Is this an update to Combstock, or is it a new character? Edit

Apparently, there's a bearded man that seems just as important as if he's Combstock, and even appears on the cover of BioShock Infinite: The Siege of Columbia. So I'm wondering if he's an update to Combstock, or is he new and Combstock is just another Saltonstall ( i.e. a minor character)? Hopefully, I.G. will have updates to share about what we've seen in the trailer. --Evans0305 (talk) 22:22, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like from an enlarged image of the trailer's pic that he is Combstock. On the one hand, its completely different from his cleaned up look. Then again, these warring factions would be too much to worry about than shaving. Evans0305 (talk) 23:42, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Possible hint at a relationship with... Edit

Would it be worth noting something that has been said in many of those reviews from the 2 1/2 hours previews for the press?


-That he's Elizabeth's father?

I'm gonna try to get the source again, so, I'll edit this later, or if you saw it as well, I think it should be noted...

Thanks! 19:40, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Coincidently, I did add this to the article days ago, although, I did add that Cornelius Slate's claims about Comstock being a false Prophet and a liar could later debunk this relation. Its a plauseability, but speculative, that Comstock kidnapped Elizabeth at a young age for her abilities, so he can take advantage of Columbia and its citizens by claiming her Tear-opening powers as "prophecies", as well as using the Tears to "upgrade" Columbia. But until the game's release, who knows if that's the real story for the character. Evans0305 (talk) 01:48, December 26, 2012 (UTC) 

Comstock in full perspective??? Edit

I picture Comstock with his "prophet" appearence, dressed in mostly in a preacher outfit, what do you think he might look like? share your answer here!!!!AirPatriot1912 (talk) 18:52, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Possible Fontaine-like fight with Comstock Edit

I think Comstock will infuse himself with so much Vigors, he might take the appearence of a greek god. I suppose he might use Bucking Bronco, Shock Jockey, Undertow to fight Booker. Put your answer here to see what he might look like.AirPatriot1912 (talk) 15:19, December 31, 2012 (UTC) not really...i don't have a good word for it. Well, I mean that Comstock is not really your enemy. You fight with The Founders and with The Vox people, Comstock is more like the brain of the operation. Yes it is possible to fight him, but I don't really think that he would use Vigors...He could use anything, including Elizabeth and her powers, but I don't really think that it would look like fight with Fontaine. More like a flood of enemies coming from every possible direction. Ison (talk) 15:27, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
I say when you fight him, the whole fight will be similar to Daud's fight from Dishonored, with various super powers being used.AmberWing65 (talk) 23:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why change his appearence??? Edit

I think this is what Ken Levine meant by "polishing the game", but why give him the bearded look and the religous father role, i mean its a very good job i could of count for something better.AirPatriot1912 (talk) 03:24, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think the beard was meant to fit his "prophet" appearence and his God-like personality, as some prophets (i"m not saying its true) got beards like John Brown.AmberWing65 (talk) 02:00, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

If Comstock is DeWitt, how come his eyes are blue instead of green? ZanyDragon (talk) 15:07, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

DO you have good picture examples to illustrate the eye color difference

Statue=Lady Comstock? Edit

I don't know about this, but something tells me that the statue in the 10-minute demo has to be Lady ComstockAmberWing65 (talk) 16:15, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt it. She looked more like Elizabeth when she still had black hair.

Who's really the bad guy? Edit

I'm caught in a speculation zone, who's really the bad guy in the game, Comstock or Rosalind Lutece? cause Comstock kept Elizabeth in the tower for all her life he just wants to keep her safe and Rosalind wants Elizabeth for probablly a WMD.AmberWing65 (talk) 16:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, noone can tell until we will get the game. I don't really know what to think about it, but if it was Rosalind's voice telling about the debt...then I can tell only one thing. She is not 100% innocent... But I really wonder how will the plot go. Ison (talk) 19:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Having already beaten the game, I can say that Comstock is the firm main antagonist. ( 21:18, April 7, 2013 (UTC))

Elizabeth Edit


"Comstock is visited by an archangel of God named Columbia—however, she was no angel; in reality, she was an alternate version of Elizabeth, from the future—she tricked him into creating a floating city, which she claimed would usher the world into righteousness." Where in the game can this be inferred? Why not Rosalind Lutece? --Questionaredude (talk) 15:34, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems made-up, I don't recall anything in-game even suggesting that Elizabth led to Columbia's creation. Comstock was deluded, he might have imagined it or even made it up to gain religious power. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I vote that this gets removed. 15:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his knowledge of the future came from observing tears (the way Booker does in the Comstock house [except those are tears to the past]), like how Fink was able to rapidly develop new technology (like Songbird and certain vigors) based on what he saw in tears. The angel part is likely made up to control people. "An angel of the Lord told me" sounds more authoritative than "I saw the future through a tear in space-time" KevinTheDestoryer (talk) 21:26, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretation of Ending Edit

Anna/Liz doesn't drown Booker, she baptizes him. It's a metaphor for forgiving him.

The entire story line is about a father guilty about his past (Wounded Knee) and worried about how his baby daughter will think of him.

Comstock is a Booker that didn't have a child, was baptized but never forgave himself so he built a persona (new name and "Prophet") to hide his past and lied to make himself look better that made him enemies (Slate with the Boxer-Rebellion, blaming the Indians for Wounded Knee and Daisy with Lady Comstock's suicide). He used the Tear technology to build Columbia (by observing technology in other times or dimensions) and it eventually made him impotent so he stole another Booker's baby, Anna, to raise as his own prodigy.

The baby is Elizabeth, so that final act where she's dunking you into the water is her (and every other version) forgiving you for what you did and what you could become (Comstock), thus ending the guilt inside Booker and destroying the possibility of Comstock emerging in another dimension. Mallissin (talk) 22:40, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Cease to exist"? Please. Edit

How on earth does the baptism actually stop Comstock from ever existing? There could be a billion other baptisms where he emerges. Right when Elizabeth makes the decision to drown him there could be another split where she does not and Comstock still exists. There could be universes with Columbia that don't even involve Anna DeWitt/Elizabeth. Irrational dropped the ball when they decided to use something as complex as quantum physics for so simple a storytelling technique. 04:48, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that time travel in fiction tends to play more by the writers' rules than by anything else, the point here is that every Elizabeth/Anna who gains full power also exists beyond time and space, and so their decisions would affect every timeline without creating new parallel universes (since their decision would be the same everywhere). Killing Booker during the baptism would thus erase every timeline that branched off from that event, and since no Anna/Elizabeth would choose to let Booker go on with the decision, there would be no splits. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:31, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

What Willbachbakal said: when you cut a limb off a tree, all the branches and twigs that grew from that limb go with it. The only way for Comstock to continue existing would be for Elizabeth to falter--and, as Will said, she exists beyond time and space, and does not do so. Even if there was a version of Columbia wherein she does not exist, it doesn't matter: it only matters that Booker went to that specific baptism and made a choice whether or not to accept it. If that baptism does not occur, there is no Zachary Comstock.

It's quite elegant, really.

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 08:19, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately quantum theory (which all this is said to be based on) has nothing to do with time travel and the defrocked multiverse 'theory' just as little.  So there is NO 'cutting a limb of a tree' because there is NO going backwards in time to do that.  If anything (within what they define) she is traveling between these existing multiverses - leaving one and entering another where events happened differently (in a different timeframe yet somehow formed close to the one she left (how she picks and choses so perfectly or even moves between these dimensions also is nothing that exists in 'quantum theory' ).

SO again (if anything - assuming these fantasy things work),  she leaves the old dimension which now continues on whatever course it was following (still exists) and picks another to enter that she wants to meddle with.

Of course there are infinite others she doesnt visit (infinite more 'multiverses' are added every infinitesimal increment of time BTW -THATS what the theory actually says)  and those have every known possible combination of Booker/Comstock/Harry Potter/Purple Unicorns/Klingons, etc.. being involved.  

And since she is attempting to interfere at some point which she thinks will change things - well maybe it doesnt go the way she thinks and she is simply making it worse  -- Booker dies (the butterfly is stepped on) and the whole course of history changes (Butterfly effect - Chaos Theory).  And since every possible combination happens from that point anyway, someone ELSE becomes Comstock in lots of them and does exactly the same thing - infinite number of times (oops wrong Booker - it was someone else called Booker - hmmm - yep that can happen too.   

Dont blame me that they mouth these pseudo-science buzzwords and explanation in this game, but then wont even stick to what they say is how their universe operates.  Its just a magical Elizabeth who can do anything they want her to (is it a cosmic irony that the games initials are "BS" ?.)

Seriously -- the  Columbia America 1912  with the social issues they portrayed several left turns back on the trailers/interviews would have been a much better story  (with this game theres no relevancy to our world, and just cheap manipulation).

Testxyz (talk) 08:54, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Comstock launched Columbia at age 19? Edit

I don't understand why the pivotal events of the game's history are given as happening in 1893 instead of towards the end of that decade when Booker and Comstock would've been in their mid-twenties. According to the timeline given in the game, Comstock would have only been 19 years old when Columbia took to the skies(1893), meaning he would've had to be at MOST only 18 when he somehow got an audience with the U.S. Government and successfully petitioned them into giving him millions of dollars to build and personally run(that part's the kicker) an entire city, which was then constructed and launched in a matter of months. Not to mention that he already would've had to meet and befriend Rosalind Lutece, get his vision of Columbia from her machine and set the whole process in motion before this, i.e. at high school age.

There's also the matter of Booker already having his own private detective agency by the age of 19 at the oldest(but that's a bit more plausible). The whole thing is just really awkward and uncharacteristic for the BioShock writers given their attention to this kind of thing. The only real deadline for Columbia being airborn is the Boxer Rebellions of 1900, so why wouldn't they set it at most a year or two before that, so we wouldn't have to believe Comstock was baptized, met and gained the confidence of Rosalind Lutece, had his vision, petitioned the government, got his funding, constructed at least part of the city, made it airborn and was allowed to personally run the entire thing all within the space of a few years while he was still too young to be allowed into the very bars he was building! In my head I just fudge the launch dates, but is there any plot point or something I'm overlooking which helps to explain this stuff? Paraknight 19:56, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well he got funding from the U.S. government for showing Lutece's inventions, so who's to say a 19 year old from that period couldn't get funded for an idea, especially with something as grand as that?

And also, we're talking about a person (Booker) who at the age of sixteen was in a war and was found scalping his enemies.
KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 22:12, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems pretty unrealistic, even with the younger working age at the time and all. However, in-game info suggests he started aging prematurely at 18, which would then have lent him more credence in front of the government as he oversaw the construction of Columbia in between 1893 and 1894. The fact that he had the Luteces' discoveries, perhaps the most revolutionary in history, to back him up while doing so might explain why the government was so eager to throw money at him. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:31, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Of course that ignores the factor of politics (and the fact the US Government didnt have bucketfulls of money to throw at anything it wanted.)    Every politician had his pet constituents projects, and unless you made deals things simply wouldnt happen.  They should have portrayed Booker going to the private sector for the bulk of the funding (and their eyes WOULD light up at the potential for moneymaking of many of the technologies).   Somewhere on this wiki it says/said that Booker was a congressman ??  That too would be REALLY unlikely in such a short time *(at his age, without connections/etc...) and with that little thing 'politics' impairing that from happening.  We could have had a few stories/hints of the private investors wanting to get back what THEY had paid for  (or at least in the existing plot, government agents doing the same thing).

Testxyz (talk) 07:12, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Explanations for Timeline Changes Edit

I did a bit of research on the timeline of events that preceded Columbia's launch, and realized that it isn't possible for Comstock to have seen Columbia through the Tears, based on the evidence below. If there's relevant in-game information that proves these points incorrect, feel free to cite it, and I will recant.

  • Rosalind first develops the Lutece Field in 1890, meaning the technology for suspending an atom existed long before they were able to open Tears.
  • Columbia is launched sometime during the year 1893.
  • The Voxophone Undeserving, wherein Comstock recalls seeing his vision of Columbia, is recorded on September 9th, 1983. He therefore saw his vision of Columbia sometime before this date.
  • On October 15th, 1893, Rosalind Lutece recorded two critical Voxophone messages: A Window, and One and the Same.
    • In A Window, Rosalind says that "his [Comstock's] money means the Lutece Field could become the Lutece Tear -- a window between worlds." Use of the term "could" shows that the Lutece Tear has not yet been developed.
    • One and the Same details Robert's transfusion into Columbia (likely immediately after the recording of A Window), which acts as the first successful opening of a Tear.
  • Fink's discussions with his brother about the Tears begin in early 1984.

This evidence together suggests that Columbia was built--and likely even launched--before the invention of the Lutece Tear. 

There are, however, two hitches in all of this:

  • The calendar in Booker's apartment which reads October 8th, 1893 during the epilogue.
  • On the Entropy of Genes, detailing Comstock's physical deterioration, which was recorded on July 3rd, 1893.

Obviously it is impossible for Comstock to have used the Tear machine so extensively as to have been rendered sterile before the technology had been developed, or for Robert and Rosalind to team up to abduct Anna before having met. Even if you theorized that Robert passed through the tear for the first time while abducting Anna, that still doesn't match the October 15th date. These two pieces of contrary evidence are going to take a bit of puzzling out, but I believe the preceding evidence is still compelling.

As to how Comstock saw his vision of Columbia--Bioshock's never been short on crazy people, has it?

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 08:44, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Mining Tycoon Comstock: False Edit

Hey, just wanted to point out that Father Comstock was not the mining tycoon mentioned in Bioshock: Rapture. That was an actual historical figure, relating to the Comstock Lode: a highly profitable mine discovered in the 1840's. I already deleted the bullet point, just wanted to point out the reasoning behind it. Thanks!

I think the origin here is wrong. This origin talks about Comstock living throughout the entirty of Booker's life and becoming Comstock after the fall of Columbia. Then creating Columbia for his past self to travel through. However, everywhere else it shows that Comstock and Booker seperated after the Battle of Wounded Knee, when Comstock chose to be saved and Booker chose not to. My biggest evidence is that Comstock does not have AD on his hand, therefore they had to split before he lost Anna. It seems that what really happened is that Comstock went on to use tears that Rosalind created to find Booker and Anna. When Comstock took Anna from Booker, because Comstock was sterile for using the tears, he then continued to use the tears to 'see the future' and predict that Booker was going to come to Columbia and all the events that unfolded. Dispite his best efforts, Comstock could not stop what was already going to happen, just like Booker could not stop himself from giving up Anna. 

Why did Comstock wanted to destroy New York?Edit

Why did he wanted to destroy New York?


Because its the epitome of the sinful and impure America that Comstock  says has been ruined (degenerated from what the venerated Founding Fathers wanted).

Why did Columbia wait so long??  Sorry, but whatever Tears Elizabeth conjurs up wont do much again nuclear tipped missiles striking and obliterating Columbia. Heck with the people below figuring out what the Luteces did  and developing technology even faster it might simply be a case of US Space Marines coming after and boarding Columbia and tossing Elizabeth into a null-void chamber  where she will be powerless and no longer able to meddle with the inter-dimensions...

Testxyz (talk) 08:55, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

"the ultra-nationalist party that founded the floating city of Columbia."Edit

Except they didnt 'found' the city, they seized it when it already existed (and if theres any realism at all, it was founded by the US Government (who they say paid for it) and was under orders of one of a government represenative originally (unicorns would exist before control of it was ever 'given' to a crackpot like Comstock).

Maybe if they changed the name then to 'New Eden' or 'Columbiatopia'  and the sentence read  "founded the floating city of New Eden"  or "founded the floating city of Columbiatopia"  then it might be somewhat accurate as that would be 'founding' it as it became.

"the ultra-nationalist party that founded the INDEPENDANT floating city of Columbia. "   ???

"the ultra-nationalist party that controlled the INDEPENDANT floating city of Columbia. "   ???

Im not sure that even 'nationalists' is even proper to refer to a 'city-state' which is what Columbia supposedly is

Testxyz (talk) 08:30, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Simple proof that Comstock is NOT a Christian ....Edit

"The Lord forgives everything, but I'm just a prophet… so I don't have to. Amen."
    ―Father Comstock
I kinda wonder at the idea that the Developers/Ken Levine  somehow portray any part of Columbia as a Christian society 1912 or at any other time.   You would probably find that very few people in America at that time would join someone who 'preaches' the stuff that Comstock does.

Theories Regarding the Origin of Comstock's Name Edit

Without author confirmation, any and all theories about Comstock's name are just as likely or unlikely. All information regarding the possible origin or inspiration of Comstock's name should remain here where other trivia belongs. The following has been removed from the main page:

  • Comstock's name is potentially an allusion to Anthony Comstock, a 19th century American politician responsible for the 'Comstock Laws' which labeled anything remotely sexual in nature (including anatomy textbooks) as pornographic and banned their publication. He referred to himself as the 'weeder in God's garden' and was known for his religious fanaticism and extreme methods.
  • Another possible background for Comstock's name is from George Orwell's novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying, in which the main character, Gordon Comstock, rebels from what he calls the Money-God, the urge for more money, and seeks other ways of life.
  • Another possible allusion in Comstock's new name is Zachary Taylor, a military man and US President associated with America's westward expansion in the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War, though Zachary was not at all an uncommon name of the era. 
  • Hale could derive from Nathan Hale, an American Revolutionary War figure executed by the British for spying. This could be said to fit in with Comstock's worship of the Founding Fathers and his mindset of possible martyrdom. 'Hale and Hearty' was a phrase once in vogue for a vibrant, strong, healthy individual, which after repeated exposure to the tears, Comstock certainly was not.Gojirob (talk) 16:26, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Two overlapped imageEdit

Rapture Comstock


The Dead Detective

Or Tails?

There are two similar images of dead Zachary Comstock in Burial at Sea. There is no need to have two of these images, so I'm wondering: Which one?

Pawn of Atlas (talk) 10:14, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

I would say Tails. It seems to look a little better, but that's my own humble opinion. TheLighthouse (talk) 02:51, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing about this situation, the two pictures show the same subject, but they're aesthetically different (different angle, different height, different distance from the subject, etc.). Both pictures are of a corpse, but Heads shows the body's position in the Toys department and Tails shows a close up of what Comstock's model looks like. If there were 3 or 6 or more pictures of this same subject, I'd call that excessive, redundant, unnecessary, etc. Here though, it's fine.

In my opinion, nothing needs to be done, but I'll wait and see what y'all decide and act accordingly.

Unownshipper (talk) 05:04, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Removed Behind the Scenes entry Edit

The following was removed because it is unverified and has no source.
  • During development, one religious developer threatened to quit because he was offended by the portrayal of Comstock, who is Christian. Ken Levine decided to sit down with the developer and discuss the character; if the developer wasn't satisfied at the end of the conversation over Levine promised in terms of changes with the character, he could leave the company with no hard feelings from Levine. In the end, the developer was happy with the changes Levine promised to give the character and returned to work, and the discussion encouraged Levine to write Comstock with more depth and personality than his original incarnation.

Mainframe98 talk·blog·edits 09:39, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

I found the source:

--Shacob (talk) 10:25, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

That's the story I remember Shacob. :) I does clash with the removed entry (nothing in there about "keeping the developer satisfied or he could quite with no hard feelings). Will try a rewrite. sm --Solarmech (talk) 11:32, September 20, 2016 (UTC)


I noticed that some characters have nationalities listed. In the case of Comstock is he an American just because he was born in the USA and it can't change? Didn't he quit being part of the US when he took Columbia independent? Shouldn't he be listed a Columbian than? A fair number of characters would seem to be Columbian as well (Slate, Fink and others). There are also characters who really don't have much of a nationality like Fitzroy, she has liven in Columbia for nearly 20 years but I doubt she considers herself a "Columbian". Legally Elizabeth is still an American and I don't think she sees herself as a Columbia either. Though she probably doesn't care about nationality much. sm --Solarmech (talk) 11:44, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Which characters have their nationality listed? When I think of characters like Yi Suchong, Pierre Gobbi, or Kyburz, their nationalities are Korea, France, and Australia. As they're all immigrants to Rapture, it's only useful to list the nation they originate from; otherwise, they'd ALL be listed as "Rapture," and what good is that?
The same applies to Columbia.

Unownshipper (talk) 21:39, October 20, 2016 (UTC)
Both Booker and Comstock have a nationality listing (American). Lady Comstock and Fink have a listing as a Columbian. Slate, Fitzroy and Lutece have no listing. So yeah things are not consistant on this matter for BSI. sm --Solarmech (talk) 12:17, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

​Is he the maestro?Edit

Hi Mainframe,

I believe what this is referring to is the conversations the Lutece twins have right after Booker and Elizabeth crash-land the First Lady Airship into Emporia. When questioned by Booker about the nature of the songs, Rosalind Lutece says something along the lines of "Perhaps you should ask the maestro himself...", which I've always believed referred to Comstock. This would probably provide reasonable basis for this statement.

TheLighthouse (talk) 18:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yep. TheLighthouse got it that I was thinking of that conversation. Comstock has enough musical talent and given that he would want to keep Songbird under his own control, he wouldn't allow anyone else to write/know the songs that control him. I did say infered. sm --Solarmech (talk) 18:31, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. I actually thought they were sarcastic there. Thanks! Mainframe98 talk·blog·edits 10:38, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

Different Spelling of DeWitt in Burial at SeaEdit

This isn't important enough/too speculative to go into Behind the scenes to me. In the subtitles for Burial at Sea - Episode 1 Booker's name is spelled as "Dewitt". Small "w". In the main game Booker's last name is spelled DeWitt with a capital "W". Every time it's written it's with a capital "W" as well. I don't think this is an accident actually. I think it might be a hint that the "Booker" in Rapture wasn't who he said he was. But there is zero proof of this. sm --Solarmech (talk) 13:58, December 3, 2017 (UTC)

Rapture Booker/Comstock Pinkerton badge Edit

Recently noticed the Pinkerton badge on Booker's desk is present in both versions of his office, New York and Rapture, respectively. Now, I'll admit this is a pretty obvious detail but given the Rapture version is ultimately revealed to be operated by a Comstock, I wonder when he would've obtained it?

I'm sure this may have been discussed at some point before but with Comstock's path diverging after the baptism, I take it he hadn't joined the Pinkertons as DeWitt ended up doing? I mean, besides stating Booker's association with the agency among one of his "sins" after Wounded Knee, implying that he sees his alternate self's subsequent rejection of baptism akin to being cowardly by not embracing twisted supremacist ideals, I recall the baptism being stated to have happened not long after the massacre. Booker's Pinkerton contact also states he had been employed by January 22nd, 1892 which we can assume in Comstock's timeline he had instead been at some point in his work as a preacher and eventually convincing the U.S. government to fund the construction of Columbia. Otherwise, that makes his timeline a bit more condensed than it already appears.

So, I'm only asking whether both or just one version had been apart of the Pinkerton agency in order to have obtained the badge. Of course, all of this could be chalked up to either the Luteces providing it along with his calvary regalia to continue allowing him to believe he's DeWitt or his memories having been adapted from a different DeWitt existing in the same timeline as Rapture. Regardless, it's not like badges haven't inexplicably just been around before, Cornelius Slate wears one as an eye-patch and we don't even know where he had gotten it.--H. Roosevelt (talk) 07:41, October 18, 2019 (UTC)

Since Comstock was intentionally trying to be Booker, I think it's reasonable that Comstock had the badge faked. sm --Solarmech (talk) 18:18, October 18, 2019 (UTC)


Good point, I just figured there was a better explanation for it rather than being a developer oversight. I mean, both Comstock and the Luteces had extensive knowledge on the alternate version of him since they were plotting to kidnap his child and I wouldn't think details like his office layout being similar was by complete accident. Sure, we're shown his memory had become quite a bit hazy but it's implied he had intentionally settled into the new way of life before most of it had been repressed by both his guilt and the effects of living in a different reality. Finally, the Luteces even reference it at the end of the episode, "Always seeking someone else's life to take as his own..." --H. Roosevelt (talk) 08:11, October 19, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.