Hitman #5 (September 1996)
By Garth Ennis, John McCrea, Carla Feeny, and Willie Schubert
Cover by John McCrea
Edited by Peter Tomasi and Dan Raspler
Oh oh! Should we look at a letter from my old high school friend, Soy Rakelson?! Yes please! Let's!
Soy, or Yor as he calls himself in this letter so I should probably do that as well, was responding to
a movie review I wrote for M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable (Warning: dated language used by a character that was already meant to be offensive even in 2000). I'm going to be interrupting Yor's letter throughout so his quotes will be in blockquote formatting and my responses will be in, um, regular formatting.
Dear Editor,
First off, Yor directs the letter to the Editor because he needs to address authority. You'll see in the letter that his complaints revolve around the things fictional characters say but he can't quite accept the concept of a fictional work where two different characters with opposing viewpoints discuss something. He needs to ask an authoritative voice, "What does it mean? What is the answer? Give me the Truth with the capital 'T'!" Also, I guess, he knew I was the authority and he wanted to argue with me and not a couple of one dimensional cartoon characters. He probably just wanted to say, "Enough with the stupid conceit of differing viewpoints discussing a piece of media which suggests moral relativism to me because you, the writer, don't believe in Truth. What did YOU think, [MY LAST NAME]?"
The dialogue between Nice Alice and the other foul-mouthed man, Mr. Death Rock, regarding their discussion of Unbreakable was interesting, but unclear.
First off, that's Mr. Rock, Jovi fan. Second off, don't make me introduce you to Bo and Luke Duke! Third off, um, wait, I'm not Death Rock. Sorry. What I meant to say was Yor didn't actually find the review interesting. He simply found it unclear because I didn't write, "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK OF
UNBREAKABLE!" Yor's my friend who once asked me, during a discussion of
Lost Highway, if the auteur doesn't have an obligation to make themselves clear to the audience. In that same exact conversation, he noticed my copy of John Barth's
Lost in the Funhouse and was all, "Oh man! That story with The Swimmers is so good!" And I was all, "You mean the story about the sperm?" And he looked at me flabbergasted and was all, "Wait what?!" When I realized he couldn't have truly understood the story without understanding that the swimmers were sperm with one having an existential crisis, it meant he couldn't have truly understood the story. So I asked him, "Don't you think the auteur has an obligation to make themselves clear to the audience?" Anyway, Yor was looking for my actual feelings on the movie without all the fun fictional bullshit and the overall conceit of my whole movie review site. You know, where two diametrically opposed characters discuss a movie and not whether I actually liked the film or not. Sure, it's not the most philosophical work I've ever done because it mostly amounts to "I liked the movie because tits!" versus "I liked the movie because it was sweet and cute!" But overall, I think I got some decent insight into a bunch of films around 1999 and 2000.
Do you agree with the movie's premise that we are defined by our opposites?
This is how Yor always debated. He's ready to plant his flag in stable ground right from the start and then argues from that position while I was always all, "Whoa whoa whoa! You're moving too fast, buddy! I'm not even sure that that's the premise of the movie!" I mean, I could easily have come out of the gate with "Do you agree with the movie's premise that basing your life on a single text and then proselytizing to others to get them to believe your views on the intersection of that text and the modern world is not just a mistake but the foundational building blocks of terrorism itself?" One time we were riding bikes down Benton when he asked me, "Do you believe animals have souls?" And I was all, "Whoa whoa whoa! You're moving too fast. I don't even believe people have souls!" And then he got that look on his face which meant, "I've got to go back to the drawing board and consult some C.S. Lewis texts to find a way to trick this piece of garbage into getting some faith!"
Oh, and to answer Yor's question: No, I don't think that. Only people who believe in good and evil, black and white, God and Satan, would believe that! Oh, I see. Yor believes it!
Or is one's identity known intrinsically?
Yor loves to pose debate questions like this. "Do you believe the thing that I believe? Or do you believe the only other possibility?! Which is stupid, by the way!" I doubt Yor meant to sound so simple here. He was just deep in setting up his logic trap which needs to have clearly defined walls to lure in his victim. So you either believe his premise or the premise he's prepared to tear apart. Our identities are so complex! The only people who define them by their opposites are boring edgelord rebels who wind up turning to Nazism because they were once called an asshole online by a thirteen-year old in a Sailor Moon forum. But not believing that doesn't mean I have to believe that we're somehow born knowing our identity. Our identities are formed by our experiences. Thoser are varied and complex and almost never based on reacting to our opposites. Especially since we can't know what our opposites are if we don't know who we are (an idea we'll touch on more as we move further into Yor's mind. I mean letter). Perhaps there's something intrinsic in our temperaments that don't really change much due to whatever brain chemistry we were given but which we can change via pharmaceutical chemistry! I don't know and I wouldn't claim to know. But I do know that if you base your identity on your opposite than you either have to already have an identity to know who your opposite is or you have to be an unformed ball of goo with no curiosity or passion up until you meet somebody who makes you think, "That's dumb!" and then you become the antagonist of their story. In that view, you can never be the protagonist though and who wants that (except in the bedroom)?
And why must one be called "sad and needy" by consulting others to help clarify one's own identity?
Pretty sure this was the main reason Yor responded to my review. He felt personally attacked by Death Rock calling people who look to religion as sad and needy. You know he felt attacked enough to respond and quote only this insult by Death Rock when Death Rock previous to this used the slurs "retard" and "homo". Yor didn't have any problem with that because Death Rock didn't call people who need religion those things. He was mostly just talking about Bright Boy and, um, uh, Grunion Guy? Wait a second! Death Rock's a fucking jerk! How dare he?!
Yor quotes Death Rock by pulling "sad and needy" but the real quote was "Bruce Willis bought into it because he was just as sad and needy for defining as Mr. Glass." So Death Rock didn't describe a person as "sad and needy" for looking outward to clarify who they were. Death Rock was saying Bruce Willis was sad because of all the reasons Death Rock outlined earlier: bad marriage, loss of heroic feeling as a high school football star, survivor's guilt from the train accident. And Willis was also "needy for defining" or, more clearly, needy for meaning in his life. Death Rock wasn't saying Willis was needy! He was "needy for definition"! He was needy for meaning! That's on my writing, I suppose. It wasn't super clear and that whole "sad and needy" would have set off the defense sirens of anybody who knows in their heart that they are, in fact, sad and needy!
Okay, that was a cheap shot at Yor. Sorry, Yor! But you probably deserved it.
(I found it ironic that Death Rock found the most pleasure in drinking "like a Mexican whore." Is he not relying upon the identity of a stereotype to define his desire? You would think someone so critical of Mr. Unbreakable's search for happiness and identity would choose his words more carefully.)
Oh shit! You got him, Yor! You fucking nailed him! How dare Death Rock use a descriptive yet racially and sex worker negatively insensitive simile to describe one of his only passions in life (the others being
The Dukes of Hazzard, beating the shit out of people, and Slayer)! I sometimes wonder how much Yor comprehends when he's reading a text and how much he's just looking for things that either share his confirmation bias so he can blast his load all over the back cover photo of C.S. Lewis or for things that are diametrically opposed to what makes him shoot his load on boudoir line drawings of C.S. Lewis in skimpy undergarments? "Is he not relying upon the identity of a stereotype to define his desire?" Um, no. He wasn't. He was just being colorful! And racist. And misogynist! Sheesh! Maybe stop being okay with all the casual gross shit Death Rock spews just to argue your points!
It seems he has many issues, but alas, this is not the focus of my letter.
That's better! I'm glad Yor noticed Death Rock has many issues. Also I'm glad it wasn't the focus of his letter. Best to just ignore it. Especially the part of Death Rock's issues which remind people that I wrote those things! I mean younger me wrote them. That guy isn't even me anymore! I wish he'd stop getting me in trouble!
I thought the movie was better than you give it credit for,
Forgive me for breaking up this next sentence into two parts but it's a long sentence and I'm easily distracted so I'd totally forget to discuss this if I don't do it immediately. So, first off, he addressed this letter to the editor and now he's acting as if Death Rock and Nice Alice's opinions are those of the editor. I assure you they are not. Did he not notice how Nice Alice actually liked the movie? But she does that thing where when she notices her boyfriend didn't like it, she sort of backs out of that strong stance and hints at maybe also not liking it? Not for sexist reasons like you'd think but because Nice Alice doesn't like conflict at all. At least not until she's ready to unleash the Second Gobi Campaign but, I mean, spoilers! Um, anyway, the editor didn't give the movie any credit in any way, Yor. Come on, man! Didn't you learn anything in our Critical Lit Theory class?! I know half of your brain power was taken up by dealing with the reality that our professor was gay but I'm sure you must have learned something!
You know what? I'm not sure Yor did learn anything from the Crit Lit Theory class because his big final project in the class was a defense of the Western Civilization Literary Canon! Which is, I must say, fine because if you want to most of 20th Century American Literature (and I know some of you don't give a shit. That's fine!), you do need to understand a fuck-ton of shit written by mostly wealthy white dudes. Also The Bible. I mean, I'm not all, "Everybody needs to read The Bible because it's a manual for life!" But I am all, "Everybody needs to read The Bible because 95% of all references come from that shit! The other 5% come from Shakespeare!"
particularly how Mr. Glass dropped hints about his true identity, such as his name being very suggestive of a comic book figure, his eyes and his head being disproportionately large to the rest of his body (as he explains the villain's traits earlier), and how he tells Mr. Unbreakable several times that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum (implying not only in terms of strength, but in ethics).
Yor began this letter stating his initial premise of the film: we are based on our opposites. But how can that be the true premise when Yor acknowledges in this very statement that Mr. Glass already decided on his identity long before he ever met his opposite. Mr. Glass simply read some comic books and went, "I identify with the bad guy! Then he went on to be a bad guy. If we're supposed to believe that Mr. Glass read a comic book (A FUCKING COMIC BOOK!) and went, "Oh shit! I would like to be a super hero but I am nothing like them. I am, in fact, the opposite of them. Therefore, I have been defined by this comic book. I must now be that person that the comic book says I am!" then how are we supposed to take Mr. Glass seriously at all?! And if I think somebody would be a fool to take Mr. Glass seriously then I must take Bruce Willis unseriously! He didn't even have years of his life dedicated to reading comic books and he just goes, "Okay! I believe in your world view! Comic books are real!"
It's obvious why Yor wants to buy into the conceit of this movie. He's buying into the analogy because he believes in the comic book and he wants to believe that you can explain the comic book to people and they will go, "Yes! I get it! I love Jesus too!" I mean, that's the analogy here, right? But also the bad guy is the guy trying to convert people, right? So I'm not sure exactly what Yor's saying. I would have needed to dialogue with him a bit more to get at the roots of what he loved about the movie. But Yor was also conservative and had a fondness for bad guys and would say things like, "I don't agree with what that person is saying but I love that they have the passion and bravery to say it!" All the while though, we knew, secretly, he agreed with what the person was saying but also knew that "good" and "kind" people would never admit to those things. I don't have specific examples of what "those things" were but you can make some pretty educated guesses. It was the late '80s, early '90s so a lot of them, Yor being Catholic, had to do with people saying things like "Gay people shouldn't have all the rights!" and "Affirmative action is racist!"
Holy shit! I just remembered I have letters Yor wrote to the
San Jose Spartan that would really make your head spin while you vomited split pea soup and fucked yourself with a crucifix. I might have lost my way with that description.
Most important, though, is how Mr. Glass values a knowledge of his own identity above that of the welfare of others.
Okay, now we're leaving behind the religious stuff and we're getting to the render unto Caesar stuff. I'm sure Yor liked the idea of defining oneself via a text and then trying to convert others. But now we see that Yor does not fully identify with Mr. Glass. Mr. Glass does not care about the bigger picture. He is suffering from that malady that all modern, non-C.S.-Lewis reading people suffer from: narcissism! The selfish pursuit of our own identity over the welfare of others! Seems a weird point to be made by a person who would drive around Santa Clara at night throwing vegetables out of his car window at pedestrians. Maybe Yor was just looking for his opposite: somebody who wouldn't drive around throwing vegetables at innocent people minding their own business. I can see this heading into the "atheists think they're their own god" argument. Yor definitely believes that we don't control our own destinies and to think that is blasphemous. So Mr. Glass searching for his own identity over anything else is narcissistic, selfish, and irreligious. He should be seeking something greater!
He commits terrorist acts to discover someone who will help him find his identity, and by doing so, reveals himself as a moral relativist (not to mention a murderer).
I get how that reveals him to be a terrorist and a murderer. But I'm not sure how he reveals him to be a moral relativist except that Yor wanted to equate his terrorism with moral relativism. One of the things Yor, a staunch Catholic, could never truly comprehend was how people could know right from wrong without a set of rules. Most of my friends understood that that statement meant Yor must be a sociopath because he couldn't understand right from wrong without a guide. But Yor saw anybody who didn't need the guide as being a moral relativist. Which is probably true because for a moral relativist, there really isn't any capital "T" truth. Now Yor uses moral relativism as a pejorative. He equates it with nihilism and a philosophy to excuse any evil or terrible act. But moral relativists acknowledge morality and right and wrong; they just also acknowledge that morality isn't a foundation on which everything else rests. Morality shifts depending on context! You know who isn't a moral relativist?
Les Mis's Javert! And look where that gets him! Dead, that's where! Maybe don't worry so much about a starving guy stealing some bread not being adequately punished in accordance with man's current laws and just get on with your own life, dude. Go find some joy and whimsy in your own life! Unless that joy and whimsy is garnered by throwing cabbages at peasants as you pass by in your carriage. Not cool, man.
Furthermore, Mr. Death Rock's nihilism ("there ain't no meanin' for nobody") aligns itself nicely with Mr. Glass, and contradicts his [Mr. Rock's] strongly held assertions.
This is the problem with a moral foundationalist versus a moral relativist, a guy who bases all of his suppositions from an unmoving base stuck in concrete. Everything has to be built upon everything else or the structure is, to him, logically unsound. Yes, Death Rock is a nihilist in that he doesn't believe in an inherent meaning in existence. But how does that contradict any of Death Rock's strongly held assertions? You can be a nihilist and also love drinking yourself stupid. Some would say those go hand in hand! But never mind that! I mean, being a nihilist does not mean that you don't find your own meaning in your own existence. It doesn't mean you don't have joy. It doesn't mean you don't have opinions! You just don't believe that the universe exists to give you that joy and meaning and those opinions. Yes, Death Rock's "beliefs" do align nicely with Mr. Glass because, like Mr. Glass, Death Rock doesn't give a shit about the lives of others. But guess what? A lot of nihilists and moral relativists do give a shit about that stuff. I'd say I'm, ultimately, a nihilist in that I don't believe our existence means anything. But I also believe because our existence is fleeting and this is the only life we have and that there is nothing more after, to hurt somebody else, to make their existence worse, to kill or murder . . . those things are the absolute worst things we can do. If there is nothing but our current existence then making that existence intolerable for somebody else, making their one chance at life and love and joy impossible . . . that is true evil. That's my moral relativity. Is it Death Rock's? No! Because I'm not Death Rock, you idiot!
Despite the moral relativity Rock espouses, he goes on to impose his moral relativity on Mr. Unbreakable's supposedly doomed search for meaning, by criticizing the mere attempt.
I mean, word salad, anybody? Yor gets to the heart of all the assholes who suddenly want to destroy free speech here. "Criticizing" is not "imposing". It's as simple as that. Grow the fuck up, man.
Why do you consider it a weakness for someone to search for one's identity using comic books or religion, when you later imply that one is entitled to use any means necessary and use as much time as necessary?
I, the Editor, whom you've addressed this letter, didn't "consider" nor "imply" any of that. Death Rock's critique was about the way the idiot in the movie went about the search. Mr. Glass read comic books and went, "I'm not strong but I'm smart so I must be the villain!" And Mr. Unbreakable was all, "My life is falling apart but this weird fucker I just met told me about comic books and now my life means something!" Sure, Death Rock thinks it's a weakness to search for meaning. But he also thinks the characters are fucking weak in many other ways! Also, I'm not sure Death later "implies" that people should search for meaning. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what's being said here but it sounds like Yor read that Death Rock was all, "It's weak to search for meaning because it doesn't exist but you should be allowed as much time as possible to find that meaning that doesn't exist."
Are you so jaded as to believe because you have not discovered your identity, your peace, that others are incapable of the same?
Yor feeling defensive here. "I've found meaning in Catholicism and it isn't meaningless like you said, you jerk!" Look, Death Rock has discovered peace. Peace in nihilism. Look into it. It's a thing! It reminds me of this quote from Thomas Pynchon in
Gravity's Rainbow: "If there is something comforting — religious, if you want — about paranoia, there is still also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything, a condition not many of us can bear for long." Death Rock can bear it, baby. And it brings him peace.
Oh, and maybe I should reprint Death Rock's reply here. It's only fair.
"Dude, is that how you see the world? Either this or that? 'Do you agree with the movie's premise that we are defined by our opposites? Or is one's identity known intrinsically?' Yer treadin' on the path of the severely beaten if yer suggestin' I'm defined by Bon Jovi. So, no I ain't agreein' with the premise of the movie. But that don't mean I suddenly agree with your only other belief of the way things can be. Known intrinsically? That can't be, Mr. Noslekas (look, Alice, I'm being polite and reasonable!). If I were raised in a friggin' dark room, I'm guessin' I wouldn't be the same person. I wouldn't know I like to drink like a Mexican Whore or kick ass or rock until someone's head explodes. But I also have a feelin', bein' who I am, I'd kick the fuckin' shit outta the walls a' that dark room and that the Duke boys would have a fuckin' hoe-down on whoever first opened the door to that room. I guess I couldn't call 'em the duke boys though. Maybe the Pleasure Givers. Yeah, that's what they'd be.
"Now, I weren't callin' Mr. Unbreakable sad and needy cause he needed to consult others to help clarify his identity. I called him sad and needy cause he finds himself in a weakened spiritual state after the train wreck and buys into some obviously insane clown who is completely obsessed with comic books. Like I alluded to in my review, Mr. Noslekas, Mr. Unbreakable would have been guzzlin' Kool-Aid at Jonestown if Mr. Glass had gone the obsessed religious angle. It ain't about being defined by metaphor, simile, allusion or allegory that I's got a problem with. The problem is fallin' into another man's obsession and buying in to that obsession. Mr. Glass was a nutcase. He defined himself long before Mr. Unbreakable came on the scene. He just had no faith. He were a convert that needed that glimpse 'a God before he could really believe. So he was weak. And Mr. Unbreakable was needy. He shoulda been listening to his kid who thought he was a hero long before this nobody Mr. Glass came around. And you, Mr. Noslekas, should meet my Dukes just for makin' me utter the fact that someone should listen to their kid.
"I ain't got a problem with the whole Mr. Glass subtle revelation of who he really is thing. But I think that argues my point better than yours. He's already defined. He don't need this joker security guard to do that.
"And Mr. Glass ain't really a nihilist, is he? He believes in a very specific paradigm of the world, doesn't he? In his mind, he knows what's what and how things work. The movie tries to make you think his comic book view is right because there was an opposite of him out there. But just suppose Mr. Unbreakable never friggin' appears, hunh? Mr. Glass is the same guy he's always been. A lost boy turned terrorist. And he ain't changed his stupid ass comic book world view. And I ain't criticizing the 'mere attempt' at finding meaning. I'm criticizing the buying into another person's obsessed view that is Mr. Unbreakable's entire search for meaning. You seem to have bought into this too, eh? Seems to me an insult to wives and children everywhere that this movie is sayin' a jerk off can only be happy with his family after he becomes a hero. Not that I think anybody with a wife and child SHOULD be happy.
"And to answer your last paragraph, I ain't sure I said it's a weakness to use comic books or religion or anything, actually (although it is pretty gay). To repeat, it is the obsession of seeing things in only one set of terms that is weak. Mr. Glass only saw the world through the pages of a comic book. This made him weak. There is no searching or questioning when you don't go further than a one source research paper. And whaddya mean, I ain't discovered my identity! I'm friggin' Death Rock, dude. Seems odd that ya didn't throw all your big words around tryin' to make some sort of pseudonym equals identity type argument."
Hmm. Nice Alice was also part of that review even if Yor seems to ignore all of her points. So I'll reprint her reply too!
"Oh! Boo hoo. My words can't be pink here! *sniff* Anyway, is Deathy gone? I hope so cause I liked this movie! I think people need other people. How would I know that it's nice to be nice if there was nobody to be nice to? This movie was about the loss of spirituality and meaning in a modern world. Mr. Glass is frightened by everything around him that could easily destroy his fragile body. So he finds a Book that leads him to strength. That book is Active Comics! He hears its message and goes forth into the world to...um, well, not make it a better place, exactly. Hmm. Maybe it's not such a nice spiritual message after all. This Book he finds isn't about being nice to others at all! It's about making him more secure about himself and his place in the world. Well, that's pretty selfish. That mean old Mr. Glass. But then, he's the villain, so let me concentrate on the hero.
"Mr. Unbreakable has lost his spirituality! His life is meaningless and mundane in this modern world where disasters claim lots of lives. But then he lives through one! Survivor's guilt and the search for meaning and something beyond death envelope his perceptions! He is in a very weak and spiritually insecure moment in his life. Questions abound! Why is he here and all that! And then he hears the message of a man who has found meaning in the Book! And his life is altered beyond compare. His worldly life is suddenly on track (OH! That's a mean pun!) because of this evil, selfish man. Hmm. Is it nice to get a good message from a bad person? Does the source of revelation really matter? I think it's not so nice but at least this Mr. Unbreakable is happy. Or is he only happy because he dealt with a devilish mental patient? I'm confused. I need to lie down."
Revisiting some shit I wrote 26 years ago wasn't too bad! I mean, it could easily have been worse! Especially from the mouth of a character like Death Rock!
Anyway, that's it! Finally! That should probably have been a post of its own but it was sort of about comic books and Hitman is kind of a moral relativist, I think, right?
According to last issue, Nightfist sells the coke he steals from the dealers he kicks the shit out of. According to this issue, he also comes in his suit at least three times a night. I say that not because I see the stains on his costume but because he's drooling, he's way to into beating up criminals and stealing their cocaine, and he's written by Garth Ennis. So you just have to assume he blasting loads into his spandex all night long. Plus you don't wear a chain across your crotch attached to either thigh without having a crazy sex kink.
Nightfist puts a few dealers in the hospital, blows another load, and gets a tracking device placed on his ankle by one of the dying criminals. Obviously he's crazy but you can really tell he's crazy when he walks straight at a guy shooting bullets at him. Luckily the idiot with the gun has either terrific aim and bad luck or shitty aim and bad luck because he shoots Nightfist in the 2% of his body with any armor: his forehead. Okay, I guess his "fists" and calves are armored up too but I'm not in the accuracy business! I'm in the let's speculate how much man goo is in the crotch of that hero's costume business!
Nightfist steals the drugs and goes on his merry way. I guess Batman's okay with Nightfist? Maybe Batman's got that old person thing where he easily mistakes one thing for another and he thinks Nightfist is Nightwing.
Natt and Tommy also speculate on Nightfist's relationship with Batman. Sort of. My guess is that until Nightfist gets his own series, Batman will ignore him because he doesn't need the revenue boost. Plus Tommy's going to kill him before he can build his reputation big enough to be noticed by Batman.
Tommy makes fun of Natt being fat and Natt makes fun of Tommy jerking off and pretending he has a girlfriend. It's scenes like these that Garth lives for. He just wants to write stories about sitting around with his friends drinking and busting balls. All the super hero shit is just so it'll have a ready-made audience. Also Ennis needed a way to make all of his fat jokes pay. He never seems to run out! I'm really surprised he named his restaurant Bucky's instead of Big Belly Burger. Maybe it changes later because it really sounds like a place Ennis would have created. Weirdest part of this scene at Bucky's is that I remember those massive fucking burgers these guys eat. Why can't I remember the plot to 75% of all the comic I've read but I can easily and readily picture the massive burgers in Hitman?!
Tommy's wary about the Nightfist job because his last job to ice The Joker was a total set-up. Luckily for Tommy, this job is also a set-up. Hmm, I guess I didn't mean luckily.
In this issue, Tommy and Natt's friendship origin story born in the, um, fires? No, no. Um, oh, I know: the boredom of Desert Storm!
I don't know if that later SAS story arc has anything to do with this moment (although it should if it doesn't!) or if that story arc comes out of Sean Noonan's past but that's why I said it "could" come back to haunt them! But Natt does mention that if the SAS ever gets wind of that story, they're going to be fucking dead men. So, you know. I think they get wind of the story!
Later, Tommy and Natt attempt to murder Nightfist (whether or not they're successful is unclear as the set-up interrupts their double tap finish). Johnny Navarone tosses a grenade at them and then walks up on them firing. And that's where it ends so I have to assume Tommy wasn't just killed because remember: Hitman runs for sixty issues! He's invulnerable until then! None of the other cast is though and we'll see them all drop off, one by one, over the series. All except Hacken and Six Pack. I think they survive. Oh, and, of course, BAYTOR!
The Ranking!
Motherlovin' cool, bro!
