Obviously I love Sandman, and I was very impressed with Neil's take on Lucifer. I'm not quite as impressed with 'Lucifer' the series, but it's not a bad read.

But where does Lucifer - and by extension, the Endless etc. - sit in relation to the rest of the DC/Vertigo continuity? I'm quite happy to take the Sandman version of events as definitive, and take the Lucifer series as a kind of Elseworld, but what is the official line?

Actually, that's not really a question in itself. The reason I'm asking is because I've been reading quite a bit of Hellblazer lately. John Constantine has featured in Sandman, yet has made an enemy of - his words - 'the devil'. I believe he is known as 'The First of the Fallen', and being the first of three is mentioned, along the lines of the three lords of hell in Preludes and Nocturnes. As he faces down all three of three, JC makes reference to a shake-up in hell - the same shake-up as in Season of Mists? And Garth Ennis has said that he wanted JC to have a nemesis who was "a real bastard, none of that 'he's not so bad after all'" (I'm paraphrasing there), a clear reference to Neil's version of Lucifer. But they're not the same character. Are they?

And as an interesting aside, the devil in the comic adaptation of the movie 'Constantine' talks in the same typeface as Neil's Lucifer.

So how do these elements tie together? Or do we just treat them separately? After all, John Constantine never seems to encounter Superman and co. Has the DC/Vertigo universe splintered off in several directions?

generally speaking dc and vertigo are the same universe, but the two lines dont interact much.

As for Lucifer, I generally regard Neil's Lucifer and the current Lucifer in his own comic to be the cannon one, while the JC Lucifer is more traditional and perhaps actually evil.

As for Lucifer the series, I would have liked it a bit more if the other vertigo lines tied in more with it. I mean you've got this epic series of events going on , but none of the other line's heros or villians are really involved. Aside from that, I like the series and have read all of it so far( Ive heard its ending soon).

I think it's also possible that JC's Lucifer is being more evil than usual because it amuses him to do so.

Disclaimer: I have not read the past three years of Hellblazer nor the last year of Lucifer

But the story arc that has John Constantine facing off with the first of the fallen was an early one.

To my knowledge, the continuity is the same. The First of the Fallen is a different character than Lucifer. The triumvirate that ruled Hell is one that comes about upon Lucifer's abdication. Kind of like Satan as a different character than Lucifer. This seems a bit consistent since in common parlance, there are many names for the devil, but only one Satan. Many people think Beezebulb is a true name for the devil, but in comics, and D&D they are just princes.

And as the Lucifer series shows, the angels do not truly take part in the hierarchy of hell. The triumvirate, probably has the same influence as they did in Hellblazer.

Also, Lucifer would not care about Constantine that much...he's just a flyspeck to him.

I wish I had some more specific examples from both Hellblazer and Lucifer, but most of my comics were stolen from my storage unit last year and I can't look it up. I do remember a reference in the Hellblazer issues where the demons are arguing about healing Constantine's body. Look there, I think there maybe a reference to Lucifer's abdication.

As a counter example though, Lucifer does mention taking part in the demon's intrigues as he talks to Dream in Seasons of the Mists.

As in the Christian religions, there's lots of contraditions in this post, but I believe that the First of the Fallen is a different charachter.

well lucifer was the first to leave heaven, but the first of the fallen might be speaking of the first to fall after lucifer.

"First of the Fallen" always refers to Lucifer, always. There is no other language who would dare say that they were the first, as that would mean that they're taking pride of place over Lucifer, which is . . . unlikely.

Honestly, when Marvel's Punisher first showed up, he was an amoral mercenary for hire, but that character's the same as the "wounded Marine" of justice from only a few years later. Not the first time that a character's behaviour in continuity hasn't made a whole lot of sense.

Some interesting thoughts, certainly, but I don't know if there is a definitive answer. Part of me thinks that all of these storylines started out in the same place, but then take different paths outwards, getting farther apart as they go.

On the other hand, perhaps the characters can be reconciled by accepting that there are things about them we don't know or can't fully understand - Lucifer and the First of the Fallen could be different incarnations of the same character, different facets manifesting in separate scenarios. After all, we can't truly comprehend the level of power possessed by Lucifer or characters of that stature.

Good thing it's all good reading.

What I think they mean by "first of the fallen" is that even though Lucifer will always be the "First", the angels that followed right behind him where of the first wave. If all the fallen angels didn't fall at the first uprise, then the rest fell in waves. Then there would be the 2nd falling, or the 3rd wave, etc.

The First of the Fallen in Hellblazer is meant to be a different character than Lucifer from the Sandman series. Constantine surmised that TFOTF was actually God's conscience, which he excised and cast down, falling first into Hell. Lucifer and his rebels fell later in DC/Vertigo continuity.

I haven't a clue whether Constantine was right or not, but given the way God (Yahweh) is portrayed in the Lucifer series, I'd guess either he was wrong in his interpretation or that the two series view God differently.

[aside]

I'm really enjoying the Lucifer comics.

[/aside]