Dr. Leo Quintum's (not Quantum though that's probably the implication) dialogue isn't characterization-free. His dogged persistence to continue his mission because of his fear rather than being stymied by it was pretty clear in his dialogue and was in no way related to his artistic depiction.
I did like the "fear is the steak sauce of life" line. Say what you will about Morrison, his dialogue is stylish. Though on the whole, Warren Ellis's work bugs me, his characters do say some things occasionally that are VERY funny.
His dialogue where he expounds how he revived the Project by being inspired by Superman was not art-based entirely in conveying his character. But on the whole, I agree that the art outshone the dialogue for characterizing Leo. (It must be noted that in the real world, 90%+ of communication is non-verbal so this is actually realistic where the art shows more of the character than the words.)
As Kurt Busiek pointed out on his legendary thread here, different projects have different levels and types of collaboration between artists and writers. Without knowing that working relationship and dynamic on this book, one cannot glorify Quitely as doing Morrison's job for him.
The AVENGERS ASSEMBLE Busiek/Perez hardcover contains the Marvel-style plot for the first issue of Avengers. What's interesting about reading the plot is that you read humorous little bits, like Busiek telling Perez to draw Crystal in the Silver Age style. It's sort of like the Director Commentary on BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, where Carpenter and Russell talk about what their kids are doing.
You are right that not having access to Morrison's script, it may not be possible to tell whose idea was what. It might have been Morrison that said, "okay, draw this, this way." Likewise, it might have been Quietly that inspired this or that exchange or dialogue.
However, it is possible to look at the art and the writing, and make a list of everything you know about the character from either one, and here it's longer if you look at the art instead of the writing.
One big case of the artist doing the writer's job is back in the first issue of Claremont/Byrne's "Dark Pheonix." On the first appearance of Kitty Pryde, her speech and actions in the story show very little about who she is. The ART, on the other hand, characterizes her perfectly: she has a star of David, and a big giant teddy bear behind her in her bedroom. (This is an example of characterization through art: what kind of a girl would have a big giant teddy bear with a bow on their neck in their room?)
It's not clear if this Steve's last name is Lombard, Lombardi, or whatever. Unless I missed something, he wasn't given a last name yet so maybe we're all assuming something without actual evidence yet. It remains to be seen how this Steve will be characterized and how he will relate to Clark. All we know is he's a would-be rival for Lois' affections, though Lois has absolutely no use for the man.
Hmmm, you're right, for all we know, his name might be Baron Steve von Kissalot. Though judging by his jerkish behavior, the logical implication is that this is Steve Lombard.
Morrison was not making a reference to Prometheus here, at least not directly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any mention of Prometheus in Morrison's story at all.
I was pointing out a pattern of behavior that Morrison practices, of making shallow, puncturable comparisons to myth. "Prometheus" was a villain in Morrison's JLA run.
Guys infiltrating secret projects happens all the time in the fictional and real worlds. That's what espionage is all about. Even Cadmus had an inside man from Luthor back in The Reign of the Supermen storyline. We shouldn't bash Morrison on this score since it happens regularly.
Don't forget all the evil agents the Evil Factory had.
While yes, there can be an explanation and it would be a rather easy one, too, the point here is that one wasn't offered.