Grrl Power #1023 – One nation under new administration…
Sydney: “I’m not leaving this country until I learn to curse in Xhosa, Chiktr, Alar, Makhuwa, Changana, Nyanja, Ndau, Sena, Chwabo, and Tswa.” (She already knows how to curse in Portuguese.)
Mozambique’s “non-surrender” was largely due not just to a grievously outmatched military, but a line of two story tall demons marching in flaming columns.
>cough<
I’m not an expert in local Mozambique superstitions, but it’s safe to say that the largest and scariest demons were placed in high visibility positions to freak the defending team the fuck out. A lot of fire blasts, the odd piece of livestock consumed whole when they knew they were being watched. Those sorts of shenanigans. The occasional Alari flyover and Super powers were icing on the cake at that point.
And yes, that much weight should bend the bar slightly… if he was gripping it near the center, like close grip bench or something, but he’s got his hands near the outer knurling grips, like a wide bench, meaning he’s holding the bar about 6″ from the weights. Therefore, I was correct to use the straight line tool to draw the outline of the bar. :)
Can I have a little tangent here? Totally unrelated to the comic or anything, but I recently invested in a new keyboard. I’ve been playing God of War on the PC (that game desperately needs a Teal’c and Rya’c skin mod) and discovered that the old keyboard was having ghosting problems with the game. Walking back and to the side while holding CTRL and R to recall the Leviathan Axe tends to overwhelm the circuit board of most keyboards. Yes, I know you don’t have to hold CTRL to recall the axe, but you have to hold it to throw it, and it’s one less thing to think about if I can just keep it down while I’m ping-ponging the axe off of draugr and whatever.
Anyway, the keyboard I got is a nice gaming one with backlighting and Cherry Brown keycaps… The thing is, I had been using a Microsoft Sidewinder 6X keyboard (largely because you can snap the tenkey off of one side and either leave it off or attach it to the left side of the keyboard where it can function like a tenkey or be assigned macros. I like taking it off so I have more maneuvering room for my mouse. It’s just how I do.) The problem is, the 6x basically uses laptop keys. Not really, but they’re shallow. I’ve been using that keyboard for like… ten years? I wrote both T:E novels on it. It’s safe to say my muscle memory has become quite accustomed to it. Your average mechanical gaming keyboard… the keycaps are smaller with bigger gaps between the keys and you have to depress the keys about 3 times as far to get them to register. Okay, maybe not, but it feels like it. The distance between the top of the keys and the face of the keyboard (like by the arrow keys) feels like stepping off a curb I didn’t realize was there. I’ve had this new keyboard for a week now and it’s really nice, but man, it feels like I’m drunk every time I try and type on it. I could just leave both connected and swap them out I guess. I dunno. I bought the new one specifically to deal with one shortcoming of the old keyboard, and I’ve basically beaten GoW except for Sigrun. Fucking game should be about her. She could beat all the gods and monsters in the game simultaneously. Anyway I’ll give the new keyboard a few more weeks.
(Weirdly, the Sidewinder 4X is anti-ghosting, but doesn’t have the detachable tenkey, otherwise I probably would have gotten one of those.)
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update: It’s done!
Seriously. It’s done! 210K words of weapon building, dinosaur fighting, harem satisfying, lumberjacking, moderate diplomacing, bad guy chopping action. Also some humor.
The vote incentive it updated finally! Lorlara is attempting to break office harassment rules.
Patreon includes some increasingly aggressive fashion choices. I’m hoping to add the usual bonus comic page, but I’m behind on the regular comic now, so I’ll have to finish that up later.
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.
Oh, and if you think I’m joking? Look up how Britain took over India, and did it so thoroughly that the subcontinent damn near had to go to war to get them to let go.
Fortunately, Deus is not British. :)
Thank you. I’m so glad I’m not the only one who sees this. Deus is basically Cecil Rhodes (the white supremacist who established and owned De Beers; invaded, renamed, and “owned” Rhodesia; and invented apartheid).
Again how is Deus a white supremacist?
You’re using it as a code for ‘I don’t like Deus for reasons I can’t explain except he’s rich and justifiably arrogant and I don’t like that.’ He’s done NOTHING racist whatsoever. He’s done the exact opposite, in fact.
Unfortunately, explaining this is way beyond the scope of what I can write in a comment on a webcomic. I think the most accessible starting point I can suggest, if you want to learn more about imperialism and racism (and why I made this specific comparison) is the Behind the Bastards episodes about Cecil Rhodes. Or, if you’re willing to do some reading, you might check out Imperialism, Race, and Resistance: Africa and Britain, 1919-1945 by Barbara Bush (not *that* Barbara Bush). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics by John Hobson might be another good place to start.
sooo… you got nothing, like pander said.
How is what he is doing distinguishable from any other occupier who came in with a “softer touch”.
The East India trading company built infrastructure after all.
Mainly the fact that the people genuinely appreciate him. He actually HAS made a net benefit in in their lives. The East India company only built infrastructure to make looting the place more efficient; by contrast Deus has actually done everything their previous government failed to do.
This exactly. Dictators and looters typically build just enough infrastructure to support their regime and/or looting. You’ll find a great highway from the capitol, and especially the presidential palace, to the coast where shipping and trade is done. Or to the airport. Or to the places they need to transport underpaid workers to work extracting whatever natural resource the country might have.
Road between villages, schools, and hospitals (outside of the one in the capitol and near the presidential palace, ofc) are almost never built.
Just like pre-Castro Cuba.
I don’t even need to really respond to this because Archone did such an excellent job in their response. :)
+1 internet for Archone.
because he isn’t doing short term exploitation, he is looking to the future, where if everyone’s standard of living goes up, then everyone’s productivity goes up, and if everyone’s productivity goes up, then the GDP goes up, a GDP comprised almost entirely of Deus owned companies. He might be a despot, but he’s a benevolent one, unlike, well, 99% of billionaires
“A rising tide lifts all boats.”
And in Deus’s case its been proven and entirely accurate. Like I keep mentioning, Deus’s strategies involve consistently achieving win-win outcomes. He has done do in business, in war, and in love. Or at least in lust. It is difficult to argue with someone’s plan who is winning when you are also winning as a result of that same plan (unless you are corrupt or only seek to win at someone else losing to the exclusion of a win-win scenario).
I like how you were all given exact points of reference and you say he has nothing. That is the exact opposite of nothing. Too lazy to Google?
He’s been told he has nothing because he, of his own admission, provided nothing.
Pointing to the public library and saying “The answers are all there, in those freely accessible books!” isn’t at all the same as giving exact points of reference.
Yes, I have exaggerated. No, the exaggeration doesn’t make my point invalid. No one needs to read the “points of reference” Jay so kindly provided and then debate against them. Those tomes aren’t the ones making a claim in this forum. Jay is. Jay is the one who needs to articulate his position, if he can.
And none of those tomes will make the specific claim that Jay is making: that “Deus is basically Cecil Rhodes”. They may describe Cecil Rhodes, and Jay may think that description sufficient to make his point, but it’s based on a particular interpretation of Deus and his actions, which haven’t exactly occupied very many pages of the comic, and have been deliberately kept ambiguous. Drawing parallels between the two would require more specific claims about Deus, a topic I imagine those tomes would be silent on.
Before responding I just want to make sure that you realize I’m not being hostile in writing this, and hopefully it’s not going to come off as hostile. But your post seems lacking in any sort of argument:
“Unfortunately, explaining this is way beyond the scope of what I can write in a comment on a webcomic.”
I regularly explain very complicated matters on a webcomic comment forum. I don’t think the question of ‘how is Deus racist’ is a difficult one. Mainly because he is not racist and has not been shown to be racist in any way whatsoever. If you can’t explain it, or even try, then your post is not an argument, it’s just an unfounded declaration.
“if you want to learn more about imperialism and racism”
I’m more interested in knowing why you think that Deus is either an imperialist or, more importantly, a racist, which is the main accusation you made.
“Behind the Bastards episodes about Cecil Rhodes. Or, if you’re willing to do some reading, you might check out Imperialism, Race, and Resistance: Africa and Britain, 1919-1945 by Barbara Bush (not *that* Barbara Bush). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics by John Hobson might be another good place to start.”
Or……… you could summarize your reasoning and give some sort of explanation about what Deus has done which is racist. Heck, give me an actual page number on those books that ties into what Deus is doing to explain how he’s racist?
When I explain legal issues to people, I don’t just tell them to read a textbook. I give them my reasoning, I tell them what the textbook or legal case says, and I tie it to my statement. That’s a good way to make an argument. Because as it stands, you don’t have much of an argument to compare Deus to Cecil Rhodes. ESPECIALLY when claiming he’s a white supremacist. Deus does not seem to care much about a person’s skin color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual preference, world of origin, or celestial/demonic status. He cares about competence and being able to make deals with people that benefit both sides. And he cares about this mutual benefit involving profit…. again on both sides. Wealth creation.
None of that is racist or something that only white people care about.
Shit, I actually agree with Pander on this.
In order to help you explain, perhaps you’re talking about systemic racism?
Because Deus has certainly shown very little interpersonal racism. (His “I’ve always wanted to bang an Alari” comment is the worst I can think of)
What we’re seeing here is a fairly textbook identity politics “argument”, summarisable as “That’s racist! I can’t even! Educate yourself!” It’s not an argument, it’s virtue signalling.
I can see you’re trying to be helpful but, well, I don’t think it’ll help much. “Systemic racism” is a denouncement out of the same playbook. But it doesn’t work if you don’t adhere to the creed.
I’m going to be a smart-aleck and throw some reasoning at it, for my own amusement if nobody’s edification. For something to be a crime, which racism surely is in many jurisdictions, there needs to be a “mens rea”, a guilty mind. In the case of racism, a belief of superiority based on “race”. Without the belief, well, criminal law is going to have trouble with it.
Not so the adherents of identity politics, who by the by have expanded the term to encompass quite a lot more. So Pander can be quite correct in picking apart the message and finding only loose sand slipping through his fingers, where Jay is self-righteously indignant about the racism he thinks must surely be there.
Now as to your “systemic racism” suggestion: Systems in the sense of a government can reflect beliefs of their makers but they can’t themselves hold beliefs. So even if the makers of the system are racist, for which you have to demonstrate their beliefs, it itself, lacking a mind, can’t really be guilty. The individuals inside the system can, surely, but they might even be “trying to change the system from the inside out”, or be simply uncaring and happy to keep their jobs. You can’t know from merely pointing at the system and shouting “that’s racist!”
And yet that’s what “systemic racism” is all about: “You’re racist! You didn’t even know you were being racist! But you are! Yes you are! Admit it, you racist!” Structuring the argument like that is exactly concocted to frustrate protestations of innocence.
And that is not a fair way to deal with accused at all. Which, again, is not the object of identity politics. Or any sort of peddler of revolutionary thought. Revolutionary China and revolutionary Russia and many other places employed similar “logic” to make you confess your crimes, confess, confess some more.
Next we notice that as head of state and person who built and structured the system of his government, Deus would be personally responsible for any “systemic racism” since any such racism would come from his personal beliefs he put into the system. So “systemic racism of Deus’ government” would come down to an accusation of racism against Deus’ person (even if you separate the hats he wears, this one is his head of state hat) and Pander just explained that this accusation has not been demonstrated.
For funsies, notice how the follow-up by Jay is another textbook move from the same playbook: The full-frontal counter-attack complete with attempts at character assassination. “You didn’t educate yourself like I said! You’re a bad person!” And then take it from there. Ending with “See? You’ve just made my point for me!” which again explains nothing.
There’s very little to be reasoned with this line of thought, because it’s proselythising, not argument, that’s on offer.
In short, Jay can’t explain because he has nothing to explain. It’s all bellyfeel protesting thoughtcrime.
I love your post and love how you mentioned mens rea – which is something I’ve mentioned many times in the past, albeit usually for the legal definition of crimes.
:)
Best forum ever.
I have never heard anyone claim that “system racism” meant that the abstract “system” was a conscious being with a mens rea to commit racism.
System racism, when being honestly discussed, is generally used as a convenient label for the fact that some of our laws and institutions treat people differently based on their race. Whether or not these laws and systems were intentionally created by people trying to commit racism is largely irrelevant, since the important point is that they exist.
A simple example would be redlining. When the Federal Housing Administration was established, back in the 30s, it would not insure mortgages in areas that were in or near neighborhoods that were predominantly African American. (It’s called redlining because they would take a map and draw a red line around the neighborhoods that were not to be insured.) As a result, African Americans and other people of color (PoC) could not easily buy houses. A house is an excellent way to build generational wealth, and PoC were denied access to that wealth for generations. That policy was explicitly racist and it was part of a system of laws and regulations, meaning that it was an example of systemic racism.
Of course, systemic racism goes beyond that. The echoes of redlining continue today. Neighborhoods remain segregated at least in part because they started that way. Since schools are generally funded by property taxes, that means that many PoC go to schools that are not as well funded as their white counterparts in the suburbs. As a result they have fewer opportunities in life. This is a systemic issue and it treats people differently based on race — is “the system” somehow consciously choosing to be racist? No, of course not. The policies that we have created in the past and in the present apply unequally and amount to oppression of PoC, especially African Americans.
Is redlining the only example of systemic racism? Heck no. Overpolicing, inequal criminal sentencing — the list goes on and on. Are there racists involved in these issues? Absolutely. Are all of the problems down to individual people being intentionally racist? Not at all. They are issues with laws, and with the ongoing consequences of historical decisions, and with opportunities, and so on.
Hopefully this helped.
“Hopefully this helped.”
Not really. To make your reasoning stick you had to move the goalposts. Quite literally: “Of course, systemic racism goes beyond that.” There’s no of course about it generally, but only in your own in-group. The redefinition of racism for the sake of accusing entire systems is what opens the door to the “unconscious guilt”-theory that’s such a nice put-down of dissent against your brave new world you’re virtue signalling toward.
The term is nicely useful for finger-wagging with “that’s racist!” if you’re primarily interested in slapping people with their badness around their ears. You’ll simply declare it unconscious, unknowing, “systemic” badness if you have to. None of which is helpful actually getting anything to change.
If the system, say, your local government, discriminates where it shouldn’t, change it so it no longer does. So come with proposals. Notice that practice X, Y, or Z doesn’t seem to make sense and ask to please explain why this was enacted and if no good reason is forthcoming, propose to change the rules. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.
But no, the emphasis is on shouting at other people so they can grovel before you, confess their crimes, even bask in your moral superiority, purify their very being through penance under your enlightened guidance. And for that it’s actually better to not meddle with the system you just denounced as “systemically racist”, because that gives an excuse to tear it down wholesale and replace it with a brave new world order of your own. Two obvious examples are demands to “defund the police”, ie starve the institution into ineffectiveness to have an excuse to do away with the fuckers entirely, or demands for “equity”, meaning the bad old world “pay reparations” in amounts sure to wreck the economy, leaving it in tatters. Both so you can replace it with something the demanders like better. This is revolutionary rhetoric.
From this we can see that “systemic racism” is an unhelpful term if you want to improve people’s lives or fix broken government policies, but a hugely useful term if you’re into identity politics, rooting for a revolution.
All you did was affirm this is what we’re talking about. “Look how depraved the old system is!” Yes, well, but you’re still just sitting there and telling us how bad the old system is, not helping fix it, are you?
You’re quite welcome to prove me wrong, though, but do it by proposing to change the laws to fix the ills you see. Not by shouting at the system how it’s so “systemically racist”. Find a policy that results in unequal treatment and propose it be changed, or at least propose to discuss how it should be changed. Go on, go do your civic duty as a good democratic citizen.
> Yes, well, but you’re still just sitting there and telling us how bad the old system is, not helping fix it, are you?
You don’t need to be a mechanic to know that your car is on fire.
> “defund the police”, ie starve the institution into ineffectiveness to have an excuse to do away with the fuckers entirely
And here you show more ignorance. “Defund the police” is a terrible slogan optically, but is about not having police show up with lethal force and an itchy trigger finger to everything.
> None of which is helpful actually getting anything to change.
Actually, pointing out where the system is broken is the first step in getting it to change.
Wow. That was…something.
You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth there, Nope. I didn’t accuse you of anything whatsoever. (Although I do wonder whenever I see someone who seems so hypersensitive to the issue and so clearly expecting to be called out.) Neither did I talk about burning everything down. As to moving the goalposts…what goalposts? I didn’t make a claim, I simply defined a term.
> Two obvious examples are demands to “defund the police”, ie starve the institution into ineffectiveness to have an excuse to do away with the fuckers entirely,
Again, you misunderstand the term. I completely agree with you that it was a terrible choice with bad optics, but the majority of people who use the term don’t literally mean “eliminate 100% of the budget for police”. They mean to divide responsibilities and budget across the police and other municipal specialists. Yes, this means taking some budget away from the police (i.e. “defunding the police”) but it doesn’t mean shutting them down.
There are many examples of police departments saying that they got into the business in order to protect people and enforce laws, but they are being called on to do many other things on top of that — one common example being to roust the homeless and make them go somewhere else. The “Defund the Police” movement would like to take a percentage of the police budget and move it to homeless assistance programs so that the police don’t have to do this thing that shouldn’t ever have been their problem in the first place.
That’s all.
> or demands for “equity”, meaning the bad old world “pay reparations” in amounts sure to wreck the economy, leaving it in tatters.
First off, I’ve said nothing about reparations so I’m not sure how that got there. Still, let’s talk about it. Let’s say that the government did in fact pay reparations…in fact, let’s make it concrete. A quick google tells me that the top 1% own about 27% of all US wealth, which as a fraction of GDP would mean $5.4 trillion. (Not the most accurate measure but it gives us a starting point.) Let’s imagine that the government institutes a new tax on the top 1% of Americans, thereby raising $2 trillion dollars that is then distributed among the black families of America so that every black person gets about $50,000. (Don’t worry, the rich people still have $3.4 trillion so they’re not hurting.) The money didn’t disappear. It’s still in the economy and still moving around. Black people are going to be using the money to buy windows and shoes and groceries and cars and all the normal things that middle-class people buy. What harm is this going to cause the economy?
> Both so you can replace it with something the demanders like better. This is revolutionary rhetoric.
Erm…what? Conservatives like MTG are the ones talking about a civil war being maybe a good idea….are you saying that the conservatives are demanders? I’ve never heard them called that before, but maybe it’s the new lingo. I guess they have been demanding a lot of stuff lately — investigation of elections that Trump-appointed judges had declared free and fair, scores of laws related to making it harder for people to vote, etc etc.
>”For something to be a crime, which racism surely is in many jurisdictions, there needs to be a “mens rea”, a guilty mind. In the case of racism, a belief of superiority based on “race”.”
Racism isn’t actually a crime in a lot of places. For instance, in the usa. While there are laws against discrimination in stuff like hiring, but there aren’t laws against saying racist things, promoting racist ideas, or joining racist groups.
Also, not every racist person thinks of themselves as racist or belives in racial superiority.
> For something to be a crime, which racism surely is in many jurisdictions, there needs to be a “mens rea”, a guilty mind.
Well that’s obviously false.
Well not all crimes, but all crimes (and torts) involving intent. If there is no mens rea it is probably a crime or tort involving recklessness instead, which is the main time in which mens rea i not a major element of a criminal or tortious action.
In most accusations of racism, which I believe is the focus of that part of Nope’s post – ie, crimes involving racism as a core element of the crime), the primary problem in many jurisdictions which decide it is illegal (whether criminally or tortious) is that the racism was intentionally inflicted or a system was set up to be racist in its application (de facto, as opposed to de jure).
So Nope is not actually saying something false. Just needed a little elaboration.
> or a system was set up to be racist in its application
Systemic racism doesn’t require that.
For identifying something as systemically racist all it requires is looking at the outcomes.
I’m pretty sure the definition of systematic racism is in the name.
Systematic racism is where the system is set up to be racist in its outcome.
For someone to be racist, intent is a definite factor. Racism is a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Having a belief means there is some sort of intent involved in having that belief. Racist thought is a thought process.
Looking at the outcome does not mean something is racist on its own. There are many reasons that can result in a racially disparate outcome. Human preferences in particular. Economics. Geography. Pareto differentials. Population density.
But if you can show that there was intent involved in the outcome being racist, that means that the system was set up TO BE racist. Ie, systematic racism.
Systemic not systematic my bad
Most people seem to have difficulty understanding systemic racism because they confuse the word “systemic” with “systematic”. The whole point of the concept of “systemic racism” is that the system pursues racist outcomes without requiring the people within the system to be racist. It’s racism by proxy — racist people make policies that accomplish their goals, but convince others to accept those policies on some other basis, pretending that their intentions are not racist.
If they have to pretend their intentions are not racist, then you’re missing the point ogmf what Nope said about mens rea being a requirenent. Because that means their intentions are racist and they are pretending in order to hide their intent.
The key word is intent is present, even if they are trying to pretend there isnt. They are trying to hide that mens rea exists. Thats different than mens rea not existing. Thats different than no intent existing in which case the system is not racist by intent. Hence not systemic racism.
I understood Nope’s argument to be that systems cannot have intent, thus they cannot be racist.
“Shit, I actually agree with Pander on this.”
heehee.
Sorry, you can’t imagine how much joy I get from this sentence, Illy. :)
That’s what makes Pander so infuriating: she generally knows what she is talking about, and details it without being rude
And then she goes all Deus-y and ruins it :P
Just watch and read her reply to this post :P
Oh great now I’m under pressure to respond to this with something Deus-y. :)
“That’s what makes Pander so infuriating – she generally knows what she is talking about, and details it without being rude”
I try, thanks. :) In general I just dont see a point in being mean or rude in forums. Plus I TRY to only talk at length about things that I actually have a knowledge base to fall back upon.
I dont know you people in RL so I assume most of you are probably very nice people with feelings and well meaning intentions behind the screens. Plus it’s not like being mean actually convinces people. At best, it will just take a good argument and make it weaker by shoving a bunch of ad hominem attacks in with the good arguments.
Plus the internet has more than enough flame wars if I want that sort of thing and I like this little oasis of relatively fun and well-meaning, sometimes well-reasoned arguments on this forum. Especially since DaveB seems to be really good about allowing multiple viewpoints without censorship. Its just another reason grrlpower is a great comic.
Also the forum allows me to express my unadulterated, extreme admiration for that pinnacle of manliness, the paragon of humanity, the savior of the downtrodden, hope for a brighter tomorrow, Deus!
All praise Deus, amen.
(How’d I do, G?)
As always, informative and polite (and Deus-y :P )
Feel need to point out, being all Deus-y isn’t in itself a problem, just personally find it annoying as don’t like him, and, on pages like this one (where SmugD is featured) tend to only read the comments once, reply where applicable, then close the page, whereas normally would keep the page up and refresh regularly
Don’t like him, but that’s a ‘me problem’ so don’t spend any more time than is needed
I believe it has to do with his fixation on supers/aliens and obvious moves for conquest. He seems to view the standard humans more as inferior and in need of being led by his country run by superior beings (Magneto anyone?), While simultaneously believing that he alone has the right to be making this move. With a clear obsession of power, his methods of attack, etc. Making imperialistic comparisons is not even close to a far stretch. He has shown some minor indicators of economic and institutional racism, but I suppose the closest to the mark is called othering. He has displayed a clear sense of superiority with his country, believing that his way, and by extension Galytn’s way is the only good way. Racism isn’t always tied to color funny enough. Also good on you for making proper rebuttals.
> While simultaneously believing that he alone has the right to be making this move.
I don’t see that. I do see that he thinks that no-one else is making this move that he thinks should be made.
“He seems to view the standard humans more as inferior ”
I haven’t seen evidence of this in particular, although he does believe that he’s an incredible person. Which is easy to think, because he is an incredible person. It’s not unfounded arrogance when it’s true. :) All praise Deus, amen.
“in need of being led by his country run by superior beings”
I don’t think Deus falls into the trap of thinking of himself as superior by mere identity. He thinks he’s superior because he has superior intelligence, superior wealth, superior ambition and drive and planning ability. None of these are based on identity – they are based on merit. He’s worked hard or intelligently to achieve these advantages, and he uses these advantages to help himself AND others.
And frankly, would you not want someone who is intelligent and plans well running things? Isnt that better than having someone who has no idea what the hell they’re doing running things? It’s a hierarchy, sure, but it’s a hierarchy of competence, and Deus happens to be incredibly competent. It’s not even saying ‘you can’t run things.’ It’s saying ‘You can run things if you can show that you’re competent at running things.’
“While simultaneously believing that he alone has the right to be making this move. ”
While I do agree that Deus believes he has the right to be making these leadership moves, I don’t think he thinks he ALONE has that right. He clearly respects competence and business acumen. He recognizes when others are competent in their fields as well, whether it be an alien shopkeeper on Fracture Station, an eldritch horror in a pseudo-shell bodyguard, an alien scientist, an alien secretary, a besieged human maitre’d of a restaurant he owns, or a golden-skinned superheroine. If you’re competent, he will recognize it. If you are a competent leader, he will likely respect that as well. He just happens to be more competent than anyone else he’s ever met when it comes to strategy.
“With a clear obsession of power, his methods of attack, etc.”
More like an obsession to make things better for everyone. But to do that, you do need to have power. That’s just being practical. :) And he does consistently go at it from a ‘least aggressive method first’ standpoint, even when dealing with absolutely awful people.
“Making imperialistic comparisons is not even close to a far stretch.”
I still would not call Deus imperialistic. He does not act like a typical imperialist. While the technical definition of imperialism is ‘a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force’ does mean what he does falls into that definition, he definitely does try to err on the former (diplomacy) rather than the latter (military force) whenever possible, and also whenever possible, he ceases military force at the first possible opportunity. He’s not out to kill people – he seems to prefer economic dominance to political dominance.
” He has displayed a clear sense of superiority with his country”
Depends on which country he’s comparing Galytn to. He recognizes that Galytn is not yet in a position to challenge China in the textile industry, for example, and he’s not trying to take over the United States – he ‘s trying to do business with the United States in a mutually beneficial business deal. But compared to the surrounding regions? Yeah, he likely believes Galytn is superior, because it is legitimately and measurably superior in multiple areas – economically, militarily, industrially, socially, freedom-wise for the citizenry, etc. Just thinknig someone is superior does not necessarily mean it’s bad – it might just mean he’s able to make a comparison which can be legitimately measured between two groups.
America has a superior economy to the European Union.
China has a superior industrial capacity (at least currently) to the United States.
America has superior medical research sector to China
Denmark has a population with superior health markers than the United States.
Japan has a superior literacy rate to Ethiopia
Israel has a superior technology industry than Iraq.
etc.
It’s not making some sort of moral comparison – it’s making a comparison of measurable levels. Pointing that out isnt evil – it’s pragmatic. And also necessary if you want to know where your country needs to improve, and against whom it needs to improve if you want to be the best.
“and by extension Galytn’s way is the only good way.”
Not necessarily the ONLY good way, but it’s a good way that has a proven track record that Deus can point to as being effective. Galytn’s way is definitely better than the politics and economic strategies being used by its surrounding nations though. And especially if you compare Galytn to Mozambique, a failed state, Galytn is definitely ‘better’ by pretty much every noticeable metric. Almost entirely thanks to Deus and the wisdom of the Galytn people who wisely want him to keep guiding them to a brighter and better, and far more profitable, future.
“Racism isn’t always tied to color funny enough.”
This is definitely correct. Racism is NOT always tied to color. Whoopi Goldberg already learned that recently. But my point is that Deus is not racist in ANY way. Not based on skin color. Not based on ethnicity. Not based on religion. Not based on planetary origin even. And not based on nationality. He has nothing against the people of Mozambique for example. Most of the Mozambique residents in the area WANTED him to come in to bring in improvements in infrastructure, clean water, food, a stable electrical grid for everyone regardless of elite status, an increase in median income for everyone, etc. He only had a problem with the so-called government of Mozambique which, like I mentioned already, runs a failed state and is highly corrupt in almost every area. Even so, he doesnt even seem to have a problem with the opposing general per se. There’s no racial animosity whatsoever as far as Deus is concerned, by any metric of the term ‘racism.’
“Also good on you for making proper rebuttals.”
Thank you, I try. I liked your post as well. Nicely thought out and written.
Jesus Christ I frickin love these threads. Sadly a lot of this still has to be tied up to interpretation because Deus is a very hard to read man. One moment he looks like a madman with some twisted motives, and the next he looks like a great guy making tough, but excellent choices. Bouncing back to the X-Men references he is likely what would happen if the sane part of Charles Xavier and Magneto’s minds meshed up with a small helping of Narcissism thrown in for the laws. I really can’t refute much save for the power bit. He’s already said himself that he loves power. The fixation on money is because money IS power (a frighteningly accurate assessment), and with that power he can basically get away with more than anyone else. Which is something we see every day. He seems to embody all the good and bad that can be done with that power. Beyond that one little tidbit. You make great counterpoints.
“… While the technical definition of imperialism is ‘a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force’ does mean what he does falls into that definition, he definitely does try to err on the former (diplomacy) rather than the latter (military force) whenever possible, and also whenever possible, he ceases military force at the first possible opportunity. He’s not out to kill people – he seems to prefer economic dominance to political dominance.”
We do need to understand that not all Imperialist nations were as well-guided as the Poms. (For what it’s worth, we are ignoring the European expansions of the 17th and 18th Centuries which were regulated more by religious supremacy than government policy.) I’m not sure France was as bad as painted, and for a fact the German colonial administrations could have been less… authoritarian, but most expanding nations definitely preferred to not upset the locals if they could avoid it. Leopold II of Belgium was a straightup dickhead authoritarian nut case to make the German States look like children’s gardens, and it’s these mis-rulers we need to savage.
A lot has been said about The White Man’s Burden in these pages, mostly by those who have possibly read the works cited. But we tend too often to judge by today’s standards the deeds of a foreign time: the past, where they did things differently. By and large, the White Man saw a (usually) lush land full of opportunity, punctured by ongoing internecine warfare, which posed considerable roadblocks to investment of any kind. There is no question that White intervention has accelerated some environmental problems, for example the vastly increasing herds of cattle in East Africa — but those problems were going to happen anyway, and without the benefit of environmental stewardship. I’d like to quote from a book which I’ve studied since childhood:
“On our first march I noticed that Uliagurma, our guide, was suffering extremely, though uncomplainingly, from earache, so I told him to come to me when we got to camp and I would see what I could do for him. Strange to say, my doctoring proved most successful, and Uliagurma was so grateful that he spread my fame as a “medicine man” far and wide among the natives wherever we trekked. The consequence was that men, women and children in every state of disease and crippledom came and besieged our camps, begging for some of the magical dawa (medicine). … it was heartrending to see some of the quite hopeless cases I was expected to cure.” (Lt. Colonel J.H. Patterson, DSO, August 1907)
The fact is, The White Man’s Burden everywhere was the terrible task of restoring some basic health-care to a population best imagined by us now as one of those villages portrayed in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”: mud, pus and sputum. There’s nothing to pillage if there’s no civilisation, and health-care consists of more, much more, than doctors and nurses. Disease vectors, for instance. And something that looks like plentiful clean water.
“And frankly, would you not want someone who is intelligent and plans well running things? Isn’t that better than having someone who has no idea what the hell they’re doing running things” – Pander
Er, have you seen the calibre of politicians that the USA and UK (in particular) have been electing in the past decade or so? Many of them explicitly because they’re not the type to constrain their promises to what they actually have a clue about. (No aspersion on McMarkinHarkindarkin‘s own political preference intended, of course.)
But… But… But… That’s Democracy!!!!!!! It’s what the People Want!!!!!!!!!!!! We give what the Majority asks for!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that not mobocracy or ochlocracy? And if not, then how?
This really does not change what I am saying in my post. Wouldnt you LIKE TO HAVE someone who is intelligent and plans things well running things. Although I would not limit criticism to the US and UK because that would ge grossly unfair to Australia, Canada, Greece, France, Germany, and many (probably the majority) of other national leaders. Thats definitely not saying that we currently have anything remotely close to Deus’ excellent leadership abilities in most parts of the world by any stretch of the imagination. :). I tend to be critical of most politicians in general when they try to authorize things which they have no understsnding about, and dont even look to others who might. It tends to be ideology without wisdom. There are a few that I do think are hypercompetent and intelligent who have few downsides … but it’s definitely a very tiny number.
Thats yet another reason to praise Deus, pinnacle of win-win outcomes, paragon of humanity, savior of the downtrodden. He has an ideology that he can back up with proven positive results, consistently, and he is excellent at being able to articulate those plans. All praise Deus, amen. :)
“I would not limit criticism to the US and UK” – Pander
Fair point. My emphasis was based on familiarity: I’m in the UK, and the USA tends to be over-exposed due to its influence. In comparison, the others you cite are less influential to those outside their own borders.
As for the rest of it, I wasn’t intending to disparage the principle of choosing the competent to do the job. Only the idea that democracy is any way to secure it.
Judging by the sort of people Americans choose to represent themselves in their government, I don’t think most of them “want someone who is intelligent and plans well running things”. They want people who are like themselves, or will make the decisions they would make in that position, or who makes them feel good about themselves. But they’re generally hostile to intelligence and competence.
I actually said Cecil Rhodes was a white supremacist, because by the end of his life he absolutely was. But he started out less violently racist than many of his contemporaries, and his white supremacy was surprisingly modern for the time. He, for example, denied black people in South Africa the right to self-determination.
Setting that aside though, go back and reread your post. You were confrontational and jumped straight to accusations about my motivation, and then followed that up with a statement that displayed a lack of educational grounding on the topic of imperialism. That told me that your goal was to argue with some dude on the internet. That’s fine, but I don’t share that goal. My goal was to offer a few starting points to anyone who was interested in this topic, because I knew there was no way I was going to do it justice here. And that’s still the case.
Since you want one though, here’s a painfully bare bones tl;dr for you: Cecil Rhodes believed imperialism was beneficial for the people he subjugated under it for his own profit. Why do you think he believed it was beneficial to reshape their lives to be more similar to the lives of people in Western, capitalist societies? Does that suggest the view that one type of society was superior to another type of society? And if so, how is it “the opposite” of the belief in white supremacy?
Deus essentially overthrew the governments of two African countries. Why African countries? You’re going to say something about corruption and infrastructure here, but you can’t understand modern Africa without an understanding of the destabilizing effects imperialism had on the continent. Does past subjugation justify more subjugation? Now also consider the fact that ~33% of hospitals in Russia don’t have running water and ~40% don’t have heating. Would it also be justifiable for Deus to rule over the people of Russia without their consent? And where is the line? Mexico has a lower rate of child poverty than the United States. Child poverty is bad. Would it be okay for Mexico to turn the United States into a colony if they reduced our child poverty problem? If not, why? And what are the moral implications if Mexico extracted a significant profit by “helping”?
I know the books I suggested are heavy reads. That’s because this is a complicated topic. But please at least take the time to listen to the podcast I suggested. It really is a good starting point for understanding all of this stuff, and it’s entertaining.
“I actually said Cecil Rhodes was a white supremacist, because by the end of his life he absolutely was. But he started out less violently racist than many of his contemporaries, and his white supremacy was surprisingly modern for the time. ”
Regardless of Cecil Rhodes, my point is that Deus is nothing like Cecil Rhodes, so your entire argument seems to be invalid on its face.
“Setting that aside though, go back and reread your post. You were confrontational”
Yes, because I’m confronting your assertion that Deus is like Cecil Rhodes. Which he is not. Because if you say ‘Cecil Rhodes was a white supremacist, and Deus is like Cecil Rhodes’ you are incorrect, since Deus is not like Cecil Rhodes, and is not a white supremacist. It’s your assertion about Deus being a white supremacist that I am asserting to be completely incorrect. There’s no way to tell you that you are wrong about htat without being confrontational about it. At least I’m being polite in my confrontational nature.
“and jumped straight to accusations about my motivation,”
You did jump right into claims of racism on the part of Deus, which is not accurate.
“followed that up with a statement that displayed a lack of educational grounding on the topic of imperialism.”
Um… no I did not. You did not give any information – you told me to read a bunch of textbooks, instead of explaining your stance. And you said that you would be incapable of explaining it in a webcomic forum. Which is also untrue, since I explain a lot of things that are far more complicated than ‘imperialism’ in a webcomic forum.
“That told me that your goal was to argue with some dude on the internet.”
Um… yes, I’m making an argument, so my goal is to argue my point. That’s…. sort of the point of a forum. You argue your point, I argue my point. Instead of making unfounded declarations that you cannot back up. An argument is different than a declaration because when making an argument, you are at least trying to back up your declaration with reasons for your declaration. Preferably ones that can convince either the other person or third parties reading it.
You do realize that’s the point of a forum right? I’m being polite about it though.
Just to be clear since you probably don’t know this – I’m an attorney. Making an argument is my job. It’s just how I think. But I do so while being polite, and if you make a good point I will usually acknowledge it. You havent made any good points though, because you just made declarations without being able to back them up.
Again, not saying this to be mean. It’s just being accurate about your ‘arguing style.’
” That’s fine, but I don’t share that goal. ”
Seems odd to make an accusation like ‘Deus is just like Cecil Rhodes, a white supremacist’ then be unable or unwilling to back up the statement…. and also seem to be offended when I point out that you are refusing to back up the statement.
” My goal was to offer a few starting points to anyone who was interested in this topic, because I knew there was no way I was going to do it justice here.”
You could at least try. No one wants to have to make your argument FOR you. You need to make it for yourself.
“Cecil Rhodes believed imperialism was beneficial for the people he subjugated under it for his own profit. Why do you think he believed it was beneficial to reshape their lives to be more similar to the lives of people in Western, capitalist societies? ”
Well if you’re going to say that he wanted to reshape their lives to be like western societies because he thought white people were inherently better than black people, then that would be racist and be completely UNLIKE Deus’s actions. Not to mention the people Deus is involved with WANT him there. I’m not sure the people of Zambezia wanted Cecil Rhodes there. So that’s yet another rather important difference.
So … two rather big differences so far.
1) Cecil Rhodes may have been racist. I’m going to steel-man (as opposed to strawman) your argument and assume this is accurate so that I don’t have to read your textbooks. Doesn’t change that Deus is NOT racist.
2) Cecil Rhodes may not have had a population that wanted him there. Again, I’m steel-manning your argument to give you the strongest possible argument. Again, it doesn’t change that Deus has a population that very much wants him there.
“Does that suggest the view that one type of society was superior to another type of society? And if so, how is it “the opposite” of the belief in white supremacy?”
Thinking one society is superior to another society does not mean racism is involved, nor is white supremacy involved. If the United States went to war with, say, Haiti….. the United States is in a vastly superior position in almost every imaginable way. It would have nothing to do with race. It would have to do with technological advancement, military might, economic power, medical advancement, procurement ability…. there is almost no area in which the United States would not be in a superior position to Haiti. There is almost no area in which Haiti is a ‘superior’ nation to the United States in any way that can be adequately measured. But lets compare the United States to a white-majority nation now of a similar level to Haiti. Lets say United States vs Albania. Albania is a majority Caucasian country. You can now no longer use skin color as a rationale for calling one side white supremacist, because both sides have a caucasian majority population. But the United States is VASTLY superior in almost every conceivable metric to Albania. Economics. Military. Technology. Medicine. etc. Just like with Haiti, it’s not remotely racist to say that the United States is superior in almost every metric to Albania.
This is how Deus sees it – he is not looking at a nation and thinking ‘these people are black, and therefore inferior, so I will bring my superior white know-how and culture to their backwards nation.’ He is thinking ‘these people have been horribly mismanaged by a brutal dictator – they have no resources, they are impoverished, they are starving, they are being tortured, no one cares about them at all – I can help them and make them a lot more successful for a reasonable investment expenditure…. not because I’m white, but because I’m rich and intelligent and think long-term.’ If Deus was black, there would be absolutely no difference in his thought process. If Galytn was majority white, there would again be no difference in his thought process. If Galytn was located in some other continent, and ALL OTHER VARIABLES REMAINED THE SAME, there would be no difference in Deus’s thought process.
In short, TL;DR – it has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Deus doesnt even make preferences of human race over other species, let alone differences in skin color of different people within the human species. And since Deus doesn’t seem to care about race and race does not factor into his metric comparisons, he is by definition not a white supremacist.
“Deus essentially overthrew the governments of two African countries. ”
Would it have been different if it was two countries located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
How about if, and you have to take into account ALL OTHER VARIABLES BEING THE SAME, he had done the same to two countries in Europe. Or South America. Or Southeast Asia. The main difference is that other variables, which have nothing to do with race, would have make it a LOT more difficult for Deus to accomplish his goals. He would have had problems with G-8 nations. He would have problems with China, with whom he is trying to compete in the textile industry. He would have problems with the United States, who he is trying to do business with for Operation Cha-Ching. He couldnt have even done this in NORTHERN Africa, which is also majority black, because then there would still have been problems with Europe and G-8 nations, not to mention in those nations it would be far more expensive to build an entire nation’s infrastructure.
“You’re going to say something about corruption and infrastructure here”
Yes. Corruption is prevalent in sub-saharan african nations. And infrastructure is largely non-existent and where it does exist, it would not be too expensive for him to upgrade. But also it’s geographically in an area where G-8 nations will not freak the hell out. And it’s in an area where no one else is doing anything to help the residents in that region.
“but you can’t understand modern Africa without an understanding of the destabilizing effects imperialism had on the continent. ”
He literally went into an area where it was ALREADY DESTABILIZED. There was no further destabilization that Deus could have possibly caused. They were at rock bottom. They had broken away from Zaire. The leader was not only corrupt – he was murderous, he tortured and killed MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN for his own amusement and to instill fear in others who might dare say anything. All indinge needed was a long moustache to twirl. The people of Galytn were starving. They had no fresh water. They had no food. They had no money. They had no electricity. Their infant mortality rates were high. Their lifespans were short. Their economy was so non-existent that they did not even rate on the World Bank.
Now, after Deus, Galytn is on its way to becoming a first world nation, and by the time the people who were around when Deus arrived have children, they WILL have a first world nation. All this is a single generation. It’s astounding. And all of this is without even needing to address the argument that imperialism from Europe is the primary cause for all of Africa’s problems – that Africa would be Wakanda if not for the white man. Even if I was to accept this proposition (which I do not, but lets say I do in order to again steelman your argument and make it as strong as possible), it still doesnt change that Deus has been nothing but beneficial to every region he’s entered in Africa. The fact that he happens to be white is irrelevant, and the fact that the regions are in Africa are likewise irrelevant from a racism accusation standpoint.
“Does past subjugation justify more subjugation? ”
What subjugation? Where is the subjugation that you’re talking about? Deus has not subjugated anyone. Why do you feel the people in Galytn would prefer to continue to be starving, impoverished, and tortured and murdered as long a the torturer and murderer is black, rather than the person giving them jobs, skills, education and hope being white? Why do you focus SO MUCH on skin color when it has not been a factor of anything Deus has done in the story?
“Would it also be justifiable for Deus to rule over the people of Russia”
If all other variables were the same? Then yes. But the problem is all other variables are NOT the same. Russia has a major economy, and a major military. The cost of improving Russia’s infrastructure would be astronomical, far beyond what Deus would ever be able to afford. Doing anything in Russia would cause massive destabilization on a global scale. None of this happens with Galytn because so many variables are different in Galytn vs Russia. If Russia was majority black and Galytn was majority white, and all other variables remained the same , Deus would still choose Galytn because of cost, because of the existence of infrastructure at all, and because of political destabilization in an area that’s relatively stable. Not to mention it’s a VASTLY smaller population in Galytn.
Btw, 40% not having heating and 33% not having running water is definitely bad. But 98% not having running water and 99% not having heating is even worse.
“without their consent?”
This is the other MAJOR THING THAT YOU OVERLOOK. Deus does have the consent of the people of Galytn. He even had the consent of the residents of the Zambezi River in Mozambique, who were privately begging him to come in to help them. You’re making a comparison adding ‘without their consent’ when he most definitely does have their consent. He only does not have the consent of 1) a brutal warlord, Indinge, who murders men, women, and children for funsies, while leaving his people impoverished and at war with everyone around him, and 2) a failed state with a corrupt government who does not care about the needs of their people, where child soldiers and disappeared people is rampant, as well as bribery of officials and rampant military abuse of the population, where again the people live in abject poverty at levels that would make even a poor person in New York or California look at agape.
“And where is the line?”
The line is where Deus is actually able to accomplish his goal. Somewhere he’s actually capable of helping without making things worse.
“Mexico has a lower rate of child poverty than the United States. Child poverty is bad. Would it be okay for Mexico to turn the United States into a colony if they reduced our child poverty problem?”
Actually this isnt even a correct statistic. If you’re going to use statistics you need to use accurate ones.
Mexico’s poverty rate is 43.9% of the total population.
US’s poverty rate is 13.4% of the population. And that’s a high estimate.
Not to mention ‘poverty’ in the US is a lot better than a median income in many other nations. People in the US often don’t realize this because many have not ever stepped foot out of the United States, let alone lived in a nation that has significant poverty levels, like Haiti or Dominican Republic or most sub-saharan african nations. Even some of the poorest nations in Europe, like Albania (poverty rate of 23.4%) or Greece (28.9% poverty rate) are a LOT better places that have EXTREME poverty rates.
But lets get back to your original question, even though your stats upon which you’re basing your reasoning are completely false. Mexico would be unable to turn the United States into a colony. They would be woefully incapable of doing it. Their economy is far weaker than the US. Their military is pathetic compared to the United States. Their technological levels are far worse as well. Again, in almost every metric, the United States is far too powerful for the United States to be turned into a colony by Mexico. And all that would be assuming the United States had a large population that was WILLING to be a colony of Mexico, which would not be happening either.
Unlike Galytn, where they WANT Deus building and running their infrastructure. Do you think most American would want Mexico running their infrastructure? Or since you brought children into it as a question, do you think most Americans view child safety as being better in Mexico than in the United States?
The point being Mexico is completely and utterly incapable of doing what you’re suggesting, while Deus is quite capable of doing what he promised for Galytn, and for Mozambique.
“I know the books I suggested are heavy reads. That’s because this is a complicated topic. But please at least take the time to listen to the podcast I suggested”
I’m sure they are interesting reads and an interesting podcast, and i might even listen to it. But it’s irrelevant to the argument being made about Deus. He is not a white supremacist. He is not remotely like Cecil Rhodes, or pretty much any other example of imperialism upon an African nation. Because he’s actually been making good on his promises and there has been an actual win-win scenario.
The fact that he’s white is completely and utterly irrelevant to Deus’s actions.
You are never going to get anywhere arguing with Pander about Deus because they (sorry, I don’t know the correct pronouns for Pander, so I’m going with they) aren’t approaching this from anything like an objective place. They’ve written a headcannon where Deus is a great person, and only ever does things for good reason because that’s what they want to believe.
IE the outright statement “The fact that he’s white is completely and utterly irrelevant to Deus’s actions.” They believe this because they want to believe this, not because they have any evidence for it. Sure, we haven’t been shown Deus being outspokenly racist, but we have no actual evidence to the contrary either. That’s also probably why you got the aggressive reaction as well. You are challenging their Beliefs. It’s like arguing religion with a zealot, you’ll never make an inch of headway. They’ve made up their mind, and aren’t open to changing it.
In English male is still the default if unknown, unless you choose to be “politically correct”.
While it’s true that Pander likes to sing Deus’ praises (whether seriously or humorously), that mere fact is actually quite irrelevant to the argument presented here. It may have motivated him making the argument, but again that is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument itself. Your attack on his person does nothing to refute the arguments presented. As far as I can see, the reasoning is sound. If it wasn’t sound reasoning it would be fairly easy to refute by simply showing it lacked soundness.
Saying that with neither proof of guilt nor proof of innocence, Deus may equally well be assumed guilty, is not a legal theory that holds any water. I would call it quite a disingenious way to try and discredit Pander and/or Deus. The way to change Pander’s mind is by showing irrefutable proof of racism. And, that’s just not been shown, as you yourself admit. It’s not in the canon.
Not merely Pander’s headcanon, but established official DaveB canon up to this point. It’s not there. As you admit yourself. Trying to bitch about racism anyway is you grasping at straws. And so you’re stooping to character assassination. I think you’re projecting.
> In English male is still the default if unknown
That was true 20 years ago. But language evolves.
And singular “they” dates back at least to Shakespear, if not earlier.
> Not merely Pander’s headcanon, but established official DaveB canon up to this point. It’s not there.
Actually, Deus’ comment about “I’ve always wanted to nail an Alari” *is* racist. It’s not ethnic cleansing levels of racist, but it is a racist comment.
Substitute “black woman” for “Alari” to see it if you need help.
You’re trying to have it both ways but there is a 386+ year gap in your argument.
Though the part where Shakespeare uses impersonal forms of address is one designed to convey alienation, that’s Hamlet slowly going bonkers. Using similar techniques in this discussion is also to artificially project alienation between the utterer and their opponent. Bit of a weak tactic but if that’s all you got for an argument, then that’s all you got to bring to the discussion.
And, ignoring your possibly unhealthy obsession with black women, if merely saying you always wanted to have sex with a specific race after ticking that box on your bucket list “*is* racist”, then “being racist” is no longer a convenient label of badness. There, too, you can’t have it both ways.
>”In English male is still the default if unknown, unless you choose to be “politically correct”.”
Do you have a source or citation for that?
{/s} For gender pronouns I like to call everyone “poo”, because obviously everyone poops.
So you can say,
Hey poo, how’s it hanging?
Poo and I went to the circus.
What is that poo doing?
If you are fond of a person you might call them pookie.
If you dont like someone just call them shit. {s/}
Satire obviously, but there may be some merit to the idea of some characteristic common to everybody to use as a general pronoun.
@ Illy –
“Deus’ comment about “I’ve always wanted to nail an Alari” *is* racist.”
Ummm, nope. It’s specieist. OK, speciesism (WordWeb doesn’t like “specieist”).
Accepting I’m a bloke born in the first half of last century, I cannot see speciesism as necessarily derogatory. “I’ve always wanted to nail a {fish|worm|insect|…}worlder.”
Sort of assumed everyone knew by now since many people have mentioned it but I am a woman. G has definitely mentioned it a few times. :). Plus most people comparing me to Ariana (because of my legal diatribes) or Lorlana (because if my adoration for Deus, praise be his name) probably figured it out there.
Sooooo in answer to Nope and Illy, it’s She. I just generally dont care about pronouns as it relates to me as long as my arguments are read. :). I definitely dont care enough to announce it in advance and usually not to correct someone unless it has something to do directly with an argument I am making. Anyone can call me whatever. I generally use they if I dont know if its a guy or gal, or whatever theyd prefer. It’s not exactly something on which I focus my attention.
“You are never going to get anywhere arguing with Pander about Deus”
Sure you can. You just need to argue a point which I cannot contradict. Which hasnt happened. Just show me irrefutable proof where he has been racist. Heck, I havent even seen cursory proof of this, let alone irrefutable.
“ sorry, I don’t know the correct pronouns for Pander, so I’m going with they”
They is fine since you dont know that I’m a woman. Generally thats proper grammar when dealing with pronouns for a person of unknown/not-yet-known gender. At least in modern English.
“ They’ve written a headcannon where Deus is a great person, and only ever does things for good reason because that’s what they want to believe.”
Its not headcanon insomuch as its what DaveB has been constantly presenting as his character in the comic. Inam not basing my opinions on anything outside of what I can point at in the comic, and I frequently cite pages, panels, and quotes by Deus and others to back up my opinions.
“ Sure, we haven’t been shown Deus being outspokenly racist, but we have no actual evidence to the contrary either.”
Um…. by that method of thinking, I can claim you are racist, antisemitic, a pedophile, homophobic, and all other manners of extremely insulting and unfounded accusations simply because you have not proven you are not to my satisfaction. You are employing a ‘guilt until proven innocent’ mentality, but even worse. Not just for crimes but for thoughts.
It’s basically the same mentality of the Salem Witch Trials. The accusation has been nade that thou art a witch consorting with the devil. Prove that you are not to my satisfaction, witch.
In any coherent society, there needs to be a presumption of proof. Either you assume they are guilty and they need to prive tgey are innocent, or you must presume they are innocent and prove they are guilty. The burden of proof can be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ like in American Criminal Jurispudence, or ut could be 51% or more (as in some tort cases) or it could be some sliding scale or percentages of guilt (again in some tort cases in past history).
What it cannot be, however, is “they have never been shown to be guilty of this but we will levy that accusation anyway because they might be based on information that does not even exist as far as we can prove .”
Nope pretty much stated anything else that I can say in response to your post (very good posts by Nope btw, imho), since your post does seem to rely mainly on attempted character assassination instead of actual arguments. I am assuming not meant to be maliciously done.
Thank you for the kind words. You will have noticed I’m not a lawyer; my experience arguing is mainly USENET. I only pay accidental attention to discussions (here) that interest me, so personal details easily elude me. The thing that got me was the ostentatiousness of the pronouncement (yes, pun), not the actual pronouns.
But do notice how people rarely talk about themselves in the third person, so it’s usually not you that uses “your” pronouns, you expect others to use them on you. That makes making a fuss over them a power game, and is exactly why the movement that wants people to “declare their pronouns” does that. (I think “beep/bop/boop” was a perfectly cromulent answer. If risky, for it might’ve been taken up in seriousness. It’s very telling it wasn’t.)
As to malice, Hanlon’s razor is a safe enough bet certainly in discussions like this. But with prominent movement founders openly saying “We are trained Marxists”… I’d not assume that for everyone in the movement. This is how humanities gets taught these days: Everything is power […], and if you disagree with what we say there must be something wrong with your person. If university lecturers have no inkling there is something wrong with that approach, well, I have very few polite words to say on the matter. It does bother me we have a whole generation of people whose argumentation prowess mainly relies on character assassination. On the other hand, it is a bit of a red flag and with any luck it will help everyone else catch on and so help the movement burn itself out.
Nope:
Do I really need to point out that the latter statement is a move within the power game described by the former?
‘Zambezia’? What the fuck is a ‘Zambezia’?
By implication, a name for the region into which Rhodes expanded the Cape Colonies’ influence. Whether it is/was a recognised name, I leave to historians of the region!
Yeah thats what I gleaned from my research (only about 20 minutes but from multiple sources to confirm).
I can find the links if needed and post them but I didnt think it would be necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambezia_Province
South Zambezia was what eventually became Rhodesia, based on some cursory research I did before posting.
Prior to Rhodes being given the land by the rightful king of the region, the lands were known as Matabeleland, Midlands and Mashonaland
Okay, just had a look at that Zambezia… and it has nothing to do with Rhodesia or Zimbabwe!
It’s a province of Mozambique on the damn coast!!!
I’m just letting you know what my research showed. Everything I read said that the land was a region known as South Zambezia. Probably because it’s location regarding the Zambezi river.
I’m sure that could be further broken down into smaller regions like the ones you’re mentioning though. I’m talking more collectively.
But for all I know you could be right. I only took about 30 minutes to research on about 4 webpages (none of which was Wikipedia). So it’s not like I’m a …..Rhodes scholar on the subject.
*listens for laughter, hears crickets*
I’ll show myself out.
I saw that, Pander.
And thank you for bringing that up
Yes, Rhodes may have gotten wealthy from the mines and shit, but he used that wealth to set up the Rhodes Scholarship that allowed anyone from any country who would normally have not been able to go to college to apply and have their chance at ‘higher’ learning
The reason Rhodes was opposed to black ‘self-determination’ at the time was because he knew they weren’t ready, but they could be ready, just like a child needs guidance so as not to shove a fork in light socket and then lick it
Look at what happened after US handed the Bread Basket to a basket case: within two years their economy was destroyed
Please elaborate a bit. I’m getting too many false positives on this search.
What do you need elaboration on?
Ooh, sorry!
“… US handed the Bread Basket to a basket case …”
Robert Mugabe thoroughly wrecked Zimbabwe through “land reforms”, killing the (white) farmers owning most of the arable land in the process. The land ended up with his followers, production plunged. They were Africa’s bread basket before, a basket case after. Quite spectacular episodes of hyperinflation, and even last month it’s (*looks up*) still a nasty 60-odd percent year-on-year.
(I accidentally looked at the Zambia inflation rate first. That’s 16-odd percent. Nasty, but, er, not Zimbabwe.)
Thank you for that @Nope.
Was actually referring to Mugabe as the basket case, but thank you for explaining what happened
After the Bush War (which Mugabe and his mob lost by the way), the US and… some English twit stepped in and forced the winners to hand everything over to Mugabe
Saying Cecil Rhodes was a “white supremacist by the end of his life” is an interesting claim, given that he specifically said in his final will that the scholarship it established should be awarded without regard for race. I would like to humbly posit that humans are complicated and capable of nuance, thus not neatly fitting into the boxes we try to put them into. And that applying modern ideologies to individuals who lived before they were constructed is generally going to be an even more difficult endeavor.
Honestly, from what I have read about him, I’d say Rhodes was probably more of a British nationalist, or possibly Anglo-Saxon supremacist, since he did seem to respect German culture as well. It wasn’t about skin color, it was about culture. Which, don’t get me wrong, is still massively problematic. And he probably was a bit racist, as most English people were at the time. But it seemed like what mattered most to him was education and knowledge. Hence, the Rhodes Scholarship. Which actually does make him a lot like Deus. Doesn’t make Deus racist though.
I would also like to note that feeling like the world should be structured according to your favored school of thought should be running the world is very much not unusual in academic or philosophical circles. Even if you’re in the self-determination/non-interference camp, you’re still advocating the world change to fit your view of what’s best for all societies. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but it’s something to keep in mind.
(Yes I know I’m over a year late to the party. Still felt that historical context was being missed.)
I’m so glad we have a professional lawyer on hand at times like these.
:)
The problem is that you’re making a leap from “This is similar” to “This must be identical, and play out the same way”. You’re ignoring evidence within the comic that contradicts your preconceptions.
The only real evidence that we have that he isn’t doing the exact same thing is only from him. He is doing the same stuff, the same “it would just be better for these people if I ruled them” justifications, all the while acting to line his own pockets. Literally the only evidence that we have that he is being benevolent is his own word that the people are benefiting. Even then he tries to play coy and playfully admit that he turned the country into his own personal sweatshop under the reasoning that it would pay off for them in the long run. and tbh even if it turned out that he was playing it straight and was a benevolent dictator, that still leaves that he is being a dictator conquering territory with no real regard for the people who live there. In this latest example, he didn’t conquer mozambique for any reason other than he wanted a shipping port. For that, he made alliances with factions trying to conquer the entire planet and had hundreds if not thousands+ people killed.
@ Jay –
I did try to listen to “Behind the Bastards episodes about Cecil Rhodes.” Unfortunately, I’m 20 mnutes into a 100 minute talk-fest, and I’ve learned 3 things about young Cecil: his parents were moderately wealthy, he was a middle-child, and he was soon to be sent to South Africa. It also seems his father wasn’t a total shit, and Cecil was his mother’s favourite.
I really do have much better things to do, especially when I could have digested a transcript in about 25 minutes.
If you need to make a case, do what others have suggested: CITE.
An interesting comparison! It’s been ages since global history classes….
However, unlike Cecil Rhodes I believe Deus is attempting to treat the people better and provide them access to the core government, roles, and jobs. Whereas Cecil attempted to utilize the locals as tools/workers to do his company’s bidding. I’ll shamelessly reference “Wikipedia” here that quoted:
‘Rhodes’s view was that black people needed to be driven off their land to “stimulate them to labour” and to change their habits.’
TLDR; I disagree that it is a 1:1 for comparison between the two. However, I agree the ‘base’ strategy of both on how to ‘take over’ a country is similar. They (Deus and Cecil) have a fundamentally different motivations, values, beliefs, and end state visions.
Why choose Africa? Why not do it in any white majority country?
1) It’s less expensive to do it in a newly formed African nation that wasnt even formally recognized by most surrounding nations. Deus might have been the 98th strongest economy on his own, but that still means he needs to carefully pick and choose which nation would be the best return on investment.
2) He needed to pick an area where the people would be HAPPY to have improvements made to their infrastructure, and be willing to give a portion of the GDP in the future as a result. Picking a place that was run by a murderous tyrant who was regularly murdering and torturing his own people – especially one where the tyrant’s son was completely unaware of this and therefore had no blood on HIS hands – made sense. It allows for a continuity of government and minimizes any panic about instability.
3) He picked a nation that has no existing natural resources, so he could not be accused of trying to strip mine the place.
4) He picked a place that was not near any G-8 nation, and was not in any close proximity to economic and national powerhouses, hence why he couldnt pick somewhere like Greece or North Korea. Getting involved in either of those places would have caused international instability and panic. Galytn, not even rating on the World Bank, did not cause any international instability or panic.
5) He wanted to pick a place that, even if it was landlocked, has the future possibility of cutting a path to the ocean in order to adequately have them compete in textiles with the Chinese. Deus’s own words.
Which white majority country could Deus have picked that would not cause problems like this? He couldnt pick somewhere in Europe without getting into a scuffle with the European Union. He couldnt pick somewhere in Asia without a problem with China and/or Russia. He couldnt pick somewhere in South America without getting the Americans nervous. He couldnt even easily pick somewhere in Northern Africa, again because it would make Europe and the Middle East nervous.
Sub-Saharan Africa wound up being the best bet – not for racial reasons. For geographical reasons and economic reasons. And the fact that Galytn was so new and beset on ALL sides by enemies gave him additional leverage of what Deus could offer to the table in exchange for letting him build their infrastructure – an infrastructure they could not afford to build on their own, and an infrastructure which the corrupt dictator had no interest in building for his people, who he preferred to abuse.
There’s an African Union.
It comes down to power. He could push around Africa because everyone always has, weakening it for the next people and the next.
He’s exploiting an African country for his own purposes. Yay.
well yeah, do you forgot that he is supposed to be the villain
“There’s an African Union.”
Galytn was not part of an African Union.
Galytn was not even a recognized country at all. DRC kept trying to claim it was theirs.
Also, the African Union has no actual power to do anything, unlike the European Union, which has a significant economy. Deus did not choose Galytn because it’s Africa. Or because of anything racial. He chose Galytn because it was the easiest to build up and help for a single person, even a billionaire like him, to afford to build infrastructure in.
If you have to compete economically, would you want to compete economically with the European Union, which has a collective GDP of almost 21 TRILLION dollars, or the African Union, which has a collective GDP of maybe 1.5 trillion dollars, and does NOT have a very efficient coalition, since most of the member states tend to be at war with each other.
Seriously, it says something that if there’s ANYTHING involving Africa, a lot of people in first world nations like the United States automatically assume it has to be racial, instead of simply economically efficient to build up a poor nation that’s part of a very loose, barely there ‘union’ – rather than build up a more expensive nation, that’s part of a VERY tightly knit, very wealthy union that is NOT at war with each other.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that Dave invented Galyten. He could have just as easily invented some white European or Eurasian country but chose not to.
In every single one of your comments, of which there are far too many, you are ignoring the final panel here. https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-1018-the-troll-under-the-extol-bridge/
DaveB isn’t real subtle.
Deus is a dick. A murderous dick, who believes the ends (his “benevolent rule”) justify any means, including mercilessly crushing the opposition.
People who like that approach to politics expect that they will never be the opposition.
I’m not ignoring that panel. Lorlana is a little nuts in general. She hears anything Deus says and tries to translate it in her mind into something that Alari would think instead. This has been CONSTANT ever since we first saw her in the comic and you KNOW that. Including making a simple reservation at a restaurant THAT DEUS OWNS.
“Deus is a dick.”
Again…. HOW?! How is he a dick? What is he doing that is a ‘dick move?’ Everything he’s been doing is not only not evil, it’s utterly virtuous. The fact that he’s making a profit does not REMOVE this fact.
“A murderous dick”
Indinge was:
1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
3) about to order his men to THROW DEUS OFF THE ROOF OF HIS PALACE.
What Deus did was not murderous. It was self-defense, and at worst, it’s like assassinating Hitler….. after trying to reason with him to stop being horrifically evil even.
“including mercilessly crushing the opposition.”
Yeah those people storming the beaches of Normandy were sure wrong to mercilessly crush the opposition, werent they? (sarcasm)
My point being this – Deus goes out of his way to only go hard mode on the absolute worst of the worst. And even then, he always tries to reason with them first in a way where it’s a win-win situation if they would only NOT BE EVIL.
How that’s ‘merciless’ is beyond me. If anything, the fact that he allowed a surrender of most of the opposition is quite merciful. The fact that he did not kill the prince, and instead showed the Prince video evidence of the type of evil monster his father was, again is evidence that he is NOT merciless.
“People who like that approach to politics expect that they will never be the opposition.”
Well… since I don’t plan on murdering, torturing, and abusing helpless people who can’t fight back, and since I’m bright enough to understand a win-win scenario where everyone benefits, I doubt I’d be the opposition. This is not a typical approach to politics btw. Deus does not do a typical approach to politics specifically BECAUSE he seeks win-win scenarios and has a good track record of getting them, while most politicians are short-sighted and think ‘in order to win, the other side must lose.’
There is nothing virtuous about what Deus is doing. This is, to him, no different than a company buyout/takeover. Leaving the Prince alive and with some appearance of control was not “mercy”, it was manipulation. Not only could the Prince potentially be a competent manager for Deus, but the populace already know him, like him, and perceive him as someone who *should* be in a leadership position. So it won’t cause the potential outrage that straight-up replacing the royal family would. It provides him legitimacy along with giving the impression of not wanting to control them – while still very much doing so.
Deus’ problem with the “evil” ruler(s) is not that they are evil. It’s that they are incompetent, not him, and inefficient – wasting resources that could be used far better. The people is one of those resources, and mollifying them is a much more efficient and safe path to compliance in the long run than crushing them. So he does things that help them. Gets them jobs, educations, healthcare. All so that they see him as benevolent and *won’t fight back* – because they perceive nothing to fight. And even if they did, their anger would likely be directed at his puppet ruler.
Deus does what he does for himself. But he understands that the best way to do that is through manipulation. Through applying the force that lets him be in control discreetly(-ish) rather than through overt tyranny. And so the people are better for it. Not because he wants what’s best for them, but because what is best for *Deus* is a happy, non-rebellious populace. Rebellion would risk increased scrutiny and interference from the global community. Besides, it would force him to waste resources(aka people).
“There is nothing virtuous about what Deus is doing.”
Feeding the starving. Virtuous
Giving the starving the ability to feed themselves. Virtuous.
Providing clean water where there was none. Virtuous
Providing education. Virtuous
Providing a stable electrical grid for EVERYONE. Virtuous
Providing irrigation. Virtuous
Providing reliable medical care. Virtuous
Providing economic stability. Virtuous
Providing mass transit lines at a minimal cost for a population emerging from extreme poverty. Virtuous.
Creating wells. Virtuous
Creating Aquafers. Virtuous
Providing flood management and river management. Virtuous
Providing wastewater processing. Virtuous
Providing solar panels for green energy. Virtuous
Providing advanced battery storage for that energy. Virtuous
Providing pedestrian-friendly clusters. Virtuous
Providing skills and jobs that allow people to have a middle class society income. Virtuous
Freeing an entire population from a tyrant who used to rape, torture, murder and enslave men, women, and children for his own pleasure. Virtuous.
Raising the GDP of the entire nation from not even on the World Bank to 120th. Virtuous
Building hundreds of schools to improve literacy rates. Virtuous
Decreasing infant mortality rates – SAVING THE LIVES OF BABIES – Virtuous
Increasing the average life span – EXTENDING THE LIVES OF EVERYONE – Virtuous
Oh wait, but he’s also going to make a profit. Never mind, none of that WONDERFUL STUFF HE IS DOING is virtuous now because he made a profit….. yknow, so he can keep doing wonderful things for everyone.
No sorry that makes no sense. He is clearly doing things that are virtuous by any stretch of the imagination.
“This is, to him, no different than a company buyout/takeover.”
I take it you’ve never been involved in a company buyout. Deus is not doing what one would do in a company buyout. He’s expending a huge amount of time, energy, manpower and wealth into turning an impoverished hellhole into an oasis of prosperity. In a buyout, what usually happens is a lot of the people at the bottom get the shaft. Here…. the people at the bottom benefitted HUGELY. The only one s who did not were the people who were corrupt and at the top in the first place. In particular, Indinge. Even with the others, Deus was merciful about it – according to DaveB, and I’ll quote him:
DaveB: “While there would be a few “rich” assholes taking advantage of everyone else, a lot of the people scamming funds from the local highway project are probably doing it because they kind of have to. So while Lorlara is correct in that some of the most parasitic scum were indeed given the “just heel,” there was also a broad amnesty announced, saying something along the lines of “Real money is going to start coming into the country and salaries will be increasing. That said, from this point on, if you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you will be in deep fucking trouble.””
This is nothing like most buyouts. I wish buyouts were like this. People at the bottom of a company would love buyouts if they were like this. Deus does not think in ‘financial quarters.’ He thinks in decades.
“Leaving the Prince alive and with some appearance of control was not “mercy”, it was manipulation.”
It was both. It was merciful because he could have just put in a puppet of his own choosing if he wanted to. He knew that the Prince had nothing to do with his father’ atrocities though. So he put the prince in charge of the political side of the nation, and Deus handles the infrastructure and economics.
“Not only could the Prince potentially be a competent manager for Deus, but the populace already know him, like him, and perceive him as someone who *should* be in a leadership position.”
In other words, Deus made sure that the population would not be in a panic at a lack of stable leadership. This does not seem particularly damning or evil.
“So it won’t cause the potential outrage that straight-up replacing the royal family would.”
Technically the prince isnt actually from a royal line. His father was a general who declared himself a warlord after breaking away from Zaire in a bloody coup, and the Prince is just the son of a general who turned himself into a warlord then turned himself into a king. So …. royal line in the most generic sense.
“Deus’ problem with the “evil” ruler(s) is not that they are evil.”
It’s not the sole reason, but it’s a major reason. It makes it a lot easier for him to accomplish his goals if he has to get tough with them, because he’s guaranteed to be on the side of the angels if he has to oppose them.
“It’s that they are incompetent, not him, and inefficient ”
The incompetency and ineffciency actually stems from the fact that they are evil. They don’t use the funds to help their people, they use it to ONLY help themselves. If a mom and a dad have a child, and buys only food for them, and does not feet the child because they don’t want to waste the money on food for the child, or because spending food on the child means less food for them, and the child starves…. guess what. The parents are evil, incompetent, and inefficient. They are incompetent and inefficient BECAUSE they chose to do something so evil.
Deus sees greed as a virtue. Gordon Gekko”Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” That mentality.
Indinge used greed as a vice. Larfleeze. “NO! That’s mine! You can’t have it! ”
“The people is one of those resources, and mollifying them is a much more efficient and safe path to compliance in the long run than crushing them. So he does things that help them.”
People, as labor, ARE a resource. It does not make it less virtuous that Deus chose to be a good employer instead of how they were treated under Indinge. They’re not being FORCED to work for Deus. They have freedom of choice. Deus did not create the scenario in which they were in before he got involved. He only freed them from that scenario.
“much more efficient and safe path to compliance in the long run than crushing them. ”
So if i understand you correctly, you think it’s not virtuous or good that he took all the risk and put out all the expense to give them a future, skills, education, safety, and a place for their children to never have to be in fear like they were, and all he wanted in return is to be able to pay them a very good wage for their labor like any normal person in an employer/employee relatiionship would have?
He’s… not sounding like a monster to me. He’s sounding like a really wonderful guy who is making people very happy.
I’m not seeing the problem.
” So he does things that help them. Gets them jobs, educations, healthcare. ”
That monster.
:)
“All so that they see him as benevolent”
I think you mean ‘Because he IS benevolent.’
“and *won’t fight back* – because they perceive nothing to fight.”
I think you mean ‘Because there’s nothing to fight about.’ It’s not just a perception, it’s fact. He’s made things great for them. They’re happy about it. Why would they want to fight the guy who gave them a future. Not even just charity – he gave them the means to eventually help THEMSELVES.
Deus did not just give a man a fish. He is also teaching them how to fish.
“And even if they did, their anger would likely be directed at his puppet ruler.”
I’m still trying to figure out what they would possibly be angry about in the first place. Everything you’ve described sounds wonderful.
“Deus does what he does for himself.”
This is true. But he could do what he does for himself WITHOUT helping everyone else in the process. And he can do what he does for himself without helping everyone to the ridiculously lavish extent that he does. Even if he improved their lives MARGINALLY over Indinge, it would be an improvement. But no. Deus doesnt just do that. He goes straight to ‘i’m going to make it so you can be a middle class and your children can be come entrepreneurs in their own right and have what the people in first world nations take for granted.’ He goes above and beyond what he has to do ‘just for himself.’
This is the mark of a good leader. It’s the mark of a virtuous leader. Virtuous does not mean you have to be self-sacrificing, which I think is what you’re confusing for virtue. Deus sees greed as something that can be harnessed into a virtue, instead of being a vice. It’s proven by everything he does and says, rather forwardly.
“Through applying the force that lets him be in control discreetly(-ish) rather than through overt tyranny. ”
He’s not particularly discreet about it. He has television interviews about it where he outright states it. The reason he is so up front about it is because what he is doing is GOOD, not BAD. It’s easy to be very upfront about your actions when there’s nothing shameful or bad about the action being taken.
“And so the people are better for it.”
In short, because of Deus, the people live better lives and are happy.
This… is….. a good thing.
This is virtuous.
“Not because he wants what’s best for them, but because what is best for *Deus* is a happy, non-rebellious populace.”
Question – why can’t he want both? He wants what’s best for them, and what’s best for him, because what’s best for him is something that’s also best for them.
Where’s the downside? I’m just seeing more examples of Deus liking Win-Win scenarios and going out of his way to ensure they exist.
Also, remember during the interview on Macroeconomics where Deus said some of his other plans?
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-386-aggrandizer-x/
(panel 3)
Deus: “I’ve made public my plans to give away $500,000,000 (500 million dollars) in stock to a handful of the poorest Americans JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.”
This is altruism. Even the most ardent objectivist would not have an easy time arguing with this.
“Rebellion would risk increased scrutiny and interference from the global community.”
I’m seeing a lot of reasons why Deus’s philosophy on green forcing people to do things that are virtuous is good, but I’m not seeing where Deus is not being virtuous.
Y’all are completely missing the point of Deus’s character. He is meant to be someone that lives in the Grey Area of things. Yes what he is doing is bad in a way. Especially when he makes shows of force. As Dave pointed out, he displays the power he has at his disposal in a way that is completely unnecessary. Like hey! Let’s put the two story tall troops here so they can crap themselves and surrender! Probably could have done that before wiping out a sizeable portion of what they call a military, raised the same argument as he did to get them to surrender, and spare both sides some more casualties. Yet in that same motion, he just let’s them keep their country for the sake of some gain when he could have just seized it like he did Galytn (albeit with less justification) and net a larger profit as a result. The man is calculating through and through and half the reason Max even has a problem with him is because of how difficult he is to read. The rest is just his ego.
Deus is directly asking the readers “Would you rather be in heaven, but with only enough freedom to keep you thinking its heaven, or in hell, with all the negative freedoms you want?”
And that’s a really hard question for a lot of people, because anyone who isn’t willing to break the status quo can’t imagine the first option.
> Indinge was:
> 1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
> 2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
> 3) about to order his men to THROW DEUS OFF THE ROOF OF HIS PALACE.
Pander, honey, you know I love you and you know that I agree with you about Deus being a good guy, but you have **got** to stop trotting out this canard. It’s not true and that makes the rest of your argument look bad. Here is the true version:
Indinge was:
1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
3) murdered by Deus, not in self-defense, and nowhere was being thrown off a roof mentioned
Here are the relevant comics:
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-387-a-noble-investment-embiggens-the-smallest-wallet/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-388-delicate-negotiations/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-389-interview-to-a-kill/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-389-interview-to-a-kill/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-391-melodramatic-fanatic/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-392-one-liner-post-mortem/
The sequence goes like this, mostly paraphrased and condensed but quoted text is direct from the panels:
DEUS: Indigne, make me Czar of Infrastructure and I will make huge investments in order to improve the nation
INDIGNE: “If you want to contribute directly to my war effort, then we can discuss further opportunities for your business. Otherwise, I invite you to leave my country immediately.”
DEUS: No, you’re corrupt. “I have plans for this region, Indigne. You can profit from them alongside me or…not.”
It’s clear that Indigne does not have a choice and there is a distinct aura of threat.
INDIGNE: “You promise the impossible, then insult and threaten me when I do not fall for your lies? Leave now before I have you shot.”
DEUS: “Unfortunate, but not unexpected. Cthillia, would you kindly abdicate the king?”
CTHILLIA: [appears, kills the king. The rest of Deus’s mercs appear and disarms the king’s guards.]
In short: Deus came to Indigne with the full expectation that he was going to kill him, as shown by the fact that he prepositioned a bunch of superpowered mercenaries around the room. Deus made an offer, Indigne refused the offer and told Deus to leave. Deus refused and threatened him. The king justifiably got angry and ordered him to leave while threatening to have him shot if he didn’t. Deus had the king murdered. There was no mention of being thrown off the roof and it’s weird that you keep going to that one.
Was Deus doing an evil act by killing a corrupt tyrant who tortured and executed his own people? I mean…killing be bad, yo, but from a consequentialist perspective this was a good act since it ended up causing vastly more benefit than harm to millions of people.
In conclusion: I agree with you about all the important things, but please stop repeating the lie that Deus killed Indigne in self defense after Indigne threatened to throw him off the roof. It’s not true. There was no threat of being thrown off the roof and there was no self-defense. Deus was the instigator.
> Indinge was:
> 1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
> 2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
> 3) about to order his men to THROW DEUS OFF THE ROOF OF HIS PALACE.
Pander, honey, you know I love you and you know that I agree with you about Deus being a good guy, but you have **got** to stop trotting out this canard. It’s not true and that makes the rest of your argument look bad. Here is the true version:
Indinge was:
1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
3) murdered by Deus, not in self-defense, and nowhere was being thrown off a roof mentioned
The relevant comics are 387-392. I had a previous post here that linked to them directly but it went to moderation and I figured it was easier to simply post this again with the links stripped out, since otherwise this post might get lost. (DaveB, if you see this then please don’t bother with the other post — just zap it.)
The sequence goes like this, mostly paraphrased and condensed but quoted text is direct from the panels:
DEUS: Indigne, make me Czar of Infrastructure and I will make huge investments in order to improve the nation
INDIGNE: “If you want to contribute directly to my war effort, then we can discuss further opportunities for your business. Otherwise, I invite you to leave my country immediately.”
DEUS: No, you’re corrupt. “I have plans for this region, Indigne. You can profit from them alongside me or…not.”
It’s clear that Indigne does not have a choice and there is a distinct aura of threat.
INDIGNE: “You promise the impossible, then insult and threaten me when I do not fall for your lies? Leave now before I have you shot.”
DEUS: “Unfortunate, but not unexpected. Cthillia, would you kindly abdicate the king?”
CTHILLIA: [appears, kills the king. The rest of Deus’s mercs appear and disarms the king’s guards.]
In short: Deus came to Indigne with the full expectation that he was going to kill him, as shown by the fact that he prepositioned a bunch of superpowered mercenaries around the room. Deus made an offer, Indigne refused the offer and told Deus to leave. Deus refused and threatened him. The king justifiably got angry and ordered him to leave while threatening to have him shot if he didn’t. Deus had the king murdered. There was no mention of being thrown off the roof and it’s weird that you keep going to that one.
Was Deus doing an evil act by killing a corrupt tyrant who tortured and executed his own people? I mean…killing be bad, yo, but from a consequentialist perspective this was a good act since it ended up causing vastly more benefit than harm to millions of people.
In conclusion: I agree with you about all the important things, but please stop repeating the lie that Deus killed Indigne in self defense after Indigne threatened to throw him off the roof. It’s not true. There was no threat of being thrown off the roof and there was no self-defense. Deus was the instigator.
@ eaglejarl –
”
” Indinge was:
” 1) a murderous warlord who tortured men, women and children.
” 2) a corrupt despot who abused his people and made sure they lived in abject poverty while he lived lavishly.
” 3) murdered by Deus, not in self-defense, and nowhere was being thrown off a roof mentioned
”
Ummm. Only a little point here, BUT, in point 3, you are quite correct that Indigne “nowhere was being thrown off a roof”.
However:
Comic #389, panel 4: DEUS: “Unfortunate, but not unexpected. Cthillia, would you kindly abdicate the king?”
Comic #389, panel 5: INDIGNE: “What are you talking about? THROW HIM FROM THE…”
And, I must correct Pander. Indinge was NOT about to order that Deus be thrown off the roof. That order was attempted AFTER Cthilla was asked to kindly abdicate the King. Indigne had actually threatened Deus with being shot. Very different.
So, in short, Deus ended a time-wasting arguement with only one casualty. I am reminded of a Saint novel from far too long ago, where he forgetfully orders Hoppy Uniatz to “take him for a drive” which in Hoppy’s US gangster experience means “shoot him where he won’t be found”.
Good is not equivalent to virtuous. They are different words because they mean different things. An action can be good without being virtuous, and vice-versa. Virtue is about motivation, while “good”, in this case, would be describing consequences.
His actions are to the benefit of the people, yes. That does *not* make them virtuous. You can’t separate them from the underlying intent. Deus is not good people, he is manipulative and exploitative – but he does it cleverly.
And this is where the whole point of discussing this particular part with you falls apart – at least at this point in the story. You are apparently assuming Deus is doing this to help them – period. I’ve seen enough so-called altruism from politicians/CEOs done solely for the benefit it provides to the one *doing it* to ever believe that from someone in his position.
We’ll just have to wait for the story to conclusively prove one of us wrong. (Feel free to skip trying to convince me it already has – you won’t. If it had done so to my satisfaction, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.)
Eaglejarl and Gorblimey:
First off eaglejarl, I want to thank you for making a very well reasoned counter-argument. I still disagree with you and I’ll explain why, but your argument was very well constructed. I’ll respond step by step to the conclusion of your post. Gorblimey is closer on what actually happened. The death threat was still made first by Indinge. I wouldnt actually say it’s very different, because Deus had been surveilling Indinge for a long time and knew the probably outcome of even trying to talk to Indinge in a reasonable, rational manner. He understood Indinge’s psychology of being a murderous monster.
“In short: Deus came to Indigne with the full expectation that he was going to kill him, as shown by the fact that he prepositioned a bunch of superpowered mercenaries around the room.”
This is incorrect. He came in with the expectation that it would be a possibility, because he knows that Indinge is a monstrous killer. His initial response, however, is always to try to come to a peaceful resolution that benefits both sides. As the old saying goes, “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” Batman prepares for the eventuality that he might have to take down the entire Justice League, and has plans in place to do so. But he is still a hero and isnt WANTING to do it unless there’s no other choice. Deus is the same way. Except Deus is better, because he makes these plans when dealing with the worst that the world (and probably the universe) has to offer, not for the heroes (necessarily, although you never know when a Dark Maxima event might happen, as Sydney well knows).
“Deus made an offer, Indigne refused the offer and told Deus to leave. Deus refused and threatened him. The king justifiably got angry and ordered him to leave while threatening to have him shot if he didn’t.”
This is incorrect. The King was already angry when Deus said he would not be giving him a blank check. Deus knows Indinge’s mindset well enough to know what the very next sentence coming out of Indinge’s mouth was going to be. Which was to order his men to throw him off the roof of the palace.
“Deus had the king murdered. There was no mention of being thrown off the roof and it’s weird that you keep going to that one.”
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-389-interview-to-a-kill/
(Panel 5 – Deus just did not let him finish the sentence)
The king had no idea what Deus was even talking about when he said ‘Cthilla would you kindly abdicate the king?’ after the king was already saying that he was going to have Deus shot. The king did not see Cthilla at that point. As far as he was concerned, Deus was spouting nonsense with that sentence. But the king was already making death threats, and a second before he died, he did EXACTLY what Deus was predicting he was going to do – he was ordering his guards to murder Deus, and Deus’s bodyguards did their job of protecting Deus.
“Was Deus doing an evil act by killing a corrupt tyrant who tortured and executed his own people? I mean…killing be bad, yo, but from a consequentialist perspective this was a good act since it ended up causing vastly more benefit than harm to millions of people.”
IF you had a chance to kill Hitler and the rest of his psycho regime responsible for the Holocaust, would you not do so? That act alone, even without then turning Germany into a thriving peaceful nation, would be a vast good for the world.
Killing not be bad. Murder be bad. Killing be good sometimes. Which is why I had no problem with Cora killing Chunky McSalsa. He was doing something quite bad. He was about to shoot Sydney in the head. He had already been enslaving and torturing Concretia beyond necessity – out of pure malice and evil. Cora killing Spackle Von Wallbits the Third was not murder. It was killing. And it was actually a ‘good’ killing.
“In conclusion: I agree with you about all the important things,”
Yet another reason I like ya.
“but please stop repeating the lie that Deus killed Indigne in self defense after Indigne threatened to throw him off the roof. It’s not true.”
Except as I just showed, it was true. You just ignored posting what the king said a second before Cthilla’s action. Read the page and that particular panel again.
“There was no threat of being thrown off the roof and there was no self-defense.”
Yes there was, on both parts of this sentence. Heck, he was also threatening to have Deus shot before this point but I just chalk that up to tough talk, like Deus’s tough talk which came after Indinge’s ‘I’ll have you shot’ threat.
“Deus was the instigator.”
Well that depends on what you mean by instigation, doesnt it?
If you mean who started being rude first, I suppose that Deus was mean when he pointed out that Indinge is a two-bit tyrant who would never spend a thousand dollars of a million given to him on his people because he’s evil and harms his own people for his own benefit. But on the other hand, that might be mean…. but it was also ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The truth hurts, I guess.
If you mean issuing death threats, then no. Indinge started the death threats in panel 3. Deus did not until panel 4 with the ‘abdicate’ statement, which was not even something Indinge understood as being a threat, therefore was not taken as a threat as much as taken as ‘this man is an affront to my rule, kill him.’ At which point Indinge tries to order his men to throw Deus from the roof, but doesn’t even get to finish his sentence of his order, because Deus’s bodyguards handle things before Indinge can. Because Deus already knew what Indinge was about to do to him, had his bodyguards not acted.
Torabi:
“Good is not equivalent to virtuous.”
This is true. But in relation to what Deus has done, I think it’s been EXTREMELY virtuous. And to th people of Galytn, they would argue he is virtuous as well.
“Virtue is about motivation,”
And Deus’s motivation was to have a win-win outcome, rather than a win-lose outcome. The fact that he’s doing all this good and making sure it’s done WITHOUT EXPLOITING THE PEOPLE, even though it will result in profit in a decade instead of in a financial quarter, is evidence of a virtuous motivation, even if that virtue is powered by greed, which is normally seen as a vice. That’s Deus’ entire philosophy, if you recall from his showing on Macroeconomics.
If you recall, EVERYTHING, as far as Deus is concerned, virtue OR vice, is a result of greed. As Deus says in panel 4 of the below link: “All the sins and virtues are merely aspects of greed.”
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-394-philosonomics/
Charity requires greed, and is impossible without greed. Envy is rebranded greed. Lust is sexual greed. Diligence is a means to greed. In short, doing something for greed can still be a virtue, if your philosophy fits that mindset. Deus’s philosophy fits that mindset. What he is doing is virtuous because he is taking the harder path to achieve good for others AS WELL AS himself, instead of the short and easy path for good for himself, or a mid-way path for good for himself and a ‘little’ good for others. He goes ALL out, massive good for both sides, and he’s dedicated to it.
NamesAreSilly:
You seem to be coming at this argument with your mind made up, which makes me wonder why you’re making the argument. But that’s cool – I’ll still counter-argue your post.
“His actions are to the benefit of the people, yes. That does *not* make them virtuous.”
Tell that to the people who are benefitting from his actions. It’s very easy for you to say that as a cynical outsider.
“You can’t separate them from the underlying intent.”
Deus’s intent is greed. He has made no qualms about that. But Deus believes that greed is the key element of ALL things – virtue AND vice. You can be use greed as a vice, or you can use greed as a virtue. Deus has chosen the latter. He literally spelled out his entire philosophy on Macroeconomics on comic #394. His intent is a good one, even though it’s based on greed, because Deus fervently believes that Greed is good, if used for a good purpose. Which is pretty much the entire point of capitalism which has not devolved into cronyism. Deus is a textbook proponent of this.
“You are apparently assuming Deus is doing this to help them – period”
No. As I’ve CONSTANTLY said, Deus is doing this to help them AND help himself. For the umpteenth time, Deus believes in the win-win outcome in all things. He does not believe that the only way to help others is to sacrifice from yourself. Because that’s stupid. It’s short-sighted, and Deus is not short-sighted. The best way to help others is to do so in a way that ALSO helps yourself. Which allows you to then help additional others even more in a way that ALSO helps yourself even more. And that’s how Deus’ cycle works.
“I’ve seen enough so-called altruism from politicians/CEOs done solely for the benefit it provides to the one *doing it* to ever believe that from someone in his position.”
Deus literally HAS engaged in altruism btw. He has stated how he was GIVING… not investing, not loaning…. GIVING…. a group of the poorest Americans a total of a half BILLION dollars of stock in his company. That is wholly unnecessary. It’s only beneficial in that if his company succeeds, they will be grateful. But if he kept the money to himself, he would be able to invest it far more efficiently, do a lot more with it, and help a lot more people. What he was doing here is just pure altruism ‘just to see what happens.’
Now maybe you’re a die-hard objectivist (Ayn Rand style). And I can actually respect that cynical worldview (I liked reading Anthem), because Ayn Rand was brought up in a world where altruism just DID NOT EVER HAPPEN. And it definitely colored her view of libertarianism as a result. But Deus is a counter to that view. It’s been constantly shown in the comic.
Assuming that Deus cannot be altruistic because you’ve seen other CEOs and politicians act seemingly altruistic but with ulterior evil motives is a poor argument. You’re not basing it on Deus’s actions. You’re basing it on other people’s actions. Other people who are not Deus.
“We’ll just have to wait for the story to conclusively prove one of us wrong.”
I can’t argue with that. The future can always change things. But I’m not basing my opinion on being clairvoyant. I’m basing my opinion on what I’ve actually seen happen in the story up to this point.
“Feel free to skip trying to convince me it already has – you won’t”
Well I obviously can’t convince you of something that hasnt happened yet. But I can convince you or what has happened up until this point, which I hope this post has done.
“If it had done so to my satisfaction, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
You’re free to hold your own opinions, whether because you don’t find my arguments convincing, sunken cost fallacy, or just out of stubbornness. I can’t fault you for that. Good post.
You’ve just described how systemic racism works.
Cheers.
Seriously what are you even talking about?
WHAT PART OF THIS IS SYSTEMATIC RACISM?
What part of this system is racist? You keep making these unfounded declarations and are not backing them up with even the slightest reasoning.
You’ve already answered that question yourself. I’m guessing you just don’t like the answer.
He chose a country that nobody else cared for.
There.
I said it.
First, let me preface his by defining a term I’m using. I am using “problematic” to mean “attempting to not be racist but inadvertently being racist in the process”
Deus hasn’t done anything the suggest white supremacy yet, as he has in no way made anything at all about “race”… BUT… he has been engaging in things that make the portrayal of him extremely problematic when viewed through the lens of history. As a native american (not a pretendian, I was born and raised on a reservation) I see a lot of the “white savior” trope in Deus. The “white savior” isn’t necessarily a racist character, and it isn’t necessarily in a story due to racism per se, but does originally come from an actual problematic position.
An example would be Atticus in To Kill a Mocking Bird. He was a white lawyer who defended a black man who was wrongfully accused of a crime. He failed to successfully defend the wrongfully accused black man, which teaches the lesson that the American justice system is unfair and cruel to black people. Atticus as a “white savior” is there for reasons other than the fact that the time period it takes place in is more likely to have white lawyers than black ones, but rather to make the story relatable to white people. You see, the story could have followed the innocent Tom Robinson (the aforementioned black man) but it followed Atticus. The story is told through the eyes of Atticus.
In this sense, Deus is a “white savior” more in the literal sense than in the literary sense. What makes him problematic is that he’s a white man coming into Africa and taking over. He may be improving lives now, but are there any unseen costs to this? Remember, the Dystopia genre of literature was born out of an exploration of the costs of a utopia. Take for example the silent film Metropolis, in which there is a utopia enjoyed by the rich elite, but deep below the city, an oppressed worker class toils endlessly, without hope, to make it all continue working smoothly.
Much like a utopia has unintended consequences, Deus’s behavior in Africa has unintended implications. It implies that all of this corruption in Africa is able to be stopped if only a distinctly American flavored capitalist were to step in and be greedy. His intentions may be pure, his methods may be benevolant, his results may be stellar, but it’s the fact that he’s white and he’s improving the lives by essentially imposing western cultural values via a dictatorship that makes all of this so VERY problematic.
I would handle this situation, rather than by having characters go into super exposition mode about why it’s totally fine, just having Deus acknowledge how it all looks, and maybe show that the people of Galytn or however it’s spelled are keeping their culture and they’re ultimately the ones who decide how to incorporate the technology and infrastructure into their culture, rather than having it being pressed onto them… It won’t absolve everything but it’ll round off the edges and make them not quite so sharp.
Another thing to do, but it’d require a lot of diverging from the main story, would be to have him for the most part just let the people govern themselves and have them doing just fine without him, thus showing that the problem isn’t solved by “insert white capitalist here to solve every problem”, but rather that the problem was simply that a corrupt dictator had the country by the throat, and that literally anyone could have fixed the problem, and that it just happened to be Deus as a matter of course, not as a matter of necessity.
The easiest and perhaps simplest solution might just be to have Deus revealed as an actual villain. I think that’s the real problem here, that it’s so cheeky in the way it’s all intentionally ambiguous as to whether he’s a villain or not. But that playing with the tropes is leading to some VERY uncomfortable implications.
well said.
So, what if a “distinctly American flavored capitalist” actually is the correct solution? I’m not saying it is, but I find it an odd thing to rule that stories can’t claim such.
Would you feel at all differently if Deus was a black character?
Let’s speculate further: Would you feel at all differently if Deus was a black character, born in the area now known as Galytn, who came to America as a child and whose life was otherwise identical to the character we know. His lifelong dream, which he never lost even while making his fortune(s), has been to free his people from the oppression of both monstrous dictators such as Indigne and to use his wealth to bootstrap his people out of poverty. While making a substantial profit over the long run, because money is power and it was his money which allowed him to even contemplate that his plans for Galytn could be possible.
Everything else about Deus remains the same. He still “always wanted to bang an Alari.” He still banged Daphne while she was in the middle of a meeting. He still has a Ronco (excuse me, DeusCo) “Evil Overlord lightning sounds” that triggers on his laughter. Etc.
Chew on that for a bit.
Because when you say this about our hypothetical Deus:
It just doesn’t seem to have the same impact when we know that he is a black man, does it?
And if your only objection to the character’s actions is that he is a white man while doing them, then I think your viewpoints and motivations need to be re-examined just as carefully as do those of the cop who shoots an unarmed person during a routine traffic stop for “driving while being a scary black man.”
Rhodes didn’t fucking invade: he was pushed out of South Africa and was given worthless scrubland by King Lobengula
You’re conflating a couple of different events.
Rhodes was Prime Minister of the Cape Colony from 1890-1896. He was given -mineral rights- to the scrubland, but he basically tried to set up a country. The British South Africa Company fought the First Matabele War in 1893-1894. (And calling it a “war” isn’t really accurate, since the British had the Maxim gun.) Almost immediately after (end of 1895/beginning of 1896) he planned the Jameson Raid, which was a disaster for his police force and did basically result in Rhodes being pushed out of South Africa.
And you are conflating a load of false bullshit
Some interesting facts: the Dutch were in the Cape Provence before the blacks, the Zimbabwe ruins are believed to be of Portuguese origins, Mugabe and his mob lost the Bush War, but the US sided with Mugabe and forced the British to hand it over to the losers (that’s why Mugabe went to the US for his heart surgery knowing he would be safe)
Before you start talking shit about a country, talk to a native, or a descendent of one
“the Zimbabwe ruins are believed to be of Portuguese origins”
Bzzzzt, dead wrong.
The ruins are late Iron Age, which ended in Africa approximately 500AD.
The ruins first written mention (for european elucidation, I’m pretty sure the local Africans already knew about them) was by a Captain Vicente Pegado (yes, portuguese) in 1531. That is a miss of over a thousand years.
Dont make shit up.
That’s the only thing you find fault with? As said, it was believed to be, probably because it was ‘discovered’ by the Portuguese (the African’s of that region were nomadic)
Thank you for filing in that gap
Alrighty then, lets pull your crap apart piece by piece.
1) “the Dutch were in the Cape Provence before the blacks”
Wrong
The Khoekhoe peoples prescence in Southern Africa predates the Bantu expansion having them in the Cape area probably about 2000 years ago. The Khoekhoe were nomadic pasturalists having strong ties to seasonal areas on the Cape. When the Dutch arrived they occupied these seasonal areas causing conflict with the Khoekhoe which culminated in the two Khoikhoi-Dutch wars 1659-1660 and 1673-1677. So no, the Dutch did not occupy either Cape province before the native Khoekhoe.
2) “the Zimbabwe ruins are believed to be of Portuguese origins”
Previously refuted
I will add though that the Iron Age in East Africa lasted well past 500AD possibly up to somewhere around 14-1500AD in places
3) “the African’s of that region were nomadic”
Wrong again
The Shona peoples of the Zimbabwe region have had a very long history of sedentary subsistence farming and animal husbandry along with mining and trading, both occupations requiring focused loci. From around 900AD Leopard’s Kopje held sway until 1075AD. They were followed by the Kingdoms of Mapungubwe then Zimbabwe then Butua and then the Rozvi Empire binging us to 1834. Their capitals were the stone citadels dotting Zimbabwe, the Zhizo and Mambo phases of Leopard’s Kopje, Mapungubwe Hill, Great Zimbabwe, Khami and Danangombe.
4) “but the US sided with Mugabe and forced the British to hand it over to the losers”
Wow, just wow. So wrong in so many ways.
Just deliberate obfuscation with Mugabe having nothing to do with Cecil Rhodes, unless in some twisted way you are trying to conflate First Chimurenga aka the SECOND Matabele War with Second Chimurenga aka the Rhodesian Bush War. Now Rhodes did play a part in First Chimurenga, a most astonishing part in August- October 1896, but that is a story for another time.
Lets see now, Mugabe(Shona) was backed by the USSR, Nkomo(Ndebele) was backed by the PRC and Rhodesia had the tacit support of the USA extending to volunteer troops and financial aid. Now the UK PM McMillan had given the “Winds of Change” speech saying the UK would only entertain any colonies independence supported by a majority rule. He did this in Cape Town in 1960.
Ian Smiths Rhodesian Front was elected in 1962, declared independence in 1965 and went to war.
Skip forward to 1979 and insurgents were entering Rhodesia faster than the RSF could counter them. ZANLA(Mugabe) and ZIPRA(Nkomo) were winning.
The Rhodesian government negotiated with moderate black leaders and agreed on an “internal settlement” which ensured power sharing and a new constitution. After an election Abel Muzorewa became Zimbabwe-Rhodesia’s PM. Mugabe and Nkomo kept fighting. The UK under Thatcher organised the Lancaster House Agreement, a cease fire was agreed, the UK took temporary control of Zimbabwe and UK and commonwealth forces oversaw another election, Mugabe won that.
So Mugabe DID NOT lose the war, the US DID NOT support Mugabe (Cold War remember, US USSR), they DID NOT force the UK, you did not force Thatcher to do anything she did not want to do, full stop. If Mugabe went to the US for heart surgery that was probably because he didnt want a drunk russian near his chest with a knife, the chinese supported his opposition, accidents happen and the same with the UK and the commonwealth. The US was the best of a bad bunch and you can always buy americans.
Sorry, missed the first error
5) ” was given worthless scrubland by King Lobengula”
The Rudd Concession was a written concession for exclusive mining rights in Matabeleland and Mashonaland agreed to by King Lobengula and Cecil Rhodes agents; Charles Rudd, James Rochfort Maguire and Francis Thompson. Lobengula was apparently wary but eventually convinced by his friend Leander Starr Jameson, yes THAT Jameson. In the end it had nothing to do with mining but instead was a pretext to obtain a right of way for Rhodes’ Cape to Cairo rail and road. Definately NOT worthless scrubland. The Jameson raid tied into this too, to destabilize the Boers.
All shit, from woe to go.
Yeah, mum said the Ruins were believed to be Portuguese or Phoenician, forgot to add the second group
The land was worthless to Lobengula, obviously not to Rhodes
Who the fuck said Rhodesia being giving to Mugabe had anything to do with Rhodes?
Was talking about the country. Also, there was an election where Muzorewa won decidedly, but America wouldn’t allow it and forced a second election where Mugabe was supposed to co-rule with Nkomo, but his murderous thugs killed Nkomo’s followers and took complete control
You got your information from… where? Wikipedia? Try getting it from someone who was there
Yeah, not Phoenician either. That’s the old (white)Rhodesian line of denying that the natives built them, Government policy in the 1960s and 1970s.
YOU were responding to a post about Cecil Rhodes with crap about Mugabe, thats who.
The only microscopically possible connection that I could think of would be first and second Chimurenga, which is why I said,
“Just deliberate obfuscation with Mugabe having nothing to do with Cecil Rhodes”
Yes, I mentioned Abel Muzorewa, he won with 67% of the vote and Mugabe won with 63%
Unfortunately United Nations Security Council Resolution 423 passed 10 aye/ 0 nay/ 5 abstain
The resolution basically said that the “internal settlement” in Zimbabwe was illegal as were any elections resulting from it. To hold free and fair elections and the UK to ensure this happened.
The 5 abstensions were USA, UK, Canada, France and FRG. The aye votes were all the other non-permanent members , USSR and PRC.
The abstensions didnt care to express an opinion about the settlement or further elections.
This is documented UN proceedings.
The USSR and the PRC wanted another election, which was apparently a very dirty little election with massive voter intimidation but they got a result (apparently)
As for asking someone who was there, they only know their own little bit, coloured by their own perceptions. Ask an infantryman down in the weeds how the battle is going, they dont know shit, only that they’re not dead yet.
Leopard may have had the wealthiest kingdom ever (even surpassing most of Europe… combined), but it never reached that far south, not even outpost
You are ignoring that Mugabe and Nkomo were supposed to rule together, but Nkomo made the fatal (and mean that in it’s literal sense) of allowing Mugabe to ‘go first’, and Mugabe had his thugs go around to the villages killing Nkomo’s followers
And someone ‘down in the weeds’ knows more about it than what you are pulling from your Wikipedia searches
Say what you like, under Cecil Rhodes Rhodesia was among the wealthiest nations in the world. The wealth may not have been evenly distributed but the concomitant infrastructure and generally buoyant economy and currency was a tide that lifted all boats. Under more politically correct administration it rapidly became a squalid hellhole.
@ Daniel M Ball –
You have studied up the history of India, yes? So you’ll note it wasn’t much of a holiday paradise in pre-EIC times then. Really rather like Europe of the day, with small kingdoms sqabbling over land and labourers. Not to mention the continued evolution of a pantheon which seemed to favour corrupt morals which still exist today. You know, you must have read about them, the raping of girls who were using the rice paddies to wee and poop… BTW, did you know that despite English efforts, India has the lowest count of effluent sewage treatment plants in the world? That’s why families use their back gardens or rice paddies to excrete in.
By the 1820s, with its economic power severely curtailed by the British parliament and having effectively been made an arm of British administration, the EIC began more consciously to enter non-economic arenas like education, social reform, and culture.
Nobody pretends the Indian people were happy. Their way of life had been severely maltreated as the nation was dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th Century. However, this led inevitably to thoughts of self-governance in the ’30s, and a secular “democratic” republic in 1950.
England was so bad for India that even today they are a major and committed Cricket Power (okay, they did have to clean up a terrible bribery scandal on the way), a major cinematic entertainment center, but their football skills do need work. And we cannot blame England for the Partition of 1947: religion too often brings out the worst in human nature.
Thjis is only a keyhole view of India cobbled together in about 15 minutes. It has many holes in it. But it is obvious that England did not chew up a nation and spit it out. And in the process stopped France and Portugal, probably also Spain, possibly also the young USA. With the benefit of God’s Gift to Humanity we could also claim the British enabled India to stand up the the PRC.
Anyone else noticing a lack of bodyhair on Deus and remembering that supers don’t have body hair?
Deus is essentially following the same playbook as the UK taking over the Indian Subcontinent, so unless he’s an immortal super, then he’ll age-out and die before he gets control over even half of Africa.
I had the impression the Alari were planning a faster takeover than that. It’s still relatively early days but he’s already gained the demon army and Alari refugees with technology together with a large number of supers.
If his strategy is to control the militaries and economies of nations, not be the front, political figure, then he might pull it off. He’s careful to make sure people are happy with his rule and benefit rather than suffer then he can just keep absorbing and moving to the next without worrying about local unrest or resistance.
Yes, because the only ones with muscles for miles and no body hair are supers, ‘normal’ hyu-mons are hairy fat weaklings
I think you know I’m speculating and pointing out possibilities, not making statements.
It’s certainly possible, even more likely, that a wealthy businessman like Deus might have his body hair and underarms shaved or such while working regularly in the gym to maintain a good bodybuilding physique.
It’s just also possible he’s a super of some description and the lack of body hair and beefcake physique are more a result of that ♂️
It’s also possible SmugD is a tiny space worm hiding inside a giant inflated meat suit
I resemble that remark! I am NOT fat!
So, putting aside Deus’s obvious plans of world domination and his willingness to sign on with the forces of literal hell to do so, the big problem I see here is not one of the short term, but the long term. Deus strikes me as a Bismark type of person; eminently capable, but say he does actually succeed. What happens when Deus is no longer around? I don’t actually put achieving immortality beyond his ability, but there’s a lot that could happen. Things might work great while Deus is here, but that’s not always going to be the case.
Not sure it has been confirmed or denied if these are from an afterlife world or a more general demon realm.
Deus is putting Galytn on a track of self-sustainability. One where he DOESNT have to micromanage everything.
His contracts with the nations he is doing business with seem to be based on getting a portion of their GDP as payment for building and maintaining infrastructure, as a future investment.
Not to mention it’s his company that’s doing it. His company is likely to outlive him. Many multinational corporations outlive their founders. Assuming Deus has not already planned for that as well.
> his willingness to sign on with the forces of literal hell to do so
Fun fact: Read the story of the garden of eden again.
The devil gave us curiosity and shame. Curiosity has driven technological progress. Shame has driven moral progress.
The devil is the good guy.
” Shame has driven moral progress.” Er… Have you looked at Victorian England? Or maybe flowed the life and chemical castration of Alan Turing? Do you need more?
And besides, no matter how you chop this suey, the Devil — Satan, the Accuser — is nowhere mentioned in any way in the Garden of Eden story. Many have tried (for the children, you understand) to tie it to Satan, but no useful exegesis has yet succeeded. It was the Snake. It has blood on it’s hands.
And curiosity gave us Chernobyl.
Things can drive progress without always being good.
Hunger drove better farming techniques, for instance.
An old aphorism. Proverbial even. “Curiosity killed the cat.”
Although Chernobyl was a LOT more about authoritarian attitudes than curiosity. It is obvious NOW that a bit less of “I’M THE BLOODY BOSS HERE” could have mitigated the worst of the cat-astrophe. Some better communication between shifts would not have gone astray either. But we both have had the misfortune of “THEY DON’T KNOW SHIT” supervisors, and I personally never stayed any longer at those employers than I had to.
The best way to evaluate a workplace: put your hand up for a more senior position, and watch how management measures your arm length to see if they can stick your hand up your ass to use your arm as a pot handle. And you’re the pot.
I do have to take the opportunty to praise and recognise the scores of heroes of Chernobyl, who in many, far too many cases, literally “laid down their lives for others’ safety” while the entire region was going to crap. Unlike the Kremlin apparatchiks who spent their time finding others to blame.
That is only half the proverb, can’t remember what brought the cat back, knowledge maybe?
Satisfaction brought him back.
Thank you
> The devil is the good guy.
Facts. In the Bible, the devil killed 10 people: the 7 sons and 3 daughters of Job. He did this because God said ‘Go make Job’s life as miserable as you can and he will still stand by me’, so God should really get some of the discredit there as well.
Compare this to God, who killed 2.8 million people by the most conservative estimates, and probably more like 25 million. (Full accounting if you’re interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxQtV_YSo8I )
Given that the genesis myth claims that Adam and Eve were immortal until they were cast out of the garden of Eden, God is responsible for ALL death. It astonishes me that people can take such arrant nonsense seriously.
Er.
“myth” – somewhat more unreliable than a “legend”, if considered as “fact”.
However, generally speaking, the Gensis arc is considered by most as an etiology, probably aimed at children rather than adults. Of interest, no part of the story arc contains any mention of Satan the Accuser, aka Devil.
The bit about immortality comes from the explicit instruction “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” This (where it is treated) seems to be a metaphorical death, a spiritual death. There is no mention at any point in the Creation arc where Man was explicitly created immortal.
All this being said, this atheist recognises that death is actually the geatest gift any deity could give a creation. A worthwhile deity gives its creations a finite period on the plane, which allows for evolution of the form and self-knowlege; it also cures boredom.
Arrant nonsense? Of curiosity, the sequence of the creation story is remarkably in tune with our current secular view of the creation of the Universe. If you will judge a story, judge it from the author’s time, not yours. The Past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. If you simply have no time for any spirituality, then declare yourself and be respectful. Remember, you had no part of your upbringing until you became a grownup; it is entirely possible your parents tried to give you the best education they could afford.
Something about this whole Idea lf Galtyn never set right for me. Like it was too Utopian. And I think I figured out what it is:
How is Galtyn not overflowing with migrants and refugees?
Either:
– your infrastructure can no longer take that many people
– you already have 90% of Africas population, effectively ruling the continent as a billion people superpower dwarfing India and easily overcomming everyone else with soft power
He literally has a land connection to all african nations. Compared to fleeing for Europe, this is a short walk.
Most likely they are of the same mind of maxima and co, that despite Deus’ honeyed words, they can smell the bullshit from a mile away. We have not actually seen any civilians of Gatlyn and have only Deus’ own testimony that he is being benevolent.
“Smell the Bullshit”:
There is a topical example for this. Around Belarus and the Polish border.
And that is not how it works outside of comicbooks, which is this very explicitly not.
So, I doubt that is how it works.
Well. among other things on the News report that sent the team there it was stated that population was up 30% and schools from like 20 to 300. This implies a *lot* of infrastructure. Other factors to consider are that it is newly established, and the previous leader was a ruthless murderer who died rather suddenly. Outwardly that does not bode well as a place of refuge. Then they had the sudden influx of literal aliens that people might be suspicious of. They were also untested, and surrounded by many larger nations from my understanding, and of no importance to the wider world until very recently. And on top of all of that, Mozambique still thought they could take them in a fight, meaning that perhaps people do not view it as capable so… why take refuge there?
Also, your argument is laughably hyperbolic. Is 90% of the Africas really free to up sticks and move?
Geography. If you look at the map, Deus must have started by taking over eastern Zambia, likely now has at least an understanding with Malawi, and is now in the process of securing the Zambezi River, all the way to the ocean. The specific portion of the continent he’s conquering is not actually all *that* heavily populated, and the regions to the south are more likely to look to South Africa or Botswana as a refugee location. Nigeria would serve as a similar backstop to the north and east, particularly since refugees would have to go through some extremely volatile areas on their way down. I sincerely doubt that Galtyn is letting any refugees in from the DRC, on general principles, which will also stop anybody from the north or west, assuming that they could navigate the desert and the jungle. That leaves Tanzania as a potential source of refugees, and I am totally willing to believe that they’re flocking to Galtyn – but it’s about the only country with a clear run for the people desperate enough to try one.
:pause:
Sorry. My kid’s doing East Africa in geography class right now. There were maps.
Amusing typos, there. Obviously it should be Galytn
I think DaveB deliberately chose that name to mess with our minds.
Maps are a perfectly valid reason to get sucked into something you might have otherwise passed over.
Comparing and contrasting are two different things. Pander is contrasring here. Of course the comparison makes no sense. I feel like this is the second time I’ve had to explain this in this comic’s comments.
You’re starting to make me question if Deus is really the bad guy here. I mean, can you imagine what he’d do for the common person if he were to take over the US right now? Universal affordable healthcare, affordable housing, maybe universal basic income?
Can you imagine the State Militias all marching on Washington with fire in their eyes!
Socialism? NEVERRRRRRRRR! The People Must Payyyyyyy! Dammit, he’ll want to outlaw Internships next!
Damn I’m liking Deus. I mean seriously, world probably wouldn’t be so bad under his rule…. errr leadership. And non of that stupid genocidal crap. Deus 2024!!!
Dues would refuse. it would be a demotion for him to win the presidency in 2024. I suspect Pander would agree with me on this. She would also be a tireless volunteer and somehow end up in the DOJ should Dues win.(I suspect Due could beat both of the likely candidates easily) the reality is that the president is a fairly limited position, unless one somehow intimidates most if not all of a major political party.
personally I favor the Cthulhu/Giant meteor ticket. why choose the lesser evil?, and we can end all this election madness.
Deus can make way more change (both kinds) in an independent country than he could amongst all the red tape and divisive politics of the USA (or Europe, as discussed above). Even presidents with a majority in Congress can barely get anything done, let alone find the funding and approval for all of their initiatives. Even something as obviously* beneficial and bipartisan as infrastructure gets insufficient funding and costs 5-10x to build/maintain compared to other developed nations.
Whereas in only just over 2 presidential terms, Deus has solved infrastructure, manufacturing, supply chain, and leadership, and is doing it for people who not only have a greater need for it but appear to support and appreciate his work.
* former civil engineer here – I have so many evens to can’t.
“Dues would refuse. it would be a demotion for him to win the presidency in 2024. I suspect Pander would agree with me on this”
You suspect correctly. :)
“She would also be a tireless volunteer and somehow end up in the DOJ should Dues win.(I suspect Due could beat both of the likely candidates easily)”
Again I’m loving your post.
‘the reality is that the president is a fairly limited position, unless one somehow intimidates most if not all of a major political party.”
Much as I can’t compare Deus to Lex Luthor, since Lex is a villain and Deus is NOT a villain, there’s a very good Lex Luthor quote here from Justice League Unlimited, because he has some really good quotes even though he’s a villain, and not a paragon of humanity like Deus is:
Lex Luthor to the Question: “President? …Foolish, faceless man; my campaign is a farce. A small part of a much grander scheme. [chuckles] ‘President’… Do you know how much power I’d have to give up to be President? That’s right, conspiracy buff. I spent 75 million dollars on a fake Presidential campaign, all just to tick Superman off.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHPfS69JwQ
Have I mentioned that you have great taste in media?
You’ve mentioned it, and thanks.
Btw that means you also have great taste in media. :)
So there’s the old saying of illegal, immoral, inethical – I think the thing with Deus is that he’s on the immoral edge, which is the hardest to pin down but it’s this skeevy gut feeling, but nothing (clearly) illegal and arguably his activities are highly ethical.
Vs those he’s replacing which are clearly illegal, immoral, and inethical. Deus is clearer the lesser of two evils here.
He’s a very interesting villain (and the how/why he is being…. fuzzy just adds to that) and DaveB is doing a great job writing them as not the kind of ‘smash everything’ villain which have a pretty poor track record vs the Power Trio.
I think the further thing here is that Deus not being a threat to them is mostly Deus’s choice – the Power Trio clearly recognize that he’s way more dangerous than a two-bit tyrant and because Deus can be a threat to them they’re paying more attention to him than a 2-bit tyrant.
Every country in Africa or outside but near that part of Africa should be scrambling to build defensive military alliances and/or reinvigorate existing ones.
Everybody else should be sitting up and watching carefully while making their own less hurried moves, and more than a few looking for countries in this region to support, both as potential counters to this spreading threat and to take advantage of it in spreading their own influence.
I’d expect China in particular to have a thing or two to say; they’ve been building power and influence in Africa for a while now iRL.
Nobody wants to get Iraq War 1’d and I expect every major power is keenly aware of how devastating technology just a decade or three ahead can be, to say nothing about the stuff the alien colonists and new demon allies are packing. Throw in the good the PR, good management, implied superpower advantage, and expansionist tendencies, and the rest of the world ought to be making unsubtle moves to counter Galytn; they are a very obvious existential threat.
Came back after a hiatus and all I see is politicking in the forums. Whatever happened to actually just enjoying the comic.
it varies with where the comic is. right now Dues (may his name be ambivalent) is in Africa and we are having geopolitical arguments. if on the next page we have sexist comments from construction workers (again) we will have extended diatribes on sexism. personally, I wish there were some puns in the comic that we could all pun each other. maybe some geeky references to that we can all geek out over.
you understand its okay to complain about parts of a story you find bad right?
That would be how some people enjoy the comic. It doesn’t have to be how you enjoy the comic, but why bother other people who do?
Unless, I suppose, complaining about how other people enjoy the comic is your way of enjoying the comic.
Just a friendly reminder to the author — I come here to escape the real world. If this turns into a White Man Bad bashing comic or some other form of white-shame vehicle I’ll withdraw post-haste. I’ve had too many comics turn real-world or take up the shame-game just for hits and clicks. This started off great and I have really enjoyed watching Sid grow up, but if it comes at the cost of a “we have to get our blows in for political/internet cred” I’ll walk away.
. . . . . . . DANGER! DANGER!
Caution! Forum chatter is not suitable for children under 40.
. . . . . . . . . . .Children under 40 should only read the comic.
. . . . . . . DANGER! DANGER!
If exploring real world problems is too hard for you, Bye! I’d say don’t let the door hit you on the way out, but I honestly don’t care if it does.
Conversely if this story doesn’t take any time to interrogate the White Savior trope and just plays it straight, then it’s boring as hell and also a tad racist, so…
“Shame Game” amuses me, because we’ve established that Deus is supposed to be a villain. Sydney’s broken the 4th wall on that front several times now. So if we call Deus the bad guy for *checks notes* invading a country using an army of literal demons, and you think that’s some kind of reverse racism, that’s maybe a you problem.
You’re okay with white men getting punched though, right?
Funny how so many people react to the same comic with completely opposite worries: that it’s uncomfortably close to “White Man’s Burden” stories. Maybe people’s worries reflect more on them than they do on the comic.
I Wonder if something change if Deus will be black USA citizen. No other change only skin. He still will be opportunistic imperialist American seizing power in Africa. How much comments will change?
If I may make a suggestion, Sidney should learn to curse in Brazilian Portuguese.
You would be surprised at the amount of words we create to swear at someone.
I will stay the hell away from the political discussion, and only comment on KEYBOARD!
Steelseries Apex Pro, of which i have one, are programmable to sensitivity. Maybe that was something for you?
Keyboards are safe! Sometimes. I had an el cheapo, it massed, oh, about 8 ounces. I dropped it accidentally (do NOT ask!) on my running-shoe-clad foot, and it didn’t hurt a bit. Akshully, “at all”.
My Model M, though, that *would* hurt.
I’ve already made it clear that I don’t like Deus. He’s arrogant, smug, willing to use excessive force to get what he wants, makes a play for Maxima when 1) she’s not interested 2) she’s not interested and let him know it and 3) he’s seeing someone else (probably a lot of someone elses) and he’s a bit of a whore. But I will readily admit those are personal biases that make me dislike him as a fictional character. I can’t deny that he’s performing good deeds that benefit others while profiting for himself. That doesn’t make him a monster. It just makes him a capitalist and capitalism is the basis for American economy. So while I’m not going to be singing his praises, I can readily admit that you can’t argue with success.
The thing I’ve been running into with Deus in this latest plotline is that you CAN argue with success when it’s being written by an author.
This latest bit has felt to me like the socioeconomic equivalent of the big-tittied child-coded anime demon girl who’s actually a thousand years old and needs sex to live so it’s not perverted to lust after her childish features it’s just responsible to want to see after her needs why are you making it a thing it’s not a thing.
This situation has been written the way it is by a person. Deus keeps succeeding because DaveB is making a decision, over and over, to just show us what it looks like for the rich white man to be good at everything.
And when the activity being shown is something real rich white people have tried and will probably keep trying, in large part because they believe in this idea that their whiteness or wealth makes them qualified, and have fucked up a bunch of real people’s lives in the trying…well. It gets messy.
Right, so Sydney’s got the right priorities (that Dave quote feels like it should be it’s own comic), and Dues will have to reign in Alari dominance tendencies in for his staff to avoid any continued systemic racist policies from surviving his administrative purge. Can I vote for Deus as the most frustratingly likeable villain now? (Of the status quo ARC is built around of course)
So Deus’ problem isn’t that he’s a white supremacist. I’m 99.9% sure that Deus would think skin color is the a superpower.
No. Deus’s problem is that his personality and goals run counterthetical to each other. Deus is an autocrat. That’s pretty clear. He has a dream and a plan and he’s not going to deviate from it. He’s fine delegating, but no where has he mentioned the word ‘democracy’. And that’s a problem. If he were going to maintain an autocratic dictatorship, no problem. There’s been plenty of autocrat dictators the last 100 years and one more won’t be that special. But Deus has plans. He wants infrastructure. He wants governance. International trade. And that’s the problem. The more the country develops, the more keys to power an autocrat has to share.
So before where he mostly needed to keep his banker and general in charge, now he’s sharing more and more keys. He’s got Tom, and the Alari, and his supers, and he needs these people to manage his power. But the problem is that inevitably some of those keys are going to want more than just what he gives them. They’re going to want input. And input is something Deus can’t have. Because he’s an autocrat. Because he has to be in charge.
What is he going to do when the water treatment plant workers all go on strike? What’s he going to do when fake news starts circulating social media? What’s he going to do when some journalist wants to start broadcasting their opinion? Eventually, someone is going to conflict with Deus, and Deus is going to have to decide to either change the plan, or crack down. And he can absolutely crack down, but every time he does, he endangers everything he’s trying to build. You can’t with one hand give people prosperity and with the other punch them in the face and say its for their own good.
My biggest fear, though, is that he’s just a Mary Sue. That he’s never going to get double crossed. That he’s the perfect character that wins thanks to smarm and authorial fiat. That there’s really no point to reading the comic. I dunno. I hope Deus does fail. I hope that when he does, he has to actually admit to Maxima, ‘yep, it got a little bit away from me’. Just once. Otherwise I’m going to be pretty disappointed.
Lorlara has embarrassed him quite a bit. Vale and Max both yell at him. He’s generally successful, but the world doesn’t revolve around him, and people who oppose him aren’t treated by the story as being in the wrong. He’s a competent antagonist, and it’s hard for an author to write characters who are smarter than they are.
That’s why I love Lorlana, despite that she’s sort of nuts.
She takes reasonable plans of Deus and tries to translate it into the most Alari-esque way possible.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-831-not-a-date-night/
Deus: “Lorlana! Quick! Get me reservations at…! NYAAH!
Lorlana: “YOUR APPOINTMENT FOR DINING AND CONQUEST AT CAREME IS SET, AND THE PROPRIETORS HAVE BEEN QUELLED INTO SUBMISSION!”
Deus: ” … Lorlana…. I -own- Careme.”
Lorlana: “THEREBY ADDING GREAT WEIGHT TO THE THREAT!”
Deus: “*sigh* Grab a bottle of Macallan 25 for the manager.”
Lorlana: “YES! HIS MEWLING CAPITULATION MUST BE REWARDED!”
It’s something Sciona does as well. Deus says something entirely reasonable and they translate it into the most evil overlord way conceivable. :) It’s probably an Elite Alari thing. And unlike with Sciona, which he knew how to handle, he’s not that great at handling Lorlana, who’s his follower instead of a ‘business partner.’
And he’s been surprised by Maxima as well when she got him to spittake on his $3000 suit. Totally losing his cool and suave demeanor.
” He’s got Tom, and the Alari, and his supers […] They’re going to want input. And input is something Deus can’t have. Because he’s an autocrat. Because he has to be in charge. – Somber
Routing all the strategic decisions through Deus doesn’t mean that he cannot take advice and input from lower tiers in the structure, and respond to those as appropriate. In some cases that will mean a change of course, in others it will be an explanation of what other consideration is overriding the one raised. In either case, the one raising the suggestion has an answer beyond just “because it wasn’t my idea”. Remember, the right to be heard is very different from the right to dictate conduct.
Bar still bends with a wide grip: https://barbend.com/heaviest-clean-jerks-ever-made-competition/
But – not very much. The relatively short section behind Deus’ head might not be 100% detectable.
Everyone who pulls that at a gym can fuck off
Also, RIP dead links
“He get’s excited when there’s an update to Excel.”
I love these little bottom border texts <3
It’s impressive that he can exposite while doing the clean.