All I'm saying is that roughing a man up for operating a business which violates labor laws goes a bit beyond immature: it's a direct action against society.
There's a concept for you. Robin Hood's stealing from the wealthy was a direct assault on society, too.
Of course, I grew up as part of a cohort many of whom decided as adolescents and young adults that our society was so irredeemably immoral and corrupt that its rules should be defied, discarded and even violently opposed.
Smoking pot is not revolutionary, Dennis.
All in the service of basic fairness, right and wrong and in the context of great general ignorance about human nature and how anything can work, of course.
What Clark does in these scenes doesn't strike me as inarguably lacking in basic moral impulse at all. Quite the opposite. It does seem emotional, ill-thought and foolish. It's not going to get him the results he wants.
Okay, to clarify, I don't mean it's "beyond immature" in the sense of "it's worse than immature," but rather it is an act that demonstrates a more calculated revolutionary attitude than, say, punching a cop in the face at a demonstration (and getting beaten and/or five years in the pen for your momentary lapse of reason).
I'd say it suggests a deliberate moral reasoning to burglarize a man's house, terrorize him, perhaps purposefully attract the attention of police (so you can lecture and humiliate them), and ultimately throw the man you've brutalized out a window, all in order to make a political statement.
I mean, who did you hang out with, man? The Symbionese Liberation Army?
On a less serious note, who is that Sivana-looking dude with the creepy smile of panel 2 of the first page of the preview? Should I know that guy?