Again I am baffled by the immaturity exhibited by a fairly acclaimed comic book. I swear if I didn't know better, I'd have said Mark Millar had written this.
It seems to be a common theme among comic book writers that:
a) Everyone in the world is an inherent dickwad. Who the hell would steal from a cash register (with witnesses) instead of calling an ambulance (or just running away) when the registrar keels over from a heart attack? And of course, the man who donates to all the orphanages and charities is OF COURSE a child molester. The people in the Vatican use derogatory and politically-incorrect racial slurs in the company of fellow holy-men...
Best yet, the pope will let terrified nuns sodomize him in front of the whole clergy!
What's most amazing about how preposterously stupid--not even offensive, just stupid--is that we're suppose to suspend our disbelief that the pope's blatantly inappropriate behavior ISN'T exposed to the public at large, when he doesn't even make an attempt to keep his sexual exploits private?
And would Wormwood's rival so thoroughly humiliate himself in a televised interview. Would grown business men play infantile pranks on each other to fluster their rival instead of competing fiscally?
and b)A self-deprecating, yet self-righteous hero. In a cataclysmic turn of events, I actually like Wormwood and Jay. The rabbit was unnecessary, and served no evident purpose except to annoy the shit out of me (or possibly be the self-insert character for the thirteen-year-old male demographic). But Wormwood and Jay had a good dynamic. They were SO CLOSE to be convincing as characters. Take away about three-fourths of the cuss words that serve to bulk up the dialog, and Wormwood's almost a real guy. He's got flaws, some more believable than others, and he's got his good points too. So why are all the characters besides the main ones complete and utter reprehensible, rage-filled, crime-committing assholes? Even Joan of Arc, "Fock me, Eegleesh peeg." Is that supposed to be clever? Funny? Ironic?
This whole comic book was one testament of "Fuck the world! Everyone's an asshole! Look at how EDGY I am!" I honestly don't understand how one writes something like this and thinks that they've completed something worth reading. Just because Ennis has written Bible characters in a way that no one has (which is actually untrue; Good Omens is basically this story without all of the AWFUL), does he think he's done something new and exciting? Just because he CAN, doesn't mean he SHOULD. I mean, there's a reason that people don't unzip their pants and piss on a wall whenever their bladders get a little too full. (Although, in this comic, I'm pretty sure everybody does that anyway.)
Maybe I just don't get these "fantasies" written by middle aged men for a young male demographic. Both Wanted and Kick-Ass, highly praised by other comic nerds, outraged me for the exact same reason this has: they're immature while pretending at sophistication and irony, they're uncreative, they work off of a shock factor more than substantial plot... My friend tries to convince me they're satire, but-- A Modest Proposal is satire. This is just crap.
I'd like to see less comic books written by resentful teenage boys, and more by men and women who actually know what character development and balance are.