Rob snow posted on Mar. 2, 2026 at 9:37 AM
Wow he used the Charlton era suit for Beetle

 Boosterrific [Official Comment] posted on Mar. 2, 2026 at 4:40 PM
Yeah, note that Booster's costume also comes from his first 12 issues, and Skeets is in his volume 2 shell. So they're from all over the place. (Isn't time travel great?)

SLW (Steff) posted on Feb. 5, 2026 at 3:46 PM
I maintain this was and still is just bad characterization. Have always been disappointed in it; Booster managed to avoid sexism through 97% of Vol. 1 and the entirety of the Giffen/DeMatteis league only to end up being a total sleazeball when his own creator takes over the team.

 Boosterrific [Official Comment] posted on Feb. 6, 2026 at 12:25 AM
I cannot deny that Jurgens emphasizes the "horndog" aspect of the character when he takes over the JLA, but "total sleazeball" seems a bit harsh, especially when there's a Guy Gardner on the team.
And for the record, the calendar situation has never felt especially exploitative to me. Booster clearly intends the calendar as a for-profit enterprise, and Fire wasn't bamboozled, she was completely on board until she found out that it was Booster who would be profiting. (She's just as interested in fame and fortune as Booster is. That's why she and Booster have never gotten along: they're too similar.) Booster was doing what he always did: unethically manipulating his way into increased profit. Seems pretty in character to me.

SLW (Steff) posted on Feb. 8, 2026 at 2:10 PM
I dunno, Walter. Setting a teammate up like that was absolutely dirty dealing, and take it from a woman, there's a level of betrayal there that comes when it's someone you live with and work with versus a stranger. Like-- there's a different level of consent involved. A different expectation of respect.

Okay, so to try to put it in a context that might make more sense as to why I think this is awful writing and evidence that Dan is plain bad at writing women and that this isn't something Booster would even think to do: It's the difference between, say, flirting with someone online who -- as far as you know -- is a stranger. You hit it off great. You talk for weeks or months and decide to have a date. You show up and it turns out this was your friend who knows all the right things to say to manipulate your emotions and get you interested, in the hopes that they'd get something out of it. It's sleazeball behavior. It can measurably hurt someone. And whatever else, I don't think Booster is ever out to hurt people.

And saying that Bea basically asked for it by being willing to take a modelling contract she thought was legit is also a really hot take. Ask yourself: If she wouldn't have taken it had she known who was behind it, then how is that *not* a form of sexual exploitation?

So I think that Booster, who is generally good-hearted and not at all rapey -- he gets sexually harassed way more than he does anything like harassing, outside of the Super Buddies junk, which is a whole different level of 'wtf' characterization -- just wouldn't go there. None of his prior business ventures *or* the ones following have ever involved anyone's body but his. And honestly, most of his business ventures are perfectly ethical: He has a right to sell himself and does. He has a right to run a business, accept and give endorsements and turn a profit. Even his and Ted's repo business was legit (as in, they were hired for these jobs), and the second it became *unethical* re: the vampire Booster noped out, horrified. He's not lazy. He does the work. Kooey Kooey Kooey was the worst of it, and that was Ted's idea. (Ted, who was most often the real schemer of the pair.)

And if it's the whole betting-on-his-own games thing, I could and did write several thousand words on why *that* should be looked upon with nothing but patience and sympathy.

 Boosterrific [Official Comment] posted on Feb. 8, 2026 at 5:37 PM
@SLW We have clearly established that we have different personal histories, relationship scars, and genetics that have led to us interpreting the same thing very differently. Perhaps my initial response in Booster's defense could be interpreted as an indifference to exploitation or victim-blaming. I want to make it perfectly clear that was not my intention. I do not condone Booster's "sleazeball" behavior. Without any regard for the genders involved, this is a textbook example of sexual exploitation, whether Fire is able to give informed consent or not. Booster is morally wrong for breeching the trust of another human being (and practically wrong for betraying a teammate). Our chief difference of opinion here is that you consider this a scenario of incompetent writing/characterization and I do not. Perhaps I'm reading too much of my own personal history into it, but I have always seen this as an immature and ignorant Booster making a bad decision without realizing at the time just how bad it was. Booster definitely attempts to exploit his teammates in SECRET ORIGINS #35 (which I know you will point out is also written by Jurgens), and at the time of the issue, American culture practically celebrated this particular sort of exploitation (reference: Hugh Hefner). I am willing to forgive Jurgens' clumsy storytelling in an era when his contemporary writers often did much worse in a medium built on the celebration of physical masculine-centric violence to a market of teenaged boys. I recognize that it is your right to feel differently.

SLW (Steff) posted on Nov. 25, 2025 at 7:40 AM
As to Booster's allegiance, if the answer isn't Michelle, Rani, Skeets or Ted, then it's probably the wrong one. LOL!