Grrl Power #227 – Arianna uses Spin!
I was getting sick of drawing that building anyway. Individually Hex’s lasers aren’t all that strong, but the restaurant was pretty much a write off at this point. It just needed that final nudge. I’m not sure what Hex’s deal is with squirrels, maybe she had some past trauma with them. That or I just wanted an excuse to use the word squabies.
#MakeComics: Originally this page ended with Suzie’s line “She’s not wrong.” but my brain didn’t stop there and the waitress had to ask if she could sue the villains. That’s why the last two panels are so small. I had to crop stuff out where I could from the panels above, but they were already drawn, and I didn’t know how much space the word bubbles were going to take up till I got back from vacation as I don’t have Illustrator on my laptop.
After some intensive research (asking on Twitter) to make sure the waitress could really sue the people that cost her a job, (or at least a place to clock in) I decided to not only show the restaurant’s last gasp and the press, Arianna and the other civilians doing their thing, but also show Archon’s extended strategy for dealing with supervillainy, which is to make sure super power criminals not only will get their asses kicked and be incarcerated, but they’ll have their paychecks docked for the rest of their lives, especially if they do something grandiose like fucking up the Golden Gate Bridge or blowing up Mt. Rushmore in an attempt to mine all the ultra quartz from Lincoln’s nose or whatever. Probably not much of a deterrent to most villainous types, but I’d like to see Doctor Doom being forced to pound out licence plates for thirty years. Granted having to pay for damages would happen in civilian court, so it’s not like they could be incarcerated until they paid down their bill like some sort of debters prison, but it’s still a nice thought.
Edit: I changed the hair and shirt color of the guy who got shot in the back in panel 2 since people were confusing him with Math when he was blond. He’s just a scrub.
<– Patreon; Be there or be an equilateral quadragon.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Oh noes, I just realised, that with her dinner and the restaurant destroyed, Sydney might end up going to bed hungry!
There is only one possible solution.
Roasted squirrel on a stick.
Remember, she prefers veggies. And prefers even more not to mention it.
the answer: roasted nuts stolen from a squirrel hoard
Actually it looked like she got to eat her potatoe before the fight started. Or at least most of it.
Won’t happen, it’s cute.
Well there is always IHOP or Denny’s for the after batle debreif.
Shawarma has become the new standard victory feast. And there’s eggplant and the veggies for the curious.
Is the injured one a goodie or baddie? I’m assuming that’s Achilles upside down in the rubble heap. Ha!
Watch out! The guy by the tree has moved! And is unaffected by the laser!
Pretty sure that’s Arianna’s “O” face!
Irrelevant bad guy.
Irrelevant yes. Likelihood of Sydney adding him to her count because her shield caused the beam to reflect/refract across him? 100% Likelihood of this being the source for the tabletop gaming argument over light powers being reflected from force fields? ITS OVER 9000!!!
********** VOTING ALERT *********
We have slipped over into the next month, and are languishing in 8th place, in the Top Web Comics list. Please do not forget to vote.
How did you link the “vote” without showing the entire website?
he hit the “vote” button, then before he clicked thru on the security Captcha, he copied the URL and pasted that as his link in his post here, then he finished the Captcha and registered his vote for the day…
6th and climbing
5th now
Bad example, DaveB.
You actually mentioned the only Supervillain (as far as I know) who actually has diplomatic immunity.
Not only that, he is not some ambassador who can lose it, either.
I don’t know if he can loose it, but I’m fairly sure that they could have it withdrawn. I doubt there’s a country in the world (real or imaginary) that’s going to tell someone “Sure, go ahead and break whatever laws you want in our country while we sit back and don’t do a thing about it.”
Um…as far as I know, international law is somewhat complex on the matter.
Dr. Doom does indeed have theoretical diplomatic immunity, and thus cannot be directly prosecuted for any of his crimes outside of Latveria. Due to his maintaining the semblance of democracy in Latveria today, he can, in theory, be charged by Latveria itself, but nobody would ever do this. He has used this on more than one occasion to get away from a variety of charges.
However, any country can, should they so choose, elect to declare his rule over Latveria illegitimate, thus effectively erasing his immunity within that country’s reach. More importantly, any country can revoke that immunity, making him liable for arrest if he is ever caught within that country. Why this has not been done is sort of an interesting question, to be honest–it would seem to be a bare minimum of what he should expect.
On reflection, I have too many friends studying international law.
They could also choose not to recognize Latvaria as a country, or declare themselves at war with it – either would allow them to ignore anyone claiming diplomatic immunity from that country, if they chose.
Of course, any of these options would then lead to someone trying to arrest Dr. Doom – which may be a worse outcome than simply letting him have diplomatic immunity, assuming he isn’t doing anything actively nefarious at the moment.
In general though I think it really falls under ‘Hollywood understand of law’ – People hear ‘diplomatic immunity’ and think it mean the person in question can get away with murder, when it’s really more like ‘this person is acting in the name of this other country – do we care if that country does this?’. You start killing people and the answer quickly becomes ‘yes’, and the other country starts having to decide if they really want to claim that person was acting in their name.
There is currently a case over here with a diplomat from an unanmed country trying to use their Diplomatic Immunity to stop being investigated for a serious crime, DI doesn’t work that way: it stops you from being prosecuted (in most, but not all, cases) but doesn’t stop you from being investigated to see if you were even involved
Being at war with a country does not revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact that is the situation for which diplomatic immunity was originally conceived, and when its existence is most important. To allow negotiations for peace to proceed, even in times of war. Sending a diplomat’s head back to their parent country is deemed to be rather an uncivilised act.
The fact that many countries choose to close down their embassies, if relations deteriorate too far, is more due to the practicalities of maintaining an embassy in a nation at war, and the distrust that the embassy will remain properly protected. But this can happen even with parties not involved in the hostilities. It is not necessarily, under international law to do so.
Of course, should either of the belligerent countries choose to cease to recognise the opposing side’s diplomats, which does often happen in times of war, then the situation becomes as you describe. Even then, they are permitted to pack up and leave unmolested. To do otherwise would be a gross violation of international protocols and law.
At the time that Dr Doom was written heads of state did indeed have lifelong immunity. But that would have stopped quick enough with a supervillain deliberately abusing the custom.
However, that principle has gradually eroded, and rightly so. Had Hitler not killed himself, it would have started at the end of World War II. Not sure, off the top of my head, who the first example was, but there have been a number of former heads of state who have been arrested, and tried, over past crimes.
And some current heads of state have to plan their journeys very carefully, to avoid countries that consider them criminals. Typically for committing genocide, as that is too heinous to turn a blind eye to, in order to continue diplomatic relations.
Why yes, of course Diplomatic Immunity isn´t an “Iron Curtain” for Diplomats to do whatever they like. But that comes with three (or at least one) exception/s.
1. The country in question doesn´t revoke the DI for the Criminal for whatever reason. Most do.
2. They commit crimes in their own country. Bonehead move. Most don´t.
3. In a comic universe (Dr. Doom) it is, when you think about it, one of the powers of some supervillains. Most notably Dr. Doom. If it could, or would, just be removed, it would be pretty lame. And make him less menacing.
Ok, so point 2 is not really an exception, other than diplomats not having immunity in their own country.
Though he does often stay at his New York embassy.
As long as Doom is on Latvertian(sp?) territory, he’s safe. Getting in and out is a challenge though.
Not for a sorcerous super-scientist.
“Hmm shall I stroll through the dark dimension or just use the teleporter today?”
Doom opens the fridge in his embassy: “What’s this? Out of milk? Doom will not be thwarted so easily!”
He orders a doombot to go to the local qwik-e-mart to get some Milk, but a patrolling superhero beats it up on general principal.
“Curses! How shall I eat my Fruit Loops with no milk!”
It still beats being in the Legend of Zelda world. There, you can’t just go to the store when you want to get a bottle of Coke. You have to go on a world spanning adventure for an empty bottle and fill it up later before you can even think about buying a soda.
Or resident evil.
“James. I need to go to the bathroom. I got the heart shaped emblem from Stew, but I can’t find the hex crank. Have you seen it?”
“Did you check the shark tank?”
“Yea. Not there. Shiela said you were the last one to use it.”
“I threw it in the shark tank, just like you’re supposed to. You could play moonlight sonota on the piano to open the fake bookcase, grab the square crank out of the supply closet, go down the hidden ladder in the supervisor’s office, take the underground train to section 7, use the crank to extend the bridge, and use the washroom in the labs.”
“*grumble*grumble*Razzafrazzing cranks.”
That’s “battles royale,” just like “courts martial.”
“Courts-martial” is the plural of “court-martial”. Likewise “battles royal” is the plural of “battle royal”. “Battle Royale” is the name of a fictional book and it’s film. As such there is no plural for that.
where do you think the book got its name? I’m not sure, but I think its because battle royale is the appropriate term.(I could be wrong, spellcheck is getting mad at ‘royale’, but its also doing that to spellcheck)
Wait, Spellcheck is having problems with ‘spellcheck’? o_O
‘Battle Royale’ is correct, ‘battle royal’ is for idiots (or those who like to spell ‘colour’ without a ‘u’ :P)
Sure, just point me at the dictionary that defines that, and I will be satisfied. I am willing to lower my standards, to accept colonial dictionaries. I am magnanimous, after all.
For information, I based my earlier reply on a Google search for the terms, as opposed to having an encyclopaedic knowledge myself. “Battle Royale” got no hits, other than the fictional ones, I previously mentioned. Including the various on-line dictionaries. They instead gave the different spelling definitions I summarised.
Enforcement of intellectual rights is slightly easier if you have an unique name, rather than a generic phrase or dictionary defined term. So deliberately misspelling, for that intended purpose, is fairly common.
For instance, if I were to be defamatory of “battle royal”, the copyright holder of a film or book, matching that name, would first have to prove that I was referring to their work, rather than some other story, which involved multiple participants fighting. Whereas the case would be somewhat easier, to prosecute, if I used the term “Battle Royale”. All other things being equal.
Not that I would, of course. Especially as I have never read the book or seen the film. But the sequel, Battle Royale II is enjoyable enough to remain in my permanent collection.* But who can complain about sentencing unruly and uncontrollable school children to death, by fighting each other, as a legal policy?
* Although not great, so if I manage to buy more CDs some day, it may get replaced.
Something tells me Maxima is going to use a tape of this as part of “Why It’s Important That One Controls One’s Super-Powers” training/lecture for Sydney.
As part of her parole Hex is made a recruit along side Sydney. :P
Alright, Hex. Just do what Halo does, just less of it. Because, you know, Budget Halo.
Then they are both told to go save a squirrel rehab center.
Halo’s yellow orb has “true sight” and just got a new related ability.
Whilst it might be something related to telepresence such as being able to use her truesight with it or manifest in any appearance she does choose ( both of which already were negated topics with archon after all ), it also might be … :
“Puppeteer-sight” ( best name I got so far ) as the ability to identify mind-mojo by either seeing something attached to their head/mind, or a ghostly figure of the one responsible floating behind the victim.
As for mind-control being both, a possible explanation as to why some apparently newly formed for badly attuned mediocre ragtag team that appear to even fall short of qualifying as villians would dare to attack a major superhero team, and a way to allow for at least some of them to join up with archon later / become recurring characters, this would have its merits.
It’s an interesting thought but it would never work in the the Marvel Universe.
1) What do superheroes do when there aren’t supervillains around? Fight each other. I have an issue of Infinity Watch where the Hulk and Drax go at it because REASONS!!! In fact, Marvel Comics, for the better part of the last decade, have been acting like the first issue of Kingdom Come is the guideline for how all comics should be.
2) Whenever humans do try to put some form of legal framework around superhumans, it always turns into some type of “Registration Act” which is either portrayed as completely racist against mutants or it turns Captain America into a sociopath, Iron Man into a facist, and the rest of the Marvel Comics line into extremist garbage.
3) She-Hulk had to guilt Hercules into accepting a legal verdict against him. Thor has made it very clear to Iron Man or anyone else trying to enforce a human law what will happen to them. These are the heroes, the supposedly reasonable ones. Trying to serve one on Marvel’s villains is usually prelude to a “And then everybody involved in the lawsuit died screaming.” story.
4) Marvel’s humans are frigging stupid anyway. I mean, Forge made a neutralizer IN THE 80S!!!! Yet, nobody has figured out how to duplicate a weapon (despite several copies floating around) that would give law enforcement a way to bring down these massively destructive beings that populate the universe. The police/military have absolutely no marksmanship training that would help them against the more human villains like Doc. Ock. Despite various organizations (usually anti-mutant) having massive armies of power armor/robots, the U.S. military still hasn’t been able to work out the funding or the research to replace even the Guardsman Armor program.
Anyway, I could go on but the problems pretty much all go back to the reluctance to pass laws that would be unenforceable on a community of living gods…..and very poor writing on the part of Marvel. (DC is not immune to this complaint either but, except for a very few issues like when Firestorm got sued, DC’s approach to the issue of criminal and civil penalties has been the idea that all the normal humans have meekly accepted the notion that nothing can be done about the “Gods Among Us”.)
I really don’t see how you’d need registration any more than you’d need to register normal humans.
Crimes are still rhoughly the same, the execution is just a little different (because of the powers).
All the villains here on the parking lot can simply be judged using the regular laws, no need to even explain that they have powers (outside of explaining how they commited the mentioned crimes)
Figuring out what charges to bring against each person could get complicated. Could you reasonably charge someone with attempted murder against Achilles if he physically can not die?
Sure. That’s where the “attempted” comes in. Just because he can’t die doesn’t mean you weren’t trying to kill him! “Trying” being the operative word in this sentence.
The argument for registration boils down to the fact that Marvel has untrained vigilantes with powers equivalent to rocket launchers fighting villains who are also armed with the equivalent of rocket launchers. People get nervous when someone brings a handgun in Chipotle. Imagine how they’ll feel around someone like Thor. It’s all well and good to say “we shouldn’t register normal humans” but that argument becomes a little murky when someone like Havok can just gesture and knock down a skyscraper.
Further, vigilantism is illegal because these people aren’t trained. Groups like the X-men or the Avengers are essentially vigilantes armed with rocket launchers. Another argument for Registration (which was actually well-handled in a What If?) is that this would force superheroes to be trained not just in powers but in procedure as well. (“Ok, Thor. You see a pickpocket in a crowd. What is proper procedure?” “Slam my hammer down on the street hard enough to cause a localized 5.0 earthquake to disperse the crowd then hit the villain with a lightning bolt.” “…..back to basics.”)
Also, the people in the Marvel Universe tend to be a bunch of jerkasses. Say what you want about guys with rocket launchers, but that whole multiverse deserves people like the Punisher. I’d almost want to see him go on an unchecked tear and teach them a bunch of humility. When someone risks their lives to save yours, the proper response is not to try and lynch them over and over again.
That would be a more compelling statement if:
1) A lot of the time, the only reason these people are endangered is because the supers decided to pick a fight in Times Square.
2) If it weren’t for editorial hand-waving, the death toll directly attributable to the heroes would be roughly the same as the villains. Possibly higher.
——————————
With the first two reasons, I imagine that the average citizen should feel as much gratitude to the heroes as the average Afghan feels towards the U.S. Military. However, there is one more reason that statement doesn’t work.
———————————-
3) Death is not a permanent state for a superhero. We’ve seen that death is permanent for humans but not for superheroes. They even lampshaded this fairly recently.
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/9/99951/2915912-bucky_s_really_dead_1_secret_avengers_15_014.jpg
Of course, Black Widow turned it back on them with a completely garbage line of reasoning.
In the end, telling a civilian that a hero is risking a temporary inconvenience to save their lives which were probably endangered by these very same heroes is not a compelling statement.
Do not make this man angry. You would not like him when he is angry!
That sounds like complete bullshit to me
You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry either. Mainly because I become ill tempered and swear a lot. I’m angry….of course I’m going to act like a jerk.
Yeah.
I can confirm that local newspapers in Minneapolis are running this story. Don’t mess with the National Guard!
I wonder if these are his wife and kid?
Freaking out for no good reason?
She _is_ bargain Halo.
“No good reason”? You, obviously, are fortunate to have had no experience with a tree-vermin
“Squirrel pox and Squabies” ? Really? Even “Budget Halo” should be able to throw a few curse words around. This is more like “Halo Light: face (plants) great, less thrilling”
You do remember that Math recognized Halo’s cursing to be at a level of 7th dan ?
That ain’t easily copied or sized down.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/838
It also would not be surprise if Halo can only curse so well due to her epic resilience to spicy food – even though I can’t tell what came first.
Clearly she has the strongest super power
You know, considering how excitable she is, I hope Hex becomes a permanent character. Especially with her super zappers :D
Crossover? I can see a court scene with Ariana vs Angelia from Atomic Laundromat.
.https://www.atomiclaundromat.com/2009/09/23/a-stark-warning/
YOUR WEBPAGE HAS A PERSISTANT JAVA BASED VIRUS!!!
IT IS SOME KIND OF POP UP ATTACKER!!!
CHECK YOUR COMPUTER AND UNF#$% YOURSELF!!!
So, I’m wondering. What is that square thing with the two circles? From it’s presence during the explosion, I guess it must be a “Boom Box” …
Air conditioning unit.
Or kitchen ventilating fans. I prefer BarnOwl’s take though. Picturing Achilles with one foot sticking out of each stack. “Colonel? Is that you?”
So, can you put that “AND I WILL HELP YOU!” Arianna face up in the rotation for the portrait section thingy at the top? The one that changes which picture, and for a couple who, is up there that leads to the characters page. I just think I would get a kick out of randomly seeing that up there in the future.
I always wondered what would happen if you brought a lawyer to a supers fight. (No, She-Hulk does not count.) Wonder Lawyer Powers ACTIVATE!!!!!!!
I like the look of insane happiness in the last panel
Suddenly I hope that waitress gets a job in one of the ARCSWAT restaurants.
Just a (extremely very) minor quibble – the squirrel trauma you-tube link is no longer accessible (comes up as private)
Aw that sucks. I don’t even remember what that video was anymore.
It’s a little sad, but I see Suzie’s fast on her way to becoming a useful idiot rather than a reporter.
Her niche is the “enthusiastic fan” demographic. There will be plenty of reporters who seek out any negatives, under the principle that “bad news sells”. Whereas Suzie looks for the good news.
There is actually a big market for this style of journalism. It does not carry the standing of investigative reporting, true enough, but it is still a valid reporting role.
Theo only true journalism is cautious skepticism. All other styles open you up to misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
Btw, for those who don’t know, useful idiot is slang for a journalist whom you can feed selected information/disinformation and rely/count on them to present it the way you want them to.
Mmm, well I do not think Suzie is at risk of that. Bear in mind that she is only incidental to the story, so we do not see her all that often. But even so she has shown a number of instances of scepticism and a desire to shift the topic to something more appropriate. Various examples:
• The interview, with Sydney, outside of the bank. Doing the ‘cutting-the-throat’ gesture to the cameraman/producer, when Sydney was out of control. Plus showing extreme discomfort at the language Sydney was using.
• The press briefing. Querying whether Posse Comitatus should not prevent Archon, as a military organisaton, from conducting police actions on US soil. This was a profoundly important piece of journalism, which the rest of the press corps were caught flat-footed on! *
• The firing range demonstration. Clapping, and jiving the other press to do the same, when something was genuinely impressive. But only doing a single clap, when Achilles was doing a narcissistic and anti-climatic demonstration.
It is only a subtle point, but it is conveying her true feelings, to her viewers. If she approves of something she is unashamedly enthusiastic. Whereas if it falls short of expectations, she reacts accordingly.
Even here, on this page, Suzie is actually agreeing that Arianna is using ‘spin’. Spin is considered a negative thing, that politicians get up to. So she is applying scepticism about Arianna’s motives.
However she is conceding, that despite being spin, is not misinformation (especially in Arianna openly showing her financial motivations). Thus Suzie shows her amusing approval at such disarming honesty. There simply is no need for her to probe. Arianna has laid her cards plainly on the table.
In summary, it is possible to be both cautiously sceptical and enthusiastic. They need not be mutually exclusive. You simply probe the former, until you are satisfied, then show the latter.
Suzie is not an unthinking puppet. She is an excellent reporter! Who I am a big fan of, by the way. Excluding the heroes, she is my favourite character in the comic. I even rate her above many of the supers, for that matter!
* Further if they had been formed in a way that Archon was included in that act (let us say by being a branch of the army or marines, rather than a separate organisation), then that question could have stopped Archon in its tracks. Legal challenges would have been raised immediately, and Archon would potentially face being disbanded, as an illegal organisation!
Dear Yorp,
You raise many points, with most of which I unfortunately disagree, but (apart from clarifying that being a useful reporter is not the same as being a mindless puppet or even overly naïve, although it helps; mostly it’s just about having an “in” with that particular reporter) I will confine my response to the ones you bulleted:
The interview, with Sydney, outside of the bank.
Is that a serious example? Wanting to get away from the train wreck that is Sydney with an audience (and failing) does not constitute skepticism.
The press briefing.
I admit that was a good question, but I got the impression that she was just the first one to ask. I’m sure the other reporters would have gotten around to that in due course, and they may even have known the answer already (did you know that journalism programs carry some of the most stringent admission requirements of any education? Above even scientific or mathematical programs. That’s because a journalist must be able to follow the jargon and critique the reasoning of anyone they interview. That is also why journalists have specializations within different fields). And asking one pertinent question does not a skeptic make.
Plus she got the name wrong, which – while not speaking directly to the issue of skepticism by its most narrow definition – doesn’t say much for her retention.
The firing range demonstration.
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of the cautious skepticism I mentioned above. Cautious skepticism is the quality that makes you not take what you are told at face value, but apply a bit of critical thinking, while also not rejecting a conclusion based on outside factors such as supposed impossibility or popularity. It is a quality that is extremely hard to achieve while cheering for either side of an issue.
In conclusion, you are certainly allowed to like Suzie whether she’s a good reporter or not (I’m rather fond of her myself, she is a very human character), and if I’d known anyone felt that way about her I wouldn’t have used that slang word without explanation. Just don’t mistake her enthusiasm for hard hitting journalism.
• The interview, with Sydney, outside of the bank.
Yes. At the beginning of the story, when that happened, Suzie was not a reporter. She was an intern. Which means she may well have had no training at all. Thus we should not condemn her for loosing control of the interview. Bear in mind that, subsequently Suzie, was snapped up by the news company on the strength of this report alone. They saw her potential (as did I). Couple it with the human interest angle, of her having grabbed a cameraman and started interviewing, and it is easy to see why they would have done it.
The TV audience, once an anchor tells them this background, will have been rooting for the enthusiastic rookie. And laughing at her struggling to cope with the uncontrollable avalanche that is Sydney. Whilst, hopefully, not being offended by her inability to bring Sydney to heel. Or, at least, not laying the blame on her personally. Especially when they could see that she was trying her best to stop her.
The reason why I cited it was to show that her journalistic instincts are top-notch. From the outset she showed initiative, in calling for an outside broadcast van. Then arranged an interview with both Maxiam and Sydney. Further she asked Sydney, up front, to mind her language, as it was a live broadcast. Then prompted her, once it had started, to avoid the “F” word, by shaking her head, desperately. Which worked.
Throughout she showed her distress, thus ensuring that the public were not thinking she was just letting it run and considering it acceptable. With training, she will hopefully have a better control over the situation. Given the potential she showed, I feel confident that she will. However, even the best reporters, in the world, will find Sydney a challenge!
Another point, which I failed to mention, is that Suzie asked Maxima what branch of the armed forces she was with. Her reply proved that the new organisation, Archon was in fact employing super heroes. Whilst this must have been known in government circles (for Archon to be created as a new arm of the military), it clearly was not general public knowledge (else the later press-conference would not have been called).
Thus this was a very astute question. The answer to which signalled an epoch importance change in the world! Thus her interview, incontrovertibly, scooped the rest of the world’s press!
• The press briefing.
My reading went the other way. They just laughed at her. If they were properly on the ball, at least one of them should have instead spoken up, correcting the term and saying “Yes, I was just about to ask the same question”. Pressing for an answer, to an important question, being more important than mocking a mispronunciation.
Either way it was Suzie who actually posed the question. There is no prize for second place!
If she was drawing it from her general knowledge, we can understand her not saying it right. I feel for her, as I never spell it right myself. Alternatively, it is reasonable to assume that she had been briefed, by the producer, to ask this question (thanks to the knowledge gained from her earlier interview). But she had just not gotten the hang of saying it yet. Which I forgive her for, having only been an intern a few hours earlier.
I did not, and thank you for educating me on that matter. It make sense too.
I should declare my biases (although they are oft mentioned in these comments). I have an intense dislike of paparazzi and any form of political bias in reporting. To the extent that I would quite happily round up all such offenders and have them shot!
On the other paw though, I actively champion good journalism, and regularly contribute to giving the BBC feedback on their reporting. Both in criticising their web-site content, when it falls short of the standards I expect from them, and in them contacting me to ask my opinion on TV, radio or other online content (usually two or three of such a month).
I am proud to say that I have close to a 100% success rate, for the former. In terms of the requested corrections or clarifications being made, to the article. Usually within 20 minutes of me making them. Although, clearly, I will not always be the only one raising any given issue. And love it when I get a personal reply from the journalist!
That said, I do not feel that entry requirements, alone, are sufficient. World-wide the press should be better regulated, to ensure quality unbiased reporting. For instance to guarantee that an individuals privacy is not compromised where there is no genuine public interest (it should not be the journalist and editor who has the final say on this).
Perpetrating outright lies or deliberate misinformation should result in the journalists and editors being prosecuted, and ideally jailed (or shot, if I ended up as El Presidente). Corrections and amendments should receive as much prominence as the original incorrect facts. If that requires the front page headline to be an apology, then that is only fair to the wronged individual(s).
One example of why I find standards to be lacking is regarding science and health reporting. A good quality scientific analysis was performed of it. Taking ALL the world’s English-language written reporting, for an entire week, and picking out every pertinent article. Including those which claimed something to be scientific or offering health advice.
The criteria they were judged against was whether the facts reported or the claims made would pass peer review, as part of a submission to a science (or health) journal. They failed, in a frighteningly high proportion of cases. Many were factually totally wrong. Whilst others had journalists opinions inserted, which were sufficiently inaccurate as to invalidate the underlying reporting. Whilst others were non-scientists who clearly did not understand the subject.
Eg. “Scientists now tell us that we should avoid eating X”. When all the research did was to find that X gave a slightly elevated risk, amongst a small sample group, under particular circumstances. Especially when such claims were made for studies which had not themselves been peer reviewed!
I feel that regulations should prohibit the kinds of abusive behaviour proven by that research. Bearing in mind that people die because of this!
For example science/technology and health journalists should specifically be trained for their respective fields, and general reporters should be prohibited from reporting, or even commenting, on such matters. In their professional capacity, that is. I would not want to raise protests about freedom of speech.
Members of the public get fed up with keep on being told one week that something is safe, yet later being told that it is not. And vice versa. In the end failing to trust scientific reports at all. And the vast majority of that distrust is generated because of shoddy reporting. Which again ends up in loss of life, when it results in people ignoring the good advice available.
• The firing range demonstration.
Agreed.
Just because it is hard, does not mean that people who are capable of doing such should be criticised, out of paw.
I did mention that we were thin on material to judge Suzie on, given that she is not a protagonist. In that demonstration they were there as spectators. It was not a question and answer session. I just liked Suzie’s honesty in expressing her genuine opinions, via the only medium available, in those circumstances (short of rudely interrupting the proceedings).
What I do note is that you fail to give any specific examples of how Suzie could improve her game. Such as what she could have done better, and when. Or the matters she should address going forwards. That would be good constructive criticism, which the author could make use of, in portraying Suzie developing into a good experienced reporter.
You know, this is my 3rd time re-reading the comic, and I only just noticed Death-Toll just standing there taking Hex’s attack. You spoil us with your clever nods to future events.
I love Arianna’s face in the last panel. God but she’s a great character.
My reaction to the *way* Arianna said she’d “help”:
“I.. think I’ll–just… not. Anymore.” (Not go to sue the super-villains)
lmao