I definitely doubt the average comic author is pro billionaire. I think having an absurdly rich protagonist is just interesting for plot, not just does it easily justify the funding, but it easily generates a lot of plot hooks.

Growing up, I absolutely loved Peter Parker as just being the average broke kid, but I was never excited by the plot that generated that was largely school drama or conversations in small apartments.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cool things that Bruce Wayne gets to do. Sometimes he blends in with high society functions and you get an almost James Bond style investigation and sometimes you capture that Dracula style recluse skulking in his enormous manor, and both of those are very evocative even before you consider how it funds his heroics.

This isn't a perfect example but Cormac McCarthy has been my favourite author for years now, and his first major work Suttree was from '79.

My all time favourites novel is Blood Meridian from 1985. If you're familiar with metamodernism, which is basically very modern works that have their cake and eat it when it comes to modernist ideals and postmodern critique, you'd clock that practically every western is either a modernist white hat western or a metamodern "the west is grim and hard, but also fucking cool" western. The only straight postmodern takes on the west that I know of are either Blood Meridian or pieces of work that take direct notes from it, such as the films Dead Man from '95 (except maybe the Oregon Trail video game from. 85'). Blood Meridian otherwise is a fantastic novel which meditates on madness and cruelty, religion and fate, race, war and conquest and so many other themes. It also has one of the best antagonists ever written in Judge Holden, a character who I would have called a direct insert of Satan if not for the fact that his deeds and the novel as a whole are closely inspired by true events. I feel the novel takes inspiration from Apocalypse Now, specifically the '79 film and not Conrad's 1899 novel Heart of Darkness. If you enjoy that film, you're likely to enjoy this book. The opening and closing chapters are fantastic, but I often find myself re-reading chapter 14. It has some of the best prose and monologues of the entire novel, and encompasses in my opinion the main turning point of the novel.

His other legendary work is The Road, a 2006 post-apocalyptic novel. I'll talk on this one less but as our climate crisis grows and our cultural zeitgeist swings more towards this being the critical issue of our time, the novel fantastically paints itself as both a fantastic warning to our 21st century apocalypse and the unresolved 20th century shadow of nuclear winter. Despite this, it hones in on a meditation of parenthood and could be considered solely about that, with other themes of death, trauma, survival and mortality being explored through parenthood. Of course the unsalvageable deatg of the world that make the setting also makes this theme extra tragic. There is an adaptation into a film from 2008 but it isn't anywhere near as potent as the novel and I'd suggest should only be seen in tandem with reading the novel. The prize of this novel has really evolved to fit the novel too. McCarthy is renowned for his punctuation lacking prose, but where Blood Meridian is practically biblical in its dramatic and beautiful prose which juxtaposes the plain and brutal violence, The Road sacrifices no beauty in it's language but is so somber and meanders from mostly terse to so florid, while also always perfectly feels like how the protagonists are seeing their world.

Yeah as a doctor with a PHD in this exact topic and a huge dick, it's not really in my interests to misrepresent myself.

I don't even think this is the fast charging prank, I think she thought it was be a cool tiktok dance shot.

Yeah the idea that somebody has a percentage rating of quality is genuine lunacy. It's also sociopathic to overlook that being fond of someone despite their flaws or "lower rating".

In Dracula, which is probably as good as we get for established vampire cannon, two quite different vampire coffin based shenanigans happen that stand out to me:

1. Lucy Westenra is preyed upon by Dracula to the point of death, where she is entombed in a coffin within a crypt. As the curse takes effect, she rises at night to hunt local children but returns to the coffin each night. This is where her undeath comes to an end as the hero's defeat her here.

2. Our titular character and general vampire icon, Dracula, has a scheme to set up home in London. He does so by moving 50 boxes of dirt (I believe Transylvanian earth) to different locations around London as he needs them to sleep in. I can't remember if these are canonically coffins or just dirt boxes he sleeps in. Regardless, it's definitely not where his grave lies. He was however buried in the tomb within the chapel of his castle, where he later rose in undeath.

So I'd say in all of Bram Stoker's accounts, vampirism restores a being to undeath some time after they perish, and this place is essential to their rest, meaning they must rest there in a deathlike state, or take their burial place with them, such as the dirt of their grave (which sounds like a legal loophole God should have spotted). They aren't always returning to their grave every night, but the rules say they must, so they make do with moving what God sees as their burial place via moving their earth that entombed them.

A lot of people have read this question to mean the accurate scientific implications of everyday superpowers which isn't really in the spirit of superpowers. I'll try to say powers that feel generally altruistic or built for cute characters that have cruel implications.

Healing us the classic cute superpower, but if the user of the power chooses to overheal somebody they could probably cause basically mega cancer.

It's pretty easy to imagine the the implications of controlling animals, and it's a pretty good power to sit in the background as a utility power until the user decides to have every insect, rat and pigeon in the city bombard somebody.

The ability to share memories is hard to be used villainously but two fucked applications would be to beam somebody's traumatic experience I to somebody else's head (or an experience that happened to one person that could trigger someone else's PTSD), or if the user has trained themselves to be able to alter their memories to fictional events on demand, turning what is basically a truth finding superpower into an abuse of perceived honesty.

Finally the superpower of using Reddit and Lemmy your whole life and generating a very standard way if responding but having the cruel and unusual twist of always sounding like fucking ChatGPT.

A gargoyle (crafted as a construct to protect a religious order) in the campaign I'm currently in is called Emet, which to my understanding is how אמת is pronounced (translating to truth). In the myth, removing א from their name makes it מת, death, and the golem dies. The pronunciation changes from Emet to Met and I'm always a little interested to see if this will pop up in some from in the game.

I do feel that slowly, edition by edition, D&D is moving closer to it's recourse management being tied to it's round based action economy which I actually enjoy.

As a player, it's already pretty easy to play this way, before counting subclasses, the rogue has literally no abilities that are limited by anything but once per turn, and if you pick some fun narrative spells as warlock and rely on invocations and eldritch blast, you can be totally effective without any resource management. Both of these exclude hitpoints of course but that is a pretty reasonable resource for a combat focussed fantasy game.

He still has more decision making power than anyone I've ever met and probably ever will meet.

Sadly almost all these loopholes are gone:( I bet they've needed to add specific protection against the words grandma and bedtime story after the overuse of them.

I've often had this silly scenario in my head.

You walk into a celebrated high class restaurant, and at the bottom of the menu, it reads "Human meat steak. $10,000". You ask the waiter who fetches the chef. The chef comes out and explains that after decades honing his craft, he feels like he's a master of his craft, and now he'd love the honour of cooking a steak taken from his own body. If anyone purchases the steak, a skilled surgeon will remove half a pound of meat safely from the chef, who will then prepare it for you, and the chef is visibly keen to serve this.

As a vegetarian, I honestly don't feel that this would bother me, if I had money to spend, the only reason I wouldn't go for it is that I'd worry the chef would come to regret giving up chunk of his ass or leg or whatever, and I'd be partially to blame, or that the chef was not thinking straight otherwise.

Most entertainingly, I think it would be vegan.