Grrl Power #389 – Interview to a kill
There’s been some debate as to whether Deus is actually evil or not, I would suggest giving it a few pages before deciding. In my mind, good and evil can’t be absolutes, they exist on a spectrum. Is killing always an absolute wrong? In a hypothetical situation, killing one person to save two is objectively the better choice. Some people might debate that, to me it’s clear the best path is the one that does the least harm, so taking X lives to save X+1 lives is a no brainer. Of course there are rarely such clear cut choices in real life. What about killing two junkies to save one doctor, four kidnappers to save one scientist, or every televangelist to save one… anyone who isn’t a televangelist?
A Lawful Good Paladin kills a bandit, does that make him evil? What if the bandit only wanted the saddlebag of apples to feed his family? If the Paladin knew the bandit’s intentions and killed him anyway, then probably yes, if not, then no, at least not from the Paladin’s point of view. The son of the bandit might feel differently. Not only are good and evil not absolutes, they are relative values depending on the observer. That’s why bad guys rarely think of themselves as bad guys. Stealing from a bank that shattered the economy and took thousands of people’s homes, and the CEO not only didn’t go to jail, he got a massive bonus? Fairly easy to justify. The cops are working for the government which works for the banks and their job is to maintain the status quo. Are they good or bad in this situation? Robbing the CEO of his bonus would be easier to justify, and possibly more ethical, but does that then shift the value of the cops’ actions?
This is usually how Deus works, by miring people in semantic debates and inching their position ever closer to his, and I should add, with considerably more skill that I can legitimately muster. That’s why it’s difficult to write smart characters. There’s almost no chance the person writing them is smarter the character. An inventor or scientist, sure, throw out some technobabble and then show the thing they invented, but writing a genuinely intelligent character is tough. One of the few really good examples I can think of is Hannibal, or at least the first two seasons. Hannibal approaches situations in that show with forethought and planning that borders on Batman level absurd, but if you were really 65 IQ up on everyone else around you, things that seem like ridiculous foresight to someone else might come as second nature to you. Deus hasn’t really displayed this yet, since doing so either takes a lot of text or a long plot in which characters can reveal their machinations. I think that’s part of the reason why most smart characters come across as intelligent but unwise. They have flashes of brilliance but no long game.
Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.
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.
I think it was SMBC that pointed out that if Batman saved X lives, then the guy who killed Batman’s parents saved X-2 lives that day…
Mathematically sound.
Wow, this got real dark real fast.
There are no “good” nor “evil”. Such notions are merely tools of social manipulation.
ok sasuke, i hope you dont cut yourself with that edge and you enjoy your hot topic merchandise
now talking seriously there is definetly good and evil, there is also plenty of grey areas and moral dilemas inbetween, things most of the time arent as simple but sometimes they trully are
It’s easy to fool people with moral relativism if they don’t have a “gold standard” to go by.
Good and evil are neither relative nor absolute–they’re provisional. Case in point: most of us reading this would agree that killing someone merely for possessing a different opinion than you would be murder, but what if the person holding the different opinion felt that it was a moral imperative to kill everyone who didn’t hold his specific religious beliefs and he had repeatedly acted on that belief, despite all other attempts to persuade him otherwise? One religion’s holy warrior is another religion’s terrorist.
In other words, you show me a saint, I’ll show you a sinner with really good PR.
show me sinner, and i can show you saint who people used good pr to bring down…honestly happens all the time.
for once that is why we have jails, courts and a law system, its not perfect but is better than going around trying to solve problems based on the personal moral system of everyone because maybe one person considers that cutting the hand of a kid that stealed a piece of bread is a reasonable responce and “just justice” and i think we can agree that isnt very good
the thing is good and evil do exist, they are shaky but saying they they dont exist or that they are “social constructs” is just downright stupid, yeah there are grey areas and moral dilemas but lets say that i burn down an orphanage and then i say that its because one of the orphans there was going to become the future hitler and i had to stop him, alright but did i really had to burn down the entire orphanage to accomplish that objective? and it wouldnt be posible to instead try to provide that orphan with an apropiate education and oportunities so that he doesnt goes full genocide?
the world is black, white and shades of gray
Kind of a necro, I know (hly crap, started a few days ago in the 2013 comics, I’m already just a year behind?! Not good for my binging habit when I catch up :'(
I gotta chime in with opposite perspective from what I’m seeing in some comments.
Neither intent, nor emotion can be used to define good/evil. The bandit on the road may be stealing the saddlebag of apples to feed his family, but a good intent does not excuse an evil act.
The bandit’s son is understandably distraught at the death of his father, but just because someone is upset, does not make an action evil.
I mean, ya gotta go back to the obvious. Hitler’s intent was to purify the earth and leave only the perfect Aryan race behind. From his perspective and intent, he was the most zealous of do-gooders. Does that then make Hitler good? I should certainly hope anyone reading this responds with “no.”
Good and Evil are absolutes, and are neither modified nor changed by human intent or feeling.
For example, murder is wrong regardless of the circumstance, killing two junkies to save one doctor is still evil, at most its the lesser of two evils; but what if the junkies are in rehab and about to revolutionize a 100% success rate of addiction release, and the Dr. is later revealed as Kevorkian? You can spin hypotheticals however you like, but that also does not change the absolute of good and evil.
It’s not the popular opinion of today’s moral relativistic culture, but popularity does not change fact. See the famous line/social pleasing experiment where people who clearly saw line A as shortest:
A. —-
B ————–
Were peer pressured into picking choice B when three other research plants fervently stated it was B. In most cases the subject went with the crowd. Didn’t make him any less wrong.
I’m re-reading the comics and came back around to this one and decided to delve the comments. I’m glad I did because this is relevant even more so as time goes on. Moral Relativism is bull and there are OBJECTIVE truths that can and should be upheld.
Murder is bad. It’s why soldiers often come home from battle fucked up. Violence and stress mess with them, sure. Yet every one of them says that it was the killing that really did it. The killing of another human messed with them more than anything else even though their killing is justified/necessary. It’s because it’s so relatable. Only soldiers who are sociopaths/psychopaths don’t really end up with that. Or people who can compartmentalize REALLY well.
Thin end of the wedge is pushing our society over the edge.
That successfully shows that murder is bad…for the murderer. That taking life is painful and hard and bad for your mental well being. And that seems entirely reasonable and obvious.
But there are other things that are bad for the people doing them, either mentally or physically. But that still need to be done, or have a positive effect on society as a whole. Does the existence of those jobs also “push society over the edge”?
Also, oh crap! My first comment on this amazing series was to pseudo necro (ok…kinda full on lich style) a thread and disagree with the author of said awesome comic…
ah well, my super power, much like sydney is uncaring moldbreaking individuality and general awkwardness..
Also lowering the bar of excellence…I’m like S class on that one! :P
Sorry to necro, just re-reading the archives, and the commentary hit a sore spot-
Killing is sometimes necessary to protect those who cannot protect themselves, i.e. child molesters, killing them is protecting other children.
If necessary sure but there are other ways to protect the children from them.
I disagree that motive determines ethics, because people all too easily bullshit themselves with self-justifications. They perform atrocities because they are motivated to, then rose tint their reflection of themselves so they can face themselves in the mirror. They may cast others as moral scum just to prop up themselves. Casting judgement on others is the common refuge of the hypocrite. Any sociopathic CEO can claim their business to be philanthropy, drawing attention to its economic/technological/community benefits and away from its antisocial practices and devastating knock-on costs.
When villains like this have their illusions shattered, they may spiral swiftly into self-destruction but may also turn to a path of genuine redemption, depending on their actual sense of justice. For example, at the end of Serenity the Big Bad Operative wasn’t dead or redeemed, and though he betrayed his sense of ethics by putting trust in a government that betrayed his justification, he showed he still hadn’t lost his ethical compass.
Actually, Malcolm was another who bullshit himself with justifications. He claimed his crimes were necessary to survive the circumstances the Alliance had left him in, but the reality is that he still carried a chip on his shoulder, and never passed up an opportunity to screw the Alliance or at least poke them in the eye. At least his methods and (most) objectives were still ethical enough to be sympathetic, but that’s also why he remained too stubborn to seek redemption. He could always find others with enough resentment toward the Alliance to validate him.
Another resurrection of the topic: the question of whether Deus is good or evil reminds me of a similar question about one of the lead villains from Disney’s “Gargoyles”, David Xanatos. The man generally credited as the creator of the show, Greg Weisman, argued that Xanatos was neither – he was amoral. Good and evil don’t necessarily factor into what he does.
Deus seems to be an even better execution of the concept. He won’t hesitate to help those suffering, if there’s enough for him to gain from it. Nor will he hesitate to eliminate any obstacle to such gains.