>>89665417Problem with writers doing politics in comics is that they really aren't subtle about shoving only their viewpoint in, which you can do and encourage in itself, but they also end up strawmanning badly in the process. It does help to have different viewpoints yes. Comes across as less biased when you show different viewpoints.
Big problem with politics in comics is that its hamfisted. I'm not even talking about the example in the OP, I'm saying that most of the time the writer has no amount of subtlety towards their side and is completely ham-handed making things a bad caricature. Its like its not really convincing anyone or made to convince anyone, I'm not entirely sure what its trying to do at times. You honestly could have had a biting point if you were the least bit subtle about it. If you can have a conversation between two characters who have opposing viewpoints without strawmanning one side of the debate, then that's kinda close at least. I'm still pretty sure it'll be ham-handed, but its a lot better than normal.
Comics are bad at doing moral greyness, rather than black and white. One of the only examples of it I can recall that they did morally grey is Hitman when he technically saved the Justice League. Although to be fair half the Justice League was sort of a bad caricature of themselves in that issue. Only Superman was still written well. Batman usually has to hold the asshole card in stories like that, and take it the worst.
Anyway, taking morally grey issues and boiling them down to absolutes where the writers side punches out the other side of the debate who is cast as a villain, it gets annoying. It feels a lot like just preaching to the choir if the writer is ham-handed. Since I rarely see good satire play out in comics, politics being mentioned is annoying. But its not to say it can't happen. OP comic at least has marginal effort, although Batman looks like he's written in that usual asshole crossover style.