Grrl Power #1100 – Mystery, Suspense, Intrigue!
I hope this page makes sense to everyone. It seems fairly straightforward to me, but then, I wrote it, so it’s hard for me to judge.
Anvil isn’t covering her head out of a sense of honoring the dominant religion in the country, there are christians living in Senegal, and Anvil was raised Southern Baptist. She attends church on more than just Easter and Christmas, but it’s more of a social thing for her than a weekly reminder of all the hellfire and brimstone awaiting the sinners. No, she’s wearing the head wrap, because while she isn’t quite as visually distinct as Maxima or Dabbler, she’s still an internationally famous superheroine. She’s 6′ 7″ which draws the eye all by itself, but when you add the red hair, it’s kind of a slam dunk that she’ll be recognized. They were ostensibly trying to not draw attention to the fact that several members of Arc-SWAT were wandering around a market while Dabbler was trying to pull a honey-money trap a few streets over. “Sydney” was in the same boat, sort of. By her lonesome, she’s not so memorable, although in a country that’s 95% black, she’ll obviously stand out quite a bit more. But stashing her orbs in a massive purse and tucking away those bangs, and she’s more or less good to go.
But of course, their goal wasn’t not to be seen, but to appear to be making a reasonable attempt at it.
If it seems there are a lot of Lionesses, keep in mind that Senegal has a population of 17 million, and the occurrence of Supers among humans, once thought to be one in a million, is probably closer to one in 100,000. Although it varies regionally and seems to be more prevalent in more industrialized nations, it’s a safe bet that Sengal has 80-160 (?) Supers. Or at least, that’s how many were born there in the last few generations. If you’ve got super powers and you want to work and live elsewhere, you’ve definitely got more options than the average person. The Lionesses are Senegal’s Arc-SWAT. Are there any Lions, you might ask? That… will eventually come up.
The October Vote Incentive is still up!
The November one will be up with the Monday comic.
So I have enough “Blue Babes” to do a theme. Eventually I’ll be able to fill in the whole rainbow of my own characters. I did a rainbow lineup previously for those who hadn’t seen it. I’d love to revisit that one of these days.
Enjoy variant outfits and lack thereof over at Patreon.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Good to know Rock Island 1911s are as ubiquitous there as they are here.
With all the various wars that have passed through the continent and many of the countries equipping themselves with the surplus of those wars, pretty much any military arm made in the last 200 years could show up in Africa. That said, it looks more like a Browning Hi-Power to me.
Panel five is the scariest smile I’ve seen yet in the Haloverse. And possibly the most fun for it.
You mean panel 7.
No, the smile in five is scarier than the one in seven (just be glad you didn’t see it!)
Glen and X are grinning maniacally in panel 5, gotta squint harder to tell though.
Dangit I always miss those two when they’re being so blatantly obvious! X is forgivable for me to miss, but with all the work I do with ninjas you’d think I’d notice one of them more readily.
No, X is in four (and never takes their mask off in public, you know that) and Glen is with Sydney
I feel like such a fool for not having seen all this.
The double switch. So that one on the end was a Nekojin or cat-person, possibly therianthrope, not sure if this setting differentiates between those with partial transformations and full transformations.
the old, send out the big obvious bait while the real bait is pretending not to be bait..if that made sense.
that said, I am thinking cat-person not were in my head mostly because of the prehensile tail. Usually the were-cats go full biped cat with mostly a cat anatomy only in biped form, while cat-people like many of the monster-girl/guy types just look like they have the animal anatomy but its internally and structurally very different. Very common among this being things like the mermaid tail being horizontal like a fluke or the flexible complexities of centaur anatomy, and how lamia/naga/Enchanted Moura the snake tail is mostly muscle not snake organs in their other than the digestive track.
but yeah point there the cat-people having a prehensile tail is oddly common, even when a regular cat’s tail isn’t. Heck Felicia from Darkstalkers can even balance on the tip of her tail for an extended kick.
Despite having scales, it’s quite obvious mermands have more in common with dolphins than fish.
I dont think a humans digestive system could support the body of a naga. it almost has to have it’s guts in its “tail”
oh yeah the fuel to body mass ratio is all kinds of messed up with a lot of them with the (lower body of) body types, especially if its mostly muscle, that is a lot of extra mass and energy needed to run it that the human torso digestive system and respiratory system for the larger ones couldn’t handle. So unless it is handwaved as *supernatural extra dimensional energy etc..* and treated as biological, we have to get creative on the internal anatomy, including the human torso not having the same organ structure as well.
The lioness is wearing a Puma shirt. Tre ironic. And if your doppleganger your picture subject who has explosives, is it also a photo-bomb?
Didn’t we already establish that Sydney isn’t in this page? Then why is she in the who’s who.
Shes in the last panel
But Sydney is in this page… last panel. I think the better question would be… where’s Dabbler?
I think they played it as Dabbler was the mole while Sydney and Anvil were just out shopping, when in fact Sydney wasn’t there one of the lion pack was in a camouflaged aura to look like her. Sydney is the weakest (physically) of the three and these people believe she’s helpless while her orbs are put away. This is a clear example of what happens when a cocky leader who doesn’t know the enemy as well as they think they do. A perfect “bait and switch”.
She is the obvious bait from last page. Sydney/Halo was replaced with one of the lioness.
last panel
Actual Sydney is also in the page. She’s quite clearly in the last panel.
Pretty sure that’s her in the last panel.
She’s in the last panel?
Just in case nobody read the seven near identical responses…
Sydney is in the last panel.
See the last panel? Sydney’s in it.
P.S. If you’re looking for Sydney, the last panel is your best bet.
are you suggesting that there’s some connection between Sydney and the last panel?
But, wait, I’m confused. Where’s sydney in all this?
Once again, Glen and X go uncredited.
its possible X is there, but unlikely. X is probably on the transport to pick them up. Glen is flying because Glen Is Awesome and related to Jack Dalton.
“If you take a picture of your doppelganger, is it a selfie?”
That needs a Philosoraptor meme
if you take a picture of your doppleganger, it isn’t a selfie, because it isn’t of your self. If you, however, take a picture of your reflection in a mirror, it is a reverse selfie.
In the 80s or 90s there was a teen oriented sitcom with twin teenaged girls (No…. not the Mowrey one)
Anywho, they’re shopping and one of them sees a hat she likes.
“How do I look in this hat?” she asks her twin sister.
Wordlessly the sister takes the hat and puts it on her own head.
That’s a very good answer, as it gives her a more accurate idea of what she looks like with said hat than a mirror (unless she had a super symetrical face and haircut, of course, in which case it’s basically equivalent)
Hasn’t Harem given a kinda answer to this question?
Harem isn’t a doppelganger of someone else or herself though, she is all five bodies herself. So one body taking a photo of another of her bodies is still her taking a picture of herself, thus that is a selfie.
No, it’s a selvesie.
It’s actually surprising how much the supers have been organized before the public reveal of ARC. I suppose the council influenced that a lot as they have apprently been around for a long time. Nice bit of world building
Key word here is public. The US Army already had supers in their ranks and they fought other supers. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that most countries already had a group of supers more or less organized to keep vilains at bay.
yeah this is kind of the premise in the MCU as well. As a way to bring forth many more supers without needing more origins to explain their presence. Most supers either were in hidden communities, or kept hidden out of fear of the government or other people or hunters *think the conspiracy theory that if supers exist they would never reveal themselves out of fear of being kidnapped and experimented on or conscripted to fight in the military*, but the MCU is exploring a change in culture, post blip and more and more supers becoming celebrities by being heroes has caused ever more individuals with powers to not hide themselves as much and even try to be heroes or go public like Titania who clearly decided thanks to the celebrity status of superheroes to reveal she also has powers, but only for the sake of upping her brand.
I doubt Dabs ability to glamor herself they way she does isn’t limited to just another beautiful woman, she just prefers that, hard to dine on sexual energy if you’re an hunched over 70 y/o man. She was suppose to make the mob think she was looking for them so of course she’d walking around looking like that!
The Lions just lie around, eat a lot, and fight off any male heroes from other teams
Lion. Singular. Because, of course, male lions are territorial, & drive off competition. Otherwise, correct.
(Honestly, I’ve no clue, I’m just running with the joke, paralleling the zoology.)
Going with the zoology there have been cases where (male) lions group together to defeata stronger one and take over his pride. I do not remember how they organize after that.
Whatever happens then. it is not healthy for the lion cubs.
You can practically hear the purr when she says “Knew..? Yes.”
Yeah. Sure. Whateves. Now tell us how wrapping her tail around his hand in any way shape or form stops him from pulling the trigger. Cause it doesn’t.
She should be in the market for a new kidney right now.
He can pull the trigger all he wants. It’ll result in a pinched tail, but not in a perforated organ.
Read up about gun hammers, and then look at where her tail is coiled.
Tail blocking the hammer, very clear in panel 6, go be a contrarian elsewhere~
Tail blocking the hammer, clearly shown in panel 6. If you wanna criticize detail, do try to notice it~
Because the tail is in between the firing hammer and the and the firing mechanism. He can pull the trigger all he wants, the best he’ll get is a bit of pain as the hammer puts pressure on the tail itself rather than firing the bullet. Despite popular belief, there is bone all the way to the end of a tail, so that hammer is not setting off any bullets until the tail is removed.
And considering she was willing to use the tail in the first place, it’s a pretty good bet she’s confident it cannot be removed before she can eviscerate whoever is holding the gun before they can extract the tail.
I’m just spitballing here but I see claws in Panel 6 (one of the ones Sydney is NOT in) since I have a small overlord that is occupying the space under my desk. I can personally attest to the sharpness of claws….
Small, fuzzy overlords are best overlords! (Although big ones can be great too, as anybody who has had the chance to witness the fluffyness of a snow leopard up close can attest)
And/or that she is confident that she has the speed/reflexes/agility to dodge a point blank bullet, or the durability or healing factor to tank one. And of course, she could be a werecat, in which case the healing factor would be a given.
Every point you made about the hammer & tail was correct. Good thing the assailant wasn’t using a Glock or other striker-fired pistol. And how could the Lioness know there was a hammer to block in the first place?
Well, that was a surprise. I guess using Sydney’s christmass tree inconspicuousness against the bad guys was a hella of a move. impressive.
A smile like that portends only pain, usually in freight train form.
This may not even be a super but a werecat type gone public using a camouflage type skill/spell/gear.
Or keeping with the doppelganger idea.. its a Copycat.
Panel 6: Cartoonishly blockable gun mechanism.
Is that a thing?
Yep. https://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Apex-1911-Hammer-670×446.jpg
Reducing the space between the hammer and the firing pin isn’t necessarily a priority of gun designers.
That’s a hammer, it’s released to strike the firing pin(tho sometimes the firing pin is part of the hammer, ie revolvers).
Kitty’s lucky the guy wasn’t using a striker-fired pistol or one with a masked hammer(well, unless she’s also bulletproof).
Well done, sir. I didn’t see it initially, but you put the clues in place. Anvil is wearing the same clothing as on prior pages (adding only the headwear), while “Sydney” has had a complete wardrobe change.
Yes – and though I didn;t pick up on it until a second read-through, the comments about being smug and working with the powerset you have was the Halo’d lioness being smug about her powers of disguise compared to Dabbler’s.
Yikes someone’s in for a bad time, those claws look mighty sharp.
villain tip number: When you know they’re doing an undercover thing from not so secretly having an in to watching the station. be leery when that inconspicous hero you want is talking openly about the secret mission another is on
Going by the shirt Copycat! Sydney suports either Brazil…or Norwich City.
my head cannon is going with Norwich City because it’s funnier!
Probably Brazil, ie the tam Guarani. From Campinas in Sao Paulo. They have two Senagalese players on team.
Well they did 15 yrs ago. So extra sports shirts get shipped to African markets all the time. But soccer shirts that are absolute snobs on. Adidas, Puma, De Sol, and Astra but not Nike are popular. We’re when I lived there. Last two were Euro and snobby wear. The two former, of the populace ie common.
This does sort of bring up an important point. When Sydney is just hanging around, it seems like it would be incredibly easy to take her out at range.
Good reason to buy the “passive” slot on the shield orb.
+1 survival definitely warrants the next skill point.
Honestly Sydney (and anyone else on the team not bulletproof) should never appear in public without her shield up at all times, unless they’re sure her incognito disguise and egress route are completely secure. Would suck to live like that though.
The page makes sense in that I (eventually) got what was going on, but it makes NO sense plot wise. Why would the crooks go after foreign supercops they KNOW are hunting them? The risk/benefit ratio is ridiculous.
Especially considering that the choice of Dabbler’s disguise suggests a money motive for the Garcons D’ors activities. Going after Anvil and Halo, on the other hand, suggests some kind of political motive; either a subversive one, as in “The infidel bourgeoisie puppet regime have overplayed their hand THIS time!”, or a sub economic one, as in “We have to nip this kind of initiative in the bud before it starts eating into our bottom line.” Either way, they’d be tangling with arguably the strongest superteam in the world, and via them the richest and most powerful superpower in the world, and for what? What could they possibly stand to gain from this?
The reward side of the scale is pretty heavy though, given that the orbs are Nth-level tech, and the risk isn’t that high as both Sydney and Anvil’s powers are public knowledge. Sydney is baseline human without the orbs in hand, making her a pretty vulnerable hostage, and Anvil has power but not speed or range.
We’ve already seen Sydney singled out for a shot at the orbs during a semi-coordinated attack on the team (Times Square battle), they’re a pretty attractive target of opportunity if it walks through your turf while an obvious trap is being laid nearby. Not a wise target, but an attractive one.
Like I said, I’m assessing the cost/benefit ratio mostly in purely monetary terms. But even with an expanded reward consideration, I think you’re grossly underestimating the difficulties of holding on to such a prize, especially if it was that easy to steal. Like I also said, biggest and richest superpower in the world, biggest and meanest superhero team in the world.
Said super team being literally on the other side of the globe. Had this not been a bait and switch, it would’ve taken no more than a few minutes to whisk Sydney away, dispose of her tracker, and start on separating her from the orbs.
Once someone controls the orbs, maintaining that control should be fairly easy. Especially for someone who took their personal security and situational awareness a lot more seriously than Sydney has so far.
Halo is the second most powerful hero in the world, and her powers are potentially stealable. The orbs are quite a bounty.
Or at least look like they could be stealable, since I have my doubts that Sydney could transfer the orbs allegiance even if she wanted to or that they would switch to the person who killed her.
its a case of the size of the potential reward. suppose you get the orbs from killing Sydney. how big of a cash award would be the equivalent? at some point the size of the reward outweighs the odds. granted, Concreta got the drop on her, and did the right things as an opening move. I suspect Sydney will keep the comm ball in a pocket as its teleport ability is not obvious and hugely useful in just this situation. (if they haven’t tried this out in training… well we have words for that. Puns even. and they would deserve all all of them.) Vermillion indeed.
Problem with that idea: hiding one of her balls would make people (ie SmugD) wonder what’s so special about it, and, if she needs to access it in a hurry, she has to either fumble in her pocket or risk a wardrobe malfunction
To be honest, the “Don’t be smug about your powerset” bit threw me for a moment, but since it was very obviously revealed later in the page it wasn’t a problem
Since it was asked last time if it was potentially wrong for a non-block person to pretend to be black, we also need to ask if it is potentially wrong for a non-white person to pretend to be white.
Good point really. :)
I’m going to assume that you’re legitimately ignorant of the history of blackface, and why people would have a problem with it. On the surface, a lot of rules seem wrong or senseless in isolation, if you don’t understand the history behind them. Rules always have context and conditions.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with people pretending to be another race. But historically, whites have pretended to be black either to make fun of black people, or to avoid employing them to play black characters. The specifics of these depictions reinforced negative stereotypes of black people, which is likely to affect how people think about and treat black people. That there were actual black people who performed in blackface should help contextualize that it was not a realistic depiction, instead more comparable to clown makeup.
A non-white person pretending to be white… well, they’re probably trying to avoid being mistreated for not being white. And if it were obviously non-realistic, like blackface, it would probably be considered bizarre, or clever, culturally-relevant humor. And the difference is that it wouldn’t likely have the power to hurt anyone. People aren’t going to suddenly mistreat whites (in a white-dominant nation) because someone made fun of them.
Before I write this… please know I do hold you highly in respect and what I’m arguing is based on what you said, not on you as a person who I enjoy posting responses to.
“But historically, whites have pretended to be black either to make fun of black people, or to avoid employing them to play black characters. ”
Which is not a factor for Dabbler.
1) She is not white. She is purple.
2) She has no history her ancestors ever enslaving anyone, so there’s not even a Klingon ‘sins of the father’ mentality to deal with. If anything… her ancestors (AND even in present day) are slaves. Even if in modern day the slavery is based on biological necessity and not societal imperative where she is no longer a second class citizen.
3) She is not making fun of anyone, and the glamour is not historically or currently used to make fun of any race – it’s used as a disguise.
So if it’s not okay for Dabbler, then it’s not okay for this Lioness. If anything it might even be less okay for this lioness, as she is human, and Africans (like White Europeans and Americans and pretty much every other race of humans) have a history of enslaving other races.
If it IS okay for Dabbler, then it’s okay for this lioness. OBJuan is just pointing out the utter hypocrisy if someone is against Dabbler doing it, but okay with Lioness doing it
All the other things you wrote do not apply to Dabbler either Not to mention…. it’s actually racist because despite what people might say in newspeak, racism is defined simply as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. When people add to it, it’s because of a racist belief that THEY can discriminate without being racist, but others cannot. “Do as I say, not as I do.”
The main problem with blackface is the historical context of how it’s been used. AGAIN… This. Does. Not. Apply. With. Dabbler. At. All.
“People aren’t going to suddenly mistreat whites (in a white-dominant nation) because someone made fun of them.”
I’m sorry, but this is clearly untrue. I’m not even white and I can’t say what you just wrote with a straight face. White people – specifically white men – are probably the easiest people to make fun of without any sort of social stigma from anyone – including usually other white people because of a sense of unfounded white guilt where they think “we deserve this.” And then don’t get me started on Nazi Germany. The jews were largely white, in a white-majority country, and they half half the population of jews on the entire planet exterminated. By other white people. White people are not immune from being discriminated against.
Not to mention… why do you limit it to ‘whites in a white-dominant nation’? It sounds like trying to rig the stats (even if when rigging them it still fails to be true). Aside from the fact that in white-dominant nations, white people DO get belittled constantly and without social stigma attached, in non-white nations, white people can be discriminated against just as viciously, or more viciously, than in the segregated south of the early 20th century.
At what point did I suggest that Dabbler’s disguise or glamour wasn’t okay?
You and I have different ideas about O. B. Juan’s intentions. And possibly about hypocrisy.
Making fun of people is not mistreatment or discrimination. Whites getting made fun of is not the end of the world. And that’s also why there’s so little social stigma for doing so — they’re on top of the heap. They are not vulnerable. Just like how you might play a little rougher with your big, tough friends, slug them in the arm or slap them on the back, but wouldn’t do the same with someone smaller or more fragile.
“White” is also an arbitrary classification. You say jews are white, but they haven’t always been considered so. The Nazis didn’t consider them to be white. Are hispanics or latinos white? I don’t think you’ll find widespread agreement either way.
I limited it to ‘whites in a white-dominant nation’ because a white in a nation where they are a minority might indeed feel vulnerable or threatened by negative caricatures of white people. The average person in that context may not have enough personal experience with the group being stereotyped to disregard it as such, and thus may treat a member of that group with unwarranted suspicion or discriminate against them.
‘Making fun of people is not mistreatment or discrimination. ‘
I can’t fully get on board with this. As a man I’ve had to learn that the only way we seem to relate to one another is casual brutalities, verbal or otherwise. I’ve also been thoroughly othered and it is most defiantly is very scaring, yet it is really hard to explain to someone why there is a difference, especially when they want to deny it. the issue is not one incident. the issue is the repeats. one asshole isn’t that big a deal, but when you encounter the asshole behavior repeated over and over day after day and then defended as if its an isolated incident its something much much worse. then there is the cold realization this is permitted. this is your life. right/wrong does not matter, when the alarm goes off… you will wake up and likely face it again. oh, and remember, this is permitted. that means that tiring to talk about will only get you MORE of the same as you are supposed to just put you big person underwear on and TAKE IT because this is their right. you are here to make them feel better by belittling you. that is why you are alive. enjoy.
can someone tell a pun!
What you’re describing sounds like harassment, targeted specifically at you, not general mocking of people who are unlike you in almost every way but one.
Context and proportion are important.
You truly believe that only happens in isolated instances? o_O
“At what point did I suggest that Dabbler’s disguise or glamour wasn’t okay?”
When you assumed OB Juan’s reasoning for his post being negative. He’s just saying if a person argued or even worries that what Dabbler did was wrong, but doesnt argue what Lioness did was wrong, it would be massively hypocritical. Especially since there’s no way in which what Dabbler did could ever be considered ‘blackface’ with any sort of negative connotation since she’s 1) not human, 2) not white in the first place if one will argue the sort of racist idea that ‘only white people can be racist,’ 3) a slave herself, 3) not having ANY ancestors who were EVER enslavers by her very biological makeup, and 5) not even human so one can’t even argue that her SPECIES has any history of being enslavers or oppressing others in a master/slave relationship.
“You and I have different ideas about O. B. Juan’s intentions.”
Yes. I’m giving the benefit of his reasonable intentions and not assuming, unfairly, that he’s coming at this from an ‘ignorance’ mentality. Because he’s clearly not. He’s treating this in a very non-racist mentality, if anything.
“And possibly about hypocrisy.”
Definition of Hypocrisy – the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.
Which is the literal explanation of anyone who would say what Dabbler did was wrong, but what this Lioness did was fine. Same action but different standards of morality = hypocrisy.
“Making fun of people is not mistreatment or discrimination.”
Making fun of people is mistreatment. Also tell a few insulting jokes about black people (if you are not black, and especially if you are white) and see how soon it is until you get labelled as a racist. But if you do the same thing about white people, you will not be labelled a racist, even if you’re not white.
“Whites getting made fun of is not the end of the world.”
Neither are black people getting made fun of. But many comedians and even non-comedian people who said a single tweet or joke cancelled as a result of one off-color joke made.
“And that’s also why there’s so little social stigma for doing so — they’re on top of the heap.”
Would you like to make fun of the black government of South Africa when they’ve been murdering white farmers? Probably not. Even though Apartheid is no longer a thing and hasn’t been in almost 30 years, and the white farmers had nothing to do with it in the first place, many of whom were either children or not born yet when it WAS a thing in South Africa. But you will still be socially stigmatized as a racist if pointing it out in a political setting, and many people have.
Not to mention you’re trying to make the argument that ‘racism = racial discrimination + power’ instead of racism= racial discrimination, which is also a false argument in order to try to claim that minorities cannot be racist (even in areas where they are not the minority for some illogical reason).
“They are not vulnerable.”
They are very obviously vulnerable. Being white does not grant you immunity to being punished by the mob. Especially by a mob of other white people who are trying to prove they arent racist to assuage a white guilt mentality (even if the guilt is completely unfounded). Not to mention actual cases of systematic racism AGAINST white people (and also asians), such as with Affirmative Action and racial quotas, which are by their very definition ‘de facto racism.’
“Just like how you might play a little rougher with your big, tough friends, slug them in the arm or slap them on the back, but wouldn’t do the same with someone smaller or more fragile.”
This is bigoted mentality as well -the concept that black people are not as good as white people, and therefore you must play with kid gloves. This is insulting to black people – the idea that they cannot compete on an even playing field, so the white savior must help them instead of letting them advance by their own merits like other minorities have – like jews, irish, asians, cubans, native hawaiians, etc. (I leave out native americans only because there are actual treaties in place as they were independent nations before the United States basically conquered their lands, although when the US did the same to native hawaiians, there were no treaties about it).
I do not consider black people to be ‘more fragile’ than white people. If anything, if you can deal with adversity and actually overcome it on your own, that makes you LESS fragile than someone (black, white, or other ethnicity or race) who did not have to overcome adversity by their OWN MERIT.
““White” is also an arbitrary classification.”
White is a skin color. It’s based on the melanin count in one’s skin. I do not, and would never, subscribe to something stupid like the ‘one drop rule’ because THAT is arbitrary… and a racist mentality to use. Even native american tribes do not use the ‘one drop’ rule in their treaties to decide of someone is part of the tribe. You actually have to show that you’re a certain percentage of that tribal ancestry (usually 1/4th – ie, 1 grandparent, sometimes as little as 1/16th – ie, at least one great great grandparent) But not ‘great great great etc grandparents. Plus you have to actually be able to show documentation of that ancestry.
The ‘one drop’ rule was an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups. And was the basis for racial integrity laws which were extremely racist, created in the South to try to prevent slaves from getting emancipation.
“You say jews are white, but they haven’t always been considered so.”
Actually, jews can be any race. Judaism is a religion and ethicity, not a racial group when it comes to skin color. There are significant amounts of jews in Ethiopia and Uganda who are black and jewish. I’m korean/native hawaiian, but I’m also jewish because my mother converted before I was born. Therefore even by jewish law, I would be considered jewish, since judaism passes through the maternal line.
Being jewish has nothing to do with being white, any more than being christian, muslim, buddhist, or any other religion has to do with being white.
Jews in nazi germany were white, and were persecuted and murdered en masse in a genocidal attempt to wipe the entire ethnicity off the face of the Earth. White people persecuted other white people.
“The Nazis didn’t consider them to be white.”
The Nazis did not even consider jews to be human. It helped with the German national mentality to slaughter them like animals when you dehumanize a people.
“Are hispanics or latinos white?”
Some are. Some aren’t. And most are mixed race of white+native american or white+northern african. White is a skin color. If you’re going to argue otherwise, then you might as well say that Italians are not white.
You can have a white hispanic person. You can have a white jewish person. You can have a white muslim person. You can have a white middle eastern person. Region and religion can be combined with skin color when describing a person without one category supplanting the other.
Oh also, white English people conquered and essentially enslaved scottish people. Both scottish and english people were mostly white. Or just watch Braveheart. :) Even with the hollywood ‘flair’ to the story, the basis is still correct that the Scots were subjugated by the English.
“I limited it to ‘whites in a white-dominant nation’ because a white in a nation where they are a minority might indeed feel vulnerable or threatened by negative caricatures of white people.”
And yet most white people have at least some level of ‘white guilt.’ And this social stigma ONLY against white people where you can claim racism in one direction only. While ignoring, for example, overt systematic racism in non-western nations as part of their actual laws (China for example – not only against black people, but white people and anyone not of asian descent… sometimes of specifically chinese descent even, even if they LIVE in China and are Chinese citizens, so it’s not even about nationality – it’s about race).
“The average person in that context may not have enough personal experience with the group being stereotyped to disregard it as such, ”
Being ignorant of the fact that racism happens to more than just black people, and in fact is VERY prevalent gainst white people both in the western civilization and worldwide, does not excuse that racism against white people both exists and is ignored. If anything, that makes it worse because there is no social stigma attached when there should be if you (not you specifically – a generalized ‘you’) do not want to be a hypocrite.
It’s funny how you complain about other people putting words in your mouth, or addressing ideas beyond the words you’ve used, and yet won’t constrain your own arguments to what other people have explicitly said.
I’m not arguing that ‘racism = racial discrimination + power’. Discrimination requires power. If you do not have the power to deny someone something, you cannot discriminate against them.
No, they’re not. They are a recognition that racism silently tips the scales against some people, and an attempt to correct for it, balance the scales, and make an actual fair, level playing field. They may not be the most elegant method to do so, but recognizing and correcting for racism is not itself racist.
The belief is not that black people are less capable, but that the playing field isn’t level. On average, they have to perform better than a white person to get the same results. Society gives them a handicap, and people are trying to eliminate that handicap so that they do advance by their own merits, instead of being unfairly denied.
True, but irrelevant. As is often the case when discussing people’s beliefs, and their actions. The nazis didn’t identify or persecute Jews on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Guess what? We’re discussing racism and stupid people. You can’t swap definitions in the middle. We are discussing what other, less enlightened people, consider ‘White’. Interjecting a different definition is useful is discussing whether or not their beliefs are correct, but not so useful in evaluating their actions on the basis of their beliefs.
Yes, racism occurs all over the world, and is even codified in the laws of some countries. It’s wrong, but they’re generally not as hypocritical about it. It’s the hypocrisy that makes America uniquely awful about racism, all the claims about human rights and treating people as equals, while failing to live up to those values. And then, rather than recognizing those failures and trying to do better, doubling down and fighting even harder to pretend otherwise.
“It’s funny how you complain about other people putting words in your mouth, or addressing ideas beyond the words you’ve used, and yet won’t constrain your own arguments to what other people have explicitly said.”
No idea what you’re talking about here. I’m pointing out that you did that to OB Juan by acting like what he said was ignorant. Which is EXACTLY what you said.
Your exact words:
“I’m going to assume that you’re legitimately ignorant of the history of blackface”
Then in the next post:
“You and I have different ideas about O. B. Juan’s intentions.”
“I’m not arguing that ‘racism = racial discrimination + power’. Discrimination requires power.”
Do you see how these two sentences contradict each other?
And no. Discrimination does not require power. If you are a homeless person who hates black people, or hates white people, or hates native americans, or chinese people, that’s still racism, even if the homeless person has no power. If you hated Barack Obama because he’s black…. while you’re some unemployed guy who lives in a trailer park…. who has the power? The unemployed trailer park guy, or the President of the United States?
One sentence, you say that racism does not mean discrimination + power (which it doesn’t, but you were arguing it DOES anyway). The VERY next sentence, you say that discrimination requires power. Which it doesn’t. But since you decide that discrimination requires power, that’s ‘discrimination+power.’
Therefore, in your mindset (which is incorrect), you feel that ‘racism = discrimination+power. Which you did just now EXPLICITLY argue.
“No, they’re not.”
Yes they are. How exactly have asians, for example, had an easy time? Why are they DISCIMINATED against because of their ethnicity and race? And does a poor white person from the Appalacian mountains have an easier time than a wealthy black person? No. Affirmative action IS de facto racism. That’s not even just me saying it. That’s the Supreme Court saying it as well. It’s also how the law defines de facto racism. A major problem WITH affirmative action, and why it’s unconstitutional, is because it flies in the face of the definition of de facto racism. “It’s okay to be racist IF….” “It’s okay to discriminate against a certain set of people solely based on their skin color and/or ethnicity because…” – that’s Affirmative Action.
“They may not be the most elegant method to do so,”
It’s not elegant is a very polite way of saying it’s unconstitutional and racist. :)
“recognizing and correcting for racism is not itself racist.”
By… being racist to other skin colors? Yeah. You can’t use more racism against one or several races to fix past racism against a different race. It’s still RACIST. Not to mention it’s the implication that you think that black people are inferior to other races, and need a white person’s to tip the scales (the very notion of which should already tell you is UNFAIR when you have to TIP SCALES) to help because they are incapable of succeeding without a white savior to lead the way for them. Will people take this unfair advantage? Sure. Because you’d be a fool to NOT take it. But it doesn’t make it right to have it in the law, especially since it violates the 14th Amendment. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is suing Harvard and the University of North Carolina – one a private college, one a state school – over admissions processes that the group contends discriminate against Asian American applicants, and it’s very likely to succeed in declaring Affirmative Action to be unconstitutional.
“The belief is not that black people are less capable, but that the playing field isn’t level.”
If it’s not level, it’s not because of the color of their skin – it’s because of class, social status, and economics. If you based it on that non-racial standard, it would be fair. Since you don’t base it on a non-racial standard, and you base it (ie, discriminate on the decision based on) on race, it is, by its very definition, race discrimination. IE, racist.
“Society gives them a handicap”
Society gives POOR people a handicap. Or rather, society gives rich people an inherent advantage, not based on merit. If that’s your problem – discriminate based on THAT…. not based on race. If you discriminate based on race for something, you are racially discriminating (this should be obvious). And if that something involves government funding or assistance or contracts … that’s more than morally problematic – it’s unconstitutional.
“True, but irrelevant.”
It is literally not irrelevant. You argued that jews are not considered white. I explained that judaism is a religion, and very arguably an ethnicity in some situations, like sephardic judaism,, but not a race, since jews can be white, black, or in my case, mixed native hawaiian/korean.
“The nazis didn’t identify or persecute Jews on the basis of their religious beliefs.”
How on earth do you justify saying THAT? You do also know that the nazis persecuted catholics because they were papists, right? The nazis persecuted other people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It’s the BASIS for why they considered them not human – bigotry based on some defining factor that deviated from the ‘aryan ideal.’ Please don’t play down nazi bigotry as some sort of mere political brinkmanship. It was far worse than that. When the nazis were losing…. they SPED UP the holocaust of the jews to kill as many of them as possible before it happened. If it was just political brinksmanship, they would not have focused their energy on that – they would have taken those resources, and focused them more on their war effort. It was more than political brinksmanship – it was a hatred of anyone who followed judaism.
Or if you want, take countries that follow sharia law. If you are jewish, and convert to islam, you will not be persecuted. If you do not convert, you will be either treated like a second class citizen and be forced to pay the jizya, or you will be put to death. And don’t get me started on the antisemitism on television programs in that part of the world. It has nothing to do with the oppressing party’s race – people who follow islam, and sharia law in particular, can be any skin color, just like jews can be any skin color.
“Guess what? We’re discussing racism and stupid people. You can’t swap definitions in the middle. ”
In what way did I swap definitions?
” We are discussing what other, less enlightened people, consider ‘White’.”
Yes. And those people are the type of people who came up with idiotic notions like ‘the one drop rule.’
“It’s the hypocrisy that makes America uniquely awful about racism, all the claims about human rights and treating people as equals, while failing to live up to those values.”
Please show me the law in the legal or educational or employment system which oppresses minorities.
Wait, you can. Affirmative Action. Except you wouldn’t, because for some reason THAT you do not consider to be systematic racism. The one thing that can most easily be identified as systematic racism.
I think the main problem is you’re confusing the idea that there are people who are racist with ‘the system is racist.’ The system is the laws and the societal stigma, neither of which go in FAVOR of racism. It’s why the accusation that someone is being racist holds so much weight. Because society – especially western society (like the US) rightly considers racism to be an abhorrent thing which should NOT be praised, and should in fact be quite justifiably shunned so that people have a massive DISINCENTIVE to engage in racism. That’s the system being AGAINST racism, not the system being racist.
“And then, rather than recognizing those failures and trying to do better, doubling down and fighting even harder to pretend otherwise.”
13th amendment
14th amendment
15th amendment
19th amendment
Equal Rights Amendment
Brown vs Board of Education overruling Plessy vs Ferguson
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1968
In what way is the US ‘not recognizing past failures?’ Argue based on the system, not based on individual people. People can be racist, and even then… it’s not just white people who can be. Anyone can be, regardless of skin color or ethnicity or national origin. White people are just pretty unique in having so many people who have guilt about their own racial ancestry, at least in the western culture.
“doubling down and fighting even harder to pretend otherwise.”
Btw, you do remember that I’m not white, right? :) I just dislike hypocrisy and like being judged based on merit, intelligence, positive behavior, and work ethic instead of from some surface characteristic like skin color, eye shape, or sex characteristics.
Anyway to stop the tangent, and go back to the main point of the thread, the point being made was you were unfairly characterizing what OB Juan said as ignorant, when he, likewise, was just pointing out the potential for hypocrisy.
I was being gracious in treating O. B. Juan as if he was ignorant — because the alternative was to assume malice.
You’re conflating racism with racial discrimination. Again, I’m not arguing that ‘racism = racial discrimination + power’ — I’m arguing that racism doesn’t require discrimination at all, and doesn’t require power either, but that racial discrimination inherently does. Racial discrimination is racism, but not all racism is racial discrimination.
If someone has been unfairly denied something on the basis of their race, what is the correct response? How do you correct for racism, without considering who might have been affected? If the scales have been tipped, how do you restore them to level? Either you add weight to one side, or remove it from the other.
And the reason for those class, social status, and economic imbalances? I’ll give you a hint: sometimes it’s because of race.
I am in full support of this idea. We should aid everyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of the reason. The goal should be to truly provide equal opportunity, rather than assume it exists in a vacuum.
The nazis, like most people with anti-semitic views, believe that Jews can be identified by physical characteristics. It does not matter that Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity. What matters is that some people are being identified, labeled, and persecuted on the basis of racial characteristics.
America is not a set of laws. It’s a population, and their beliefs, their behavior. Regardless, there are many laws that have disparate impact, that were targeted to harm black people more than white, without specifically mentioning race. And that’s the dominant tactic, because the people behind those laws know that overt racism won’t fly, but covert racism will go right by people like you. The most readily available examples are in drug laws, particularly the drastic differences in penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine usage was predominately among blacks, while powder cocaine was primarily used by whites. Harsher enforcement for crack cocaine was a means of targeting and harming black populations without being overtly racist. There are many other, more subtle examples, in which politicians use statistics to indirectly target specific populations while providing cover for their intentions. And it’s effective because so many people only look at the surface, and can’t identify patterns.
“I was being gracious in treating O. B. Juan as if he was ignorant — because the alternative was to assume malice.”
Now you’re just being mean to OB Juan. He was neither ignorant nor malicious. He was being logical and not requiring a lack of hypocrisy.
“You’re conflating racism with racial discrimination.”
I beg of you Torabi, please check the dictionary. Racism is literally defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group”
So yes, to be racist, it means discriminating on the basis of race. I have no idea what sort of newspeak definition you’re using if you do not think ‘racism’ requires discrimination/antagonism/prejudice. There’s no conflation – it’s the literal meaning of the word.
“I’m arguing that racism doesn’t require discrimination at all,”
Then you don’t understand the definition of racism and whatever definition you use for that word is meaningless.
“and doesn’t require power either,”
Then that’s literally the one area agree. It doesnt require power. Just discrimination, antagonism, or prejudice based on race/ethnicity. Which, again, is the DEFINITION OF THE WORD. I’m not sure why so often in posts I have to point out the actual definitions for words when people come up with their own unique spins on established definitions.
“If someone has been unfairly denied something on the basis of their race, what is the correct response?”
If you’re asking for the LEGAL response, it’s suing in court because discrimination based is subject to what, in the law, is known as ‘strict scrutiny.’ At which point you can usually get damages, and sometimes can force the defendant to do or refrain from doing a certain act which would be racially discriminatory.
If you’re asking what to do if someone is unfair to another person because they’re racist OTHER than in a legal setting? Nothing except social stigma of being called out as a racist, which in Western culture is extremely effective, actually (often even if person being accused did not actually do anything racist in the first place).
“How do you correct for racism, without considering who might have been affected?”
This is a meaningless question, because you do not correct for past racism by commiting PRESENT racism. That’s something people learn when they’re children. Two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot correct bad behavior from people in the past by inflicting bad behavior on innocent people in the present and future. You are literally trying to make an excuse to yourself be racist because someone in the past may have been racist. You make yourself the type of person you claim to be fighting against. Not to mention, I will repeat, it’s extremely narcissistic to think that a particular person NEEDS the ‘white savior’s’ help entirely based on the color of their skin. Bigotry of low expectations. It’s not even universal bigotry of low expectations, because it’s only directed at ONE racial group. It’s not directed at Asians. They actually are discriminated against MORE because of their skin color as a result of Affirmative Action…. and they’re an even smaller minority in the US. It’s not directed at jews… again they’re a much smaller minority, which a much longer history of enslavement and attempts by others to genocide them off the planet. It’s not directed at Pacific Islanders, an even smaller still minority. And if you say these other groups have not had a history of being harmed, then you would be the one being ignorant of history (not OB Juan). I’m going to assume you would not say that though, since I do not think you’re an ignorant person.
“And the reason for those class, social status, and economic imbalances? I’ll give you a hint: sometimes it’s because of race.”
I like how you put in the qualifier ‘sometimes.’ Yes. SOMETIMES it’s race. Often it’s not. And since it’s not always because of race, you do not make a LAW or RULE based on race. You make the law or rule based on class, economic situation, and social status – the thing that can be applied REGARDLESS OF RACE. Othewise…. you’re being racist. You are discriminating based on race. And like you admitted before…. racial discrimination is racist.
“The goal should be to truly provide equal opportunity, rather than assume it exists in a vacuum.”
Correct. SO why are you so focused on RACE? Base the assistance on economic standing, not race. In which case… Affirmative Action should not exist, period. Because it’s racist. Advantages for the poor, on the other hand, is not racist. The poor can be any race.
“America is not a set of laws. It’s a population, and their beliefs, their behavior.”
Ummm…. no.
America is based on a philosophy that was set into a written Constitution which made the nation unque from prior civilizations. America is not just ‘population.’ And the beliefs are codified papers like the Constution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, etc. Mainly the Constitution. Which is the principal set of laws of the United States that all other laws rely upon for those laws interprations. Otherwise, we’re not actually Americans. We’re just a bunch of disparate people who happen to live in the same region and can’t cooperate at all on anything without force of the strong overpowering the weak.
“The nazis, like most people with anti-semitic views, believe that Jews can be identified by physical characteristics”
Skin color not being one of those characteristics.
“It does not matter that Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity.”
It sure does to jewish people who are jewish as an actual belief system.
“What matters is that some people are being identified, labeled, and persecuted on the basis of racial characteristics.”
You are again wrong. They were not identified based on racial characteristics. They were identified based on religious characteristics, manner of dress, nation of origin, and state records.
“there are many laws that have disparate impact, that were targeted to harm black people more than white, without specifically mentioning race.”
Name some.
“but covert racism will go right by people like you.”
By people like me I’m assuming you mean the korean/native hawaiian mixed-race people, who surely get mistaken as white all the time. That was sarcasm btw. :)
“The most readily available examples are in drug laws, particularly the drastic differences in penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine.”
Actually, crack cocaine had higher penalties because black politiicans pushed for higher penalties, and crack cocaine (a far more deadly drug than powdered cocaine) was a problem in black neighborhoods. Instead of comparing crack cocaine penalties to powdered cocaine, compare the penalties to crack cocaine (prominent in black communities), to the penalties for meth (prominent in WHITE communities). The penalties are the SAME. It’s not because of race – it’s because of the problem each drug has in different regions, which just happen to contain higher percentages of different races.
It’s not racist.
“There are many other, more subtle examples, in which politicians use statistics to indirectly target specific populations while providing cover for their intentions.”
Again… NAME SOME.
“[…]Name some.” They already did, but sure.
Stop and frisk? Redlining? An easy example is voter suppression. Would you look at jim crow laws and go “well, I don’t see how this law about literacy and counting jellybeans can be racist, it doesn’t mention race at all!” The problem isn’t that the laws are racist in the letter of the law but that they enable racism. You still need protections that look at race because racists aren’t race blind. You need metrics to keep things honest.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020
That said, you’re correct in that we should broadly tackle economic inequality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ui1x-eKIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
“They already did, but sure.”
He named one which was actually racially neutral and based on black politicians wanting to get rid of a problem in neighborhoods that happened to be black. And when you compare it to meth in white neighborhoods, the sentences are EXACTLY THE SAME. It’s not because of race – it’s because of the different drugs that were prevalent in different areas with different demographics.
“Stop and frisk?”
Stop and Frisk is racially neutral in its makeup. And when it was applied racially, it was deemed unconstitutional. If it’s used without the element of race, it is neutral and constitutional. Next?
“Redlining?”
Redlining was also declared unconstitutional. You might as well use segregation if you are going to list examples of things that have been DECLARED UNCONSTITIONAL, thus disproving Torabi’s and your points. Next?
“An easy example is voter suppression.”
If you’re talking about Jim Crow laws… again… THEY WERE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If you’re talking about modern day attempts to have voter ID laws, those are racially neutral for a racially neutral reason, and not unconstitutional because they are not systematically racist. If you are of the opinion that black people are incapable of possessing IDs like any other race, then THAT is a racist mindset.
“You still need protections that look at race because racists aren’t race blind”
There already are protections in place. The SYSTEM is not racist. Which is why the examples you gave were declared unconstitutional.
The point I am making is you should not make laws based on race, or use racist laws to fix racist past outcomes. You should instead use a racially neutral standpoint.
PS – everything I’ve written is stuff you can learn from a Constitutional Law class. It’s basic legal history.
It’s not my fault that race hustlers and far too many many activists (including at the ACLU) are ignorant of legal history and methodology because they want to use emotional appeal over legal facts and consistency. A few decades ago, the ACLU actually agreed with everything I wrote because they were, and still are, basic legal principles.
Well said; great point. “Whiteface” or “Whitewashing” should be considered the same level of cultural misappropriation.
the link to the “Not to be seen” picture is broken for me…
And I am having a hard time figuring out if it’s intentional or not, because a broken link to a picture about stealth/not being seen is kind of perfect…
Check the first page of comments
If it was 1 super for 200 000 or 100 000
Uk 340 – 680 supers
France 340 – 680 supers
Germany 420 – 840 supers
Japan 625 -1 250 supers
Russia 730 – 1460 supers
USA 1 605 – 3 310 supers
European Union 2 236 – 4 472 supers
India 6 630 – 13 260 supers
China 7 058 – 14 117 supers
It put India and China as a leader as super powered beings
And in this regard Russia is dwarfed …
and then comes the X variables such as willingness to join military, authorities, or criminal activities vs keeping to themselves (the personality variable), and then the big one we don’t know at what ratio different classes of supers exist.
In the Grrl power universe I doubt anything below a D class super can exist, especially if physique changes are required. Although being an F class or Z *Null or hidden* class super yet have a natural super physique would be funny.
But if a nation has like 10,000 D and C class supers but another gets 300 S class supers, that country with 300 S classes could mop the floor with the 10,000 D and C classes. And if a country even gets 1 Omega class super and no one else gets an Omega they are basically holding the power card there *although with only 1 its less we could conquer the world and more destroy as conquering requires a great deal of infrastructure and occupation forces.
so yeah the frequency of difference classes of supers within those numbers can also make a huge difference.
Wasn’t the change in physique about local ideals? No every nation is fixated on the bodybuilder and air-head Barbie looks
I assumed it was based on the individual ideal if beauty hence Anvil and Harem not being the same body type, assuming the power and body starts to manifest around puberty.
For India willingness to join military – military prestige -is prety higth, in UE it depends France, Poland, Greece and Italy are comparable to USA in Germany less , in UK is also on part with USA.
In China you have not the choice …
In actual Russia , military is not so impressive , for exemple my country – 68 Million inhabitants, GDP 2 936.702 G$ (PPA GDP 3 677.579 G$ ) 248,573 sq mi ( bigger than Ukraine 233,062 sq mi with Crimea ) and about 300 nukes – could defend against Russia even it will be costly and bloody.
As Pander points out below one of the ratio factors is uneven distribution as well as willingness to fight in some capacity.
of course the other variable which we have less information on, the distribution and ratio of higher vs lower power classes of supers. If one nation has a thousand or more D class or C class supers, good for them that’s an army of guys with anything from being able to fly like thirty to a hundred feet before they lose stability moderate to double or triple walking speed, mind puppetry, geokinesis able to make basic rock pillars and spikes, prokinetics able to support and enhance flame etc…
but even one S class super, well trained and with finesse in almost any power set is a threat to almost ALL those supers and anyone else around, without even having to factor in what an Omega can do.
Even if we don’t look at the show or usually viewed as combat power sets like energy manipulation, elemental, radiation, etc… something with say S class telepathy.
Can read anyone’s mind for hundreds of miles, potentially detect intent, control multiple minds over a wide area *so detect a sniper via intent to kill and control them to kill someone else* or combat zone wise, keep this S class telepath protected in the back of the ranks and they can make an entire army turn their weapons on each other, make large populated areas commit suicide; or if they have the finesse training…target the autonomic nervous system of hundreds if not thousands of people over an entire city and simply turn off automatic breathing, or the pulse that keeps the heart growing, and just kill an entire city that way.
Just boasting one has an upper class super makes your nation and likely that super a priority kill granted (Maxima is definitely A at rest and can boost one skill to S, and Sidney is gaining in power, and while other nations don’t know it as its classified she could be an omega in the making.
But that’s the hidden variable, not just how many like that or the other power classes appear and where, but their distribution, numbers, and personalities in relation to aiding or working against the authorities of their nation. and then add in if the public would even be allowed to know a given super’s power class *some could play a weaker one as stronger, or downplay a stronger one to prevent the being targeted, and only use when the time is right, or a last resort.
Nice numbers, although it does make an assumption that super population is uniform throughout the world based solely on a percentage of population. As we’ve seen from Galytn, this is not necessarily how super populations work or are distributed.
Also there were a few statement made during the press briefing by Arianna that also implies that supers as a percentage of the population are not based solely, or even at all, on the population size. It could be a variety of other factors that causes ‘super-ism.’ Although a key factor SEEMS to be that developed nations are more likely to produce supers.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-145-lets-talk-numbers/
(panel 4 and 5)
Arianna: “It appears that developed nations arem ore likely to produce someone with powers. No one knows why that is. Nutrition may be a factor. Pollution, exposure to wi-fi, vaccination or even literacy rates for all we know. Or, all or none of the above.”
I think the REAL question that we should be acting here is whether the lionesses have the power to merge together into a giant lioness.
So tiny pixies in different color uniforms crawl down their throats and activate key locks in their stomachs to morph them into Mecha that then combine…and I just predicted a Voltron based successor that weird dragon jets anime.
Someone’s either been watching too much Voltron, too much Power Rangers, or too much Transformers that have the Constructicons, Aerobots, and Combaticons in the shows. :)
Or that Rick and Morty episode. ;)
So what’s her name, Cheshire Lioness or something else that has to do with Shape Shifting?
Of course you have eyes, I just figured you had brains to go with them.
Do not insult, the other posters!
I agree that insulting other posters is a bad thing and usually shows that you already have no good arguments. Just confused who Mike is responding to.
Its so much easier just to send ninjas and candygrams by Cleavon Little.
Mike is providing alternative dialogue for the lioness, in response to the gang member with a gun in her back. Quotation marks might have made that more clear.
Yes, quotation marks would have made that MUCH clearer :) Thank you for clearing that up.
I was trying to figure out what POSTER Mike was responding to… especially with Lady Chaos’s response implying that it was to another poster.
Uh, Mike is responding to the guy’s question in panel five? What’s with this denouncement?
https://xkcd.com/386/
duty calls.
Okay, just had to sign on and post this because no one else has said it yet: when Anvil gently chides NotSydney in the second panel, it’s because the Lioness is.. *wait for it* ..being catty.
*feels the Earth shake underfoot as Pander’s vast ninja army deploys against DaveB*
I’m unable to send a ninja army against DaveB, because if they were successful, I would not have this webcomic to read, and since it’s my favorite webcomic, DaveB gets a pass on puns.
If you make a webcomic that I love, you may have a pass as well. FOR THAT COMIC.
Sooo…this as-yet unnamed super…her powers seem to be similar in nature to Feral/Maria Callesantos. Enhanced agility/strength, prehensile tail, razor-sharp claws/fangs, enhanced senses…am I anywhere near the ballpark?