That just makes it more definite that Joaquin is not Chic. The minimum allowed age for an FBI agent is 23, so as we've already established, an involvement with a 16-year-old would be statutory rape. It would make him a sexual predator. They would not do that, not after the heat they took for it with Ms. Grundy, and sure as hell not with their featured gay relationship, because that would play into all sorts of ugly, hateful stereotypes. Not to mention that you're suggesting a law-enforcement agent would be the one committing the crime.
I don't think we established anything of the sort, Christopher. You're mistaking your opinion for fact again. As we do not know which state Riverdale is in, we cannot say for sure that a relationship between Joaquin and Kevin would be statutory rape. In fact, precedent with Miss Grundy suggested it wasn't the age gap that was the issue so much as the fact she was his teacher and had him commit perjury. Some states allow a relationship between a seventeen year old, and an individual up to the age of thirty. And given we don't know exactly where Riverdale is set, it could be in one of these states. All we know is its a maple syrup producing state, so likely Northern. And Delaware, a state with a thriving maple syrup production industry (a little hyperbole) has the age exemotion law I mentioned above.
No, I'm not, because I researched the facts first (including how to spell Chic Cooper's name). I explained my reasoning in my earlier post, and I acknowledged where I was making assumptions. It's not about Joaquin and Kevin -- you're getting ahead of yourself there. It's about the bizarre notion that Joaquin would be Chic Cooper for some reason. There's no basis at all for that assumption. All indications in the show are that Joaquin is a contemporary of the other characters, a fellow teenager. There's nothing onscreen to suggest he's older. Whoever first came up with this weird "Betty's secret brother is Joaquin" notion probably overlooked the part that the brother would have to be significantly older than Betty, and once that was pointed out, they just used the supposed uncertainty over Joaquin's age as cover for clinging to the idea rather than just admitting it didn't make sense. In the show, they dodged the issue, yes, but in fandom and the press, there was a lot of negative reaction to the Archie/Grundy storyline, which is probably why the producers abandoned it so quickly. It was a bad idea and they learned from their mistake. So it would be unlikely that they'd repeat a plot angle that went over so badly with the audience the first time around. Especially when it would play into some really ugly homophobic stereotypes if they did it here. You know... if the only way to justify a relationship in a TV show is to find loopholes in age-of-consent laws, that in itself should tell you that it's probably not a good idea to depict it in the first place. And I think the producers know that by now. Realy, if you want to ship Joaquin/Kevin, what's wrong with Joaquin just being Joaquin? What does aging him up, or giving a connection to the Cooper family, add to him as a character or to his romance with Kevin? This whole idea seems totally arbitrary to me. It's as if someone wondering who Betty's brother might be just went through a list of the existing male characters and picked Joaquin by the process of elimination. But I think that's overlooking the fact that serialized TV shows tend to bring in new characters each season, rather than just reshuffling the existing ones. Especially in the case of a comics adaptation like this, where there's a whole panoply of existing characters yet to be brought into the action. We already know that Hiram Lodge will become an on-camera presence next year, and there's no reason to think he's the only new character they'll introduce. To me, the season-finale revelation about Betty's brother felt like a setup for something new like that -- akin to The Flash's name drops about DeVoe, its villain for next season, or Supergirl's cliffhanger about Reign. Berlanti shows do this sort of thing all the time. I won't be surprised if we hear casting news about Chic as a new cast member sometime before the season premiere, or maybe sometime during the season if they hold him back as a midseason reveal.
Never trust a Wiki about things like spelling. I got the spelling of "Chick" directly from an issue where he appeared, coincidentally the one where Betty found out he was a government agent.
Okay, how about multiple websites? https://comicvine.gamespot.com/chic-cooper/4005-81524/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_of_Archie's_Gang#Polly_and_Chic_Cooper http://www.mightycrusaders.net/a_whoswho/chick.htm (the address says "chick," but the article text says "Chic") Oh, and here's an actual comics page. And another. And apparently there's a 1965 issue where it's spelled "Chick" on the cover but "Chic" in the story proper. Comic-book letterers aren't infallible. Hmm, I wonder if he might've been named in honor of Chic Young, the creator of Blondie. Maybe that's a reach.
I get it. I posted, therefore I am wrong. Get over it. It's likely that they started out using the "Chick" spelling, and then someone told them it's actually "Chic", and they went with that going forward. It's not a name I'm unfamiliar with, I went to school with a guy nicknamed "Chic" (for Charles) from first grade through high school graduation. My first thought when I was introduced to "Chick" Cooper was "That's not the spelling with which I am familiar."
Huh? I'm just doing due diligence. Honestly, I never heard of the character before this thread, so I certainly could've been wrong about the spelling, which is why I double-checked by looking it up on multiple sites. It was as much to confirm it to myself as to anyone else. By "they," do you mean the creators of the comic? I doubt that. I looked up both spellings of the nickname on Wikipedia, and there are plenty of people in history who've used both forms; indeed, "Chick" seems to be the more common one. Also, the character debuted in 1963, and that issue where he was called "Chick" on the cover is from 1965. So I'm sure it was just a case of the cover letterer forgetting the established spelling, especially since it was correct in the actual story.
I don't think it's as much what you said, as how you phrased it - it did come across a little, shall we say, condescending, including your comment about having 'done your research - including how to spell Chic Cooper's name'.
^You were incredibly condescending to me with "You're mistaking your opinion for fact again" in post #322. As a person who prides myself on my honesty and rationality, I consider that a grievous insult, and I was perfectly entitled to defend myself against such an unfair and hurtful accusation by pointing out that my post was based on research rather than mere opinion. So you have no business acting like you're the victim here. You struck first. I was actually much more subdued in my response than I wanted to be.
Okay - maybe you need to check your attitude and reread my comment and realise I was explaining why FormerLurker appeared to feel aggrieved at your responses to them and not about your reaction to my post. I know I'm not the first person to comment on how you can come over in posts, because, when I saw your interaction with FormerLurker and your response to my post, I distinctly remembered the following -
Just finished Season One and really enjoyed it. It's the first high school drama I've watched that didn't feature Kryptonians or a glee club - I'm not sure if the murder mystery is a similar excuse, or if I just have to own up to enjoying a drama about teenagers. Anyhow, the cast is uniformly great, and I love the timeless, yet contemporary vibe, along with the beautiful blues-and-yellows cinematography. Very curious to see how the recently announced Sabrina spin-off show will fit in, and how long the series can maintain its serious/silly tightrope vibe. I'm definitely in for Season Two, at least. (I do hope, though, no doubt in vain, that Archie/Veronica will remain a stable thing, because I quite like the two of them together, and pretty much never like the childhood-neighbors-as-destined-soul-mates trope. Betty had some frankly icky feelings of entitlement towards Archie earlier in the season.)