heroes tend gain powers by accident or heritage (Thor, Spider Man, Captain America, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, most of the Avengers) villains by planning. the hero then decides to protect the populace from danger the villain to use his power for personal goals. is this implying that only a villain would scheme to lift themselves above normal people? it definitely implies that people must sacrifice themselves to societies best interests to become a hero. it appears to imply that the society that created the comic book values natural ability over acquired skill, and self sacrifice over individualism, or perhaps merely destructive individualism because villains rarely come up with legal ways to get what they want.
I am not sure I buy this premise. As many signifigant number of heroes are self made, trained, or unpowered. Iron Man (designed his own suit), the Punisher (all Training), Nick Fury (All Training), Cap (who while he is genetically altered is almost as much training in his ability as that), Black Widow, Black Panther, Doom, Doctor Strange (mysticism, but taught mysticism), Hawkeye, the Swordsman, Electra, The Wasp, Pym. None of these are accident or heritage.
And a good portion of those who gained their powers from birth (Mutants) were and remain a good social commentary on prejudice and equal rights.
the heroes are reactive. the villain makes a plan then the hero encounters and thwarts the plan. heroes rarely enact their own plans to better society, possibly because the nature of their powers is often destructive, on the other hand reed Richards is apparently smart enough to span the dimension's why doesn't he take five minutes to invent a free, limitless power source, or create something that works like star treks replicators? based on the number of villains the hero's fight who are motivated solely by monetary gain if he did this he would only have to deal with the occasional planetary invasion.
I would argue this is both a part of just story telling (hard to have a book where a hero is constantly stopping crime before it happens), and an offshoot of our own justice system (innocent before proven guilty). Doing it another way would be like minority report, which would become boring. Reed Richards is smart, but intelligence alone is not what is needed to form a perfect society. It takes social prowess (something Reed has shown over and over again in comics he lacks) and practical governing experience to achieve that kind of utopia.
comic books are designed for an audience with less attention span then novels. most comic books over in 30 minutes that is not to say comics cannot tell stories with emotional depth or tackle social issues.
art is an integral part to the story in a comic book complementing or hindering the writing a comic book can fail on the quality of it's art but not succeed if the art is good and the story is bad. and if one aspect is extremely good and the other mediocre or bad I believe the comic can still be worthwhile.
I would also disagree with this. Much like the serialized novels of the 1900s, Comics do and have told stories with as much emotional depth and social relevance as any book. Sure they have to do it over many volumes, but they do it all the same. It could be argued they do it all that much better with the introduction of Art as another facet of the story telling process. Sure bad art can hurt a story, but the same is true of any story telling that uses multiple forms - such as movies. Because you have acting and writing, it doesn't invalidate the medium or makes it less relevant, it just ups the challenge. I would argue because of this, when comics succeed, it is a greater then then when a book gets across the same message because of the challenge.
Say what you want about Civil War, it has some decent writing in parts of it, and it made valid points about how a democracy can slip into tyranny if allowed to (they made the point just where heroes were concerned, but considering this came out not long after the Patriot Act, it is not hard to make the correlation).
comic books have the most consistently fantastic stories, dinosaurs, mutants and space-gods, sometimes all in the same story, this is what I and I think many people find most attractive about them. is this to attract young male audience? yes it's the coolness factor. that does not make it a bad thing comic books are the most consistent resource of awesomeness created for awesomeness own sake, something wonderful that should be preserved. and something that is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a creative work that improves society and individuals.
While this is true of some parts of comics, you run into the problem of using the word Comics when you mean Marvel or DC. Comics is a big world, and there are a lot of books that are amazing and have none of these things.
similar to heroes being introduced as fantasies women are often introduced as sex objects either due the creators own deficiencies or due to the perceived target audience. This necessarily changes when the character begins to develop depth and back-story.
I would argue this has less to do with a perceived target audience, and more to do with a preponderance of male writers in the comic book medium. Just as with the male dominated Movie and TV industries. Watch a string of prime time shows and blockbuster movies. Women are either portrayed as either matronly or a sex-object. And this has gotten worse since reality TV came along. This is a media bias, not a comic bias.
as others have mentioned the comic books have been telling the same story for 60 years (marvel comics at least) this lends tremendous back-story and depth of character to comic book characters found in no other medium.
Again, when you say Comic Books you should be saying DC or Marvel. There are several single volume, readily accessible titles on the market that are not weighed down by back story and continuity. In the case of Marvel and DC, this is both a help, in building rich stories, and a hidernece, in making those stories inaccessible.