Grrl Power #1002 – Windtalkers
Yes, of course we’ll meet Sydney Sr. in just a bit, but he’s probably getting autographs or something.
Sydney got in trouble a fair amount growing up, and her and her mom eventually developed this disciplinarian semaphore so Laura could scold her daughter without needing to stop other conversations. Also, they can have obligatory “How was school?” / “Fine.” conversations without actually needing to speak.
More parental insights to come.
Tamer: Enhancer 2 – Progress Update:
It’s basically done. Like a dozen more paragraphs. I might even finish it tonight depending on how long this page took to post.
November’s vote incentive is still up. Thanksgiving break put me a little behind so I’ll try and have the new picture up with monday’s page.
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.
Sydney’s mom is hot
You mean that Sydney’s mom has got it going on?
I saw what you did there… and it was awesome. :)
Sydney’s Kim does not look old enough to be the mom of a twenty-something year old.
Uch. I meant “mom”.
Scoville is a friend
Yeah I know he’s been a good friend of mine
But something’s changed
It ain’t hard to define
Scoville’s got himself a girl
And I want to make her mine
She definitely appears too young.
To be fair, Sydney also appears quite a bit younger than she is, so that could just be consistency….
considering how varied in appearance I have seen people in my own family and working retail, I find these kind of comments odd as two people of the same age can look dramatically different. I have seen forty year olds that look twenty, and I have seen forty year olds who look seventy based on these age stereotypes.
All the Scovilles are hot. It’s the nature of the family name.
Dang it, you actually made me laugh out loud…
She is obviously not a super. Having a different figure makes her hotter.
What, you’re expecting Sydney’s mom to NOT cook something spicy enough burn through to the Earth’s core?
im expecting that her home has an warnimg sign about risks of not wearing two hazmat suits for self protection around the house and an ban for any chili cooking contests in the world for murdering jurors with their mild chili.
you got it all wrong, she doesn’t use chili, she uses Mandragora.
Did you think those other bits were tomato?!
I didn’t originally believe in it, but I’ve reluctantly had to admit, as a married man, that family telepathy really IS a thing, even if the bandwidth is low, and it suffers from a LOT of lost packets.
Ever seen horses or dogs or crows interacting? There are huge information channels just in posture and tension and movement. And that’s not even considering smell. We’re particularly good at talking, so we tend to ignore the rest of it.
Only consciously, speaking as someone who had to learn the hard way what everyone else seems to understand intuitively, I can speak with absolute confidence that it isn’t ignored, just not consciously noticed most of the time. If it were simply ignored my life would have been so much simpler.
I can only assume you’re referring to being on the autism spectrum, and though I was never diagnosed, and my oldest son has been, I can see a few of his difficulties in me. I think if I was anywhere on the spectrum, it was very high functioning and I managed without too much formal assistance, but I was not popular nor understood by my peers. Regardless of my “placement” and/or possible compensation, it is frustrating for him to miss things that I see, and hard to keep my cool sometimes -_- love him to death, but…. no. I love him. I hope I can help him walk that line of staying true to himself while finding the happiest compromise between fitting in and not stressing about fitting in.
I am on the spectrum, yes. I sincerely wish your son is able to find that compromise, I like to think that I have for the most part, but unfortunately there will always be days where the feeling of separation from the flock is weightier than others. There is comfort in the knowledge that others feel it too, cold comfort though it may be, it is still comfort.
Clever Hans (a famous horse, look him up!) was a _master_ at this.
Strange, it looks like Halo got her father’s hair color, usually that gets passed from the mother’s side.
My son got my hair color, it’s not terribly unusual.
It looks like he got all of it. Better make him give some of it back already!
Oh, my first wife took the hair, along with my life savings. Fortunately, I married up (Young AND beautiful!), and now she’s a cat lady, so I can’t say she got the best of it.
There comes a time in every woman’s life that she begins to gather cats. This is known as the many paws.
Oooh, Pander’s gonna get you hard for that one :D
Yes, I decided that was such a bad pun on multiple levels that I’ve sent a double helping of ninja hit squads to Mark’s home.
The punishment for cat-astrophically bad puns is serval ninja squads.
After they’re done with Mark, they said they’d make a stopover at your home since I’m such a good customer.
Ro serves them good food, that’s why they stopover
*Slash*
*crash*
*boom*
Sorry for the inconvenience PPO(pander pun oppressors) the TNT(Terrible Ninja Team) is on the case.
Welcome to the dark side Mark, we’ll send you the invite for the monthly BBQs and the “Always Expect Ninjas” pamphlet.
Erm, sometimes. The many-paws is also for collecting woofs, for those who follow the canine.
Shouldn’t that be for those who share your dogma?
Genetics are less binary and more a random rolling table with modifiers theres every chance sydney sr. Has dark hair as well i have a cousin whos the only blonde in the family for atleast 3 generations its a recesive gene same w red hair
4d6 drop lowest, alright, and we have… three one’s… and a two… lets just put that into our ability to stop swearing. Next?
Can confirm. Studied bioinformatics in college which had genetics pre-reqs.
Height is like an armful of d20’s, eyecolor is similar to the dice in a D&D fight with a psionic goblin chief, even fricken gender is rolling more than 50 d10s. (Side note: For anyone who complains about ‘all these new genders’… I’ve read the research papers and done the math. They’re going easy mode on you. Really REALLY REALLYeasy.)
Gender as in the modern definition of “which sexist stereotypes do you best conform to”? Because by that definition, many of the attributes that define gender aren’t even based on genetics, but are strongly affected by upbringing. People who make up genders distinct from sex are basically just promoting sexist stereotypes. There’s countless factors that make someone who they are, and it makes no sense to segregate people by some socially constructed subset of them.
Sex, by the way, is well defined (based on biological reproductive roles) and binary in humans, determined by chromosome types, and the phenotype between the legs. Exceptions can be found by looking up intersex on wikipedia. And those people who have chromosomal disorders or birth defects and similar are not served by ignoring the facts about their issues by redefining male and female to be based on sexism.
imagine responding to someone who at least represents as an expert with that reductive strawman at the beginning of your post. thanks for illustrating dunning-kruger for us.
What does someone being an expert on genetics have to do with their knowledge of the modern definition of gender? The definition of gender I pointed out is not a strawman, but the actual definition of it. The WHO uses words like “social construct” to make the implications less obvious, but the paraphrase I provided is accurate. My post was asking if they were using that definition, since implying a pure genetic basis, no matter how complicated, for sexist stereotypes/social constructs is clearly not right. I added in the stuff on sex for clarity on a related and often confused point that (usually) has very simple genetics.
What does it say about our society that instead of challenging those sexist stereotypes, they attempt to leverage them?
In case it isn’t clear to anyone (I think Torabi gets me), I am fully in favor of tearing down sexist stereotypes. Seems to be a general thing that some of the people most vocal about stereotypes end up promoting them at least indirectly.
Gender as in the modern definition of “which sexist stereotypes do you best conform to”? Because by that definition, many of the attributes that define gender aren’t even based on genetics, but are strongly affected by upbringing. People who make up genders distinct from sex are basically just promoting sexist stereotypes. There’s countless factors that make someone who they are, and it makes no sense to segregate people by some socially constructed subset of them.
Sex, by the way, is well defined (based on biological reproductive roles) and binary in humans, determined by chromosome types, and the phenotype between the legs. Exceptions can be found by looking up intersex on wikipedia. And those people who have chromosomal disorders or birth defects and similar are not served by ignoring the facts about their issues by redefining male and female to be based on sexism.
> Sex, by the way, is well defined (based on biological reproductive roles) and binary in humans, determined by chromosome types, and the phenotype between the legs. Exceptions can be found by looking up intersex on wikipedia.
You just contradicted yourself.
Sex is bimodal. Not binary.
If it was binary, then there couldn’t be any exceptions.
> People who make up genders distinct from sex are basically just promoting sexist stereotypes.
Ahh, you’re a transphobe. No wonder you’re getting this wrong.
Please stop telling lies, liar. Medicalizing disagreement is a low, vile, Republican-style ploy. You are being the worst sort of dishonest and engaging in preemptive gaslighting. And you know you’re doing it
Apparently you couldn’t even read what I wrote, there are precisely 2 sexes as it relates to reproduction, you can’t fill 95% of one role and 5% of the other as your “bimodal” claim would imply. Me acknowledging some few people can’t fill any reproductive role, doesn’t change that. (And if you bother to look up intersex, you will see that many conditions that are sometimes defined as intersex, such as where just genetics would imply they are different such as triple X chromosomes, still are actually clear cut under the reproductive role definition)
That you see the need to attack me by falsely calling me a transphobe when I simply point out that the modern definition of gender is rooted in sexism just goes to show how poor your position and understanding is. You apparently can’t even respond to what I wrote. Why would I be afraid of “trans” people? In general if anything I feel sorry for them, because in general they are the victims of sexism, due to society pushing a sexist definition of gender.
Binary: *ONLY* two possible states.
Bimodal: *MOSTLY* two possible states.
Sex is bimodal, not binary. The existence of intersex people prove this.
Also, more organs than the gonads exhibit sexual dimorphism (including the brain, btw). And depending on when in the hormone washing each one develops, can be different sexes to each other.
> Why would I be afraid of “trans” people?
You know that’s not what transphobia means. Don’t be disingenious.
For the 3rd time, there are exactly 2 roles in human reproduction no more or less. Without first acknowledging that you can’t even begin to properly discuss intersex issues. (Which I will not go into detail on here, the only thing that matters at this level is acknowledging their existence.)
Yes there are things that trend differently between men and women, obvious examples being amount of body hair and breast cancer rates, though as your phrasing implies they aren’t all universal. None of them affect the definition for sex that I stated. The existence of those trends does make it more important for purposes like medical diagnosis to not use made up sexist stereotypes to define male and female.
Apparently you have been misusing the word transphobia, because you don’t know what phobia means. I don’t really care what way you meant it, because the most common ways it gets misused are equally insulting and not true of me. As well as completely irrelevant to the fact the gender is currently defined in terms of sexism.
> there are exactly 2 roles in human reproduction no more or less.
Actually there are three. “Not possible” is the one you’re ignoring.
So even by your (very strange and not-at-all common) definition, you’re wrong.
> Apparently you have been misusing the word transphobia, because you don’t know what phobia means.
Ahh, you’re using pedantry to deflect critisism and hide from your beliefs being called out.
—
Why do you consider the gonads more important than the brain?
The gonads are important in basically two contexts: medical treatment and reproduction. We should certainly recognize them, and be able to distinguish between different types of them, in those contexts, but shouldn’t allow them to control pretty much anything else. But I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate sex and gender as many people do, no matter which they’re arguing should be more important.
“not possible/none” doesn’t really count as a separate role under this definition, but if you want to include it, that makes three rigid categories, trinary. There is no spread or bit here bit there as implied by your claim of bimodal.
The definition I provided for sex is THE definition, it is not just common, but it is the only actual one, just Google sex definition and you get:(as a noun, and discounting “intercourse”, which we aren’t talking about)
“either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.”
Exactly 2, and based on reproductive role. Just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
“Ahh, you’re using pedantry to deflect critisism and hide from your beliefs being called out.”
You are the one who got pedantic about exactly what insult you were throwing at me as a distraction from the fact of the definitions I provided.
I never said that the gonads are more important than the brain, but there are real reasons in a few circumstances to divide people by gonads (when looking for relationships, or in a locker room where I’d rather only people with the same parts as me would see me)
Focusing on trends of differences in the brain (even worse socially invented ones that may be baseless) just leads to direct sexism like claiming one sex is better at math so the other shouldn’t be engineers.
Torabi:The modern definition of gender splits sex from gender by defining gender as sexist stereotypes. Under that definition is is purely horrible to ever consider dividing people in any context by gender. If we want to actually get rid of sexism, then either we have to stop referring to gender in almost all circumstances, or revert to using gender as an alternative word for sex when we want to avoid reference to “intercourse” (for example things like RF cable connections are usually called gender.) I don’t see any other obvious or sensible alternate new definition or anyone suggesting one.
> either of the two main categories
You see that word there that you ignored? The word “main”? That means there are other catagories.
> (when looking for relationships, or in a locker room where I’d rather only people with the same parts as me would see me)
Yes, we know you’re a transphobe, no need to go on about it.
> I never said that the gonads are more important than the brain
You are, by focusing on people’s gonads’s sex, not their brain’s sex. (The brain is sexually dimorphic, and therefor describing it as a “sexed organ” is perfectly appropriate)
> The modern definition of gender splits sex from gender by defining gender as sexist stereotypes.
I think you’ll find that tomboys and femboys mere existence completely destroys your argument here.
For example, Sydny Scoville, self-declared tomboy.
—
If you were actually a gender abolitionist you’d be supportive of trans people. Because normalizing “unusual” expressions of gender is the most realistic path to the social construct going away.
But you’re acting just like the pro-forced-birth idiots who refuse to support free contraception and sex education.
—
I’m curious, do you think Trump lost the last election?
I explicitly did not ignore the word main, I explicitly mentioned the existence of intersex. The definition of sex explicitly excludes the few types of intersex that don’t fit a reproductive role.
Name-calling again only shows that you can’t make a coherent argument. This time because I share in a rather common desire for a type of privacy while changing.
Brains are not a direct reproductive organ so they do not have sex, they have “gender” and the existence of tomboys etc. is just proof of why the sexist stereotypes that form the definition of gender are stupid.
Normalizing more nuanced sexism, is the exact opposite of abolishing sexism.
Per your digression, you seem to be one of the idiots who thinks that (outside of the obvious horrific crime) a woman can get pregnant without having made the relevant choice, and should be free from the consequences of that choice even if it means murdering a baby. (Yes birth control is very effective, but it is not perfect, and it should not be pretended to be perfect.)
You are acting just like the hypocrites who tried and failed to overturn the results of the election on Jan 6 claiming they were doing so in the name of democracy. Your denial of the definition of sex, and then misuse of the term roughly 2 sentences after I quoted the definition, is the type of rewriting of language characteristic from newspeak (see the authoritarian government of the book 1984.) To properly get rid of sexism you have to first recognize the definition of sex, so that you can make proper statements about someone’s sex not being important in most contexts. (Whereas their likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. in their brain are quite important and the fuzzy correlations of those with sex should not affect them on an individual level.)
The problem is the assumption that because there are two sexes, there must be two corresponding genders. Some people are uncomfortable with the gender role society has assigned to their sex, and find it easier to try to fit in the other role than to fight the whole system. We shouldn’t be packaging any of those individual traits up, shouldn’t be forcing people into boxes. Even giving them a choice which box to go in is still in many cases denying them their true selves.
So I think terms like male and female, or man and woman, should refer exclusively to sex, and not gender. What does male or female gender even mean, and what is someone supposed to do with that information? We should be treating people the same regardless of whether they’re a man or a woman, but I get the impression that people expect to be treated differently based on their gender identity. I don’t know what else they could mean by it.
Oh woe is me, for your irrefutable logic has convinced me that my existence is wrong and meaningless.
The world is too logic and precise for my existence to be possible.
Please hold my hand as I jump off this bridge to my death, like so many of my trans brothers and sisters before me.
Torabi: Well stated, it seems like some push for gender roles to be treated as so important that people such as tomboys should have major surgery to change their sex to match which just reinforces the bad stereotypes. What I don’t know is how many people pushing for that really understand what they are saying, and how many think that, or if it is just a vocal minority. In some more convenient medium, I think I would enjoy having a discussion with you on some of the subtleties of this subject.
Illy:If you refuse to even slightly change your way of thinking even after you learn major new information like the definition of the word sex, that is on you. Hopefully someone reading this conversation will have realized that the gender roles that society has defined are not something someone should ever be judged by for any reason, and you are valuable just for being you.
I guess I am probably done with this conversation, might check back but it doesn’t seem like there is much else to say.
> people such as tomboys should have major surgery to change their sex
Wow that’s not even a strawman, that’s a grassman, because you have to be smoking something.
I’m a trans woman, and a tomboy. Also, if I could correct my gonads to be able to carry a child, I would.
Does my existence blow your mind? Or are you just going to insult me more?
> you are valuable just for being you.
And now you’re pulling “all lives matter” bullshit?
> after you learn major new information
If you’d said something that I haven’t heard transphobes saying a million times before, then maybe you’d have a point.
As it stands you just sound like you have an unhealthy pbsession with what’s between everyone’s legs.
As I said before I feel sorry for people like you who have clearly been so hurt by sexism. In this case it seems it has resulted in you arguing for more sexism, that type of pattern is all to common (with many types of hurt and abuse).
You are back to denying the literal definition of sex I provided (if you had heard it before why did you claim it was unique to me despite actually being the dictionary definition) You are claiming that I am obsessed with what is between people’s legs despite me repeatedly saying that what is between their legs (their sex) is a fact, but something unimportant except in certain circumstances. It matters for this discussion only for being the definition of sex.
Given that even with all those labels you claim for yourself, you didn’t even try to reply my points about how the definition of gender boils down to sexist stereotypes. You instead just claim that my statement based on the modern definition of gender (as given by places like the WHO) is somehow a strawman. That tells me that there is simply no such better definition, so supports the conclusion that insisting on referring to and dividing people by gender is always terrible (whereas sex is a fact and at least sometimes relevant). If there was any actual better definition, you of all people should have been able to let me know. So thank you for the indirect confirmation.
That you would take a generic statement about people being valuable, and turn it into a reference to a statement that certain people pretend is racist despite being one of the most inclusive statements it is possible to make, implies that you have some kind of terrible world view. It seems like you don’t see the pure value in any given human life and can’t even comprehend the concept of truly being able to care for people regardless of differences and disagreements. This just seems … sad.
It seems that you think I hate you, but despite the insults you have used, and the way you keep distorting what I have said (which is one of the best ways to make me angry) when I take a couple breaths and think for a second I realize I still don’t actually feel any hate for you, you are a human being and that alone makes you important. You clearly have been hurt by society and my words here can’t help you (since you are ignoring them anyway) but at least I have a better idea of how I could possibly help reduce the impact of sexism on others thanks to you. (From the beginning, I expected that anyone who argued with me here would not actually listen just as you haven’t, so I didn’t bother wasting my time taking things slowly in the way I would to help someone in a one on one conversation, not that you even gave me the info needed to try to do that well until now.)
Right, so we’ve established that you don’t understand the difference between a tomboy and a trans man.
And that you don’t acknowledge that a slogan of a hate movement is a slogan of a hate movement.
And that you keep claiming I’ve said things I haven’t. Which implies that you don’t actually have a response to my points.
Are you an Objectivist or something?
The literal definition of gender is what sexist stereotypes you conform to. A tomboy is someone of female sex who trends towards following the male stereotypes. You haven’t even attempted to challenge the definition of gender provided.
I know of no actual movement behind the slogan you brought up, the only people I have seen use it have done so in the context of inclusivity. Projecting hate onto such a phrase as you and some others do makes no sense. If there are people who have used that phrase while lying through their teeth, than those people are terrible liars, but they shouldn’t be allowed to change the meaning of the phrase. To repeat myself, that you tied me to that phrase due to saying something of similar true meaning just shows why claiming hate based on something that expresses love for all is stupid.
After all the times you misrepresented what I had to say you asserting I have put words in your mouth is laughable. (see your claim that I ignored the word most for one simple example.)
If this conversation is going to go anywhere, first you have to accept the definition of the words used, so why don’t you try repeating the definition of sex for me? And while you are at it, please directly take back your claim of “your (very strange and not-at-all common) definition” when I was providing the dictionary definition. My assumption based on your behavior, which may be wrong, is that you have had a fiction built up in your head by people teaching you lies about what the word sex means, promoting thinly disguised sexism etc. You seem to be refusing to accept the definition of sex as a defense mechanism since that one little definition has the potential to shatter the fragile fiction you have built around yourself. I am sorry about that and wish there was a way I could help you in particular.
I had to look up objectivist and saw that it was tied to Ayn Rand. I am pretty sure just my statements about the inherent value of an individual conflict with Ayn Rand’s philosophy (though I admit to giving up on understanding it as it just seems toxic) So maybe stop trying to change the topic by asking me about irrelevant things that are often contrary to what I have said.
*typo, it was the word “main” not “most” that you falsely claimed I ignored.
> If this conversation is going to go anywhere, first you have to accept the definition of the words used
Translation: “For this conversation to go anywhere, you have to admit I’m right about everything.”
Yeah, no.
Please explain to me the difference between a trans man and a tomboy. And how a trans woman can also be a tomboy.
If you can’t do that, then you obviously don’t understand things well enough to be trying to pose as an authoroty on this.
Here’s the definition of sex from a medical dictionary, just to shut you up about that:
> The biologic character or quality that distinguishes male and female from one another as expressed by analysis of the person’s gonadal, morphologic (internal and external), chromosomal, and hormonal characteristics. Compare: gender.
Note how there are many different parts to that, and there is no reason why they all have to be aligned the same way. And only some of them have to do with reproductive ability.
> I know of no actual movement behind the slogan you brought up
Holy fuck you can’t be serious. It’s just one of the main slogans of the anti-BLM movement. You’re either an epic troll, a right-wing loony, or dangerously naive.
“> If this conversation is going to go anywhere, first you have to accept the definition of the words used
Translation: “For this conversation to go anywhere, you have to admit I’m right about everything.” ”
Your translation couldn’t be more wrong. I asked for the definition of sex, agreement on the definition of words is kind of important for communication. The definition you provided is more technical, but has no meaningful differences to the one I provided, it is still a binary definition. When you boil it down, it just lists the biological aspects that determine reproductive roles (which is what it refers to when it says male and female.) Your claim that it lists anything not related to reproductive roles is simply false, for example, not all hormones are related to reproduction, but the definition only would care about those that are. Contrary to what you imply, >99.9% of people have no ambiguity in any of those parts. I already addressed the case of intersex, which again going into detail on that is not relevant right now.
You ask me to explain the difference between 2 things that I have already explained why they are the same under the given definition of gender. Me answering your question the way you asked would require me to first agree with you that they are different. Requiring me to agree with you or otherwise excluding me from the conversation is what you just falsely accused me of. Do you think I am blind?
And you claim that I am posing as a false authority after you said “your (very strange and not-at-all common) definition” which I followed by quoting a dictionary definition matching mine, and you have now supported with another definition. Yet you haven’t even taken those words back.
As I said before, you are the one who should be explaining the supposed difference that you asked for, however, I don’t see how you can do that without providing a new definition of gender. (Which is something I already said I was wondering if there was a better one.)
I already covered how I have seen the phrase all lives matter used, and admitted that it is possible some idiots may have co-opted it while lying through their teeth. The criticisms I have seen of the phrase have just come off as people demonstrating an unwillingness to be inclusive. It is not like I have followed that topic in extreme detail though, or that I have claimed to. You are the one who brought it up and tried to associate me with it just for pointing out that people are important just for being themselves, and you continue to pour out insults, rather than having a discussion.
Ok, so you’re admitting that your definitions and worldview can’t tell the difference between a trans man and a tomboy. Strange how you insist you’re right, but cannot distinguish between two very different catagories. I guess you can’t tell the difference between trans women and femboys either?
You’re also massively misreading that definition. Intentionally of course, because you refuse to accept that you are wrong.
And the fact that you had to say “>99.9%”, instead of “100%” means that you know sex is bimodal, not binary, and have been lying all this time. Possibly to yourself as well as everyone else.
If “all lives matter” is such a friendly and inclusive phrase, why did you object to me using it to describe the structure of one of your arguments?
And even if I were to accept your definition, you’d still be wrong, due to the possibility of a dual-fertile hermaphrodite.
Of course, now you’re going to move the goalposts *again* to somehow disallow that from showing you’re wrong somehow.
I just provided the definitions and conclusions based on them, you still have not provided any alternate definitions or explanations to support your assertions.
You claim that I am misreading the definition you provided, but I actually pointed out specific ways you misread it, while you just make more baseless, inconsistent assertions.
I already explained earlier how the definition of sex specifically is binary, and that if you want to include “not applicable” that would still be trinary, and your assertions about bimodal are you just projecting things contrary to the definition.
I am not the one who objected to the phrase all lives matter, you did when you brought it up by saying “And now you’re pulling “all lives matter” bullshit?” I objected to you calling it bullshit when I said something similar to the true meaning of those words, and not at all related to the politicized nonsense that you tried to project onto those words.
Since the definition of sex you provided is just a different wording with some more specific terms as the one I provided (again you made no specific objections) you refusing to agree with the definition just seems petty. I have never heard of a human being a dual fertile hermaphrodite, please provide a link if real. But anyway, that at most makes for a both category, still is a type of intersex, which is explicitly allowed for in the more general plain language definition I quoted off of Google, as that definition specifically said sex only refers to male and female reproductive roles, which again are binary, while allowing for the existence of some species having different categories such as hermaphrodite, or asexual reproduction, but those not being accurately called sex.
Moving goal posts? You are just burning them, your entire argument is “You’re wrong because I said so, and I refuse to explain.” When you can’t explain yourself over and over again, it really seems that you are wrong
You really are immune to both evidence and reason, aren’t you?
A “trinary” where one possibility is far less likely than the other two is still bimodal.
Do you actually know what bimodal means?
—
Lets try breaking it down to the aboslute basics for you (Note for anyone else reading this: These are oversimplified examples that leave out a lot of nuance, but AGuest is obviously needing the 5-year-old version):
A femboy is a man who expressess themself using female gender steriotypes.
A trans woman is someone who was born with male organs who would change the *sex* of some/all of their organs to female. But since this is not medically possible currently, most make do with the limits of what is currently medically possible (which, for the record, is a lot more than mere plastic surgery), along with sometimes expressing themselves in female ways.
How the fuck are those two catagories the same?
As I have said repeatedly, bimodal implies partial in between states that binary or trinary exclude. Sex, by definition only includes rigid categories, so bimodal is a misleading term.
Thank you for at least providing an explanation after many requests. to repeat your explanations in a paraphrased way:
Femboy: male sex with “female” gender
Trans woman: male sex with “female” gender who has been convinced to undergo radical surgery that destroys their reproductive functions to superficially resemble female sex.
The “female” is in quotes since gender by definition is just made up stereotypes, that it is inappropriate to associate with binary types of male and female.
If there is a difference between the 2 descriptions it only lies in the tacked on part about wanting to change sex, and you leave out the “why” The sexist definition of gender certainly would push a femboys to think maybe they should undergo a sex change operation. Since you still haven’t even mentioned it, the common explanation I have sometimes seen for why (other than because they have “female” gender exactly like femboys) is that they are somehow uncomfortable in their own body. This seems like a specific version of “Body dysmorphic disorder”. Interestingly though, even in cases where that disorder refers to an actual body defect, I have yet to find a source that says corrective surgery should be performed for BDD. Meanwhile, in the sex version, it is for some reason pushed for people to undergo major surgery, which does not actually fix their issues.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
The result of a high suicide rate after surgery does not surprise me, since helping people with mental issues deny reality is at best a bandaid to disguise the symptoms and at worst actively harmful.
Femboys are not female gendered.
You are showing the massive limitations of your worldview again.
And your own citation disagrees with you:
> Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity *than the general population*. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although *alleviating gender dysphoria*, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
So your own citation says that surgery *does* help with gender dysphoria, but that trans people still have a higher suicide rate than the general population. Which is partly due to views like yours.
> it is for some reason pushed for people to undergo major surgery
You are showing your ignorance here. Trans people have to go through a stupid amount of gatekeeping in order to get surgery.
> helping people with mental issues deny reality
And saying this in regards to trans people shows you really are transphobic.
I’m curious what your first red pill was now, because I’m certain you’re somewhere on the alt-right pipeline now.
“Femboys are not female gendered.”
But by your own words:”A femboy is a man who expressess themself using *female gender* steriotypes.”
Again sexist stereotypes are the literal definition of gender, so your addition of the word stereotypes only clarifies that you are in fact using the modern definition of the word gender.
You misrepresent the results of the study, it does not say that it helps, it says :
“The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.” ”
” It [This study] does not, however, address whether sex reassignment is an effective treatment or not.”
You assert they state it is effective, but they in fact say that their study is not capable of that, and the only point that they cite any strong evidence that it might be effective is limited:
“A recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that approximately 80% reported subjective improvement in terms of gender dysphoria, quality of life, and psychological symptoms, but also that there are studies reporting high psychiatric morbidity and suicide rates after sex reassignment.”
This combined with the results of their study implies some temporary improvements while still having bad long term outcomes. As I said before this makes sense for a band aid solution that just tries to hide the symptoms. As the study authors state, the evidence for good long term outcomes is lacking.
“> helping people with mental issues deny reality
And saying this in regards to trans people shows you really are transphobic.
I’m curious what your first red pill was now, because I’m certain you’re somewhere on the alt-right pipeline now.”
Again, with the insult. Seriously, helping people deny reality is a bad thing, or are you saying that you think those people who were denying reality attacked the capitol, and tried to overturn the election on Jan. 6 should have their false beliefs supported and encouraged?
Your reference to red pill is great, because from the Matrix, the red pill is the one where you learn a potentially unsettling truth, and the blue pill is where you deny reality and keep living in fantasy land. The crazies on either end of the political spectrum both fall under the category “blue pill.” You still haven’t acknowledged the fact of the binary nature of the definition of sex, or that you were wrong when you attacked my definition as “strange and not-at-all common”, when my definition was the literal dictionary definition.
So you are still refusing to acknowledge the modern usage of terms.
And you are refusing to accept when evidence proves you wrong.
C’mon, drop the Jordan Peterson affect. Everyone can tell that you hate trans folks. Why do your type never publically own your beliefs?
“So you are still refusing to acknowledge the modern usage of terms.”
When have I ever done this? I started out by providing the modern usage of the word gender. Modern usage has not changed the meaning of the word sex. I have issues with the consequences of the definition of gender, but I don’t require changing the definition. See Torabi’s last post for a good explanation.
“And you are refusing to accept when evidence proves you wrong.”
Again, not something I have done, you keep making statements like this but are never specific, because there aren’t examples. You on the other hand, keep doing this, some of the most blatant cases are you claiming the definition of gender I provided was “strange and not-at-all common” and then I quoted the dictionary definition that supported me, and even the beginning of my most recent message where I pointed out you contradicting your own words.
“C’mon, drop the Jordan Peterson affect. Everyone can tell that you hate trans folks. Why do your type never publically own your beliefs?”
So you again name someone I haven’t heard of and tie me to them in a dismissive way. You finally come out and say it directly you want reality to be that I hate you, presumably because then you have an excuse for ignoring what I have to say. You are pretending that I have some kind of beliefs contrary to what I have written, because then you can pretend everything I have written is a fiction. This certainly explains why you reacted so badly to my statement “you are valuable just for being you.” You cannot even except the simplest of sincere expressions from someone who has highlighted the actual definition of sex, and other facts that highlight the wrongs of the sexist stereotypes that you seem to have incorporated into you identity (which again I blame on others in society who originally harmed you through sexism.)
“claiming the definition of gender I provided was ” should read “claiming the definition of sex I provided was ”
Just a typo that I assume you will otherwise jump on to claim I was wrong, when after typing it who knows how many times it should be clear what I am referring to.
And now you’re denying me agency.
You obviously hate trans folks. Everything you have said leads to that logical conclusion.
I will admit you’re rather good at sealioning.
Again, I ask you:
How does your system differentiate between a tomboy and a trans man?
Until you can answer that question, your system doesn’t explain reality.
“And now you’re denying me agency.
You obviously hate trans folks. Everything you have said leads to that logical conclusion.”
How exactly am I denying you agency? By acknowledging that you have been hurt through no fault of your own? You are the one currently allowing that hurt to block you from rational discussion, or even accepting expressions of care between human beings. You have agency there, but I recognize the difficulty of the situation, so I don’t blame you for not taking a better path in this discussion. No matter how many times you try to put the word hate into my mouth, what I have expressed is the opposite. Just pointing out the definition of the words sex and gender, is stating a fact, it is in no way related to hate. It seems that you have some giant mental roadblocks around these definitions, and I can’t help you with that. (For one it would require you to be willing to listen and/or directly respond to what I have to say.)
“Again, I ask you:
How does your system differentiate between a tomboy and a trans man?
Until you can answer that question, your system doesn’t explain reality.”
This is not really a question though, it is a disingenuous assertion that there is a meaningful difference to explain. This is further based on an implicit assumption that people should be divided based on sexist stereotypes (which is the WHO’s definition of gender.) You keep trying to make it about “my” views, even though I am citing general definitions that I did not come up with. If anything can be called “my” view, it is the assumption that people should not be divided based on sexist stereotypes, which should be fairly uncontroversial.
Your own attempt to explain the difference collapsed when you contradicted yourself claiming that a femboy both does and does not have “female” gender. Why should I have to defend your own assertion that you cannot even explain yourself?
You’re claiming that “just stating facts” cannot be hateful?
How about the folks citing trans suicide rates?
Or the folks who start their citation with “despite”? (For reference, the other common way hateful people state that particular fact is “13/50”)
> what I have expressed is the opposite.
Yeah, in the same way that parents send their gay kids to conversion therapy because they love them.
And your attitude towards me is indistinguishable from “pity the black man, for its not his fault he is a brute.” Which is obviously racist.
—
And you still refuse to acknowledge that there is a meaningful difference between tomboys and trans men.
Again (and again, this is oversimplified in the hope that AGuest will understand it): Tomboys don’t want to change sex, trans men do, but can’t due to a lack of medical tech. Note, I said “sex” *very* intentionally there, not “gender”.
—
Why do you want to make trans lives harder?
“You’re claiming that “just stating facts” cannot be hateful?
How about the folks citing trans suicide rates?”
The facts I was referring to here was the definition of words. And what exactly is wrong about citing trans suicide rates? I believe in fact you referenced them first (without numbers) I also cited a source with numbers that shows that the rates after surgery are way too high, though without an apples to apples without surgery comparison this doesn’t tell the whole story.
“Or the folks who start their citation with “despite”? (For reference, the other common way hateful people state that particular fact is “13/50”)”
You seem to be referencing some racist thing (where the problem is not with the fact, but the bad interpretation of it in a vacuum that typically follows.) This has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
“> what I have expressed is the opposite.
Yeah, in the same way that …”
Not even going to quote the rest of the words you tried to put into my mouth, you doing that is insulting.
You finally get back to the point with defining trans, and your careful use of the word sex is necessary, however you seem to have forgotten my response from the first time you made the attempt, where I said:
“If there is a difference between the 2 descriptions it only lies in the tacked on part about wanting to change sex, and you leave out the “why” ”
You can scroll up to read the rest of what I had to say about that, where I addressed 2 plausible answers to “why.” The previous time you ignored that discussion by asserting that a femboys do not have female gender despite* the fact that you said yourself that they do. That “why” is really the key to this discussion (and note that I am not asserting there has to be only 1 answer for everyone to that, but there should at least be some reasonable generalizations, like the 2 possible answers I mentioned.)
“Why do you want to make trans lives harder?”
Why do you keep making up stupid stuff like this and pretending that I said it, or that it is implied by anything I said?
*Hey look I ended up using that word again, I keep ending up using it because it is a convenient word to point out when you are ignoring something, which you have done a lot of.
And missing my point, yet again.
You have to be doing it on purpose now.
—
The obvious end result of your attitude makes trans lives much worse.
You obviously know this. You even cited a study that demonstrated this.
So you obviously want to make trans lives harder.
How is this simple logic beyond you?
“And missing my point, yet again.”
I had already made a statement that addressed the same phrasing that you now used (the first time I was paraphrasing you) So I actually had addressed your point before you even stated it. You are the one who has now simply ignored my point twice. (More than that if you count other things you ignored.)
“The obvious end result of your attitude makes trans lives much worse.
You obviously know this. You even cited a study that demonstrated this.”
This is more of you just straight up lying about what I said, and what the study said. The study did not in any way address the majority of what I have had to say. The study demonstrated that after sex change operations they still end up having an unacceptably high suicide rate and related mental health issues. (It also referenced another study that said as many as 20% don’t even temporarily feel better about themselves after the surgery.) While there simply is not data to show whether the surgery has better or worse outcomes than other alternatives, it certainly does not show particularly good outcomes from such a major and irreversible surgery.
“How is this simple logic beyond you?”
There is no logic present in your message, you just made false assertions. Why do you keep redirecting the topic (and asserting that I am somehow a bad guy when you never reference what I say, but instead irrelevant stupid things other people have said, or possibly that no one has said) rather than addressing my comments on your explanation of trans?
“… exactly 2 roles in human reproduction …” Correct, for Earth.
However, the galaxy is enormous and well-populated as exhibited in (e.g.) MiB. There are many, many beings with more than 2 genders, frequently many more.
I did specify human didn’t I? You change the method of reproduction, that is the definition of a different species.
There are various fantasy universes where we would have to come up with new terms and definitions, but we don’t live in any of those.
To actually discuss this comic, it means that Succubi weren’t a true species until they gave themselves reproductive organs. (Probably would classify them as a category of sapient constructs before that) How exactly that reproduction works is still an open question.
Intersex is a epigenetic phenomena and will thus not hold up against the more black and white world of sex determination as defined by the wikipedia article about sex chromosomes.
That having said even this definition doesn’t actually stay simple and even if you only consider the sex chromosomes(like high school genetics) you get at least three sexes, because body’s are dumb and sometimes produce people with more than two sex chromosomes.
Search trisomy if you want to dive into it.
Posting twice does not make it true.
If you never noticed, posts here are finicky and sometimes do weird stuff like double submit. That you would would use that while implying something was wrong with what I said implies a lack of ability to make a logical argument.
By conflating sex and gender you are being dishonest. Stop being dishonest
Actually, “sex” and “gender” have been conflated since early 15c. In early 20c, “sex” came to mean an erotic game between “genders”, but the old meanings still apply.
Sex is wah6t is between your legs, while you’re gender is between your ears! Male sex + Female Gender, and vice-versa.
Sorry, “your” not you’re!
You have the definition of sex right, but your version of the modern definition of gender is a bit off, it is based on society’s sexist stereotypes, some of which have to do with what is between your ears but not all. Travelling to another country literally changes the definition. Just one reason this is a horrific definition.
Mum had black hair, all her kids have blonde or pale brunette hair
I know 2 persons who had very LIGHT blonde hair which turned black(!) when they grew older.
Brother’s hair only got darker when it got wet
I was straw blond until the age of four or five. Now I’m a medium brown.
all of my immediate family were born as hairless platinum blond babies which turned dirty blond as they aged.
i was born with a full tuft of black hair.
genetics are wierd.
Both of my parents were born blonde and so were my brother and I. Our hair darkens with age, to a dark brown for my parents, to a dark blonde for me and my brother. I guess we have adaptive-camouflage-hair, it just takes a decade or two to change.
In my family (4 kids) daughters hair (and genral physical proportions) comes from father’s side, sons hair (and general physical proportions) comes from mother’s side.
Um, I got a mix of my maternal grandfather’s (redhead), dad (natural blond), and mom (dirty blond that apparently went brunette as she got older and then I came along). So I’m a light brown with blond if I’m in the sun and a lot of red in it.
Also, height wise, there might be other reasons Syd is shorter. I’m the tallest woman in my family because I’m the only one without at least mild scoliosis, plus I got the maternal grandmother’s family’s build (she was the runt but apparently the rest of the family were linebackers). Also, I know Dexedrine (an older ADHD med) has a side effect of making kids not quite grow as much as they should, and Adderall is a mix of Dexedrine and some other meds. I might have lost up to 4 inches or none to it, as I was on it (Dexedrine, Adderall didn’t exist yet) from 3-18. Since I’m about the avg guy height and female, I am tots cool with this. I can reach tall stuff but don’t hit my head on things plus I can get “normal” clothes.
BTW MASSIVE CONGRATS DaveB! (I know I’m really late on this, I rediscovered this comic last night and binged it all night long).
I’m going to be a nitpicking ass here, her dad needs to be short if I recall my genetics right. If both of them are tall even if it’s a recessive quality on both sides it’s still unlikely she would be as short as she is in comparison to this image.
But on reflection her mom is a little off frame to frame on hight, as in loss of some in later frames.
Genetics… that wonderful thing… throw backs from six generations or more ago can and do happen. Have that one weird grandfather who was unusually tall and everyone else rarely breaks 5’9″ and then suddenly poof you’re 6’8″?
It might even be that Sydney’s growth was stunted due to improper nutrition or some other medical thing. I mean, do you think Sydney eats healthily?
All my family are between 5ft 10in to 6ft 7 except my Sister, at 5ft 3in where I am over 6ft. This was primarily because she was on severe asthma medications from birth from the early 70s which have now been stated to stunt growth, and it has been shown that lots of medications for things from Asthma to ADHD have an impact on growth and other body issues later in life, hence they are always having to add new “disclaimers” as to potential effects to cover their asses.
She is 1inch, taller than I am, all of us were short, except for my brother!
Sydney is short because she was hit by a hammer held by a cartoon coyote. And I will not be convinced of any other explanation
I’m 6’3”, my son is 5’9”, genetics are weird.
Genetics are complicated. My paternal grandma and grandpa were 5’4″ and 5’3″, respectively. My dad is 6’1″, my uncle is 6’6″. On dad’s side of the family, skyscraper tall children seem to happen every other generation, with their parents being shorter than average. I lucked out in the genetic lottery, because my mom’s side of the family are all above average height (I’m 6’3″, and my sister is 6’0″).
tl;dr Parental height isn’t really an indicator of child height…or anything else, except in the broadest sense.
Or… we could find out that Sydney is only 15 and faked out Archon with a doctored ID…
Throw in epigenetics and it gets really weird. For example, severe malnutrition can have epigenetic effects on height two or three generations later.
African pygmies are actually normal height people who are malnourished for generations. Removed to places with good nutrition they fall between 5’1″ and 6′ within a generation.
You “know” this, how!?
By reading studies done and slash or watching documentaries?
I had not consciously realized that slash was a sufficiently reliable source of information to cite in such a comment. But now that you mention it, I have actually learned a considerable amount from reading just a few slash titles. Sure, I’ve always made sure to check on stuff after to make sure it was actual things, but it’s useful to do that regardless of what your source is.
I think he’s correct about this.
https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/7645/
It was traditionally thought that it had something to do with minimizing caloric requirements as an evolutionary preference, but there were new studies at Cambridge which suggested many problems with this hypothesis. The study was published in ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.’
Source – Migliano, Andrea Bamberg, Vinicius, Lucio, and Lahr, Marta Mirazon. “Life history trade-offs explain the evolution of human pygmies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. December 18, 2007. vol. 104, no. 51, 20216-20219.
Do we know if Laura Scoville is wearing heels? That could add an inch or so to her height? And yes, daughters can take after their father’s side of the family and sons can take after their mother’s side of the family. At minimum, Sydney’s father should have light colored/blond hair.
Sydney’s height might be a genetic skip, if Laura and Sydney Sr. each had a parent who was on the short side. Still, it would make sense if Sydney Sr was under 6ft.
No, Senior could have solid black hair (no touch ups)
Genetics are not a guarantee of what the next generation will look like (or even the next dozen generations)
Have you considered that an orb may have suspended genetic aging and growth?
Sydney hasn’t had her balls for that long, less than a year by this time (that’s including pre-Archon time)
My parents are plus minus 5’9″.
Oldest kid in 5′, second oldest is 6’4″.
There is quite of a bit of genetics into it (look at Thor Bjornson’s family pics), but there is a ton of randomness too.
In addition to all the other complications that people have brought up, we’re all mutants. Specifically, most people have dozens of differences in their genes from what you could get just by picking from one parent or the other. (I think we used to have a smaller estimate from this, but that smaller estimate was from a much smaller sample size of genetic sampling, and while we only had partially sequenced the human genome.)
At 5’10”, I’m the only guy under 6′ in at least 3 generations in my family, plus I started a receding hair line at 17 with being mostly bald by 30. Only one other baldy in my family and he is my Mother’s Uncle on my Grandmother’s side. Shit happens…
My nephew is over six feet tall,
his mother is barely over 5 feet, his father is barely over five feet, his brother may actually be shorter than five feet (and fully grown), and no one else on either side of that family that anyone knows comes close to six feet.
and yet there he is, taller than anyone at the Thanksgiving table.
That blue/grey speech box had better become the new grrl power standard colour for ‘absurdly specific communicative glance’ from this point onward.
Seconded.
All in favor, say “WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP-WOOP,” and sand crab out.
Is that a Zoidberg reference? :)
It’s not a 3 handled family credenza.
Even Maxima is impressed.
Loving this comic by the way. Long time reader/lurker, first time commenting.
well we need a commenting out party then …. lol
the popcorn is over there. we have a bowl for Sydney if she ever shows up. yes the tongs are so Sydney’s bowl can be handled and refreshed safely. we have 2 gallons of milk on standby for ‘accidents’. just remember its almost as bad on its way out as on its way in. chips and sane dip is over there. I think we are on unspiked punch at the moment.
Given this is a formal setting Laura might be in Heels, while Sydney us not
Insanely big heels, she’s basically a whole head taller than Sydney.
Not necessarily, Sydney’s orbs generally float roughly right at the top of her head, but below the top of her hair, based on the last panel it appears that the bottom of the orbs is roughly half-way between Laura’s chin and her mouth, which I’d say shaves off roughly half an inch, the average human head is roughly 8-9 inches tall, let’s call it 8 for the sake of argument (her head doesn’t appear particularly tall to me), so roughly 7.5 inches from the top of Sydney’s head to the top of Laura’s head, heels, on average, are roughly 3 inches, so assuming she’s wearing standard dress heels, 3 inches would be a fair assumption, which brings the height difference down to roughly 4.5 inches, which isn’t an especially large height difference.
Height isn’t merely genetic, it’s also largely epigenetic, meaning loads of external factors can play into it, diet, exercise, the amount of open space around them, etc. Sydney is vegetarian, which contrary to some myths does not stunt growth (one study I found actually suggests that kids who grow up vegetarian are actually around an inch taller on average, but other sources I found just say that they are roughly the same), but in spite of this, we know she seeks out spicy foods to the extreme, and that she largely subsists on junk food, how either of those impact height, I do not know, but the chance that they have an impact is probably good. Prior to joining Archon, she was not in particularly good or bad fitness, she was sufficiently fit for her needs until her needs changed, but I would put that more to metabolism and moving a lot due to hyperactivity than actual exercise. At this time we don’t really know about the space in which she grew up, if she had a small room in a small apartment then that could actually result in less height, but if she grew up in large, open spaces, either due to a large dwelling, an open floor plan, or just spending lots, and lots of time outside (not likely, given her interests, but plausible) then she’s likely close to as tall as she could have gotten, especially since the radical change in fitness due to joining the military doesn’t appear to have triggered any growth (it is not uncommon for new recruits to gain a few inches after finishing basic training from what I hear, especially if they weren’t especially fit prior to enlisting, despite the fact that generally speaking people usually stop growing long before the age of 18).
All in all, Laura isn’t that much taller than Sydney, and frankly even if the father was also taller by a decent margin, it still wouldn’t be super weird for Sydney to be as short as she is, considering the many, many, many factors that can impact height, both due to genetics and otherwise.
I can tell you for a fact this happens in families, well does in mine.
What I can’t wait for is her reaction to the moment question of “So,are you seeing anyone?”
“Yeah… but his name is hard enough for me to pronounce out loud, mush less with just my eyebrows and shoulders”
Hey, Mom! I got a new dog. Well, new to me; he’s a few years old already.
Sydmom: “What’s that have to do with what I asked you?”
Syd: “Everything.”
“What breed is it?”
“He’s a Space Woof.”
Question: how did Sydney get from being “chosen” by the orbs to obtaining Tubey without anyone noticing?
Pockets and backpacks
Also towels, bathrobes, beach blankets, beach bags…
A largish purse or messenger bag would work, too,
Seriously, diving gear packs are huge. No problem there.
An oversized novelty top-hat, like American pubs seem to stock on St Patrick’s day
Getting somewhere out of sight really quick once the elation dies down a bit and a stream of profanity ensues?
The real question is how she got them through Customs…
Dabbler’s tech can’t scan them, right? I’d think it’s safe enough to assume that an airport x-ray wouldn’t see them in her carry on
She couldn’t send the carry on through the scanning machine in a large airport, however, since the machine is longer than her “leash range”
remember that they don’t pull on each other. if syd didn’t wear a belt she might go a bit faster than the boys. but the pack would just stop and jam the line. depending on the context it might take them too long to figure it out and sydney gets to other side before they narrow down that her bag is the problem. given that they will scan as empty space it might look funny. though if I were syd id pack them in my carryon in little boxes – that way they look like a collection of glass/plastic balls.
Or giant Ben Wa balls…
Not really, last time I was at the airport the scanner for carry on was maybe 4 to 5 feet away and in https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-54-the-terror-of-science/ she was at least 10 feet away from the tube
Was she in another country? I thought she was swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. She could easily get there from Florida. No customs for that. Not sure we got what state she lives in. But my former boss would drive from his house in the keys to NJ. Took him a weekend, but he could do it himself. He hated flying since it was always cramped.
I think it’s been at least implied that ARC is based in one of the mid-country states, to minimise their maximum deployment time (within the contiguous USA, at least; Alaska and Hawaii are outliers). DaveB is based in Texas, and I think he’s used local aerial photos for reference before, but it’s not been stated whether that actually is the location of ARC-HQ.
Sydney’s car has a Texas registration sticker and her fake ID says “Beaumont, Texas”, which is near the Texas/Louisiana border.
I was under the impression that at least part of the Florida Keys were in the US, specifically considered part of Florida. Hence the name, Florida Keys.
All of the Florida keys are in Florida.
Territorial waters extend out 25 miles from every bit of claimed land. She wouldn’t need to go though customs and she certainly wouldn’t need to fly back. There are Buses and Trains, and personal vehicles all over. maybe it was a ride-share.
From what I saw of the flash back she was alone doing her scuba dive after she was certified to do so.
Tubey is a poster tube. Something a comic store owner and collectible geek would likely have. So she probably had one with her.
So…
The real fun is after Mom meets her boy, Frix.
Oh god….Is that before or after she meets Sydney’s co-worker Dabbler?
“Mom, this is Frix.”
Mrs. Scoville:
*look up*
*look down*
*LOOK DOWN*
*Cocks head slightly down and to the left.”
Sydney:
*circular motion with both hands*
Mrs. Scoville
*raises both eyebrows*
*pauses*
*licks lips briefly*
Sydney
*purses lips*
*scrunches face*
You could’ve used “moves head slightly down and left”… but noooo, you had to use THAT action…
The idea of meeting the team mates raises an interesting point. Just how deeply do you read in the parents? Back in the late 80’s, a buddy of mine went to work for the NRC as a radiation safety specialist. By the time he got his clearance they knew more about him than he knew of himself. By the time of Sydney’s graduation ARC would probably know how much of a security risk her parent’s are. Sydney would probably have had a conversation with either Max or Arianna regarding what she can or can’t reveal. At this point people in general would be aware of extraterrestrials so Frix in a general sense might not be classified but specific things about him might be. It would be fun to watch Sydney’s parents in her version of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”.
I’m picturing Sydney’s dad:
“Must resist urge to hug and pet daughter’s boyfriend…”
And at the same time being torn to have to give him the shovel speech.
somehow I think trying to threaten the Woof for mistreating daughters will not go well.
I think it’s probably standard-enough across species that he’d go along with it.
Nah, it’s part of what Dabbler was complaining about when she mentioned Max’s “feminism-laced puritanicalism”.
Its a combination of a sex-negative attitude, and denying women agency.
What the fuck does Senior giving Frix the shovel speech (what ever that is) have to do with Maxi?
You are intentionally picking shit where there is none
“I don’t know what’s being discussed, but felt it needed my input anyway.”
It’s one thing to ask for clarification, and another to complain about things you don’t understand.
If you understood what the shovel speech is, you wouldn’t need to ask.
Are you just searching for my name to attack now?
(I’m assuming that Guesticules and AGuest are the same person, based on other comments)
Unfortunately, I don’t really think they are, given the differences in writing patterns. I think that level of deception is beyond either of them.
Looking at the last panel looks like the three of them are all standing on different platforms
I am disappointed. Maxima should have met the Scovilles before now.
Isn’t there a procedure for when a service person is MIA?
Maybe Sydney told Mom and Dad up-front that she might be away for months at a time doing secret stuff and not to expect a phone call every week.
Technically she wasn’t missing in action. They knew exactly where she was, it was mostly an issue of when she was.
Officially she was on some kind of secret training excersize.
Untill she had her ride drop her in the middle of a press conference hat is.
She may have been on a secret traiing exercise with “our friends from out of town”
Technically she wasn’t MIA, as they knew where she was. Displaced into the future on an alien planet.
So they would have formulated a cover story for that.
Maybe she met Senior and not Mama
Or she only talked on the phone or video
I suggest adding some subtle age lines around the eyes, forehead etc for Syd’s mom. She looks like all the other 20 somethings, and not in her mid 40s.
Some women never show signs of age until suddenly they do
Also the proper application of make-up can do wonders as well.
Not just women, both my parents looked to be in their early 30s until a year or two ago, and they are both in their late 50s. Honestly, both sides of my family tend to look older than we are until around 30-35, then our age catches up, and then we just stop aging for another 20 years or so, really throws people. Back when I was 17 my dad and I went to a restaurant with bar seating for those over 21, and they didn’t even card me the hostess just started taking us to the bar, and I’m like “how old do I look to you?” and she guessed 23, I was clean shaven at the time because I had a singing competition that day meaning I looked a couple years younger than I usually did at that age. Now I’m 25 and my friends in the 28-32 range thought I was their age for over a year before it came up in conversation. I’m probably not gonna age for like 30 years now. For context I am male if that wasn’t clear.
I haven’t been asked for ID (unless the place cards everyone) since I was 16, and still have a full head of dark hair while most of my friends and peers are going gray or balding, including a few who’ve completed the transition.
And since funny genetics was mentioned above, both my grandfathers went bald young, and my maternal uncles were fully silver-haired by 30, so in spite of early signals and taking after that side, I’m still beating the odds just by looking my age now (or even a bit less) instead of appearing much older.
Tragically, Sydney’s birth mom died in childbirth. Her father then married a much younger woman who raised Sydney and loved her as her own.
Demonic Tantric Powers. Adrenaline Invulnerability. Teleportation. Heat Rays. Super Strength and Speed. They are nothing compared to the fully-empowered Mom Glare.
And when it’s the full on angry one, you wish to be anywhere but facing it.
Omega Beams, full on Daemonic invasions, at the dangerous end of a galaxy destroying cannon, etc, all more preferable than the receiving end of one of those gazes!
Ah. The Penance Stare from Ghost Rider.
And now we learn the truth – Zarathos, the demon bonded to turn a mortal into the Ghost Rider, is… a MOTHER!!!
Actually, Zarathos had The Touch, the second Ghostie had the Stare (don’t believe the movie bullshit, they blended Blaze and Ketch)
And in later runs, Blaze manifested the Stare as well, so it does end up being a crapshoot overall
I think my favorite recurring bit in Wapsi Square is Kath’s “Mom Voice”, which is strong enough that even her semi-ancient daughter, who has powers across time and dimensions, immediately becomes a meek little mouse.
I guess that’s this strip’s version of the Mom Voice from Wapsi Square.
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned it, but the shield orb does nothing vs. Mom Glare.
Maybe some people think it goes without saying, but I feel it’s probably significant that Nth generation tech has nothing to offer versus this. Even their investigation in how to reproduce this into a weapon of its own resulted in a completely unusable orb.
Sydney should never play poker
She did and won evenhandedly!
Even though everyone at the table knew she was cheating, they just couldn’t figure out how
She wasn’t cheating. She was just too random to read and predict.
She wasn’t cheating, she was *pretending* to have a shit pokerface, thus hiding the fact that she was bluffing.
Same difference
They knew there was something going on, they just couldn’t figure it out
That was the first game the team had ever played with Sydney – I suspect her initial confusion-field advantage will be much diminished in future games.
Very different difference.
Bluffing and pokerface are an integral part of how the game is played. Sydney played the game exactly as intended.
Ms. Scoville? That’s normally not used for married women
Unless Maxi is projecting her feminism, then they have met before
Maybe they’re not married but one of them changed their name anyway? Or they were married and divorced. It would also explain why they aren’t both here right now: No personal habit or social obligation to stay together. Or they were married, divorced, and got back together without re-marrying for obscure legal or tax reasons.
They are both there, we saw Senior last page
DaveB explained that Senior is busy probably getting autographs and selfies (and telling embarrassing stories about Junior, may or may not include pictures :P )
I’m not sure who or what you’re responding to, but it seems like you’re trying to correct someone(?) — maybe I’m reading your tone wrong – surely not @Regret, because Regret was not claiming anything that you seem to be speaking to…
Was replying to “It would also explain why they aren’t both here right now: No personal habit or social obligation to stay together.”
I saw the moniker “Regret”, it didn’t do anything for me, then you used “@Regret” and my mind immediately jumped to the Snowy River looking for the Colt…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNV_fVZx-zY&ab_channel=DisneyXDUK
+1 internets for the perfect response video
YES! Just three more internets and I get a free smoothie!
I think this is possible. We’ll see before too long, I think. Could definitely be explained by different personality types, where dad goes off meeting EVERYONE and mom goes straight to the top brass she thinks is required, and they realize this about each other and have tried many times in the past to make the other see reason, but for whatever reason they continue to not “just call the whole thing off”. I think I like this story a bit better, but your story also works – they’re cordial enough to attend the event together and sit next to one another, keep their married name (was it Mom’s to begin with???? I could begin to imagine dad saying “Hey she’s getting your last name, how about she get’s my first name?), but they do their own thing when it comes time to make a choice.
Ms. is more than Miss pronounced with a cool z sound. It IS a feminist development, right up there with not getting fired for being pregnant and being able to open a credit account. It was developed specifically and purposefully to be exactly equivalent to Mr. in that it indicates zero information as to the wedded state of the person attached to the honorific. It is perfectly appropriate to use for a married woman unless she herself expresses a preference for some other honorific. If most of the people you encounter choose to stick with the older pattern of honorifics, that may limit your experience with the wider usage of Ms.
There used to be a perfectly good female honorific that didn’t specify marital status, Mistress. It developed sexual connotations and fell out of favor, so a new one had to be developed. Same way that Maitresse used to be the equivalent of Monsieur.
It gets complicated by the quirk that women past a certain age were sometimes referred to as Mrs. whether or not they were married as a term of respect since it also had the connotation of “Adult Woman” as opposed to “Girl”.
I would be happy if we went back to the older convention when “Man” was generic with wif/wife or wer/were used when there was a specific reason to denote sex or gender.
…darnit, “werewolf” literally just means “wolfman”, doesn’t it?
And female werewolves ought to be wifwolves.
And married female werewolves should be called wifewolves.
And female japanese anime werewolves should be called waifuwolves. :)
Actually, technically Manwolf!
Ms. is used by and for both married and unmarried women. Mrs. is only used for married women, and Max would most likely be opposed to its use, because there is no comparable term for men. Whether she would insist on referring to a woman with Ms. if that woman expressed a preference for Mrs. would really show what kind of feminist she is.
Uh, no. Not at all. Married women use Ms. all the time. It has become the preferred form of address specifically because it does not identify a woman by her marital status. “Hello Female Person with the Surname Scoville” rather than “Hello Female Person That a Male Person Named Scoville Has Exclusive Rights to Sleep With”. My wife, for instance, goes by Ms. Basilisk rather than Mrs. Tsathoggua-Lord-of-the-Gulf-of-Dark-N’Kai.
Are invitations to formal events hosted by your family typically made out in flame-ink or blood-and-venom? I feel certain whichever you and Ms. Basilisk choose, said invitations would be both stunningly grand and also the height of elegance, while still potentially deadly to non-magickal beings.
Invitations to long forgotten Horrors and Extra Ancient Entities have and always will be written with ink made from lotus petals and the blood of a firstborn on parchment made from the skin of a willing sacrifice, in a language so horrible any lesser being would be driven to insanity just by looking at it briefly.
Anything less would be insulting.
Blood and Venom, obviously! They are clearly an eldritch abomination of means and taste, and flame ink is SO gauche, it burns or chars all the good parchment options, and you have to resort to *common* options like dragon skin, or fire tree bark scrolls.
Ms is inclusive. It was created as a counter to Mr., which has no inherent marriage status Mx has also been around for a few decades as genderless, BTW, and also being adopted faster in other countries, like the UK.
Ms and Mrs are appropriate for married women from a grammatical stand point.
Miss is the one for unmarried women.
Miss is short for Mistress! I believe!
Which is the female equivalent of Master, and both originally referred to young hyu-mons (with no sexual connotations, that came later)
Mrs. is actually short for mistress. Traditionally as a social status or luxury trade (Master and Mistress of their trade).
Miss denotes ‘young woman’ as a counter to ‘Master’ for boys, also in a social status (sort of like how Geoffrey on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air will call Will Smith Master Will and call Ashley ‘Miss Ashley’).
Last panel, should be an ominous pause between “satisfied” and “for now”
“Very well, I am satisfied… for now!”
That’s Sydney’s mother???
I’d expected her to look like an older version of..Sydney!?
I’m pretty sure Sydney’s father is the older (and male) version of Sydney.
Is anyone else expecting Sydney’s hat/lid/thingy to go flying into someone’s face when her hair breaks free of all those bobby pins? Someone important?
“Sorry Mister President”
Max meets Trump: scientists have finally tracked the commander in chief to be some how in orbit of the moon. We are still baffled on how he *tripped* got a black eye and ended up there.
Trump wasn’t president at this time
Biden is the one more likely to do something stupid to get orbitized (he liked to sniff little girls’ hair)
If we go under the assumption that this is still before https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-4/ and that all of this happened within the “few months” on the same comic page as I have seen others claim, then Obama is still president in grrlverse.
I will probably get corrected, but I think DaveB even mentioned that specific page I referenced was drawn before he decided they would rank up like normal military previously, but that would still mean that either Obama would be president or, if near the end of Obama’s term, might mean Trump is president. I honestly can’t see it taking 5+ years for them to graduate basic training when it takes normal army recruits 10 weeks to graduate.
I doubt Trump is president in the grrlverse time we are currently seeing, but would be more accurate than Biden based on what we see (and if we assume that the president would be the same as ours if they were in the same year as us, which we can assume they are not based on the information within the comic pages.
Even then, I am stepping away from any “discussions” about which president will do something stupid enough to be orbiting the moon.
Mostly because there isn’t one.
Trump is universally despised by the Military, and has been for decades due to his mouth.
So he really is the only one who’d end up in Orbit, and long before Sydney was anywhere near him.
“Trump is universally despised by the Military, and has been for decades due to his mouth.”
Um… despite what what a significant percentage of the public think of him among the electorate, he really isn’t despised among military. He’s actually rather well liked among military, which is sort of typical for Republicans in general. He does have (or had, at least) a significantly large voter base, and a lot of that IS from military, police, and the midwest.
Although I do doubt Maxima would be a fan of him, obviously. It’s a moot point though, since Obama is president in the Grrlpower universe at this time.
(no one read into this any personal preferences, I’m just being honest about this)
Many of Biden’s, donations, were overwhelmingly, from the Military, mostly from Afghanistan.
Not sure where you’re getting that data from.
You do realize the only reason Trump didn’t nuke someone or send the Military in to “deal” with Rioters is because the Joint Chiefs were continuously blocking him, right?
He’s literally insulted the Military for over half his life at every possible time he could. He paid someone to fake his goddamned Bonespurs to get out of being drafted, for God’s sake. Being Selfless is literally an ALIEN CONCEPT TO HIM, AND ONE CENTRAL TO SOLDIERS.
Soldiers may be overall Republicans, but VERY few are Trumplicans. Especially after his presidency and pissing all over the same oath every US soldier takes he did the entire time he was. And that’s not even taking Jan 6th into account.
And Sasha got that info from somewhere other than Fox, OANN and Newsmax, Pander. Might wanna try it sometime.
Probably not going to post much more on this because it has very little to do with the comics, but since you attacked, I might as well respond with a lot of dry facts. Really have no idea why I’m arguing politics on this but….
“the Joint Chiefs were continuously blocking him, right?”
The joint chiefs are more politicians than run-of-the-mill military. I’m just saying that, factually, most military families tend to vote Republican, trump or no trump, but especially under Trump, a lot of military families were Trump supporters. Also I don’t think the Joint Chiefs were blocking him on anything regarding the rioters – that wouldn’t have anything to do with the Joint Chiefs – that would be the governors and mayors of the mainly ‘blue’ and ‘blue-leaning’ states and cities in which the riots were happening. I think you’re confusing that with the admissions by some of the generals that they were giving Trump false information about the numbers of troops that were being pulled out of Afghanistan, or the Pelosi-Joint chiefs communications, which didnt have anything to do with riots as far as I can tell.
“Being Selfless is literally an ALIEN CONCEPT TO HIM, AND ONE CENTRAL TO SOLDIERS.”
This sounds a little more like a personal belief that you have because you don’t like Trump on a personal level (which is not unusual). Trump apparently gives quite a bit to charity, both when he was a Republican and when he was a Democrat. That might be for financial reasons, but he gave a lot more than was necessary for tax write-offs. Again this is freely available information. So while that doesn’t mean he’s selfless (he’s a billionaire, he undoubtedly isn’t selfless) it’s probably not going to be an alien concept since charity and selflessness are going to be at least somewhat linked.
In any case, I’m just basing what I said on actual statistics. Trump has a rather high floor of support (I think in the 39% range at his absolute lowest on the aggregate polling), whether you like him or don’t, although he does not have a very high ceiling (I think it topped off around 45-46%, again on aggregate polling), which is why no matter how many scandals he had, his base of support rarely went very low, rarely below 40%.
“Soldiers may be overall Republicans, but VERY few are Trumplicans.”
Again I’m not sure where you’re getting that data from. Sounds more like a personal view, but if you have actual data to back it up I’d be interested to see it.
“He’s literally insulted the Military for over half his life at every possible time he could.”
Could you give some examples of that? Other than what he said about McCain, I don’t see anything about that. I know that for most of his life Trump was actually a Democrat (Oprah once suggested that he should run for President, back when he was still a Democrat, which he was for about 40+ years until Reagan, I believe), but I don’t recall him ever actively insulting the military. To be fair, I never really paid much attention to him prior to his being elected President in 2016. He insulted McCain, but Democrats did that throughout the 2012 election against Obama, and for most of McCain’s political career as well. It was only when McCain became a notable anti-Trumper that the left looked at him in a favorable light as ‘one of the good Republicans,’ although McCain’s views had not changed from when he ran against Obama four years earlier.
“Especially after his presidency and pissing all over the same oath every US soldier takes he did the entire time he was.”
Again, not sure what you’re talking about here. This is sounding more like you having personal attacks on Trump than having anything specific to say based on data. Which is probably because Trump has a very aggravating attitude that rubs people who generally vote democrat (which is the plurality of registered voters, admittedly) the wrong way. It’s a large reason why he lost the 2020 election – it was more a ‘anti-Trump’ vote than a pro-Biden vote by all appearances with people galvanized to vote based on ‘getting him out of office’ more than anything specific that Biden was bringing to the table.
“And that’s not even taking Jan 6th into account.”
What does January 6th have to do with who soldiers tended to support politically? This is confusing.
“And Sasha got that info from somewhere other than Fox, OANN and Newsmax, Pander.”
Why are you assuming I get my info from FOX, OANN and Newsmax? I don’t even get OANN and Newsmax where I live, and Fox is mainly news punditry, like CNN and MSNBC. Also you still haven’t told me where Sasha got that data from. You just made a little ad hominem attack on me, assuming I’m a Trump supporter just because I’m giving a fact on who military families tended to vote for in 2016 and 2020 (it’s freely available polling information, although 2016’s polls were obviously VERY off, except it was off in a way that was advantageous to Hillary, not Trump).
Stop acting as I’m biased for relying on dry statistics instead of news media punditry. If I rely on anything mainstream, it’s probably more likely the BBC or NPR (that’s the closest thing to mainstream that I tend to use since it’s easier to find sources with them), or OpenSecrets (which tends to have more dry statistics that are easier to look up the sources for). Give me actual data sources where you can say his base is NOT rank-and-file military, rank-and-file police, and a large amount of the midwest – specifically non-college educated voters, blue collar voters (mostly factory, trades, and construction), and small business owners outside of cities, and an unusually large (for a Republican, at least) percentage of hispanic and black voters, while Biden’s base was largely college-educated voters and a mix of the top upper economic class, corporate class, and lowest economic class voters, as well as a large college-age vote and senior citizen vote.
Just to be clear, my giving an accurate representation of where Trump’s base exists does not anything about my personal preferences. But if you don’t realize where that base is, you’re not going to be very accurate on predicting voting trends or understanding the electorate.
Biden did not get a lot of donations from military families. The majority of his donations came from super PACs, hybrid PACs, and Carey Committees, which is par for the course for Democratic Presidential elections but was extreme even for Democrat fundraising in 2020. Biden’s donations from theses and other big donors came up to around 1.3 billion dollars. Source – OpenSecrets ( https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669 )
Trump had a couple of superPACs as well (America First Action and Preserve America PAC), but I think it didnt get more than around $150 million). Source – OpenSecrets ( https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/candidate?id=N00023864 )
In small contributions, both Biden and Trump had around the same amount in donations, just from different sources. Like I said, outside of PACs, Biden’s donations came largely from college-educated and a mix of upper economic-class and lower economic class voters, while Trump’s came largely from factory and middle-class non-college educated voters.
Outside of that, the large contributions were overwhelmingly for Biden. Mostly a lot of hedge funds and venture capital firms that heavily donated to the Biden campaign (Paloma Partners, Euclidian Capital, Deborah Simon, Marcus and Millicap, Sequoia Capital, Arista Networks, The Baupost Group, Greylock Partners, Lone Pine Capital, Intersystems Corporation, media mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, a lot of the media industry (Steven Spielberg, Kate Capshaw, and Seth MacFarlane were some of the big donors there), Jeffrey Skoll (first President of Ebay), and Kathryn Murdoch and James Murdoch (the children of Rupert Murdoch, who are involved in running NewsCorp, since you brought up Fox News).
This is freely available public information – just very dry, factual statistics. What Biden did NOT have was a lot of small donations (the majority of Trump’s donations were small donations though, again par for the course for Republicans, but especially with Trump since he was more of a ‘populist’ candidate support-wise), and I can’t find anything to support Sasha’s claim that it was largely military families at all.
TLDR – Biden overwhelming got his donations from large donors and SuperPACs, and I don’t see anything where he had a lot of rank-and-file military family donor support at all. I think you’re letting personal dislike color your opinion on my being unsure of where Sasha was basing her statement.
“What Biden did NOT have was a lot of small donations ”
Little fix on this sentence. “a lot of small non-college educated voter donations, especially upper-class.
Which tends to mean very few military families.”
Well said on the long comment. No reply button there.
And besides, since it’s the GrrlVerse, who’s to say that Ol’ Dumpy *EVER* becomes Prez there? Maye Hillary wins in DaveB’s universe!
Agreed, let’s explore some new ground instead of following Earth Prime history. I vote for Jessica Jones to be the next president – not an A-list superheroine with a lot of [strike]baggage[/strike] history, and I’d love to see how she interacts with the various members of Archon.
DC Comics started diverging completely about who was President after Bill Clinton, largely because of a dislike among the editor-in-chief and some DC writers of George Bush Sr. Overall it’s probably a good idea to have fake Presidents in comics since it only serves to split any potential audience in our very politically tribalized and split country today because…. like Michael Jordan once said, “Republicans buy sneakers too.”
After Bill Clinton, Lex Luthor became President.
Then Pete Ross (Clark’s childhood friend and VP for Lex Luthor) was President.
Now Jonathan Vincent Horne is President.
Plus, it further distances the made-up world (comic, TV or movie) from the ‘real’ world
Yes, that’s pretty much my point. :)
In this case, I want President Oliver Queen.
Go on. I dare _anyone_ to name a better existing character for the job. Not even Steve “Captain God Damn America” Rogers would make a better American President than Green Arrow.
You could do a LOT worse than Oliver Queen as President. If nothing else, he’s unflappably honest. Doesn’t he become mayor in the TV show? Although that’s Arrowverse DC so it’s a significantly different version of Oliver Queen from the comics or cartoon (if he doesn’t look like Robin Hood I just don’t see him as the Green Arrow).
I especially like what Oliver Queen said on Justice League Unlimited, as it related to Cadmus. Especially because he stood up to Superman, when he’s just some guy who can shoot arrows really well. :) Sort of has a lot to do with what Illy said about if Maxima ever decided to just take over (or as Sydney puts it, if she ever goes ‘Dark Maxima.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2U5BHxBRMI
Oliver Queen: “Hey, I’m the only guy in the room who doesn’t have superpowers, and let me tell you, you guys scare me. What if you do decide to go marching down there, taking care of whoever you think is guilty? Who could stop you? Me?”
Supergirl: “So you *want* the government to have a bunch of superhuman weapons just to keep us in check?”
Oliver Queen: “No – I don’t know – Yeah!”
Oliver Queen: “Look, I’m an old lefty. The government must do for people what people can’t do for themselves. The people sure can’t protect themselves from the likes of us.”
That exact, short, exchange is a big part of why I would back Ollie over literally anyone else.
Including Red Son Superman, of whom I am, in fact, a huge fan.
Oh definitely. The Cadmus Arc of Justice League may be some of the best dialog in cartoons ever.
You might also really like the DC Showcase – Green Arrow animated short if you’re an Oliver Queen fan where he faces off against Merlyn and Baron Vertigo to save a young princess from an assassination. Black Canary makes an appearance too. It’s pretty awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVRiADlDEig
“… which president will do something stupid enough …”
Any of them will do. I’m thinking of Harold Holt, who decided to go for a swim at Cheviot Beach in Victoria, in bad conditions with a large swell and visible currents and eddies. His body was never recovered.
Sometimes, your mind is elsewhere, and forgot to tell you about it.
Maybe he decided suicide by shark was preferable to returning to the Aussie parliament
Or, he faked his death and swam to Borneo to hang out with the more-intelligent primates :P
If he was trying to swim to Borneo, then he was on the wrong side of the continent and going the wrong way – Borneo is North-West of Australia, Cheviot Beach is near Melbourne in the South-East corner. If he didn’t hit Tasmania or its nearby islands, next landfall would be Antarctica!
Trump is a pedo. I somehow think Max would stop him from becoming president.
This sort of reminds me of Superman’s reaction when Lex Luthor was running for President. Then became President. One would hope Maxima wouldn’t take things into her own hands actually. When Superman did after Luthor became President on an alternate Earth, that’s how the Justice Lords began.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0e6MCq3DbQ
It’s a little more acceptable when Question does something like that instead, since Question is a bit of a crackpot, and he was mainly trying to kill Luthor so that Superman would not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHPfS69JwQ
As soon as she realises it, Max rules the planet.
All she has to do to get any legislation she wants passed is walk into the appropriate room and state her requirements.
“Do you feel in charge”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_BubeBU8E
What’s anyone going to do to stop her, unless they’re Dabbler or Sydney?
That’s the basis of realpolitic. And capes break the status quo. Hard.
—
Worm/Parahumans has a good examination of this (no spoilers from the sequal please, I haven’t gotten up the courage to read it yet). When you have superhumans, the world falls back to feudalism, with the capes as the ruling class.
“As soon as she realises it, Max rules the planet.”
That is pretty much the entire point of the Justice Lords :). Also the point of Injustice. Main difference is that in Injustice, there are still some heroes who refuse to go along with Superman’s takeover of the planet ‘for the good of everyone’ like Batman, Green Arrow, Plastic Man, Mr. Terrific, etc.
Just a reminder though… in those situations… Superman is the villain, because he’s crossed the line. Even though he thinks he’s a hero, he isn’t any longer.
Similar to how Batman was in the Justice Lords until the ‘good’ Batman from New Earth showed him he was wrong. At first, Batman doesn’t have a good response to Justice Lord Batman on why the Justice Lord’s Earth isnt better. Then later, he does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYMBwqtMht0
“What’s anyone going to do to stop her, unless they’re Dabbler or Sydney?”
Hopefully, Sydney would not go along with it. Hopefully she’d be like Injustice Batman or DCU Batman, not Justice Lords Batman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-FsIB2Oo4
“That’s the basis of realpolitic. And capes break the status quo. Hard.”
Don’t forget that in The Boys, the Boys manage to beat the Seven despite mostly being unpowered non-Supers. :) (even before Maeve and Starlight side with Billy Butcher and the Boys).
“Worm/Parahumans has a good examination of this (no spoilers from the sequal please, I haven’t gotten up the courage to read it yet).”
Don’t worry, I haven’t read it yet, but I will.
You should also read The Authority. Similar concept. Again, the one who stands against them? Bruce Wayne. (don’t worry – that’s not a spoiler btw, that’s basically page 1).
> Just a reminder though… in those situations… Superman is the villain, because he’s crossed the line. Even though he thinks he’s a hero, he isn’t any longer.
What line has he crossed, other than breaking the status quo?
Using the last few years as an example, wouldn’t the world have been a much better place if someone powerful had stepped in and forced lockdowns, masks and vaccinations on everyone, instead of letting the aristocracy play chicken with a global plauge?
Fundamentally this is a “slave in Heaven vs free in Hell” discussion, as long as the good capes take over.
The line he’s presumably crossed is that he’s gone from protector to controller. He’s not protecting the freedom of the weak, but has taken their freedom away from them in the name of saving them from themselves.
What point is there in making the world a better place if it doesn’t actually make the people any better? If they’re just moral infants, only behaving well because there’s a powerful authoritarian forcing them to?
Rule by power eventually leads to rule by the most evil, unless you are certain that the most good is also the most powerful. Unless you can guarantee that, it’s wiser to find some other solution than power, some way of encouraging the development of a moral people, and finding an alternative structure for society than ensures good outcomes, independent of who is most powerful.
Positive freedoms vs negative freedoms.
Is the freedom to not die of the plauge more important than the freedom to not be forced to wear a mask in public?
—
> it’s wiser to find some other solution than power
There is no other solution than “rule by power”. Its what happens today, everywhere, and has always been the case. If you have enough power, then you get what you want.
And the status quo is shit for most of the world’s population.
“What line has he crossed, other than breaking the status quo?”
1) He starts behaving as a dictator
2) He imprisons people who have a different opinion than he has
3) He murders people for the actions that are the direct result of HIM.
4) He murders Billy Batson for saying that it’s wrong to kill people who have a different opinion
5) He murders 200 teenagers who are at a rave for being stupid, even though they weren’t hurting anyone.
6) He murders Black Canary, who was herself pregnant (Oliver Queen was the father) right after he murdered Oliver Queen for stealing the Super-pill to give Batman a chance at being able to stop Superman from enslaving the planet.
7) He aligns himself with Sinestro and the Yellow Lantern Corp. When you’re allies with a guy named SINESTRO, chances are you’re on the side of the baddies.
8) He abolishes freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
9) He abolishes the right to bear arms (read the page where he debates this with Flash, and in the cartoon where he debates this with Mr. Terrific)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R2JMCRlbso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmbiP13LyuM
In every conceivable way, Injustice Superman is a villain in much the same way that Dr. Doom is a villain in Marvel. He thinks he’s doing what’s right for his people, but he’s actually a bloodthirsty tyrant, and people side with him either out of fear or because it’s not yet them on the chopping block.
“Using the last few years as an example, wouldn’t the world have been a much better place if someone powerful had stepped in and forced lockdowns, masks and vaccinations on everyone, instead of letting the aristocracy play chicken with a global plauge?”
To quote Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
This is pretty much the whole point of the moral behind Injustice, and also behind Justice League’s ‘The Justice Lords.’ There’s this slippery slope when you start giving up liberty, which inevitably devolves into full-on oppression.
Even with the mandates, the Nazis started in Germany by using health mandates in order to separate the Jews from the rest of society as undesirables. While I am pro-vaccination (and I am vaccinated and have taken the booster) because I’m scientifically minded, I do not want to villainize people and do something which will lead to them being considered non-people because they don’t agree with me.
“Fundamentally this is a “slave in Heaven vs free in Hell” discussion, as long as the good capes take over.”
Again I’m a bit too much of a supporter of liberty and freedom to accept this. Possibly to my own detriment, I believe in the whole ‘Give me liberty or give me death’ mentality of Thomas Paine. I think freedom tends to be worth the risks that come along with it, while authoritarian rule is almost always only good long-term for those at the top.
Torabi:
“The line he’s presumably crossed is that he’s gone from protector to controller. He’s not protecting the freedom of the weak, but has taken their freedom away from them in the name of saving them from themselves.”
Exactly. It’s why he’s no longer a hero at that point – he’s a villain, much like Black Adam or Dr Doom, each of whom think that what they’re doing is for the good of their people as well. For that matter, Magneto thinks he’s a hero, not a villain as well (with that one brief period during which he wasn’t and was at Xavier’s School as a teacher).
“Rule by power eventually leads to rule by the most evil, unless you are certain that the most good is also the most powerful.”
Yes, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also think Harvey Dent’s statement of ‘You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain’ sort of applies here as well. :)
“And the status quo is shit for most of the world’s population.”
Yes, and this is probably the biggest problem with marxism. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, for all people to be brought UP to a certain level universally, but it’s very easy to bring most people DOWN to a certain level. Which winds up meaning most of the population is miserable, but they’re safely miserable and equally miserable.
“Positive freedoms vs negative freedoms.”
The US was founded on the concept of negative rights, not positive rights. The idea that the government does not exist to grant you rights that you would otherwise not have, but rather that the government exists to make sure that they will not take away the inalienable, natural rights which you have by virtue of being alive, rather than by the efforts of others, that you already have (and also make sure that no one else takes away those rights as well).
“There is no other solution than “rule by power”. Its what happens today, everywhere, and has always been the case. If you have enough power, then you get what you want.”
I’m not attacking you directly on this, but that mentality is the mentality responsible for much of the bloodshed and atrocities in human history because it’s only good for you if you’re the one with the power. If you are not, then you’re living at the whims of another person with no hope of upward mobility. It’s why I’m so supportive of stuff like free market economies with the Non-Aggression Principle being in effect.
“And the status quo is shit for most of the world’s population.”
This is true. But the problem is what the status quo is. It’s a lot easier to bring everyone down to the same level than to bring everyone up to the same level. If the status quo for everyone (except those in power) is crap, and everyone is equally in a crappy situation, then that’s not exactly a good society, is it? Liberty is necessary for upward mobility under your own merit, instead of being reliant on the good graces of someone else already in power. The problem is that the person in power might very well be a psychopath and a monster, and often is, even if he or she is using flowery language to hide that fact.
Again that’s sort of a point made in Red Son. Superman had no idea that Stalin was lying to him for most of his life, and when he found out, he executed Stalin as the monster that he was. Bruce Wayne’s family, who were anti-communist protestors, were murdered under Stalin’s regime with Superman as the enforcer. They were executed in their homes by NKVD Commissar Pyotir Roslov (Pete Ross, Superman’s best friend) for the crime of distributing anti-communist pamphlets, which spurs Bruce to try to overthrow the Communist Party of the Soviet Union when he becomes an adult.
I forgot there were more things he did that were evil.
9) He abolished the 4th Amendment
10) He performed scientific experiments on people against their will.
11) He lied to even his own cousin about what he was doing in order to try to use Supergirl as a weapon against any who would oppose his regime, and when she found out, he tried to kill her as well. She wound up siding with Batman because ‘The House of El is supposed to stand for hope, not fear.’ Basically, Supergirl pointed out that Superman was acting the SAME way Zod had behaved on Krypton. Zod thought he was protecting his people by being a tyrant as well.
Some examples of quotes between Supergirl and Superman when Batman’s people finally show her what has been happening on Earth while she’s been hidden away by Superman:
Superman: Humans don’t deserve to be free.
Supergirl: They deserve to choose for themselves!
Superman: Then you will die with them!
Supergirl: You are a monster to everyone!
Superman: I am The only God they need, Traitor!
Supergirl: You are the god they never wanted!
Supergirl: You betrayed the House of El and yourself.
Superman: If They had been like Zod, Krypton might have been saved.
Supergirl: You and General Zod are so deserving one another.
Superman: Is the world without crime and wars not worth a single human life?
Supergirl: You’ll never stop at one!
Superman: You are so weak caring for these criminals.
Did you ever read “The Paradox of Self-Amendment”, or at least look into Nomic?
I imagine you chose to use the word marxism to avoid the baggage associated with communism… but neither’s an appropriate example for what you’re alluding to. But bringing everyone down to the bottom would provide far more motivation for improving the lives of those at the bottom than allowing some people to climb their way to the top by stepping on others. Capitalism attempts to subvert that natural instinct, but it only works until people discover ways around the feedback mechanism. Its proponents may claim “a rising tide lifts all boats”, but that’s not the natural operative model of capitalism.
Okay this post is insanely long (even for me) and I apologize but I get really verbose when talking about the historical flaws of Marxism or the historical benefits of capitalism.
“Did you ever read “The Paradox of Self-Amendment”, or at least look into Nomic?”
Skimmed but I haven’t had time to thoroughly read it yet. I will though, I promise. I just need free time.
“I imagine you chose to use the word marxism to avoid the baggage associated with communism”
I chose marxism because Marxist philosophy leaves no real wiggle room for ‘no, not that type of communism, some other philosophy of communism.’ Marx was not a particularly intelligent person and his views on a ‘perfect communist society’ were inherently flawed and PROVEN to be flawed once it was applied.
“But bringing everyone down to the bottom would provide far more motivation for improving the lives of those at the bottom than allowing some people to climb their way to the top by stepping on others.”
There is no motivation to climb upwards in marxism, because you’re not supposed to ‘climb up’ once at the bottom. You stay at the bottom by design and the state supposedly will provide what is needed. The only real upwards mobility at ALL, even on a temporary basis, is favorability by the state. Specifically by ‘stepping on others’ as you put it. By turning in others for disloyalty to the state’s mandates, spying on others, etc. This does NOT encourage a society to engage in deals with one another. Just with the State.
“Capitalism attempts to subvert that natural instinct, but it only works until people discover ways around the feedback mechanism.”
Actually the exact opposite. Capitalism relies on the natural instinct of people to be greedy by saying ‘if you provide a service that other people want, or a good that other people need, you can get things you want. It’s meritocracy-based. Specifically, capitalism is an economic system where individuals freely decide what they will produce and who they will serve. If they produce something others want, they will benefit from it. Since both parties have to consent, successful capitalism demands that you serve the needs of others before you are rewarded for your work. If you serve only yourself, it’s unlikely anyone will want to give you what you want in a capitalist system. In short, capitalism forces you to do something useful that others want if you want to be successful.
What most people who criticize capitalism do, however, is confuse capitalism with corporatism, which is when capitalism gets corrupt, usually by collusion with government, which subverts the free market system by giving some an unfair advantage that isnt tied to goods, services, or merit.
The case of Jamestown is a good example of . I’ll relate the story to you:
Four hundred years ago, 105 men and boys disembarked from three ships and established the first permanent English settlement in North America. They built a fort along what they called the James River, in honor of their king (Jamestown). When they arrived, it was prior to capitalism. There was a sort of proto-capitalism in place called mercantilism.
Under mercantilism, businesses were operated for the benefit of the state. While governments permitted the companies to make profits, their primary purpose was to advance the national interest of their host country – England, Spain, France, etc.
The early settlers of Jamestown were set up to be self-sufficient so that the English government would not have to support them. The land was lush and fertile, yet within three years most of the colonists died during what came to be known as “the starving time.”
What went wrong? There were the usual hardships of pioneers far from home, such as unfamiliar diseases. There were mixed relations with the Native Tribe already living in Virginia (I believe the Powhatan). Sometimes the Powhatan and settlers traded, other times armed conflicts broke out. But according to a governor of the colony, George Percy, most of the colonists died of famine, despite the “good and fruitful” soil, the abundant deer and turkey, and the “strawberries, raspberries and fruits unknown” growing wild.
The reason was because the colonists had this idea that they thought would be fair for everyone. Under the governor, they set up a common storehouse for grain, from which people would take what they needed, and put back what they could. Lands were also held in common and were worked in common. The settlers owned no land of their own.
It fell apart within two years. Massive self-destructive behavior. When everyone was entitled to everything, no one was responsible for anything. If you showed up late to work the field, left early, or did not work at all, you would be entitled to the same amount of food as everyone else, because most of the food would have to still go to the common store. The most able and fit young men in Plymouth thought it an “injustice” that they were paid the same as those “not able to do a quarter the other could.” Women, meanwhile, viewed the communal chores they were required to perform for others as a form of slavery. Understandably, people who don’t benefit from their hard work tend not to work very hard. By the end of the second year, about half of the colonists had died of starvation.
The new governor arrived and instituted a system of private property, because he surmised that
the existing system of “taking away of property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth”) bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers’] benefit and comfort.”
When they set up a system of private property, where each colonist got a parcel of their own land and were told they could keep anything they created, and do with as they liked, Jamestown was able to produce not only enough food to feed the colonists, but they had enough to be able to trade for additional goods. Basically they stumbled on proto-capitalism by encouraging people to produce more than they needed by the promise that they’d be able to trade the fruits of their own labor for other things they wanted. It encouraged them to work harder as a result.
The same thing happened later in Plymouth according to the writings of Governor William Bradford, btw.
When I say marxist, it’s because Marxism is still the fundamental philosophy used by most communists (outside of China and its sphere of influence, at least, but Mao has been responsible for more death than even Stalin).
Marxist economic philosophy has the same problem that Jamestown had in its first couple of years, but on a much, much larger scale, and even Karl Marx admitted that the ‘utopian society’ would need capitalism at first. You can’t overthrow something which is producing goods if that system does not exist in the first place. Capitalism forces people to innovate because of the profit motive. Communism does not encourage this at all.
In Capital (Marx’s flawed analysis of capitalism), even Marx pointed out numerous contributions that capitalism had made to economic progress, especially in the area of technology. But he wrote that capitalism was doomed because he predicted that as capitalism developed, a small number of powerful monopolies would drive many enterprises out of business. To successfully compete against one another, these “cut throat” monopolies would reduce worker wages. Finally, a class struggle between the workers and the capitalists would bring on a revolution, replacing capitalism with communism.
Marx also expected that once the proletariat had taken control of all capitalist property, wealth would flow more abundantly for the benefit of all. Then in the “higher phase of communist society,” individuals would finally be free to develop their abilities and talents to the fullest. Marx put it this way: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
But the proletarian revolution that Marx expected never happened in any ADVANCED industrialized country in the way that Marx had envisioned (although there was a revolution in 1917 in Russia, which was not a capitalist society to begin with). Contrary to Marx’s predictions, economic conditions gradually improved for most workers in capitalist societies.
Marx also failed to anticipate major reforms like the expansion of the right to vote, laws abolishing child labor, social security, and the right of workers to join unions. Workers in capitalist countries seemed more interested in improving their wages and working conditions than joining a revolution.
Karl Marx had an admittedly naive vision of a new just society based on economic plenty shared by all. Mostly because he never worked a day in his life and glommed off of his friend, Friedrich Engels, who’s father was insanely wealthy due to owning several textile mills.
Marx believed that in a communist society, individuals would achieve true freedom. But when the revolution finally came in Russia and later on in other countries, Marx’s vision of freedom turned into tyranny.
When the communist revolution did occur in Russia in 1917, Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the new Soviet Union, concentrated all power in the Communist Party. After Lenin, Joseph Stalin used violence and starvation to end private ownership of agricultural land, causing the death of millions of peasants (anywhere between 20 and 60 million – the whole ‘one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic’ mindset, stated by Stalin). The Communist Party became a privileged ruling class, relying on force to stay permanently in control.
“Its proponents may claim “a rising tide lifts all boats”, but that’s not the natural operative model of capitalism.”
It’s a bit simplistic, but it’s closer to being accurate than what you’re suggesting. There main fallacy of people who argue against capitalism is the mistaken belief that economics is a zero sum game.
Zero‐sum games are those in which the total gained from playing the game is zero. So, for example, if each of five people playing poker buys into the game for $100, there is only $500 to be won. Collectively, that’s a zero‐sum game. If I have $200 left at the end of the night, then all of the other players together have only $300 to divide among the them. In zero‐sum games, one person’s gain is another person’s (or several people’s) loss. In short, in a zero sum game, one person can only win if another person loses. THIS IS NOT HOW CAPITALISM WORKS.
It ignores the way in which wealth is created through production and exchange. One of the most fundamental insights of economics is that exchange is mutually beneficial and therefore wealth‐creating.
For example, when Subway sells me a sandwich they prefer having the five dollars more than they prefer having the sandwich and I prefer having the sandwich more than having the five dollars. We are both made better off by the exchange. Both sides benefit, both sides get what they value more, and the interaction was completely voluntary on both sides.
Now take production into account. The owners of Subway (or any business) do not become rich by taking from everyone else. They become rich by providing something that people value more than their money. In order to keep getting money, they have to engage in other trades as well, which create opportunities for OTHER people to make money by creating things that Subway needs, in order to continue producing sandwiches, including technology to make the sandwiches taste better, or more efficiently make them, or more efficiently transport the ingredients, or marketing them, etc. In this way, wealth is actually created from nothing for a net benefit to both sides of any successful deal.
It’s why Marx recognized that, for all its faults that he saw in capitalism, it did tend to create technologically advanced societies that would not exist absent of capitalism.
> What most people who criticize capitalism do, however, is confuse capitalism with corporatism, which is when capitalism gets corrupt
Unfortunately for you, by your definition of Capitalism, it has never existed.
All we have ever had is what you call Corporatism.
Here’s a good essay on some of this stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk
“Unfortunately for you, by your definition of Capitalism, it has never existed.”
I would love to disagree with you that entirely …. BUT a significant portion of what you said is accurate, especially in the last 35 years. That being said it’s not ‘all we’ve ever had is corporatism.’ We actually used to have rather thriving free market capitalism system for a rather large period of U.S history. It’s just in the last few generations that it’s gotten very corrupt without a government that actually applies the few things they’re SUPPOSED to do (applying antitrust laws, breaking up monopolies and near monopolies, etc).
We did have a government that was at least sometimes willing to do that sort of stuff when they broke up Ma Bell in 1984, or when they passed the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. But in the last couple of generations, corporations have had what I would think is an unconstitutional collusion with the government as a workaround of basic Constitutional rights and they seem VERY unwilling to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act or other laws that limit the power of corporations when they’re taking over the ‘public space.’
I also do think companies like Alphabet, Apple, and Facebook, Disney, and some of the big lending companies are getting dangerously close to OCP (yknow, like in Robocop) levels of corporatism. Too many mergers, not enough breakups or monopolies, not enough enforcement of antitrust violations like gun-jumping (it’s a legal term in Merger & Acquisition – I’ve worked on a couple of big gun-jumping cases before).
I’ll check the youtube link a bit later, thanks.
If they’re not the same thing, capitalism inevitably becomes corporatism, without some kind of guardrails to prevent it. There was a time where capitalism could be stable, because of government restrictions, but also because of social inhibitions. But as we have culturally embraced capitalism, we’ve redefined a lot of abuses as correct behavior, to the point where people believe that corporations have a ethical obligation to do evil.
“If they’re not the same thing, capitalism inevitably becomes corporatism, without some kind of guardrails to prevent it.”
Which is why I’m a fan of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, when government actually BOTHERS TO APPLY IT, and why I’m very opposed to ‘Too Big to Fail’ bailouts.. Nothing should be too big to fail. There’s no size limit at which the negative results for business idiocy should no longer be applicable.
“But as we have culturally embraced capitalism, we’ve redefined a lot of abuses as correct behavior, to the point where people believe that corporations have a ethical obligation to do evil.”
I actually disagree with this (culturally we’ve often actually embraced socialism, largely because most people have a childlike zero sum game understanding of economics, although I agree that Hollywood is very fond of the ‘villainous CEO’ trope) but I’m trying to not get caught up on very long posts days after the comic page is done. :)
I do think a lot of people do think corporations are evil, but that’s more because a lot of the largest corporations HAVE been doing things that are extremely unethical and outright illegal, and keep getting away with it because of government collusion and cowardly judges and politicians not holding them to task. Most corporations (and LLCs and S Corps and LCs and LPs) are actually rather small and are not evil at all. I have an LLC and I’ve yet to put out a (successful) hit on any of my enemies. At least a successful hit made for business reasons.
The problem is that “Slave in Heaven” is never a real option. Neither is “Free in Hell”. They both converge into the exact same outcome. That is the inevitable end result, unless we can find a way to escape the universal game of Nomic. And we’ve got to find some other way than rule by power. The only alternative is annihilation.
Unless they elect to _enforce_ the status quo.
Which is something that Deus has already called out.
Thisis why Red Son is such a fascinating read, for me. Ultimately, the Soviet Superman does not, in fact, realize the fears of the American Oligarchy, and cast the Ruling Class down, in favor of a more genuinely democratic, just society for all. Instead, he exercises restraint, and sticks to the ethics & morality he learned as a Soviet far better than the True Blue, Red Blooded American Superman who eventually gives us the Injustice timeline.
…honestly, the Red Son Superman makes a much better counter to Injustice Superman than whichever Boy Scout Batman recruited. *disgusted sigh*
Anyway, point being, Empress Maxima would require a whole series of events to come into being. She would not only have to conclude that she was the only one capable of making any correct decisions, but that consequences of her exercising Imperium justify themselves. That includes how others see her: even gods dislike being popularly hated & feared. And that all assumes she could pull it off, which I’m doubting. Max is not, by any means, unassailable.
…now, going out on a tangent, I’d love to see a Red Son take of the Archon crew. Max would clearly be a pretty stock tankie, but I can see AnarchoSyndicalist Halo with, like, zero effort. In fact, I can see AnSyn Sydney running not just a comics shop, but actually leading a whole studio, totally geeking out over art, history, storytelling, and really REALLY diving into not just hero comics, but the more art house & esoteric stuff, too. Probably able to discuss the finer points of sociological, psychological, political, and economic impact & messaging, too. In fact, I’d say she probably has a firm grasp on the positive & negative applications of propaganda, through comics, as well.
Hmm…Harem probably Nightwitch, in honor of the all-female Soviet air combat squadron. Most likely is a bit more disciplined, and a lot more ruthless. Dabbles & Anvil probably don’t change much, Math probably gets Evil Universe Twin Facial Hair, and spends very slightly less time being a letch, and more time doing Extreme Physical Conditioning…and preternaturally graceful Tai Chi in the mornings. Ariana is obviously a Propaganda & Political Officer…and secretly much less of a hard liner than she seems. Achilles probably drinks nothing but vodka, in the hope of one day exceeding his power & getting drunk again, finally.
…and so, SO much more. o.o’
“That includes how others see her: even gods dislike being popularly hated & feared. ”
That’s pretty much the premise about Homelander in The Boys. His main thing holding him back was that he wanted to be popular and loved by the public, but he’s an evil sociopathic monster publicly playing the part of ‘Hero.’ Even though he knows and relishes the idea that a lot of people are terrified of him, one of the things that worries him the most (other than not being loved by the public) is that James Stillwell isn’t even remotely intimidated by him, despite having no powers whatsoever. He’s just always bored of Homelander’s threats. It intimidates the heck out of Homelander that this scrawny guy isn’t even remotely worried about him EVER.
In the TV show, Homelander doesn’t kill Billy Butcher when he clearly could have mainly because he was impressed that Butcher was not remotely scared of him either (but rather than Stillwell, who’s completely indifferent which weirds Homelander out), Butcher’s instead full of rage at Homelander for what he believes that Homelander did to his wife. So there’s no room for fear with Billy Butcher.
“And that all assumes she could pull it off, which I’m doubting.”
I would have to believe that the government has SOME sort of countermeasures in place for a rogue Maxima. I mean… obviously Deus does as well, as the world’s most perfect paragon of humanity, savior of the universe all praise Deus amen, but I’m expecting the US Government probably has put some thought into a ‘Dark Maxima’ scenario as well if Sydney also did.
Dabbles can fight Max to a draw. That means adding just about anyone else should be be enough to shut her down.
This is an excellent point.
Plus Maxima is likely also vulnerable to other things like magic, mind control, etc, and the US is more likely to know what Maxima’s classified limitations are than anyone else.
For all we know, the US Government has the other half of the geode. :)
How fortunate that she is so principled, or at least places faith in a hierarchy that doesn’t revolve around power.
The fundamental question of existence is finding a way for multiple intelligences to actually share a universe without attempting to kill or subjugate each other. And we need to find an answer to that question before reach the level of power differential at which it really becomes relevant, or the whole cycle starts over.
trump’s a serial (and unrepentant) sexual predator who has sexually assaulted many women and (re: the pedophilia angle) made a point of walking into the changing rooms of his teen beauty pageant while the (underage) contestants were changing. biden’s an innocent, out of touch old dope smeared by inveterate liars for puerile partisan political purposes. literally nobody thinks biden would be more likely to be orbitized than trump, everybody who pretends to believe that is lying. guesticules has beautifully illustrated the mindset of the post-truth partisan. the vilest defamation, the most indefensible argumentation are par for the course in pursuit of partisan tit-for-tat.
You have missed loads of stuff re: Biden’s daughter’s diary, Hunter Biden’s and laptop, and the scandals surrounding Biden’s several failed democrat presidential runs. Media doesn’t carry stories that conflict with their narratives
Actually, the media will carry any story that they think will generate interest.
Biden’s still not as bad as Trump, btw. He never attempted a coup when he lost.
Is being elected to the office of POTUS counted as losing?
You think he won a second term?
Fuck off with that Qultist bullshit.
I don’t even think Biden’s tried for a second yet. So how could he “never attempted a coup when he lost” ?
Biden ran for president several times, and lost all but the most recent of those.
I think I’d better refrain from comment here, lest I be seen as somewhat dumber than the YT gallery.
While Biden ran for President three times (1988, 2008, and 2020), two of those times he dropped out before even losing the nomination for Democratic candidate.
The first time he dropped out was because of a speech plagiarism scandal (he had tried to pass off a speech as his when it was actually made by the British Labor Leader, Neil Kinnock, as well as reports that he had lied about his academic record..
The second time he dropped out was because he had absolutely NO support, and he quit VERY early into the campaign again, but he wound up instead getting picked as a Vice Presidential candidate to the actual nominee, Barack Obama.
So it’s not exactly that he lost the first two. He would have definitely lost, but instead he quit (once because of scandal and once because he had no popular support whatsoever). When he won in 2020, it was more seen as a ‘vote against Trump’ vote than a ‘vote for Biden’ vote. The Atlantic and a couple of other papers, including the New York Times, had articles basically stating outright that all they needed was Biden’s not-dead body because they felt Trump was just that galvanizing among the Democrat voters that they’d come out to vote en masse just to vote against Trump (there are somewhat more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, although Trump’s base did include an unusually large amount of disillusioned independents both in 2016 and 2020, plus Democrats tend to congregate in cities, especially large metropolis-type cities, in rather large numbers).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/stay-alive-joe-biden/608614/
No, Biden just threw away thirty years of a countries progress on a whim, handing it back to the regime that has proven time and time don’t give a shit about humanitarian rights
What progress, he killed much of the environmental regulations, via Executive Orders!
What the frank are you talking about? Wasn’t talking about the US
But the fact he ‘killed much of the environmental regulations’ does imply there had been some progress made before he ‘killed’ it
On a whim? The previous administration was already making plans to withdraw.
We never should have been there in the first place, and obviously weren’t making a lasting difference. The people there need to be responsible for running their own country.
Completely agree with you on the last part
They had all these years to learn how to stand on their own feet, and within days of the official announcement of withdrawal, rolled over and gave up
At this point in time, Obama’s still President.
So where is daddy Scoville? Got distracted and wandered off maybe. From what we know of him he is much like his daughter.
Nay nay, his ADD planning is working the opportunity; he’s working down the team roster for signatures and inviting people to BBQ sometime. Halo is the one super he has both familiarity with and guaranteed regular access to, he’d be missing a huge opportunity talking to her before the team disperses.
They will find him chatting and joking with the weirdoes in Archons most restricted labs. He will have no idea how he got there.
Syd Sr. and Gadget become close friends and he ultimately becomes a consultant helping design crazy tools for the team to use, generally at their own peril. Laura joins the female officers’ lunch group and provides sympathy and scarily-prescient advice in dealing with her family members.
Okay, I’ll admit to having an image of what Sydney Sr looks like (balding, kind of gone to seed, major dad bod). The kind of man who would make a junior out of his daughter. But I never developed one for Sydney’s mother.
It needs to (and likely has been in comments upstream) be said, Sydney’s mom has got it going on.
BUT, Sydney has been publicly a superhero for months, been part of at least two press conferences, and ‘the’ major all-out battle of the Super Powers all stars that was broadcast at least nationwide.
She and her mother haven’t spoken in all that time?
I actually picture Sydney Sr as looking like Sydney, but a little taller and with a blond soul patch, perhaps with square rimmed glasses and slightly less rounded features, but absolutely the same hair style, except a few inches longer. Basically a genderbent Sydney.
Sydney may well have done the common AD-type thing of having so many activities scheduled that something ‘flexible’ like calling family never quite gets a look-in. Civilian life can be bad enough for that, even before dropping ARC’s military requirements on top, and I suspect she’d probably have been very reluctant to admit that there were no longer enough hours in the week to keep up with everything she’d been doing prior to joining up.
I do not know which is best, the convo between mom and daughter, the close up on Max’s face (which I love to see), or the fact that Max’s first response is to offer a position to Laura.
Laura’s experience and obvious skill as a Halo handler would make her an invaluable team member. Sydney Sr on the other hand is probably about to be banned from being in the same room with Sydney Jr while on Archon property, lest the entire team go insane from trying to deal with them both at once.
Heh, you might be right.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sydney Sr. is as good at, or better at, superhero strategy as Sydney Jr is, actually. A proper nerd father, proud of his proper nerd daughter. And probably already has thought up 22 ways to take down the rest of Archon if they were to ever go out of control, like Batman would think up.
This one made me laugh
“Wink wink, nudge nudge – say no more.”
nope, none of that between these two. now some other pairings, i have little doubt.
Can you imagine how the communication between Sydney Sr. and his wife would go if this is how jr. communicates with her.
Sr. probably can dictate the entire einsteinian theory on special relativity to his wife without saying a word.
but she will point out where he forgot to carry the 3 with a single gesture.
Straight up love this panel. It is obvious that Sydney grew up with a mother that “got her”.
Or at least learned what not to put up with lol.
I see what train we are on…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G467_Azz1_s
Thought it was going to be Crazy Train
the Jackson park express is a silent train.
Yes, did listen to the start of it, but don’t have the capability to give it proper attention to listen to more (would miss too much, and Weird Al deserves more than that)
I mean, Syndey has been all over the news and is famous. Why wouldn’t her mother know about her powers by this point??
Because she chooses not to know? If you do not acknowledge something, it doesn’t exist until it slaps you in the face?
I have seen moms do odder things to stay sane around their kids when they didn’t have Sydney’s AD/HD.
The issue being that Sydney didn’t tell her parents about her powers before joining ARCSWAT. Obviously, she knows about them now. But, she found out about them second-hand, after the fact.
yes, and likely by the crowd of reporters either camping on her doorstep or trying to talk to her at work, or both. this is embarrassing.
Or when Maxi told Sydney to call her parents during the pre-Rumble meal
Her mom does already know. She saw the press reveal. Sydney calls her parents and talks to her mom in #190. I am more confused about why they haven’t already had that conversation.
I don’t know why but I thought Sydney‘s mom was dead, or otherwise not in the picture. I think we’ve only heard about her dad.
Sydney talked with both of them on the phone.
Completely irrational, but I had the impression that Sydney, Jr. was a result of parthenogenesis.
am certain there were days where the parents wondered that too.
Oof. That ‘entire conversation with no words’ thing really exists. I’ve seen people do this exact type of scene and get everything through. It’s honestly a little creepy.
A friend and I held a full 3-minute convo without uttering a word to each other just to annoy and drive off a guy we both found highly annoying back in high school. And we are both GUYS!!
Never have I seen someone of your kind who mastered the hidden arts to such a degree.
Never could I phantom the idea that any of your kind would even recognize the sacred art.
Never did I notice anyone to use it with such subtlety.
Who was your teacher?
What convinced them to share the secrets with the primitive?
Was it your potential, power or connections, was it foolishness, anger, or arrogance or something I couldn’t even phantom?
What could have moved a pure soul like you to not only learn the arts, but to even apply it?
Was it oppression, imprisonment, curiosity, evil or something else?
What did you learn from those foolish enough to underestimate your mastery?
Which secrets did you uncover with this intrigue?
Did they ever try to stop you?
All these questions rise when I see one of the artless rise above his brethern like you.
I know I shouldn’t ask, I know they will get you, but never, never will my desire to know fade.
Is that your own composition? Because it’s speaking to me like Saffron’s Curse (Cradle of Filth).
I have to admit that conversational semaphore would have been a VAST improvement over the experience of “I know perfectly well you don’t have an explanation I will consider acceptable, but I’m going to make you awkwardly stammer that in front of witnesses just so you feel extra humiliation before I mete out whatever punishment I deem fit.”
What about the “I don’t care if you have an explanation I will consider acceptable, I will make you awkwardly stammer out anything you have in front of witnesses just so you feel extra humiliation before I mete out whatever punishment I deem fit. This means I will heckle just in case you do have a good explanation.” experience?
At least my dad apologized to me for doing that when I had a good explanation. Once. I’m not certain of the count of times when I had an explanation that I later got him to admit was good enough, but he basically thwarted all of my attempts to give it before said punishment.
Random throwback thought:
Have we ever seen Sydney cold or hot? Thinking on the Green orb’s passive capability, if it’s life support it could be as simple as regulating body temperature. The passive would make sense for space travel where, despite the fresh air, cold could set in pretty easily and fast.
…scratch that, I just remembered the water in the Council’s reliquary that Sydney dived into. Then again, the passive application might not have been enough to counter the sudden change without surrounding air. *shrug*
HOLY SHIT DAVE!
I can SEE the glass in the glasses… Superb work.
P.S.: And I now realize it’s been like this for a while, but todays page brings your work with light really home for me.
Hot DAYAM!!
There is a topless Maxi as the current invotive for “Spying with Lana”
totally loving this page
Go watch a video of an Inuit village meeting if you want to see some real communication by gesture.
It’ll be hard to find one. Video of people saying maybe five words per minute isn’t exactly enthralling.
So… you’ve met my dad?
Yeah, the one who never uses one word where none will do?
That might have been him on that video.
Great Page! Just wanted to say it.
I love this page, Dave!
This is the “quiet” version of how we Italians tend to communicate.
Well. Sidney’s mom rules.
That is all. ^_^
And everyone looking at her drools :D
Wow, mysogyny as well as transphobia?
I think G is just making a quip about the term:
“Girls Rule, Boys Drool.”
Not misogyny. If anything the quote tends to be a bit more misandrist. The idea of the term is ‘Girls are awesome, boys suck.’ But I think G is just saying it as a funny quip, not as misandry (or misogyny).
I always understood that as “girls are only good for being a pretty object”.
But I think you’re with Dabbler on this one (conversation with Max in the resteraunt)
I admittedly really loved Dabbler’s take on what Maxima said about ‘A woman should be ….’ :) Not letting something define you negatively unless you let it.
But honestly, “Girls rule, boys drool” has been regularly used as a pro-feminist statement so I’m pretty sure it’s not meant in a derogatory way towards women. When someone says someone rules, that’s obviously a positive statement towards that person. Saying “something rules” means you think that thing is great. This is a fairly common slang. On the other hand, to “drool” is when spit and saliva drips out of your mouth. You might drool when you see delicious food, but most of the time, we say that someone who drools all the time must be a dirty and stupid person.
So ‘Girls rule, boys drool’ is generally meant to be positive for women, negative for men.