-- Continuation of Response to John's FDK -- Superman stopping a crime seems to be more pressing if the police have not been notified.
Good point.
Well, they have only met once, so it really does not tell us much.
CAT: I'm highly memorable no matter what clothes I wear.
What happened to letting the professionals do the searching.
He's coming with her. Also, having experience with Lois, Henderson has found it's best not to leave a reporter unattended in such scenarios.
I am surprised that Bill does not have not marked vests for undercover work. Although, I guess if you are under-cover you can't often wear a vest.
Lois:Good point, it would never have worked at the Metro Club.
Does Bill do undercover work anymore? I thought he was only an investigator type inspector.
wouldn't that just make her disguise better, looking chunky?
Yes, but if someone DID recognize her, Cat would be mortified to be considered looking "chunky".
But that would not change the issue that the man Asabi threw into Schumack was already on fire.
No, but it means that the building didn't catch fire and burn down.
I think that should be "want to get".
Thanks. Fixed.
I guess Cat can't tell him why they went off, since she does not know Henderson knows CK=SM.
Also, Cat doesn't know for sure why the sprinklers went off.
Lois:How did everyone figure out before me.
Henderson:Wait, you didn't know?
Lois:Well, not until he rescued me as SM while his memory was still not all back.
Henderson:I didn't learn much before you.
Yeah. That conversation will never happen. Sorry.
I think you want to say "into the room" (yeah, I know, those pesky articles).
Clearly it didn't, so no point in worrying.
But if he had...
Why does he call her Catherine and not Cat? Also, it is a bit odd he says Catherine and she doesn't respond with William.
She introduced herself as "Catherine" and he introduced himself as "Bill".
If he were dealing with Mad Dog Lane he would get a kick in the ribs for that comment.
Yep.
Actually, he is still assuming that there is a direct connection between the van incident and them men in advertising. There is no real evidence for such. Occam's razor might suggest such, but in reality the simplest explantion (here read as few people as possible) is not always correct.
True, but until proven otherwise, they are related.
It might just be a random criminal who slit the guy in the van's throat, unrelated to the other incident.
That's what Asabi is hoping they think.
Thank you for the comments!
