Stating the thing you're asked to prove is not proof of it. Is this honestly the level you're debating on?
The variant that was the SUBJECT of the cease-and-desist letter is NOT "readily available by tens of vendors." It's available on eBay, and it's certainly possible that (a) DC didn't send cease-and-desist letters to individual eBayers (b) did do that but stopped, and/or (c) didn't do anything AFTER sending cease-and-desist letters. As I tried to explain already, a cease-and-desist letter isn't magic--it doesn't MAKE people cease and desist. If a cease-and-desist letter isn't obeyed, it takes ADDITIONAL legal action to enforce it. That costs money. DC doesn't HAVE to spend that money, because its primary motive here is to protect against FUTURE copyright infringement, which is more difficult to do if you do NOTHING to protect your copyright now--which is exactly why DC could content itself with initial letters to Devil's Due and Collector Cave and NOT CARE whether they're followed or not.
And, no, you're not just like me. You're just assuming another factual claim without backing it up. For instance, I'm NOT just taking the news at face value. Did you go to the shop in the Bronx and talk to the owner? Didn't think so. I did.
Glad we can agree on your last point, though.