said in anger, but I will say that at the time I meant every word. Please do me a huge favor. Go to my blog (mikechoirants.blogspot.com) and read the first entry on the page. That is the sort of person I lumped you in with. I'm going to apologise to you more for THAT than the entry itself, which I also apologise in advance for. BUT, keep in mind that Brian censored me before you.

Now before you jump down my throat about me saying I didn't read Mack's entry, I was joking. Because look at it. It's REALLY long although look at my entry and tell me it's not too long. I even referenced Mack's explanation in an earlier response about the reasons for all this.

Regarding your points 1-5, you've mentioned them before, and I've never argued them. I've also never agreed with them. It doesn't involve me. Do you understand that I don't have a problem with you saying what you're saying, only in how and where you said it? What you're posting here as far as I'm concerned is your perspective, and your opinion, which is fair. Now look at your phrasing here to your posts on the Bendis board.

A lot of people were just sick of the issue being brought up again, as it had been discussed several times before. If you read what's been said in the past as well as now you'll see a lot of people share your point of view. But because they're aware of where they are, they're careful not be rude about it. It may sound like I'm defending what Mack did because I'm not being outrightly accusatory, but I'm not. I'm being very careful so as not to accuse or defend, because it really has nothing to do with me. I only think that David is in my opinion, a hell of an artist, a hell of a professional, and a hell of a nice guy. Even if he did swipe out of sheer laziness or malice towards the original artists, I KNOW that he didn't have to. So I don't believe he did.

As for your last point though, if you're speaking on behalf of the work of Maleev and Hughes, now that they're made aware of the situation, do you not think of your work as done and now it's up to them?

"Why am I posting about this Choi?

Because I'm a fan of comic art and the effort and talents of the people who bring it to us.

Your imaginary notion of Mack signing a swipe document is irrelevant; He did swipe, he didn't acknowledge it, he made up excuses for it, his pals applauded him for it. And he reaps the rewards while the original artists get nothing, not even acknowledgement if it weren't for uppity posters on this thread."

So basically what you want is acknowledgement of the original artists? Then why doesn't Mack's explanation suffice? He does exactly that.

edit: Obviously it's more than that. What I'm saying is that if the offended parties are aware of the situation and they believe the explanation and are willing to let it drop/don't believe the explanation or want punishment or compensation, if that is being done, what is the point of the issue continuing?

edit: Another way to put it, if I am to believe that your explanation covers everybody who posts on the issue... when examples come out of swipes, why is more attention put on (in my opnion) the crucifixion of the swiper, than the defense of the swiped? If I were to ask who the swipers were and where they swiped, I'd expect a lot of answers. If I were to ask the names of the talent behind the art that was swiped, I'd expect very few. If we're all fans of comic art and the effort and talents of the people who bring it to us, shouldn't it be equal? A recent example of "swiping", although I SERiOUSLY think it's debatable, is the Wizard cover/WWE reference that's been on Lying in the Gutters. Why does no one take the effort to find out the WWE photographer's name?

[KoBane]

Originally Posted by dudedarama

nice "homages" David.
I hope you're going to share that paycheck with Hughes.

This is pathetic. Even knowing that everyone was going to watch him even closer, he still let the issue go out with this many swipes??? How stupid is that? Is he that lazy or inept that he couldn't go back and undo his swipes?

[dudedarama]

Originally Posted by Choi

]

A recent example of "swiping", although I SERiOUSLY think it's debatable, is the Wizard cover/WWE reference that's been on Lying in the Gutters. Why does no one take the effort to find out the WWE photographer's name?

first, JGJones didn't start a thread fishing for compliments after the cover was done.And enough changes were made in the final drawing that it became referencing not stealing.

Second,Ben Watts' name was right on the cover..didn't need any detective work.

[KoBane]

Originally Posted by Choi

] Now before you jump down my throat about me saying I didn't read Mack's entry, I was joking. Because look at it. It's REALLY long although look at my entry and tell me it's not too long. I even referenced Mack's explanation in an earlier response about the reasons for all this.

You were joking?!?! You are so full of it. This what you wrote.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

2 more things just to hopefully make my point clearer, after making sure of what I was saying in my last post:
1. I REALLY don't care if David swiped or not. I didn't even read his explanation. It's too long.
2. Your first two sentences ever on the Bendis board were:

That's some joke. You were trying to make your point clearer. Fact of the matter is you were correct, you really don't care if he swiped or not. You just want to defend him to gain favor with the Bendis Clique. Even now when presented with such obvious swipes from the interior, you continue to blindly protect your master. I'll ask you your own question, Mike, what do YOU get out of it? What, a reach around? Sam Diamond had it right, you finally got to hang with the cool kids and now you are trying to impress them. I almost feel embarrassed for you. Almost.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

A lot of people were just sick of the issue being brought up again, as it had been discussed several times before.

Is that right? People are sick of it? Funny, it seems to me that all the boards are pretty active right now on this subject. That's "sick of it?" Oh, I'm sure your buddies are pretty sick of it, sick of people proving Mack is a swipe addict. But besides them, I think the rest of us are just fine with the subject.

Originally Posted by Mike Choi

It may sound like I'm defending what Mack did because I'm not being outrightly accusatory, but I'm not. I'm being very careful so as not to accuse or defend, because it really has nothing to do with me. I only think that David is in my opinion, a hell of an artist, a hell of a professional, and a hell of a nice guy. Even if he did swipe out of sheer laziness or malice towards the original artists, I KNOW that he didn't have to. So I don't believe he did.

You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth, don't you? I bet you're the type to insult someone you don't know well and when they're about to kick your ass, you pull the "hey man, I was only kidding!!!" gambit.

You're very careful not to defend? Gee, what about the bold-faced part above? There you just defended him. You keep telling us you have no opinion, you don't care, etc etc, yet here you just stated outright that you don't believe he did and that you "KNOW" he didn't have to. Which is it? Still "joking?" Still have no opinion? Still not taking sides? Still careful to be in the middle? All the qualifying sentences in the world doesn't change what your intent has been from the beginning. Mission accomplished. You got to kiss some more ass. Keep on fighting the good fight!!!!!! Hooray!

This was a post by Mike Oeming on the Bendis board in reply to Greg O. "Dude, David is like a brother to me. he can shoot a baby in face and I'd still blame the baby." When confronted with that kind of statement, how can we take anything anyone (especially Mike Oeming) says seriously?

[Infanity]

There have been a lot of wasted words on this topic. Wasted because it doesn't REALLY matter what everyone's feelings are. This is a matter of law. As a professional corporate paralegal, I believe I'm on safe ground to say that an inquiry is in order. Instead of levelling accusations and posting and re-posting Maleev, Hughes and others RECENT swipes, let me challenge those of you with large comic collections to do the actual footwork. Break out your FULL Mack collection: Happy the Clown, Young Dracula, Kabuki, Daredevil and all the incidentals and covers he's done for the past 15 years and examine it closely.

I guarantee you will find MANY, MANY more swipes. Because, after all, the question here is not whether he swiped imagery for NA #39. We know the answer to that already. The real question is: has he been swiping consistently for his entire CAREER? Is his rise to fame and popularity founded on fraud? I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I'm just calling for a full-blown investigation.

[Choi]

Originally Posted by SamDiamond

Mr. Choi.

I agree with alot of what your saying and I can even read between the lines of your posts where you seem to agree to a point that there is a legit issue with Mack, his swipping ect. ect. But challenging one guy (Greg O) and getting into a internet rumble with him is silly.

If you really dont care and never even read Macks response "Too Long" then why respond to thread at all?
Its like your in the school yard with all the cool kids, your finally accepted and now you have the back up of the big boys, so you pick a fight with a loner that you know has no backup and is where he shouldnt belong to get noticed by the leader of the group.

I saw the post you made that Bendis deleted quicker than he can stuff his face with fast food. I couldnt believe a comic pro would pop shitt like that on the internet. That really made me realise the kinda person you were so all your good points went negative to me.You owe Bendis one for the deletion, you really would have looked like a fool.

If I saved it Id post it for everyone but you know the post im talking about, Mike.

Also notice how many other Pros have spoken out for the Great Mack that are not his friends, tied to the bendis Board or are under the Marvel shield of ________?? ____ing none. You know why? Cause they have nothing good to say. They all look at Newserama, Its pretty populiar last time I checked. I can count on one hand all of Macks "peers" that have come to his rescue.

Also save that comic pro crap for when you talk to yourself in the mirror, You really think the comic book industry is the only field where people demand your job after one ____kup?Are you crazy? Holier than thou? Or just plane niave?

Thats it, I think Sam Diamond is turning in his gun and badge on this case. The MOB crew digging their own hole is better than me doing it anyway, so let the lies fly, and remember "The Entire Industry is Watching Us"!

Sam,

You're making up a lot of hypotheticals and analogies in your brain and that's totally cool. It is. I don't agree with it. Ah, maybe I do to some extent, I'm a huge fan of Brian's. Like I literally geek out when I meet him.

But as for picking on the loner to impress the popular kids, I don't know about that. You obviously read the posts. Read my original post and you see if I was doing any picking on before he started being testy with me. If you're going to keep making up analogies etc, by all means go ahead. Here's another thing though, which I'll try to make clear to you, other than when I'm promoting something I don't post there as a penciler or comic book person or what have you. It's why I don't use my first name. I don't ever expect a new poster to know who I am, because it's not important. I don't care if Brian, David or whoever thinks I'm cool because I picked on the poor kid and he approves from his schoolyard pedestal. What the hell is that? Why would I care if he likes me as a person because I'm willing to be his lackey but doesn't like my work? I've never given Brian anything of mine to even look at, and I gave David some books once because he gave me some as well. So why would I try to impress them personally? They won't help me be popular with the pretty cheerleaders.

If you want to punish me by posting what I said, please do. It's a little underhanded, but hey, I'm the idiot that posted it in the first place. Apparently a lot of people did see it. I apologize to Greg, and ONLY to Greg for it because it was said in anger and the expletives were completely uncalled for, and in hindsight, I see that it does not describe GregO's intentions and personality. In fact, please do send it to Greg, just so he doesn't assume worse, like insulting his mom or something.

It does, however describe a lot of people on the internet, and I even posted words in kind on my blog (so emo), although not as angrily. People who hide behind anonymity and say things that are insulting and deliberately hurtful just to please an imaginary audience. And posting under your real name doesn't make it any less anonymous. It doesn't. Because if you have nothing to lose, you can say whatever you want. You're not risking anything. But the people you're demanding responses from risk EVERYTHING.

And of course I don't feel like the comic book field is not the only field where people demand your job after only one mistake. I worked in IT for three years for a major corporation on million dollar projects, where, yeah, you screw up once, and you're out of a job, probably for life. But. This is different. You know it's different. It starts with who does the demanding. It goes to where they're demanding it. Why they're demanding it and the tone and thought process in how they're demanding it. And finally who reads it.

Look, I erroneously didn't give GregO the benefit of the doubt that he was a rational person. So I won't do the same with you. Do me a favor, and google "Mike Choi Journalista". Look at what happens when you make a mistake and someone points it out where A LOT of the industry and its consumers will visit. Read the tone. You give me two other industries where that happens. God I WISH I was more naive.

Now, I'm not going to continue this here. I get the impression athat I might start getting picked on here, like I don't know, a defenseless kid with no backup being beat up in front of some guy and his friends trying to look hard. But please PM me if you want to address anything. I'll try to respond to the ones that are genuinely trying to have a conversation.

[Choi]

Originally Posted by KoBane

You were joking?!?! You are so full of it. This what you wrote.



That's some joke. You were trying to make your point clearer. Fact of the matter is you were correct, you really don't care if he swiped or not. You just want to defend him to gain favor with the Bendis Clique. Even now when presented with such obvious swipes from the interior, you continue to blindly protect your master. I'll ask you your own question, Mike, what do YOU get out of it? What, a reach around? Sam Diamond had it right, you finally got to hang with the cool kids and now you are trying to impress them. I almost feel embarrassed for you. Almost.



Is that right? People are sick of it? Funny, it seems to me that all the boards are pretty active right now on this subject. That's "sick of it?" Oh, I'm sure your buddies are pretty sick of it, sick of people proving Mack is a swipe addict. But besides them, I think the rest of us are just fine with the subject.



You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth, don't you? I bet you're the type to insult someone you don't know well and when they're about to kick your ass, you pull the "hey man, I was only kidding!!!" gambit.

You're very careful not to defend? Gee, what about the bold-faced part above? There you just defended him. You keep telling us you have no opinion, you don't care, etc etc, yet here you just stated outright that you don't believe he did and that you "KNOW" he didn't have to. Which is it? Still "joking?" Still have no opinion? Still not taking sides? Still careful to be in the middle? All the qualifying sentences in the world doesn't change what your intent has been from the beginning. Mission accomplished. You got to kiss some more ass. Keep on fighting the good fight!!!!!! Hooray!

This was a post by Mike Oeming on the Bendis board in reply to Greg O. "Dude, David is like a brother to me. he can shoot a baby in face and I'd still blame the baby." When confronted with that kind of statement, how can we take anything anyone (especially Mike Oeming) says seriously?

Who are you? Why are you yelling at me? What did I do to you? If you're angry at me for trying to have a conversation with GregO, I've apologized to him already. The guy seems level headed.

Now, if you want to ask me a question, PM me. I got maaaaybe a couple sentences after "You are so full of it." before I hit reply. Cut and paste if you like. But like I've said before, I've responded to being antagonized with my own antagonizing. I'd rather not see that on any blogs etc. so I'm not going to do it in a public forum (...any...more...than I already ... have) And if you really just want an answer, that should be enough.

There are ways as Greg has shown me to handle things in a civil way. It starts with being polite. I failed in that with Greg and I still feel bad about it, because I responded to Greg's sarcasm with even more sarcasm followed by tirade that was thankfully deleted. Lesson graciously learned. Be polite and I'll answer anything you have to ask. I've shown that before.

[SamDiamond]

Originally Posted by Choi

Sam,

You're making up a lot of hypotheticals and analogies in your brain and that's totally cool. It is. I don't agree with it. Ah, maybe I do to some extent, I'm a huge fan of Brian's. Like I literally geek out when I meet him.

But as for picking on the loner to impress the popular kids, I don't know about that. You obviously read the posts. Read my original post and you see if I was doing any picking on before he started being testy with me. If you're going to keep making up analogies etc, by all means go ahead. Here's another thing though, which I'll try to make clear to you, other than when I'm promoting something I don't post there as a penciler or comic book person or what have you. It's why I don't use my first name. I don't ever expect a new poster to know who I am, because it's not important. I don't care if Brian, David or whoever thinks I'm cool because I picked on the poor kid and he approves from his schoolyard pedestal. What the hell is that? Why would I care if he likes me as a person because I'm willing to be his lackey but doesn't like my work? I've never given Brian anything of mine to even look at, and I gave David some books once because he gave me some as well. So why would I try to impress them personally? They won't help me be popular with the pretty cheerleaders.

If you want to punish me by posting what I said, please do. It's a little underhanded, but hey, I'm the idiot that posted it in the first place. Apparently a lot of people did see it. I apologize to Greg, and ONLY to Greg for it because it was said in anger and the expletives were completely uncalled for, and in hindsight, I see that it does not describe GregO's intentions and personality. In fact, please do send it to Greg, just so he doesn't assume worse, like insulting his mom or something.

It does, however describe a lot of people on the internet, and I even posted words in kind on my blog (so emo), although not as angrily. People who hide behind anonymity and say things that are insulting and deliberately hurtful just to please an imaginary audience. And posting under your real name doesn't make it any less anonymous. It doesn't. Because if you have nothing to lose, you can say whatever you want. You're not risking anything. But the people you're demanding responses from risk EVERYTHING.

And of course I don't feel like the comic book field is not the only field where people demand your job after only one mistake. I worked in IT for three years for a major corporation on million dollar projects, where, yeah, you screw up once, and you're out of a job, probably for life. But. This is different. You know it's different. It starts with who does the demanding. It goes to where they're demanding it. Why they're demanding it and the tone and thought process in how they're demanding it. And finally who reads it.

Look, I erroneously didn't give GregO the benefit of the doubt that he was a rational person. So I won't do the same with you. Do me a favor, and google "Mike Choi Journalista". Look at what happens when you make a mistake and someone points it out where A LOT of the industry and its consumers will visit. Read the tone. You give me two other industries where that happens. God I WISH I was more naive.

Now, I'm not going to continue this here. I get the impression athat I might start getting picked on here, like I don't know, a defenseless kid with no backup being beat up in front of some guy and his friends trying to look hard. But please PM me if you want to address anything. I'll try to respond to the ones that are genuinely trying to have a conversation.

"Just when i thought I was out, you pull me back in"

Ha, You know Choi said some ____ed up ____ in that PM if he needed to type this and keeps bringing it up

I can assure you (Greg) he did not say anything bad about your mom or family. He just got really pissed and out of character, Bendis saw that it and axed it super quick no biggie.
Honestly I dont care about anyones view on this but Macks. Its macks explainations that have dug hinm deeper than any shmoe posting on a forum. ,He just added a new one to the Bendis Board totally skipping over the Hughes/Davis Stuff again, and further feeding the masses his bullcrap babyfood like where all totaly clueless to what it it takes to pick up a pencil and draw a picture cause essentially , thats his job.

Whatevers clever, right?

Im not sharing that PM with anyone Mike, as far as im concerned its deleted forever.

[dudedarama]

Originally Posted by SamDiamond

"Just when i thought I was out, you pull me back in"

Ha, You know Choi said some ____ed up ____ in that PM if he needed to type this and keeps bringing it up



.

Sounds like a cowardly punk bitch move to me