Grrl Power #972 – Warmup’s over!
Early UFC matches were fast because no one had figured out that grappling basically dominates in one on one fights, then just after that everyone started to learn counter grappling, and then after that, they had to start putting time limits on the bouts because some of them turned into thirty minutes of two dudes basically just laying on the mat.
Maxima is instituting a boredom limit.
Anyone get the feeling Vehemence is mostly here just for the big rematch?
I think super powered grappling would look exactly the same as regular grappling. Just the actual grappling, mind you. A super powered suplex would be dope. Or a DDT, or an 80 story elbow drop. Most “show” wrestling moves would be pretty cool actually. Even that one where they stomp when they punch to make it sound like they’re hitting harder. Like, they know we can see their feet, right? Anyway, I assume the super version would collapse the storm drains underneath the fight and look cool instead of childish.
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update:
Very nearly done with what may or may not be the final chapter. I know I said that last time, but I went off on a thousand word tangent. I mean, that’s my writing process. Just… slap down whatever comes to mind. Well, not really. I am a little concerned that I’m cramming an awful lot into the back quarter of the book. Content is good, but pacing is important too. Anyway, I incorporated some stuff from the latest canon Tamer. I won’t spoil anything here, but, you know, read all of those before mine if you’re planning on reading them at any point.
I should finish the chapter this week hopefully, then see how it looks.
August’s vote incentive is up! I know, that thumbnail isn’t so enticing, but I promise, the rest of the picture is worth it.
Nude version is up at Patreon.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
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.
Maxima is being pretty chill towards a guy how came close to killing her so she must not hold grudges when it comes to battle
*who not how
And vice versa – she did threaten to ash Kevin’s brain, and had her hand out ready to do it. But for both of them it was business, not personal.
It was more ‘If you don’t surrender, there’s literally no other way to stop you from trying to murder me again, not to mention cause mass chaos with no one able to stop you’ than it was ‘business.’ Basically it would have been both self defense and defense of others, had she actually gone through with it if Vehemence refused to surrender and started fighting again.
But…. I guess that IS Maxima’s business. The superheroing/peacekeeping business. So… actually I retract me first sentence. You’re right. It was business :)
Probably helps that they know how to keep him below the Godzilla Threshold now.
She’s a SUPERHERO. “Trying to kill her” is just business. Plus, he was quite polite about it.
I’m not sure if the Vehemence defenders are joking about this or serious. Being ‘polite’ about trying to murder you. Not kill. Murder.
What’s the difference?
Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Killing is just the act of causing death, period, regardless of intent or reason or even purposefulness.
The driver who accidentally hits a person who ran in front of their car is not a murderer.
The driver who aims their car at a person and speeds up so it runs them over is a murderer.
The soldier who had to shoot another soldier in a war during a firefight is not a murderer.
The soldier who takes another soldier prisoner, then while the enemy soldier is in prison, the soldier takes out a gun and shoots him in the head, is a murderer.
The football player who tackles another football player so hard that it causes that football player to die is not a murderer.
The football player who stabs his ex-wife and her friend outside her condominium is a murderer.
One could argue that V was there solely for the fight, not to kill anyone. Which makes deaths a potential side-effect of the fighting, not the purpose. Which makes any killing not premeditated, which makes it not murder.
Of course, if he had ended up killing Max after that talk they had where he calls her “too violent” for him and that he is “going to have to kill her”, it would be kind of hard to argue it wasn’t murder.
A shrewd enough lawyer *might* be able to spin it into a “kill or be killed, he had no choice” situation, but it’d be a tough sell. Ok, enough talking to myself now…
It’s a good caveat, but I really do doubt that a lawyer would be able to successfully argue that Vehemence was trying to kill her under a ‘kill or be killed’ scenario, since there was a very simple option which would not result in killing or being killed…… surrendering. Which Maxima ordered him to do multiple times, including during her threat after … ahem… disarming him. By which I mean blowing up his arm. :)
“Your Honor, my client was faced with an angry man trying to point a weapon at him, and fired only in self defense. The plaintiff is clearly to blame here.”
“Counsel, your client broke into the plaintiff’s house, threw an empty gun in his face, and told him ‘take your best shot’ before shooting him in the leg so he couldn’t get to a phone. The court not only finds your client guilty, but is fining you for contempt.”
LOL :D
more than shrewd he, and possibly the judge or jury is the bullshit is accepted, should be completely retarded or corrupted.
“Kill or be killed situation” isn’t a valid reason to kill after you start a fight, expecially against federal agents.
Yes, federal agents are very oversensitive when you try to brutalize and beat them up for no good reason. :)
“One could argue that V was there solely for the fight, not to kill anyone.”
Yes, this is true. Although:
1) If, during the commission of a felony, anyone dies, that would be murder anyway – felony murder.
2) Regardless of his initial intent, he did decide to murder Maxima when he realized that she is too dangerous to do his initial plan with. Which then made it attempted murder.
3) The only reason he was trying not to kill anyone at first was not because he doesnt believe in murdering people – it’s for entirely self-serving reasons, that dead people can’t be violent. :)
So he was there for the buffet, not the seminar.
Haha :)
No, you just said murder was premeditated, might you have meant ‘manslaughter’?
He didn’t intend for anyone to die, but they did anyway
Everyone forgets. “I’m going to have to kill you But I’ll leave your team alive” as he’s holding her down with his hand on her throat in that big fight. Even I made the mistake of thinking there was something else since he did call Sydney “good kid hope she doesn’t die”
Technically, causing death is manslaughter. Killing is *you directly causing the death with intent to kill*.
No. Causing death is not always manslaughter either.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing a human being without malice aforethought. Meaning one of the main points is it has to be unlawful in the first place. Ie, unlawful killing that does not quite meet the definition of murder.
Maxima did not do that either.
Killing is when you Murder someone and someone else might say they might be okay with it or might not.
I’m not sure how to explain more clearly that killing and murder are not the same thing, but instead killing is just an element OF murder.
Here. Simile time:
Killing is to Murder, as Moving is to Driving.
Killing is NOT necessarily murder, because it’s just one element of it.
Moving is NOT necessarily driving, because that’s just one element of it.
Killing is to Murder, as Punching is to Boxing
Everyone who kills anyone or anything is not necessarily a murder, because there are other elements that make killing a murder.
Everyone who punches anyone or anything is not necessarily a boxer, because there are other elements that make punching the sport or practice of boxing.
I think your main problem with this is that you have a problem with how language works, and you’d like the words to mean something different, which seems to be your main argument.
Btw I’m not trying to come off as condescending and if I am, I’m sorry. I’m just trying to explain how language and law works. It’s just that I’m trying to explain things in a way that might be more understandable. Not calling you dumb or anything like that – just mistaken because of your own inherent biases on language (everyone has them, not singling you out in particular).
That is hard to do, not to be condescending! I say that, as I have a near to genius IQ> :)))))
:D
As do I – some of my neighbors are brilliant.
So does Wile E. Coyote :)
Meep Meep!
Whether or not the killing is technically “lawful”, the degree to which it was deliberate, and/or whether the killer is mentally lucid enough to be held culpable.
There’s a fairly short list of accepted ‘lawful’ justifications for deliberately killing, generally to do with preventing significant imminent harm to oneself or others. Many jurisdictions define inadvertently causing death through misjudgement or accident as something other than murder – still a criminal charge, but a lesser one. And if you’re sufficiently off your head, you can be deemed not to have enough ‘deliberate’ anything going on to be held responsible (but may still be detained on medical rather than criminal grounds).
Note that all of these tend to involve first admitting to causing the death, and then presenting your plea for why it shouldn’t be considered murder. Pleas for the first two categories might be along the lines of “I deliberately killed him, but I did it to stop him harming someone else” or “I deliberately knocked him over, but I didn’t see the rock in the grass that he then hit his head on”; if I tried to do similar for the sanity category I’d probably just get it very wrong and offend someone.
Exactly.:)
There are a few ways that killing might not be murder.
One is a denial or failure of proof defense, aka what a defense normally is on its own – where it focuses on the elements of the crime and prevents the prosecution’s burden of proof from occurring in the first place. This might mean that the crime is not murder, but is instead some other crime, like reckless indifference or manslaughter. Or it might mean that there’s no crime at all and it’s a lawful killing.
The other is what’s called an ‘affirmative defense’ – which is a defense that raises an issue separate from the elements of the crime, such as self defense or defense of others. This usually is technically going to attack the elements still, by saying it wasn’t unlawful, but it just is an extra step in the chain to show that the killing was not unlawful, instead of just attacking the elements of the accused crime directly.
Max intended the same, and he had not then announced any intention to kill her, so anything you can pretend is true about him, is also true about her.
First time that Max threatens murder: if Kevin does not surrender, she will murder him.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-271-how-do-you-disarm-someone-with-super-powers/
First time that Kevin threatens murder:
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-274-master-sham/
Kevin is directly responding to Max’s threat that if Kevin does not surrender, she will murder him. He says that *because* she has shown the willingness to kill him, he must therefore kill her.
To protect himself from her threat.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-274-master-sham/
“Kevin is directly responding to Max’s threat that if Kevin does not surrender, she will murder him. He says that *because* she has shown the willingness to kill him, he must therefore kill her.
To protect himself from her threat.”
Nope. Not a defense. Because Kevin:
1) started the fight
2) was being given a non-violent option to resolve the fight
3) Maxima is authorized to legally use deadly force in this instance.
4) Maxima was not threatening to murder him. She was threatening to kill him if he did not stop trying to attack everyone. Like I said to Guesticules, there is a difference between murder and killing.
If a bank robber is in the process of taking hostages, and a police officer points his gun at the robber and says, “Put your gun down or I’ll open fire!”… the bank robber is not operating in self defense if he fires back at the police officer.
I disagree.
Murder and Killing are synonyms. The only difference between the two is if the speaker is potentially supportive of it.
So many like to say, “Murder is specifically illegal killing”, but the thing is, you then have to define ‘under which set of rules’?
So a cop kills a violent criminal, that’s okay, right? Well, what if that criminal is actively trying to overthrow a corrupt government to put in place a more fair one? That he’s a revolutionary? Because by the “Murder is illegal killing”, George Washington was a Murderer, as were the majority of the U.S.’s founding fathers. All of the peasants in the peasants revolt were Murderers. All of the French Revolution was murder. Oh, and lots not forget most of Europe for most of modern history is Christian, that includes the ten commandments including “Thou shallt not kill.” which makes ALL killing Murder. Oh, and now lets point out that those Cops are killing against the rules of revolutionaries, religions, etc. Now their killing is also Murder.
TL;DR: Killing is Murder, because, regardless, its against someone’s rules, no matter who else says its okay.
“Murder and Killing are synonyms. The only difference between the two is if the speaker is potentially supportive of it.”
No, they are not. Only to people who do not understand the definitions of each word. There is no crime called ‘killing’ because killing can be completely legal. Like I said, a soldier does not murder another soldier on the battlefield. A police does not murder a criminal who’s about to shoot a hostage. A farmer does not murder chickens and cows to sell to market.
“So many like to say, “Murder is specifically illegal killing”,”
So many being ‘the law and all penal statutes for state and federal criminal laws, and all laws going back to before the US was even founded for the past 1200 years.
So yeah that’s ‘so many.’
“but the thing is, you then have to define ‘under which set of rules’?”
Yes, that’s how language and laws work. There is a set of rules. If you do one thing, it’s defined as one thing. If you do another thing, or do something without meeting all criteria of that thing, it’s another thing.
It’s like you saying my walking or riding a horse is ‘driving’ but only because driving is defined as using a vehicle. For you to argue that my walking is ‘driving’ is incorrect. Since I do not meet the criteria to have it defined as ‘driving’ under the set of rules under which language defined those words.
“So a cop kills a violent criminal, that’s okay, right?”
Depends on what the violent criminal was doing when the cop kills him or her. If the criminal was about to murder someone else, or cause injury to someone else, then yes, the cop did not murder the criminal – he or she killed the criminal. That’s literally how the word and the concept of a crime works.
“Well, what if that criminal is actively trying to overthrow a corrupt government to put in place a more fair one?”
Once again, it depends on if what the criminal is doing is defined as illegal or not. Although the caveat is that during wartime, the soldiers are not murdering each other depending on the rules of war being followed – even if they are killing each other – because death during war is not always ‘unlawful’ – it’s sometimes simply part of war. I’m not making this up. This is how these words are defined. There are actual rules to killing during war.
“George Washington was a Murderer, as were the majority of the U.S.’s founding fathers.”
Again no. That’s a war. Soldiers and generals killing each other on the battlefield when there is no truce or ceasefire is not defined as murder, because it’s not defined as unlawful. What you’re quibbling with is who defines ‘unlawful.’ Even during the Revolutionary War, the British troops did not consider the colonists to be random murderers – they were enemy soldiers/rebels. Had they won, maybe it would have been considered illegal, then they could have been considered murderers, but that wouldnt even track with how England dealt with OTHER countries they had been at war with in the past, like the French.
“All of the French Revolution was murder. ”
A lot of those were murders, yes, because they were not done under the rules of war, against other soldiers. Again, it has to be going against the rules. And killing non-soldiers and non-spies, even during war, is going to be considered murder. Killing soldiers and generals and military leaders, however, are not.
“that includes the ten commandments including “Thou shallt not kill.” which makes ALL killing Murder.”
That would also be incorrect. The thing about the Ten Commandments is that the ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ commandment is actually translated to ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ in the context of the time. Again, I’m not making this up, just google it and you’ll find almost every linguist and historian, both theological and secular, agree on this.
So no, killing, even by the context of the Bible, is not always murder, and the Bible in fact has LOADS of passages showing exceptions (especially during war and justifiable self-defense) to the ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ commandment, to explain how they’re actually meaning the definition of murder, not kill.
“TL;DR: Killing is Murder, because, regardless, its against someone’s rules, no matter who else says its okay.”
This is incorrect, and you’re just repeating your first sentence, which was already incorrect. Killing is not the same as murder, it’s just an element in the definition OF murder, just like Movement is an element in the definition fo Driving or Walking or Riding, not the same word or even a synonym.
Btw, I’m going to quote Meriam-Webster now, instead of just common legal definitions, when it comes to words like murder, assassinate, kill, slay, manslaughter, slaughter, etc.:
While all these words mean “to deprive of life,” murder specifically implies motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility.
The difference is if you will be held accountable for your actions by the society of the person whose life you ended.
Well… if you did not commit murder, and just did a lawful killing, then I don’t see why you’d be held accountable. Aside from possibly any psychological damage you might do to yourself from the inherent guilt involved in taking another’s life, which often has nothing to do with what is legal or not legal, murder or not-murder.
I think Rhuen means ‘accountable’ in the stricter context of ‘required to account for your actions’, i.e. go on record to state why and how you killed that person. This would be your chance to include any reasons you had for believing the killing to be lawful, or for not believing that your actions would lead to a death. Whether that’s before an inquest, a conduct review, or a full-on court, will depend on the context in which the killing happened.
There’s a tendency to jump the definition of ‘accountable’ beyond that stage, and imply/assume that the accounting must end in you being punished for a transgression (whether that be the original charge or a lesser one), but that’s not necessarily so.
Indeed Scott’s folly, within one’s own nation a soldier can’t just kill an enemy combatant or someone from the ‘opposing side* without cause and may have to answer for that.
we can expand this also to those soldiers whose nations choose to ignore actions against foreign civilians including shooting a kid just for throwing a rock or shouting at them; just because that soldier’s own nation won’t hold them accountable doesn’t mean it wasn’t murder.
and we can go another step even further into the “I was only following orders” category where enemy soldiers are captured by the country they were fighting against. That country will declare their actions as murder and not “legal” in their eyes.
it seems Pander the definition of murder simply comes down to if they will be held accountable by someone, not if it was justified.
“Indeed Scott’s folly, within one’s own nation a soldier can’t just kill an enemy combatant or someone from the ‘opposing side* without cause and may have to answer for that.”
I’m a little confused about what you’re saying here. The ’cause’ would be what i mentioned – that there’s an ongoing war on an active battlefield. ie, no truce, no ceasefire, etc.
“we can expand this also to those soldiers whose nations choose to ignore actions against foreign civilians including shooting a kid just for throwing a rock or shouting at them; just because that soldier’s own nation won’t hold them accountable doesn’t mean it wasn’t murder.”
Actually if you’re throwing rocks at a soldier and the soldier shoots back, that… probably is NOT murder actually. You’re attacking an armed soldier with a deadly weapon – you’re probably going to get shot at in response. And when you get shot at, you need to assume they’re going to shoot to kill, because that’s the point of guns. Guns are used to kill the attacker or enemy.
“and we can go another step even further into the “I was only following orders” category where enemy soldiers are captured by the country they were fighting against. That country will declare their actions as murder and not “legal” in their eyes.”
I’m going to direct you to the whole Nuremberg Trial rules created at/right after the conclusion of WW2, that I went into detail about a few weeks ago which explained how Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace, etc worked, since I think you are trying to allude to the Israeli army vs Palestinean terrorist groups like Hamas/IJ/PLO (where it turns out it’s actually Hamas and IJ and PLO who were violating the Crimes against Peace and Crimes against Humanity rules set out, so… yeah the Israeli army are not murdering – they’re not even being the initial attackers, unlike say, the China/Uyghur situation, which does violate the Nuremberg rules on Crimes against Humanity and Crimes against Peace.
It’s admittedly a BIT of a tangent though from what I’m saying about murder not being a good definition during war, but still sort of loosely connected since we’re talking about if it’s murder during a war scenario or armed conflict between factions from different nations.
“it seems Pander the definition of murder simply comes down to if they will be held accountable by someone, not if it was justified.”
Well… my point in general is if it’s justified, then it’s not unlawful, and if it’s not unlawful, then it’s not murder. The main question is usually ‘is it justified’ in order to determine if something is or is not murder, vs being a lawful killing.
Btw I should also mention that when soldiers are getting hit with rocks in Israel, they don’t instantly start firing back. It’s usually going to backing off and letting their leaders know what the situation is. And when they fire back, usually it’s because there are people with guns behind the people with rocks.
Just sayin’, since I didnt mention in my main response.
Maxima threatens to *kill* him, not to murder him. Given her position and the situation, she is fully within her rights to apply lethal force. Making it not unlawful, which makes it a killing, not a murder. (Unless, of course, a subsequent investigation and/or trial found otherwise)
+1 Internet for Names.
I’m fairly sure murder requires malice aforethought, but I do agree a lot of people forget he was the one that set up the entire brawl beforehand, so there was at least some intent. The question is if the actual killing was his intent from the start or whether that was just him getting a god complex from the power rush.
Wow. Maxima must have a really boring day ahead of her.
A pile of paperwork bigger than Vehemence.
I’m assuming there was probably a lot of paperwork just to let this training exercise happen in the first place :)
I’m going to say that someone has staff for that. some things have to be done/started by Max. the training exercise started as a conversation likely between Faulk and another Official. who upon agreeing to explore it unleashed their staffs on the issue. Arianna and her staff also got involved. after several trees were killed Max got involved in making sure the correct people were free.
all in all I doubt Pay per view would cover the cost of all the paper pushing. the rental of the quarry? hotels and travel expenses? probably.
insert solid wood/staff pun here
I want to shake my fist at you but you avoided doing an actual pun.
Vehemence’s face in the last panel is hilarious.
Absolutely. But Maxima’s look in the panel before……I need that as my avatar!
As you can see, I agree
dsmmit it didnt work nvm
If you’re referring to your Avatar, I think it did.
Is it just me, or does anyone else hear Vehemences dialogue in Josh Brolins voice? (Thanos/Cable)
ron pearlman mixed with jonathan frakes(xanatos) is closer to the voice my mind gives.
Richard Ridings as the Mentor in Dungeon Keeper
You’re appropriately deep, but I give him an RP British accent.
Pee Wee Herman
If he didn’t look like movie Thanos, would you still think of Brolins?
Patrick Warburton, here. It’s just funnier.
Kevin with Kronk’s voice, love it.
Mike Tyson. Big men can have tiny voices.
ProZD did a funny skit on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7l7joQhmYE
Just like the guy who played Vader: big body builder, high-pitched West Country (? or where ever the guy who played Silver in ‘Treasure Island’ came from) accent
David Prowse was from Bristol – an accent not quite as deeply West Country as Robert Newton, but probably close enough for those who don’t live in these parts.
Probably from the physical resemblance (Mostly Thanos for me; I missed seeing the Deadpool movies),
but very much so.
That one creepy smile.
Which one? Maxi or Kev?
“Enough foreplay, Time for the durability test!”
In my headcanon Kevin had this elaborate plan to use the vehemic energy to teleport away once he got enough of it, and then somewhere in the middle of fighting Ren he was like, “Nah, this is good.”
I doubt he can actually teleport, and, well.. he gets off on (and feeds off of) violence, and Superviolence is especially good, so he’s smart enough to realize that his best choice really is to just do this job, since he gets a steady diet of super-Vitamin V if he sticks around.
That, and regardless of how far he teleported if he could anyways, he knows he’d literally have to leave Earth to actually get away from Maxima for long. And interplanetary/interstellar teleportation would take more juice than he had even from the restaurant fight.
That and it’s been established that the protagonists have the ability to go on long-range space missions if they need to.
The challenge in that case would be finding him. Though I assume that Dabbler has a tracking spell on him, he might be able to disrupt it.
This is interesting though. It looks like Hiro is attempting to post up for an armbar on V’s left arm, except that V has Hiro’s left leg grapevined.
Hiro would need to hook his right leg over V’s head, post up to his left knee, and pop it out.
Hiro’s left arm shouldn’t be attempting to control V’s wrist here, he SHOULD be digging down for V’s left arm and ignoring his Right, which is functionally out of the fight.
THAT BEING SAID, Jujitsu isn’t really made for people that can easily pick their own (and your) bodyweight up with their fingers, so an Arm Bar would need to be assisted with flying down into the ground to create a pivot for the elbow.
Do you need ground contact for an Arm Bar bar? Flying Arm Bar is a thing. It seems to me like the lever would still be available in the air if the opponent keeps standing.
You don’t “need” it but even a flying arm bar goes to the ground usually. I mean yes, some people might try standing to pop out or drop you on your head, but a flying arm bar still goes to the ground.
You wouldn’t arm bar someone that would simply jump up and smash you into the ground for it.
> You don’t “need” it but even a flying arm bar goes to the ground usually. I mean yes, some people might try standing to pop out or drop you on your head, but a flying arm bar still goes to the ground.
I mean, it’s no surprise it typically goes to the ground when the people involved have human strength. But if it doesn’t, the arm bar still works.
> You wouldn’t arm bar someone that would simply jump up and smash you into the ground for it.
I don’t think it’s that simple – by jumping up you already put extra pressure on your arm, so it might well backfire. Also, smashing into the ground is going to be less effective against Hiro than it would be against a normie(does Grrl Power have official designation for non-powered humans?)
Lastly, if you can fly, you definitely don’t need the ground for leverage – you could fly up to deny them leverage, you could stay in the air twhen they try to smash you into the ground, you could turn so they hit the ground first …
Went back over the last few strips… Is it just me, or is Maxima’s jacket somehow oddly flattening?
Maybe it’s the jacket, maybe it’s the camera angles, maybe it’s a bit of both. I’m sure that when Maxima knows she’s expecting a good fight she’d make a point of wearing clothes that limit excessive and uncomfortable motion; I’ll leave it to those who do use such garments to weigh in on whether they’re significantly more ‘flattening’ than the everyday-comfort variety.
Kevin was really stupid. He could’ve legitimately joined the team at the start and powered up until he was strong enough to whoop everyone over time instead of instigating a super brawl. He already admitted superheroes solve problems with their fists; he could’ve been not only one of them but one of the strongest and either executed his plan later or simply tabled it since he’d have been absorbing all kinds of energy.
A lot of super-villains make the same mistake. Why should Lex Luthor care about Superman? He’s smart enough to dominate the world economy, and then Superman is basically working for *him* maintaining order.
Maybe the initial problem of being a super-villain is there are no classes on how to achieve your goals.
Luthor hates Superman because he blames Superman for his going bald. That’s cannon, even if they omitted it from the movies. Adventure Comics #271
For at least some writers, Luthor’s antagonism towards Superman is about his nature as the Other, and about his effect on Human development and self-reliance. How long, how far, can he be trusted in his protectorate over Earth? How much of his ‘perfection’ is perfectly reliable, and how much is simply the whim of a creature whose ultimate motives are unknown? What incentive is there for Humans to dream and hope and strive for greatness, when they know they’ll never be able to – or be called to – measure up to a living myth?
because Lex Luthor is also batshit crazy?
I don’t know more, DC (and Marvel) have too many alternative universes, alternative timeline, random multiverse obliterations and reboot to navigate it. Like the house that drives you mad.
Hindsight is 20:20. It’s not clever for us to point at his actions and call it stupid. We would equally lack context if born in his position, it is more stupid for us to call him stupid.
His powers make him predisposed to loving violence. Growing up reveling in violence is the extreme form of reveling in amoral freedom. And the presence of police and government taught him to be studious and secretive, not cooperative. So, at no point would any aspect of his life make him want to join the government and follow the law.
No amount of intelligence ever overcomes the limits to one’s own worldview, that’s just masculine nerd ego talking.
The belief that one is or will be invincible is intoxicating. It supersedes all forms of doubt or self-criticism, a common thing in toxic masculinity. Vehemence did become stronger than Maxima during the brawl. He also had his own brands of magic to make himself adaptable. He was winning and not even Sydney knew her bubble could contain auras.
There are probably plenty of parallel timelines where he acted a minute sooner and killed Maxima, then probably started an age of superpowered-anarchy. No amount of superheroing could compare to the level of violence he would soak up from that.
I wanna believe that Kevin’s not the villain type. I think he understands this was scheduled for his benefit as much as the team’s, and I would hope he appreciates that. He’s getting a chance to contribute, and I would guess that this is in some sense fun for him.
This might be considered like a Club Med spa vacation for him.
He gets all the doritos and pot and video games he wants, then every so often he gets to have knock down beat up superhuman fights. Which… seemed to be what he was looking for in the first place during the restaurant fight, although in a much more chaotic and less under-control form than here.
I still think this is absurdly dangerous and can end reaaaaallllly badly… but I see the point of people who argue in favor of it.
I’ve done martial arts for a long time. Two reasonably equally skilled people exchanging hand techniques toe to toe looks a lot like a high-speed slap fight. Add footwork (as in bagua, say), and it can look like someone chasing someone around the room, slapping. Until it doesn’t, and that’s where the magic happens.
Indeed. I was watching some of the martial arts Olympics events earlier this month, and my spouse kept complaining “they’re just pushing each other around the mat.”
“…ok, yeah, but they’re pushing really hard. Wait for one of them to miss a step…” *whack-whack-boom* “See?”
Heh, I ate my multivitamin just before reading this.
It didn’t have any vitamin Vehemence.
so, would this qualify as max giving him a pity-date?
That was totally Hulk sidepunching Thor in Avengers.
So I guess Dave is grappling at straws?
Max, you’re supposed to throw your hat into the ring not out of it… oh. That whole area is the ring. Carry on.
V’s violence boner is now fully sprung
I have to wonder… what would happen to Varia if she held Vehemence’s hand…
Only DaveB knows
He probably hasn’t mapped Varia’s power for every character, but I’d be surprised if he hasn’t done it for the entire main cast and the main villains. Now I’m wondering what Sciona’s would be.
My guess? She turns into a malumi.
This really does strike me as a monumentally bad idea. Even if Dabbler has some sort of non-lethal take down waiting in the wings.
“Enough of the appetizers. Time for the main course!”
Is it just me, or does it look like Hiro’s arm is broken in panel one?
For some reason I keep envisioning V with a thought bubble “You had me at hello”
What happened to Redline? In the previous panel it was Redline vs. Vehemence… this panel it’s Hiro. Is anyone else confused by the lack of transition?
It did throw me for a bit. Might just be due to the time between pages; perhaps the quick-change nature of the session would flow together better in book format or when catching up through past issues. Future archive-divers, feel free to comment!
Who?
Do you mean Renegage? Because surely you don’t mean He-Grappler, Mightra Max, Orb-et-alls, The Fiddler, The Masked Amazon, or Kung-fu menagerie,
Vehemence needs a work release program. How about the UN rents him out to off planet wars? Drop him from a fast, low orbit pass with knowledge of which side is paying for this and come back in a day or two when the war is over.
But how do you put the cat back in the bag? Also, throwing a prisoner into a war zone doesn’t always work out like you’d hope.
Don’t forget the Dirty Dozen
That also seems way too similar to the current stuff where prisoners are being used as “volunteer wildfire fighters”. Technically they volunteer for the job, but its often just because theyll do anything to not be in those hell holes; and they obviously only let the safe ones do it, the ones who possibly didnt even deserve that sentence in the first place
Is it wrong that I love how happy Kevin looks in the last panel after Max expresses her desire for a turn?
Wasn’t wehemence fighting Ren?
He was also glowing green, not orange. Evidently, he hit his next level between pages, and Maxima had them swap out at least once.
Does anybody else here think the faces in the last two panels look like maybe Dabbler’s porno-sense would be pinging a bit as Max and V size each other up with a certain … anticipation?
Maybe we’re getting into a weird area here, where ‘safe sane and consensual’ just doesn’t mean very much like the same thing as it would for most people. But that’s very much the look of someone who’s, um, going there. On both faces.
during the “Grappling is all” phase of MMA a buddy referred to UFC as “Ugly Fellas Cuddling”
Nappling. :)
This page made me laugh out loud, with that bit at the end.
Ever been (literally) tossed aside for the prettier girl in school?