The implication that DC escaping contractual obligations all the time is somehow equivalent to a commission going AWOL for now is insane.
First of all, I am comparing the actions, not the situations. Two people came in here to post grievances about alleged unprofessional behavior. One has as much right to do so as the other.
Second, do we even know that "escaping contractual obligations" is the case here?
On the first page of this thread, someone asked;
Was it in the contract that you presumably signed that said you would be rewarded for the subsequent use of any characters that you created for DC?
Unless I missed it, Mr. Broderick hasn't answered that question, so how "screwed" was he in this situation?
Look, I don't doubt DC has screwed creators in the past. But do we know enough to say this particular creator was in this particular situation? Mr. Broderick has come in here to say he was screwed by DC but seems to be a bit tightlipped regarding the details.
We also know little about this commission either other than it was apparently paid for and not delivered.
Well for starters, Mr Broderick didn't interrupt a thread discussing one topic to bully one of the participants on a completely different matter.
You've been on these boards a long time Joe. Surely thread drifts can't bother you that much. I'm only surprised someone hasn't found a way to bring John Byrne into this.
I'm sure your one late commission cost as much as DC owes it's creators.
I don't know about you Joe, but I work hard to earn my money. If I paid for something that is either not delivered, or chronically late, I would have as much right to crow about it publicly as Broderick has had to crow about DC. You don't know how much Michael paid for this thing or how important it was or wasn't to him. You don't know if it was commissioned for a purpose that involved a specific timeframe. If you want to trivialize it simply because it doesn't involve some big evil corporation, then I guess you don't value your hard earned money the way I value mine.
Making it perfectly justified to attempt to undermine Mr Broderick's credibility
How is his credibility is being undermined? Unless I am reading this wrong, Michael came in to take Mr. Broderick to task for a service that was paid for and apparently not delivered. How is that undermining anything Broderick has said about the DC deal (which again has been very little)?