Before we leap right into the latest installment of Marvel Comics’ crossover event of summer, 1973 , the Avengers/Defenders War, let’s pause to note how its cover represents yet a third approach to representing the event in the context of a single 20-cent comic book — a comic which Marvel would have been keen to have a prospective buyer pick up, even if they hadn’t bought the ongoing storyline’s two previous episodes. To wit: while the cover of Avengers #116 had spotlighted only the three heroes actively engaging in battle within its pages (i.e., Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Silver Surfer), and that of Defenders #9 “symbolically” shoehorned the three original Defenders (i.e., Dr. Strange, Hulk, and Sub-Mariner) into a scene of Iron Man vs. former Avenger/current Defender Hawkeye, this John Romita-Mike Esposito number puts the focus on the two marquee combatants (i.e., Captain America and Sub-Mariner) while giving us a selection of other Avengers in the form of floating heads, as well as teasing us with a partially-seen guest star… while never using the words “Defender” or “Defenders” at all. It certainly makes for a marked contrast with the covers of most later multi-title crossover events at both Marvel and its rival DC Comics, where the emphasis is on making sure that a prospective buyer knows that a particular issue is part of the event, and so a “must-buy” for anyone following/collecting it… versus trying to downplay the possibility of someone not buying the comic because they don’t have all the previous chapters. Times sure have changed, amirite?
And now, having made that not-so-pithy observation, let’s get on with the show, courtesy of writer Steve Englehart and artists Bob Brown and Mike Esposito:
Oh, well, guess we’ll just have to roll with it, figures Dormammu… who also thinks that the Defenders, whom he describes as “a somewhat unconventional group of super-beings” might have an edge over the Avengers. Hmm… (No, Loki, your supposed partner doesn’t have time to try to cure your blindness right now. Can’t you see the next bout is about to start? …oh, right. Sorry.)
As you’ll recall, the Swordsman had turned up at the door of Avengers Mansion back in issue #114, claiming he’d reformed and wished to (re-)join the team. While most of the Assemblers had come around to accepting him by the end of that issue, at least provisionally, Captain America had continued to harbor doubts — with good reason, or so at least thought my younger self at the time. But the soliloquy given by Swordy here sure seems to indicate that the guy has indeed turned over the proverbial new leaf, and that Cap has, for once, made the wrong call.
The Valkyrie assumes — perhaps a bit too readily — that anybody as “skillful” as she’s heard the Avengers are will be able to avoid a serious crash. Fortunately, she’s correct (at least in this case), and the Swordsman manages to pull his quinjet out of its spin and make a safe landing… though by the time he emerges from the craft, she’s disappeared. Guessing that she’s set down within the walls of the castle he spied from the air, he proceeds to walk the short distance there; after knocking on the door, he’s admitted inside by the owner, who speaks English. “I’m the Swordsman, of the Avengers,” he tells his host, “and I believe you have an unwelcome visitor.”
Val’s dig at Swordy about his “pretty moustache” is priceless, IMHO.
The Swordsman is surprised to find the Valkyrie a less savvy fighter than he’d expected, considering that she supposedly “fought the Avengers to a stand-still before”, back in issue #83. Of course, that Valkyrie was the villainous Enchantress in disguise, rather than the “new” version who joined the Defenders in the 4th issue of their series. (Though why he’d think the spell-casting Enchantress would be any more adept at swordplay than “our” Val isn’t really explained.)
Do the unnamed American castle-resident’s motives seem a little murky to you? Well, there’s a reason for that. As was eventually explained in the letters column of issue #122, the original idea was for the character to be “a suspect in the Watergate agonies” who’d fled the U.S. to avoid prosecution — but at the time issue #117 was going to press, none of the President’s men had actually been convicted of anything yet, and so “it was decided that having a character sure to be interpreted as being one or more real people attempt a murder was too heavy.” Yeah, I can see that — though, for the record, the original “Watergate Seven” (comprised of five burglars and two handlers) had been convicted as early as January, 1973, which seems way early for the production of Avengers #117; perhaps the Marvel brass were thinking of folks higher up in the White House hierarchy than “plumbers” E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.*
As the Swordsman slips into unconsciousness, Valkyrie takes the Evil Eye from his limp fingers. A moment later, she hears the sound of footsteps tromping up one of the castle stairways — the Bolivian police have arrived on the scene — and realizes it’s time to beat feet (or wings, as the case may be).
“…as the dead man and the wounded Avenger are quickly carried away.” Yeah, just in case you harbored any doubts, the Swordsman did indeed kill that guy. One can certainly make a case for extenuating circumstances; still, it does seem a little odd that no one (not even our omniscient narrator) ever comments upon the slaying, either in this issue or (if memory serves) later ones. Perhaps Englehart meant to subtly indicate that Swordy still had just a bit of the villain in him; if so, he may have been a little too subtle about it.
If you notice something different about the art in this chapter, well, that’s because it was inked by Frank McLaughlin, rather than by the credited Mike Esposito. According to the letters page in Avengers #122, McLaughlin was called in at the last minute to help out when the book fell behind schedule; to my eye, his presence makes for a better-looking finish to Brown’s pencils.
I’m not sure if Englehart had any particular Japanese demonstration in mind when he scripted this opening scene, whether in Osaka or elsewhere. Like many other countries, Japan had been affected by the wave of protest movements that began in the 1960s and continued into the early 1970s; among the specific issues that motivated such left-wing groups as Beheiren were the Japanese government’s support for American foreign policy during the Vietnam War, and the continued American military presence of the U.S. in Japan post-World War II, which allowed for U.S. bases in Okinawa to be used for staging operations in Southeast Asia. By the time of Avengers #117’s publication, however, protest efforts based on these concerns seem to have lost steam, due to the reversion of Okinawa to Japan in May, 1972, as well as to the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in January, 1973.
As the last panel above indicates — and as we’ve discussed on the blog on a couple of previous occasions — Cap and Subby’s interactions in the “modern” Marvel age had been quite minimal up to this point, with their only one-on-one set-to having occurred back in Avengers #4 (Mar., 1964). At that time, they hadn’t appeared to recognize each other, which could reasonably be taken to mean that they’d never actually met (and that their only recorded Golden Age meetings, such as when they were both briefly members of the All-Winners Squad 
back in 1946, should be considered apocryphal). On the other hand, that unfamiliarity could be chalked up to residual effects of Namor’s recent long-term amnesia, as well as Steve Rogers having spent the last umpty-ump years frozen in ice. And since Roy Thomas had established in Avengers #71 (Dec., 1969) that Captain America, Sub-Mariner, and the original Human Torch had teamed up at least once during World War II (at which time they’d battled a trio of time-traveling Avengers), the latter explanation seemed the best way to go for someone reading this story in August, 1973. Having said that, the extended association between those three heroes as members of the Invaders during WWII was a piece of retroactive continuity that wouldn’t be introduced into the Marvel Universe for another couple of years, yet; the interactions between Cap and Subby in this story should thus be read with that fact in mind.
Cap recovers quickly enough to slam Namor with a metal sign, but when the latter hurls it back at him, he’s stunned and drops to the ground. Figuring the battle is over, Subby begins to sprint away, muttering, “It has taken me many years to relearn what I already knew in World War II — that no Sub-Mariner, even one with an American father, can ever be anything but a Sub-Mariner!” — and not noticing that Cap has already recovered…
Your humble blogger had missed Sunfire‘s most recent appearance in Sub-Mariner #52-54 (Aug. – Oct., 1972), as well as his only appearance prior to that in X-Men #64 (Jan., 1970), so this was my first good look at the guy. His anti-“Yankee” sentiments obviously complement the attitudes of the protestors seen earlier, though their specific primary cause (which I wouldn’t learn until some time later) isn’t the Vietnam War or another current issue, but rather the death of his mother from radiation poisoning, a result of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima (the radiation from which is, ironically, also responsible for Sunfire’s mutant powers).
Sunfire’s “geisha” line is the sort of culturally-specific reference that a “foreign” character was all but required to make within a few panels of showing up in an American comic in the ’70s; to modern sensibilities, it’s likely to seem strained, as well as unnecessary.
I recall that I thought the timing of the big “break-through” was impeccable, back in August, 1973, and I still feel that way. The way I see it, if things had gone on any longer without any of the heroes involved talking to each other, it wouldn’t have seemed entirely credible; any earlier, though and we’d have come to the end of the event too soon. But as it is, the breakthrough (and doesn’t it feel appropriate, somehow, that it’s the two oldest combatants, both of them veterans of the Big One, that take the first steps towards peace and understanding?) arrives at precisely the right time, before the whole “war” thing wears out its welcome.
Of course, if that final panel-sized caption hadn’t firmly assured us readers that we were still going to get the Avenger/Defender battle that I, at least, had been anticipating more than any of the others — Thor versus Hulk, duh — my sixteen-year-old self might have felt differently. But since it had, I could rest easy, knowing that the best was yet to come. And so, also, I can happily look forward to sharing one of the biggest superhero smack-downs ever with you, faithful reader — just two short weeks from today.
*Steve Englehart would, of course, get his chance to take on Watergate for real via the “Secret Empire” storyline that was already percolating over in Captain America around this time… and don’t worry, we will be discussing those comics here in the months to come.
Given that the chap The Swordsman killed had just shot him, in the back no less, I daresay it could be considered self-defence.
That’s what I meant by “extenuating circumstances”. It just seems strange not to have any comment in the story about an Avenger having killed somebody, regardless of how justified it was.
I must have missed that bit about extenuating circumstances. Ah well.
I suspect that this was a lost detail.
I hope, given Englehart’s reputation as a decent man, it is not part of an attitude expressed a few years later as “This could only be made in South America, where life is cheap.”
However that was in the zeitgeist in the 1970s . . . .
I also think that the Sworsman was not only shot in the back, but thought he was dying, would come into this.
Bob Brown may not have been Steranko or Barry Smith but I do like his clear, crisp style. He had a knack for layouts, for getting interesting angles on the scene as well. I especially like his large panel of the Avengers quinjet coming down out of the cumulus clouds with the castle peeking out of the surrounding jungle. The panel wherein Namor lands atop Cap’s shield is effective too. I used to like the work Brown did on Superboy for DC as well. These kind of workmanlike artists really enhanced the comics and even if you can’t have the style or grandeur of a Jack Kirby you can still get it done!
Agreed. I’ve always found Bob Brown to be one of those good, solid, underrated artists who could always be relied upon to turn in professional work.
I think my distaste – or maybe just – indifference, and disappointment when I turned pat the cover and saw he was the penciller – came form some very early-ish Marvel work where 11 yr old me was anticipating Kirby – I’m thinking Giant-Man in particular. But I agree, a perfectly solid artist – did he not have the unenviable job of following Jack on the Challs book?
Yes, and I’ve read that CotU sold better under Brown than it had under Kirby, though I don’t know how true that is.
That weouldn’t surprise me – a lot of people, and serious comics fans among them, have said Jack’s art looked ugly to them and they didn’t read or buy books he drew. Then there’s folks like me where it was love at first sight, same with Ditko, Wood. Williamson, a few others – Murphy Anderson adn Infantino, Kane for sure
Another fun chapter in this epic. One other minor aspect that came to my attention was the apparent property of Cap’s shield to float, otherwise after that scene wherein Cap and his mighty shield fall separately to the sea, the shield should have sunk and Cap would have been hard pressed to find it, depending on how deep the waters were there. As it was, not only did Cap quickly retrieve his shield, he also made his way back to land pretty quickly. Interestingly, to me, Namor already had his piece of the eye and could have easily just departed quietly without confronting Captain America or Sunfire at all. But, nope, as depicted here, seems he very much wanted to have it out with Cap. Also seems rather strange that after co-existing in the modern Marvel universe for nearly 10 years at this point, this was the first time since Cap’s revival in Avengers #4 that Marvel’s only two remaining active characters from its World War II era comics have encountered one another. And to my recall, Lee rarely if ever made any reference to Namor’s WWII exploits, although much was made of Cap being “the Living Legend of World War II”.
As to the clash between Valkyrie & Swordsman, given that Val also has the supernaturally amplified strength, Swordsman really shouldn’t have much of a chance but the focus, naturally, was on swords play. And given that Englehart wrote both Valkyrie & Swordsman into their respective teams, each within just a few months of one another, it occurs to me he must have thought he’d have to find some way to bring them into combat and here it is. The unexpected twist was having Swordsman on the verge of winning before being shot in the back by a 3rd party, and then turning around and killing that man. I think that might have been a first in comics — not a villain inadvertently killed in battle while trying to kill the hero, as with Zemo, the Nathan Garrett Black Knight and, just recently then, Norman Osborn. Rather, the hero purposely killing someone who just attempted to kill him. Of course, in this instance, the “hero” had been a long-time villain. Also, I’d think it must have taken a bit of work to get Swordsman not only recovered enough but also released from Bolivian authorities in time to take part in the grand finale in Avengers #118. That was briefly alluded to later and his wound would become a recurring factor in Swordsman gradual fall, although he remained a hero, trying to do his best but beset by bad luck again and again. As a kid reading these stories all those decades ago, I found his story arc compelling. Englehart wasn’t making his transition from villain to hero all that easy for him.
As I blogged about recently (https://atomicjunkshop.com/blazing-battle-action-plus-some-questions-fantastic-four-annual-4/), while Cap was a living legend in Silver Age Marvel, Namor in FF #4 is an obscure character Johnny vaguely remembers hearing about (whereas he was shown to be a huge fan of Captain America). The original Human Torch was likewise presented as a bar trivia question — Reed saw him in action but only vaguely heard stories he wasn’t human.
Given that in an early Golden Age story, Namor makes a massive effort to take over New York City and is only prevented from doing so by the original Human Torch, logically in the universe neither of them should have been any more obscure than, say, Bonnie & Clyde, Jesse James, or other figures from history, both heroic and villainous, that have remained famous even decades or centuries after their deaths.
Admittedly, I know many people who are completely unaware of or woefully uninformed about historical persons and events I would have thought any reasonably intelligent person should know. While in conversation with a close friend (who is several years older than me) recently, I referenced Benito Mussolini and he had only the foggiest idea of who he was and his role in World War II. And about 30 years ago, when I was in the Navy in my barracks room, reading a book about Josef Stalin, another Sailor asked me “who is Stalin?” He had never heard of him before. Sheesh, what does a person have to do to earn everlasting fame – or infamy???
As a nine year old my niece referred to WW II as “the era of Stalin and Hitler and Churchill” in a tone resembling “the era of tyrannosaurus rex.”
I agree, Subby and the Torch should definitely have been remembered. Post Silver Age, most writers treated them that way.
Funny how in the real world, many characters that had been well-known to Marvel/DC comics fans for decades were almost entirely unknown to the general population — until the Marvel movies started doing big box office over the last 20 years. Even Iron Man was fairly obscure, aside perhaps from anyone who recalled the primitive cartoons from the 1960s. And Thanos? Not too long ago, most people would have had no idea who or what Thanos was. Now they and many other Marvel characters have become part of mainstream pop culture, at least for the time-being.
DC too. Prior to Smallville and then Arrow, how many people would have known Green Arrow?
Green Arrow though had appeared as a backup feature in World’s Finest Comics, was a regular member of the JLA and teamed frequently with Batman in The Brave and the Bold. And then of course he became a co-star in Green Lantern’s book.
I was talking in the context of Fred’s comment about how characters only known to comics nerds are now familiar to the mainstream.
Ahh, I didn’t read it that way. Was thinking it was referring to characters that were little known to even comics fans. Red Raven for instance made one appearance in a late sixties X-Men comic. If you missed that issue you missed him. Some of the old 40’s Timely heroes made a one time appearance as a reprint in Marvel Super-Heroes, otherwise nothing.
Stan Lee’s scripts in the 1960s always seemed deliberately vague about how much, if any, of the stories published by Marvel / Timely prior to Fantastic Four #1 actually happened, and how much were comic books published within the Marvel universe. The fact that he and Jack Kirby, when they brought Captain America back in Avengers #4 and revealed the character had been trapped in suspended animation in an iceberg since early 1945, and the Bucky had died at the same time, completely neglecting all of the characters’ stories from the second half of the 1940s and the whole of the 1950s, was a clear indication that they didn’t feel the need to be beholden to any sort of past continuity. So, it’s possible Lee didn’t regard Namor’s attacks on New York City in the early 1940s as having been a “real” event.
I don’t think it registered the Swordsman killed that guy when I read this as a teen. Reading your post reminds me of Henry Vogel (co-creator of the later Southern Knights indie book) observing that swords are a problem weapon for superheroes because stabbing people is harder to handwave away than getting one of Cyclops’ optic blasts. He gave one of his characters a psionic sword (well before Magik or Pyslocke had one) that made her opponents feel their arm (or whatever) had been cut off but did no permanent damage.
Good point about the timing of them finally stopping to talk — although as one of the comments above pointed out, Namor could just as easily have flown off. Namor’s comparison of limited and unlimited superstrength sounded good to me when I first read it; it seems more handwavey now. Why not just say “you’re strong but nowhere near what i can do”?
Thinking about this again all these years later, it occurs to me I was a very trusting reader at 8 going on 9: I never doubted Swordsman’s reformation was genuine. The book glossed over his killing of the guy, so that didn’t stick with me either. Dang it, I realize now that I just was too young to appreciate all Englehart was putting into his stories. It’s good to revisit them now.
Englehart’s use of thought balloons for the Swordsman certainly made it clear that for all his failings, his intent at reforming himself was genuine. Seems thought balloons have mostly fallen out of use in comics since the ’90s or so, but they were useful in clueing in readers as to what was going on in the heads of characters that they wouldn’t have them say outloud.
Interestingly, I don’t believe Swordsman was ever shown to have killed anyone in the past, although he was shown attempting to kill young Clint Barton as well as taking part in thwarted schemes to kill various incarnations of the Avengers. In this case, it was self-defense against someone making an attempt to kill him. I don’t recall thinking much on it when reading this mag back in ’73 but on much later reflection it’s yet another indicator of the changing times as I strongly suspect that the CCA wouldn’t have allowed for such a scene in the past and likely in the 1960s Stan Lee, as editor, might have thought it was too extreme.
Another aspect of this issue I like was thought for all his reputation for hotheadedness, it was Namor who really began the dialogue necessary for the Defenders and Avengers to realize that they’d all been duped into fighting one another.
The rationale for not using thought balloons — at least the one I’ve heard — is that comics should be like movies and thought balloons aren’t the way movies reveal character. Some writers make the same argument about novels.
It’s a really stupid argument.
Here is a thought: Cap and Subby are the oldest and most experianced mortal superheroes in this fight. It makes sense they would be the ones to figure it out,
Now, that said, the two men are older and more experianced, but have radically different personalities. Namor is brave, a wise king and a selfless man and monarch. However, he is also arrogant and likes to fight.
Steve Rogers is brave and moral., Very insightful and a good citizen, he selflessly puts his country and his people first. He has no fear of fighting if he has to but has no desire to fight if it is not needed. If it is necessary, he knows he can win against tougher foes (as a roughly contemporary TV Show had it, “No brag, just fact.”)
Namor, Cap and Sunfire are political archtypes. Namor is the valient, premodern Nobleman, Cap is the Citizen-Soldier, a Patriot. Sunfire is a Nationalist.
This does not mean thaty Cap does not have his Achillies moments, he has a good one during the “Nomad” arcl about a year later . . . but he had a good reason.
Finally, given the Invaders, it does not make sense that Namor and Steve Rogers do not interrelate more, but the Invaders are a Retcon.
(During the time when the Vision was thought to be the OG Human Torch, I assumed Cap Namor, The Vision and guys like the Whizzer would go to dinner and have a few beers on VE or VJ Day. I thought john Ostrander got the tone right when the Torch and Namor were talking when the Torch was the Thunderbolt’s manager.
The “No brag, just fact” quote..is that from the Guns of Will Sonnet? I loved that show!
I can’t see Vision hanging out with WW II vets. From what I remember, though Vision saw the original Torch’s life, he didn’t have first hand memories of that life.
Also, you mean Ostrander’s Heroes for Hire (really enjoyed that series), not the Thunderbolts.
Sorry, the comment was referring to John Mineham comment. ,not Joe Gill.
A good middle chapter of an excellent series. Bob Brown continues to unamaze, but Englehart’s story is solid and engaging. I have long pointed out the fact that I was almost exclusively a DC guy back in my early comics-buying period. I was buy some Marvel books at this point and had been for a couple of years, but not to the extent I was buying DC stuff. Plus, I had a real “anti-Avengers” thing going at the time. Didn’t like the team, didn’t like the book, didn’t buy the book, so please excuse this potentially foolish and ignorant question. Right after he arrives on the scene and secures the Eye for himself, Namor taunts Cap (as you do) with a crack about Cap gaining super-strength recently. I know the answer to this is going to make me feel terribly foolish and unworthy to be here, but didn’t Cap always have super-strength? Wasn’t that part of the point of the “super serum?” Did he lose his strength at some point that I missed out on? None of you have commented on it, so I assume it raised no alarms with anyone but me, but I’d appreciate some background if anyone would care to share. Thanks.
What Marcus said. Brian Cronin covers it here: https://www.cbr.com/abandoned-love-is-captain-america-super-strong-or-what/
I believe during the Brubaker run it was retconned Cap did indeed gain some degree of superhuman strength from the original treatment.
The Super soldier serum Cap used gave him peak human abilities, not super human. In Captain America #157, Cap was poisoned by the first Viper, used the antidote and the reaction with the super soldier serum gave him super strength for a while.
You could argue that since other people did gain super strength for variant super soldier serums that Cap didn’t because of the Vita rays used on him, which also prevented the mental side effects from the serum.
Just remembered, Alan Covered this in the post for Cap #162
Thanks, guys. Most of this, somehow, I missed. Thanks for filling me in.
I think a recurring problem with characters of even supposed “peak” normal human strength, such as Captain America, Batman, Daredevil, Falcon, etc. is that from their earliest stories they are routinely shown doing things that pretty much no actual human, peak strength or not, could actually do, mainly with their acrobatics, jumps, swinging from rooftops, etc. Any real human trying to get around a big city by the same means Batman, DD or the Falcon have been shown doing with grappling hooks and ropes/wires is very likely to wind up dead pretty quickly. It’s comicbook magic masquerading as “real” because it sort of resembles what circus trapeze artists can do but is not really the same.
Captain America, to my recall, was only shown using hooks & ropes to get around very rarely, although often enough that when Steve Rogers quit being Cap, one of the guys who tried his hand at being the new Captain America tried swinging into action with very bad results. And that guy was a professional athlete. Englehart was clearly having some fun with that, showing that what Cap did wasn’t all that easy to replicate. Even Cap’s shield must be taken to have various comicbook magic capabilities, otherwise it would entirely inexplicable that Cap has never lost it for good. Somehow, it always come back to him, even, to my recall, when he had to give it up to the government and they gave it to someone else who for a time became the new official “Captain America”, although longtime fans could see he was a phony baloney. Eventually, Steve Rogers got his title and original shield back.
Another superpowers — after all those physical exertions while wearing those form-fitting costumes, not becoming drenched in sweat and emitting a smell that might itself overpower their foes and friends! Not to mention their costumes usually holding up pretty well. Aside from T’Challa’s during McGregor’s run with Buckler or Graham drawing — his costume got shredded regularly!
There have been serious discussions of whether Earth-616 (and DCU humans for that matter) are really superhuman by our standards. I took a look at the topic a while back: https://atomicjunkshop.com/does-this-mean-aunt-may-could-beat-me-up-ordinary-people-in-comic-books/
Does anyone else think the figures of Iron Man and Hawkeye at the bottom of the splash page are swipes form an old ToS?
I wasn’t aware that Frank McLaughlin had inked the second half of this issue. Thanks for the interesting piece of information. I’ve always been a fan of McLaughlin’s inking. I feel he was one of the best inkers Sal Buscema had during the 1970s, and he did great work over Bob Brown’s pencils here.
this was on my Facebook feed today
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdavescomicheroes.blogspot.com%2F2023%2F08%2Fremembering-artist-bob-brown.html%3Fm%3D1%26fbclid%3DIwAR0PQ8U_6WGSiHJw6IFkrYrspG_n2AkbNAuK4E0SMyKZhRp-LFqgVALE3L0&h=AT3_ImO4oNAvPN7sYKuQ4QhBniTSwN6Xba_z9ewWSahXNZRsO084hGhFy-TiPX21EGlJueC8B1ZiBbK4L7T3q5n6ET3QJJHOjXK4WP0LfqIgP1OdWxnsK-ie9kVzXB7H7w&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c%5B0%5D=AT10M20_GKfiZrGg8f0qa0FuNBi97DRxN66rdiVThUMrR0LHiyTYVYOHWKeSdhpGWoiWTPNHjFCNKr82rY9qzPqRfk0h_81O8_M9BXl6GR0eaUCSFOh7VCFfnTqmn_23MvAUaAIVKp2NygXltCH3mVmphwmkt6-GvTZh75qncwBRRzV6yGntCgxxa1-rxi5FZLzc3GaqXq7v7LtjCvNoGWGfxaWqHA