I think there are pros and cons to Identity Crisis. There are questions addressed that attempt to make the larger universe more logical, but these are only smaller elements of the overall story which have two (arguably three) major factors that make it so controversial; the ‘fridging’ of Sue, the madness of Jean, and the ethics of Zatanna. The kicker being that they all fall under the umbrella of women being victims or villains.

On a lesser note is the extreme characterisation change of Arthur Light. Now, ignoring the choice to victimise a female supporting character to create motivation, I interpreted the assault as being an isolated incident, that it was the first time Light had done this and that it only happened because, in an attempt to hurt the JL in their own sanctum—by sabotage or whatnot—he suddenly realised a more horrible and psychologically painful way to hurt them. Yes, when he was discovered he was depicted as being grotesquely manic, but I never assumed he was or would become a serial rapist. It was all a disgusting, spiteful show to destroy the JL morale and, in a way he succeeded, considering the fission the team experienced when arguing the morality of erasing someone’s mind.

As I said, I believed it to be an isolated incident, but to see it used as an M.O. for Light in other stories doesn’t sit well with me, especially when this implies he assaulted Billy?! Or is there missing context? Billy?! Have a day off.

Yes, the missing context of this image steered me away at first. Initially, reading the OP’s question made me think the quote was in reference to SA. But the words here alone almost imply it’d be toward Billy, which just seems a bridge too far. I’d like to know for certain, so maybe I’ll review the comic in question at some point.

This comic was approx. two years after IC.

I have had this Plas run on my wishlist forever and now I’m not sure I want to read it. The covers are very different to the inside.

This issue specifically seems to be mocking "dark" comics, so I don't think it's a good indicator of the overall tone of the book.

I am pretty sure that it's referring to IC, many writers did act like this was Light's defining trait in the years afterward, but that it's not meant to be taken seriously. Which I would say is probably worse, really.

You can write an "everything wrong with Identity Crisis" that's longer than the actual storyline.

^^Ah, that makes sense. If this a parody of ‘gritty’ comics then this is actually pretty funny in that context. I will keep it on my wish list.

Doctor Light developed a reputation for sexual assault. It was a bad idea to begin with.

That line ain't right, man. Thad Sivana is supposed to be a better class of super-villain than that. He ain't Emil Gargunza.

^^ I would argue joking about SA, especially child SA, is in poor taste.

Anyone could argue that, for sure. Humour is subjective and some people can laugh at taboo subjects. It doesn’t necessarily make them bad people for doing so, unlike people who actually commit sexual assault.

I will agree with that. The joke may definitely be in poor taste, but it doesn't make the person who made the joke a bad person. It just means the joke is in poor taste.