I do gay-love YA, Ari, gosh
(although frankly I think Billy could do a lot better but whatever).
ALSO: My usual plug here for Daredevil End of Days.
If there's a Bendis book you're not reading (by my count, he's got five on the shelves at any given time: this, Ultimate Comics Spider-Man, All-New X-Men, AU, and Guardians) don't let it be Daredevil: End of Days.
Pick this shit up, seriously. It is the most masterful love letter to Frank Miller that anyone could produce. Not just to his DD run, but to his entire body of work. DD, Batman, Martha. Everything. It also reads like a continuation of Bendis' own run on Matt Murdock, what seems now like ages ago. There just aren't comics--more precisely, there aren't stories like this--anymore. Everything's all wrapped up in event comics and associated tropes.
It's wildly different from and better than Age of Ultron. Both are typical Bendis, but one hews closer to big questions which the medium is and always has been ill-equipped to answer. Two opposing views of Bendis here.
One story gets at heroic legacies and implications: what are the limits to your pain (think Dark Knight Rises) and how do or can you continue? What's your legacy going to be? How do you pass that on, and how do you do it in a way that's both responsible to the intended heir and responsible to the world you're going to leave behind? What kind of world is it that gets handed down? Is it worth legacy, or should identities die with us? What is a real hero, especially in the Craptastic World we call the Marvel Universe? Most importantly, and I think this is the biggest question that both AU and End of Days are posing is this: what does the future look like? And can (or how do) we control it?
I think these are some, but not all, of the questions DD: End of Days brings up. I think they're unanswerable--again about the medium being ill-equipped to deal with heady ideas like this when its presentation insists on fist and fighting. Not a complaint; just an observation.
The other is Age of Ultron, where in addition to the doomsday scenario, you get a straightforward, somewhat hamhanded attempt at Hitler's Time Travel Exemption Act. And yet beyond that, Bendis is getting at something truly brilliant regarding Pym and Ultron and the Wolverine intersection: what does it really mean to create? (A question Hickman's Fantastic Four also got into and his New Avengers is readdressing by pieces)? What are the limits, ethical or otherwise, of creation? Does (let's call it) open-source existence or sentience create an onus of responsibility on the creator, and if so, what and how and why? Where does correction or over-correction begin and where does it end? Who makes the rules, and who decides who gets to live?
Apparently Wolverine does, or is, or will, in AU. In End of Days, its a harder gamble. Funny thing about dystopian future stories: they're naturally shitty, really. That's what dystopia is, after all, but there's more I think. Because bad worlds can be replaced. With better ones. A world without Pym might not be worth it, but a world without Ultron, now wouldn't that be something? A world without Matt Murdock turns into a shithole very fast indeed, though through a confluence of factors, but it's not entirely bad. Because there's a new future there. And someone in the red suit working to make it better by pieces. Hidden optimism, from a somewhat overlooked foundation of the Marvel Universe.
Sorry to rant.
Go pick up Daredevil End of Days now or preorder the oversized HC from Amazon (the OH gets credit for the sale if you click through the website!). You'll be glad for it.