Grrl Power #1047 – Deployment abroaaaad
Ah, quite a few semi-centennials/quinquagenarians out there (plus or minus a few years anyway). Thanks for also being alive at roughly the same time as me, and saying so. Also thanks to everyone else for being the age you are. We’re inclusive here at Grrl Power Heavy Manufacturing Concern.
I decided that while a demon saying “Where the here are my keys?” (“here” referring to “hell”) is funny, they probably wouldn’t really do that when they’re not actually on their homeworld. (Which is called Infernus, not Hell anyway.) So, why not make them reference other planes? I didn’t think Tom would say “They pack a Heaven of a punch” or “…an Elysium of a punch,” but Pandemonium seemed reasonable. Granted, this is an ESL speaker (more likely English is his fourth or ninth language), or at least he’s speaking through some translation spell, so who knows how the lookup tables for colloquialistic substitutions are arranged? Fortunately he referred to a plane that English has a name for, and not one like on the prior page like “The Plane of No Matter How Much You Wipe, There’s Still Poo.” Some of us occasionally visit. I’m told.
“War Mage” can mean a range of things, here Tom is referring to someone who casts Giant Strength, Stoneskin, Flaming Touch and Haste all at the same time and wreaks absolute havok for 15 minutes. Other various spell combinations work as well, but they focus primarily on physical enhancement to become a Upper Lower to Mid-Middle tier Superman. Supers usually have fewer abilities outside of power stunts, but their “mana pools” as Tom says, are much much deeper. Supers can definitely wear themselves out using their powers, but most of them can keep at it for several hours at a time, depending partially on what they’re doing. A geokinetic shuffling around dirt to help with planting could do that all day, whereas holding the concrete together on a crumbling dam could wipe them out in minutes. Power levels vary quite a bit, but most would be able to outlast most mages.
I like Sydney not being sure if she should be offended or not by Deus and Tom’s deal. Certain segments do seem to like to be vicariously offended by things – I don’t think it’s an unreasonable instinct though, just like wanting to step in and protect someone who needs help. Of course, there’s a difference between keeping a little kid from being pushed around and a marginalized group needing social acceptance and/or political intervention. Sydney’s like “I should be offended because of historical racism and slavery, but maybe I shouldn’t be offended because if we were talking about soldiers from a predominantly white country it wouldn’t even occur to me to be offended but wait, doesn’t that make me racist oh no I’m trying so hard to not be a racist but I think I’m a tiny bit racist!”
Last chance to get in on the Tamer 8 kickstarter if you haven’t already. It just cracked $100K and several stretch goals. You’ll have to wait a month for the book after the kickstarter people get theirs, so if you’re like me and have been waiting a year and a half for a new Tamer book (that I didn’t have to write myself, hah hah) then you know what to do.
The May Vote Incentive is up! This month it’s Warsyl, from Tamer: Enhancer 2! I’d say spoilers, but the book has been available for 5 months now. Anyway, this pic doesn’t have a zillion outfit variations, partially because her armor took longer to draw than I thought it would, but mostly because she just has an armored form, and an unarmored form. The latter being available over at Patreon.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Sombody call the Wayne’s brothers. I think the zorro snap is trademarked.
Please sign Hench Wench up for this!
Please, oh please sign Hench Wench up for this!
Would you like some grape koolaid and fried chicken to take away the taste of the foot in mouth Sydney? Oh, maybe some deep fried grape koolaid?!
No chicken for Sydney. She’s pescovegetarian.
don’t forget the deep fried watermelon
That actually sounds pretty darn good.
Of course everything is pretty good deep fried
Butter makes anything taste good.
thank you…. I think. his jokes are all wet.
Sorry I always ask these questions.
But how? How do you pull something like this off?
I mean watermelon is well, mostly water. It’s in the name. So wouldn’t deep frying it either dry it all up or leave it soggy?
And on the similar subject I can’t get my head around. Deep fried ice cream. . .. o.O
If you were actually cooking the thing you’d be correct. Deep frying watermelon or similar watery food stuffs usually involves a very hot gridle or oil and the food is usually on or in the heat just long enough to crisp the surface. A scoop of hard frozen ice cream can be dipped in batter and then fried in very hot oil. The idea is that the batter gets brown before the ice cream absorbs enough heat to start melting.
as for watermelon, you’d freeze it first, and for ice cream, you can surround it with a thin layer of cake, then the batter, and yes, it has to be done quickly so the icecream doesn’t melt
While Sydney was definitely being a hypocrite, at least she realized (a little late but she realized) that it isnt her place or duty to be offended on another person’s behalf. Even if she opened herself up to others probably being offended by her own direct actions.
As with most things, the line between “offended for someone else” and “offended because even if you’re not the target that shit was hella offensive” is one which will vary wildly between individuals.
Being told about the deal between Tom and Deus wouldn’t cross my line for “offended by a similarity to slavery” because it obviously is not. But despite being lily white, when I hear someone drop a racial slur I am offended. Not so much for anyone in particular, but because it shows the character of the person dropping whatever slur, and I’m just generally offended by that kind of low brow behavior. I’m offended for me, I guess, because I don’t want to have to listen to shit like that. Somewhat ironically, I really could care less about “cracker” or “honky” or whatever, they just make me laugh. But then neither I nor my family was ever oppressed by people who called us by those terms, so they really don’t have any impact.
Yeah the funny thing about white based slurs is theyre all so silly that theyre more funny than anything else.Non whites need to up their slur game!(Please dont-race based insults should stay in the dumpster where they belong).Generally I keep well away from race stuff though my most controvertial opinion is african americans probably shouldnt casually use slurs associated with themselves as its just a way of keeping the racism wagon rolling(Or failing that go the harder route and stop being offended when the wrong person says it-ive literally seen people threatened with violence for singing along with a rap song cause theyre too pale to be allowed to say all the words).
Far be it for me to tell you what you think, but that sounds more like, in that scenario, you’re offended that the person is being embarrassing by his/her statements (ie, cringe) than you being offended on someone else’s behalf. Like you specifically said, you’re not offended ‘so much for anyone in particular.’ Which does say something positive about you, Oberon.
I just have a problem when people are offended on my behalf, like Sydney was being (and admitted to being (that’s what vicarious means). Because it is both awkward and a bit insulting to assume that I do not know how or when I should be offended about something. :)
For example, I’ve been told I have an ‘exotic’ look sometimes. I’ve had people – people who I do NOT know – get offended on my behalf. I have no idea why. It’s a compliment. I don’t need them being offended on my behalf for a compliment, when they have no idea what my perception was on a statement, and have no reason to know since they don’t know me or what I will take as a compliment or insult. It’s just embarrassing. Plus it makes people less willing to compliment others if they always feel they are walking on eggshells for fear that some third party will take offense at something that has nothing whatsoever to do with them.
Well, the offworld wars are happening anyway, and putting some supers in them might end them faster?
Mr Gatling thought the same making machinę gun
Sort of funny and not so funny thing-
Alfred Noble thought the same when he invented dynamite.
Not even related: dynamite was invented to help with mining, not wars
BUT-
For a LONG time, he kept the formula for stable dynamite secret because he felt wars would become far too terrible if his invention was used in them. Go figure.
So, he intentionally kept producing highly dangerous unstable dynamite, that killed countless lives needlessly (not counting the ones killed intentionally) because farting too close to them set them off?
No, Nobel produced the safe version, but protected the patents fiercely, and nearly all of his money came directly from arms manufacturing or patents directly related to it.
Near the end of his life, long after creating dynamite, he actually converted a steel plant into an arms plant. Even after reading his own premature obituary titled “The merchant of death is dead” and starting to worry about his legacy, which likely led to his creating the Nobel prizes in his will.
So, he only became concerned about his legacy when he was about to die?
Like one of them death-bed-conversionists (you know, the ones who convert to some religion five minutes before dying hoping that that will scrub 90 years of being a complete bastard and let them into heaven)
The politics of this comic have really just keep getting worse and worse over time.
For at least the last 2 years I have been waiting for someone in it to be like ‘isn’t all this bad, actually?’ and people to agree, but whenever it happens, like it does here, there is an immediate counter to it that is always both tepid and wrong. “Oh, Our war profiteering is good actually because it pays well for us.” Blackwater telling you that wars are good doesn’t make wars good. but oh boy don’t we all want to go shopping on another planet?!
Gee, thank you for that, comic. I am really only here any more to see how bad it will go. Any actual superhero would have stopped Deus immediately. And don’t be like ‘but the US would never do that!’. It’s the US, all it does is meddle in world affairs. If this comic at least showed that I would not be happy with the material either but at least like the realism.
*whispers* even DC’s the U.S. justice league, and marvel’s the U.S. avengers. had to have permission to enter another country to stomp a f’er*
*whispers back* Yes because there is no way the US of A has ever, in it’s entire history, overstepped any boundaries or stomped all over other countries in an effort to, oh I dunno, prop up a fruit company, or a thousand dictators, or support death squads in South America. Insert your own examples here. No sir, peachy clean in all respects.
Heck, if there was a page that went like “Yea we know what Deus is doing, but he’s an ally so we won’t stop him, but we got our eyes on him to make sure he doesn’t become a threat to us.”, I’d applaud. But there’s nothing. Which is why I say bad/unrealistic politics. Which I think is fair criticism if the plot puts politics so blatantly into focus.
> Heck, if there was a page that went like “Yea we know what Deus is doing, but he’s an ally so we won’t stop him, but we got our eyes on him to make sure he doesn’t become a threat to us.”
Isn’t that… literally what is happening right now? You just described the plot of this chapter.
Oh I am sorry did they punch his head off I guess I didn’t read the last page right.
Hyperbole aside: No, it’s not and if you can’t see the difference I don’t know what to tell you. Sydney making quippy remarks about war profiteering is not the same as opposing what’s happening.
The statements “punch his head off” and “won’t stop him, but we got our eyes on him” seem extremely incompatible.
Where did punching his head off come from? You asked for a scene saying “we can’t do anything because we’re allies even if we don’t trust him”.
The whole chapter has been “Deus, stop it now” “Ahaha, but wouldn’t THIS DEAL be better for everyone?” “Oh shit he’s right, that’s a good deal despite his clear villainous intentions so we have to ally with him even if we can’t trust him” page after page after page for as long as I care to remember.
Supervillains who are rulers of nations.
Example 1. Dr. Doom, ruler of Latveria, has diplomatic immunitt, only Latveria’s expulsion from the UN will remove it. So when Dr. Doom attacked the Avengers at their HQ, he went home unarrested, uncharged, under UN escort, and with a notable lack of head punched off. The UN refused to revoke immunity because of Latveria’s bleeding edge tech exports. There was also a notable absence of any Avenger going “screw this” and just taking down the villain.
This is a published comic book storyline from Marvel comics, the Avengers included Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and the UN escort was lead by SHIELD Director Nick Fury.
Quite frankly, Deus is Doom minus the obsessions with using dark magic to save his mother from a demon and fixation on being better than Reed Richards, and so far Deus is better written than 75 percent of Dr. Doom stories, especially all the ones that start with ” the Dr. Doom the world has been watching was a fake”.
Actually the justice league and the Avengers do NOT have the legal right, canonically, to enter other sovereign nations.
The Justice league even has a UN liaison because of this.
I’ll give some examples btw.
In Marvel?
1) Latveria. The Avengers don’t have the legal right to invade Latveria to take out Dr. Doom. If they do so, they’re not abiding by any charters that they have in conjunction with the US or any international governmental group.
2) Madripoor – same reasoning as Latveria. The Avengers are only able to come in when REQUESTED.
3) Asteroid M – as long as they arent attacking outside nations, the Avengers do not really have any jurisdiction to go there.
In DC?
1) Just watch Young Justice season 3 – the Light pretty much hamstrings the Justice League because of its limitations by the United Nations and U.S. To the point where Batman decides that the League is no longer serving its purpose because it’s too bound by international law and sovereignty, and leaves with a lot of members to form Batman Inc., which isnt beholden to the same legal requirements. The Justice League has to formally announce that they are no longer associated with the JLA so their illegal actions do not harm the League.
2) Bialya (Queen Bee’s nation) and Kahndaq (Black Adam’s nation) – see the same reasoning as Latveria. It’s a sovereign nation.
3) Justice League Unlimited Season 4. The entire reason for the conflict with Cadmus was the US realized that the Justice League was too dangerous to be fully independent and, in any conflict with the Justice League, the US and any independent government would LOSE. So they formed Cadmus to give the US a fighting chance at winning a conflict and preventing what happened on Earth-50 – Justice Lords Earth.
The US isn’t the only country to meddle in other countries’ affairs when we should keep our noses out. Though our British-heritage disdain for not-white combined with our tendency to take things up to 11 doesn’t help a bit.
Vietnam grew (slowly) out of French Indochina being a former French colony.
The British officially pulled out of their African colonies during the couple decades after WWI (mostly because they couldn’t maintain a presence), but kept politically screwing around for decades afterwards; read up on the Nigerian Civil war/the Nigerian-Biafran War sometime. (Which was also a BLATANT violation of the UN’s resolution on self-determination -that a people can decide who they want to be ruled buy.)
Half the eff-ups in the Middle East in the latter half of the twentieth century onward can be traced back to when the Ottoman Empire signed on with the Central Powers and got trounced with them. The Entente Powers ignored the old borders the Ottomans used to keep certain groups the hell away from each other and drew new borders. After WW2 when the territories were released, many countries more-or-less followed those same boundaries.
And that same nonsense is going on today, one reason because archaic government thinking can’t stand that other countries aren’t relying on the western governments. Why do you think Japan pissed the late-19th/early-20th century western countries off so much? They proved a not-white country didn’t need white help to go from medieval to modern -and Japan did it in less than 80 years.
As for superheroes interfering in other countries, they may want to, but legally they’re not allowed to without whatever relevant permission applies in context. Even the ones that are official government-representing entities need permission, nevermind the ones that are groups of vigilantes it’s easier to let run around than try to take down. (There’s a reason why ARC-verse has laid the law down about vigilantes from the first.)
Gah, formatting fail.
Ho Chi Minh was actually A supporter of the US during World War II, and we promised him and his people that for his support that Vietnam would become a free country.
He didn’t turn to the Communists until after we broke our word and Gave in to Charles de Gaulle’s whining
about how they wanted their colony Returned so they could keep exploiting the native people.
Basically the whole thing was our fault because we Broke our word for political expediency.
The whole thing about Deus has been “Everything (we know) he is doing is either legal or so new we don’t even have laws about it, so we can’t really do anything about it”
So only a nutjob Vigilante would do anything to try and stop Deus. And who’s to sale Vale hasn’t disposed of people trying off-the-records “fixing” of the Deus problem?
The racism only comes from the initial implication, but that was quickly cleared up, so it’s fine. It’s not racist to draw parallels to historical facts. And while Black people weren’t the only slaves to ever be enslaved, they were the majority of the slaves during the time Slavery became not just a way of life, but a full blown Global Industry.
Good post. :) But I think that your last sentence is incorrect. Slavery was also an major industry in ancient greece and later in Rome (in almost every aspect of life, including entertainment) and in Egypt (the jews were basically the enslaved primary workforce for most national projects, although a lot of non-enslaved workers were also involved in the projects). The same was true for the muslims and moors people before they started doing business with african kingdoms and slavers.
Also black people were not the majority of enslaved people in history, either as a way of life or as an industry. They are the most well known though, because of recency bias. You also do have a point about GLOBAL prominence but the slave trade wasnt actually known world global. I could be wrong there but my research didnt turn anything up about an african slave trade in places like china/southeast asia or india or russia.
But in general I definitely agree with your post. :) I am just being nitpicky. ;)
The Hebrew slave in Egypt thing has been disproven for a while now, in more than one manner. Egyptian records show that people working on public projects were either artisans who were compensated well for their labor, or regular common citizens doing their yearly public service. Also, the first mention of “Hebrews” in Egyptian records is of mercenaries from Israel over a century after Exodus was supplied to have taken place. Then, there is no sign of grave goods belonging to slave overseers until after the destruction of the Egyptian kingdom by the Hittites, again well after Israel was established. Please don’t perpetuate this pernicious fiction.
Upon some research, consider me corrected about the Hebrews working on the Great Pyramids (although they were slaves in Egypt, that didnt happen until about 300 years AFTER the Great Pyramids were built).
However I do want to stress, the jews WERE slaves in Egypt. Just… later than I thought.
In many cases Deus has done blatantly illegal shit like using supers to invade other countries, robbing the vault, collaborating with Sciona, tampering with a crime scene, etc, but is able to magically escape the consequences, presumably because Dave doesn’t have the time to fully show people reacting to what Deus does or investigating. We haven’t seen any of Arc-Dark, but hopefully it is in the background investigating Deus until they have a strong enough case to convince the UN that they should permanently deal with him.
illegal and questionably immoral are not the same thing.
that said something being legal doesn’t make it good or right either.
that said (again) the vault its self is questionable on just how moral it is. it was implied the Twilight Council would seize and lock away anything they determined was a threat to them (supernaturals), its not a bank holding,
and implied some things were taken by force, possibly killing the original owners *no indication every item was held by a bad person, maybe it was just a haunted house, or private collectors with no idea of its value*
but a to the side implication here is, if Archon hadn’t found Sidney first and the Supernaturals had found her and realized she could see through “the veil” there is a chance they would have killed her and dumped the orbs in that vault.
So to deflect from the moral crime of breaking into a secure holding facility, stealing countless objects that even Deus himself admits are all evil in some way or another (read comment about somehow evil sunscreen), you bring up the possibility that the Twilight council might’ve taken the objects by force? There is also the question, of why the hell the twilight council would murder some random collector, even if they did unknowingly possess an object of immeasurable evil. Like dude, even if the Twilight Council had to take every single object in that vault by force, the objects being stored in that vault all have the potential to kill multitudes of people.
And secondly, your allegation that the Twilight Council would classify the orbs as evil and murder Sydney to obtain them is just ridiculous. Fully ridiculous, it ignores everything about what the veil is. To illustrate, Sydney sees through the veil and… what happens? There is a single additional person out there with knowledge that the supernatural exist. It isn’t even like the orbs would allow anyone to see through the veil, as the orbs can only be used by one owner at a time, with murder of the previous owner being a likely necessity to switch owners if a switch can be made at all by will. All of this, put in context that Syndey herself was keeping the orbs under wrap herself with no external motivation needed.
So, a single additional person knows about the veil and such, so what? The veil isn’t just a chump change illusion covering everything, it is a massive perception filter that only started to break down with mass media and thousands of open and public people, many of whom deliberately brought more attention to themselves and all of whom didn’t even fit under the veil properly to begin with.
So what actual threat would Sydney or the orbs have posed, enough to ignore that the items in the vault are there because they are outright evil and not just dangerous???
“So to deflect from the moral crime of breaking into a secure holding facility,”
In international waters, given the depth involved, not legally owned by anyone. Which he didnt actually break into – Sciona did. He entered. No breaking into. So not ‘break and enter’ – just ‘enter.’
“stealing countless objects that even Deus himself admits are all evil in some way or another”
Is it immoral to take items that were themselves stolen from others, by people who murdered the original owners? And it seems a lot more secure with Deus than with the Council. Look how easily Sciona broke into the Black Reliquiry. :)
Still not sure how the fact that the ITEMS are evil would make Deus evil. It’s not like the Council are inherently ‘good.’ Some people on the council were involved in the actual break-in, after all, like Gunnhildr and Zova (the vampires from the Council).
“There is also the question, of why the hell the twilight council would murder some random collector, even if they did unknowingly possess an object of immeasurable evil.”
Items can be used for good or evil. The Council might see an item that has a potential to be used for great evil, and take it from the owner and kill the owner. Even if the Council did so because the original owner was going to threaten the Council’s veil somehow, this does not make the Council automatically ‘good.’ Nor does it make the item actually belong to them.
Which brings us to the argument Rhuen makes about Sydney, which you’ve casually dismissed despite the evidence in the comic of the threat the orbs are in the Council’s eyes, potentially.
“And secondly, your allegation that the Twilight Council would classify the orbs as evil and murder Sydney to obtain them is just ridiculous. Fully ridiculous, it ignores everything about what the veil is.”
And if Sydney was not a member of ARCHON, and was to not want to be a member of the Council it definitely IS a possibility that they would kill her to safeguard the orbs in the Black Reliquiry as well.
“There is a single additional person out there with knowledge that the supernatural exist.”
We have already seen, with the Tentacle Sickle being altered to become the Sky Breaker, that objects can be altered in function. Would the Council want to risk an orb which could potentially be used to let EVERYONE see through the veil? And the reason they are okay with Sydney is because she is a member of ARCHON. ARCHON can vouch for her and punish her if she does something to jeopardize the treaty between the US and the Council.
“So what actual threat would Sydney or the orbs have posed, enough to ignore that the items in the vault are there because they are outright evil and not just dangerous???”
According to Cora, if knowledge were to get out that the orbs MIGHT be Nth tech, it could cause an interstellar war. (see Comic #690, last 4 panels)
The Council has extraterrestrials as part of the Council. They might not want an interstellar war. It would probably be bad for the Veil. That alone would be a good reason to either imprison Sydney or kill Sydney and secure the orbs in the Reliquiry to some Council members.
Dude, opening an unlocked door qualifies as breaking in the sense of breaking and entering. So once again, you are focusing on a ridiculously inconsequential portion of my argument. Making an argument that doesn’t even make any sense. And acting as if it totally refutes everything. Fuck off
“Dude, opening an unlocked door qualifies as breaking in the sense of breaking and entering.”
This is correct. Opening an unlocked door can still be burglary, even though it’s not the legal definition of ‘breaking.’ So while not ‘breaking and entering’ it could still be burglary. I was being cheeky and semantic since you said breaking and entering instead of the better argument of ‘unlawful entry.’
If you want to just say he unlawfully entered the vault, that might be a better argument, and could still qualify as burglary then, because burglary is not just defined as breaking and entering, but can be defined as ‘unlawful entry into almost any structure with the intent to commit a crime inside.’
But I’d argue that:
1) the vault is not legally owned by the Council if it’s in international waters, and contains items that they do not have legal rights to own since they murdered the owners to take those items. So I would argue that it is not unlawful, and is, in fact, salvage. :)
2) If it’s salvage, then Deus was not trying to commit any crime within the Black Reliquiry. Also, if the items do not actually belong to the Council, or the Black Reliquiry is not legally owned by the Council, then not sure how one could argue a crime is being commited within that area, at least by Deus (Sciona did commit crimes elsewhere in order to get into that area though, by harming the veil, which are probably in areas that the Council can legally own).
But to be fair, Deus might be in violation of certain paperwork requirements involved in filing for salvage rights for tax purposes. Not exactly Doctor Doom levels of evil.
“So once again, you are focusing on a ridiculously inconsequential portion of my argument.”
Only because your statement can be argued against. You’re making statements that can be refuted when you’re accusing someone of a crime where they have not met all the requirements of that crime.
“And acting as if it totally refutes everything.”
Then perhaps you can just argue why my reasoning is wrong, which will force me to alter my argument (like I did for you by calling it unlawful entry instead of the inaccurate ‘breaking and entering’ that you used).
“Fuck off”
No thank you. Also you get way too angry over internet arguments on a webcomic forum board. Just to be clear, the Black Reliquiry does not exist in RL, the ‘break in’ did not happen in RL, and to my everlasting sorrow, Deus does not exist in RL. You are getting angry that someone online is refuting your statements about a webcomic to the point of cursing them out. Just take a deep breath and relax.
a) that’s a stupid fucking argument. Even if it is in international waters, that doesn’t mean it is some sort of law free zone where you can get away with crimes. Adding on to that, it isn’t even on the sea it is a cave under the sea. It is pretty fucking apparent by any reasonable definition or interpretation that the applicable laws would be that the laws of the country that claims the location would be what it is effect, as it is with all other cases with international waters. In this case, the laws of the twilight council as they by all accounts are a recognized sovereign entity by at least America and probably other countries.
b) It is pure speculation as to how the Twilight Council obtained the items, and even if the items were forcefully taken up to and including murder, they would still lawfully have them, both under eminent domain type situation as well as the items being illegal for the original owners to possess in the first place.
c) It is breaking and entering you fuckwit. Entering a premise by force, stealth, or deception is breaking and entering, and opening a portal to an undersea vault after someone else disabled the defenses is both entering by force and stealth.
d) Stealing from someone who stole the items is still theft and is still illegal.
e) seriously, just because it is offshore doesn’t mean it is a no man’s land. The US for instance owns islands out in international waters all throughout the pacific. Their laws still apply there.
f) Fuck off
g) i’m getting angry at a person acting like an idiot.
h) seriously, Fuck Off
To someone observing the argument… swearing makes you look like the idiot. Losing your cool means you pretty much automatically lose, because people can read an interpret your attitude far easier than they can double-check your facts. I argue with Pander plenty myself, and sometimes get frustrated, but that’s no reason to be uncivil.
a group of non humans (many of which have a violent history with each other) and come together with the goal of maintaining a secret existence from humans. Coming upon a human with no affiliation with them or anyone they have agreements with. A human who can perceive them, and has offensive power to be a threat to them. Keeping in mind many of these non-humans regard humans as inferior, and some even as a food source. this human would most likely be given an ultimatum if found, join us, or die. and given the different factions may want to fight over access to her orbs after finding out how powerful they are…especially those most likely to realize what they really are such as the alien diplomat. Then the logical solution for the Twilight Council would be to kill her and spirit away the orbs to the vault.
In fact would not be surprised if some iteration of this was still in the works as a future plot point. The aliens from Fracture sure seem to be gearing up as a concern; and there no doubt would be factions within the Twilight council races who want to control supers and have a *how dare humans surpass us in power* egotism to them…highly suspect those who had coerced Concretia had some supernatural backing like vampires.
except that there are human mages who are recognized members of the Twilight Council. It isn’t divided by humans and non-humans, it is non magical and magical (and aliens).
So seriously, they would just categorize her as an artifact mancer like the person with the cursed book, give her the run down on the situation, and tell her to behave.
You are also overlooking things such as the small little technicality that collaborating with enemy nations that want to violently conquer and enslave humanity is pretty immoral. Oh and that stealing evil artifacts to sell to anyone who has the cash is also immoral. And invading other countries, totes also immoral. And tampering with a crime scene to steal another evil artifact that you missed the first time is also immoral.
Despite the fact that Tempo will view any post by me countering his arguments as trolling (which they are not), I’m going to post. Mainly because his opinions are flawed and I disagree with them.
“You are also overlooking things such as the small little technicality that collaborating with enemy nations that want to violently conquer and enslave humanity is pretty immoral”
1) Tom’s army is not an enemy nation. Tom made a single comment which was immediately silenced by a bodyslam, after which he was quite the gentleman. (See comic #999, first panel) And then left, telling them he would “leave them to the chaos of their squabbling regimes.” (See comic #999, second panel) In peace. Btw, Maxima and America does not represent all of humanity. Just the U.S.A.
In addition, even Tom’s initial taunt was not about enslaving humanity. See comic #989. It was a negotiation about trying to get humanity to willingly accept his rulership (key word, willingly). With a “collective of concerned shareholders” from Earth. Maxima turned it down without looking at the slideshow, and Tom acquiesced. Mainly because he was ACTUALLY there for a booty call.
2) Tom’s army does not want to violently conquer and enslave humanity. Case in point – Deus is part of humanity. Galytn is a nation composed mostly of humans. Tom is not conquering them. Tom is instead making trade deals with humanity.
“Oh and that stealing evil artifacts to sell to anyone who has the cash is also immoral.”
To steal from someone and have that be immoral, the person who the items are stolen from must have actually owned those items – rather than have stolen them themselves from the original owners, who were murdered to get those items. The Council is not he owner of the items in the Black Reliquiry. When the Allies came into Germany after winning World War 2, seizing the items which the Nazis had stolen and went into museums and trusts for the estates of the original owners was not an immoral act. It was not an immoral act to ‘steal’ from the Nazis, because those items did not actually BELONG to the nazis. They had stolen it from others – mostly others whom they had systematically murdered or attempted to murder. Or items they had stolen when they occupied France.
‘ And invading other countries, totes also immoral.”
Many times now, I’ve mentioned how corrupt Mozambique is, including (and especially) to its own citizens. Plus Galytn was already at war with Mozambique even before Deus was involved, due to King indinge being at war with ALL of his neighbors. It’s just … when Deus got involved, they were no longer losing because Deus had supers, better technology, and better war tactics. Also, as I’ve mentioned MANY times before, it’s already been stated that the reason Deus came into Mozambique where he did was he was BEGGED to come in to help the people in that region privately to make them part of Galytn and bring the infrastructure which would turn them from a 3rd world corrupt nation into a first world free nation.
“And tampering with a crime scene to steal another evil artifact that you missed the first time is also immoral.”
1) He did not ‘miss’ the Sky Ripper. The SkyBreaker was created by Sciona from the Tentacle Sickle.
2) If you’re talking about the mountain which blew up, it was not a crime scene per se. Since there was no crime committed there. Trying to escape from Earth to prevent the Council from murdering you is not a crime. Archon taking the sky breaker would be the same exact act as Deus taking it. So if Deus is in the wrong, ARCHON would also have been in the wrong. Neither were in the wrong btw. And again, stealing from someone who stole the item from someone else is a stretch to be called immoral. Stealing an item from someone who stole it from someone else who themselves stole it from someone else is a very inception view of trying to argue it belonged to anyone in the chain aside from the original owner. Unless you are into the whole ‘possession is 9/10ths of the law idea.’ In which case Deus possesses it now, so what would the new argument be? :)
Dude, you are capable of overlooking the fact that Deus has collaborating with multiple enemy factions, Sciona in her representation of the Alari, and Tom, both of whom violently conquer civilizations, just so you can focus on one of whom which isn’t currently trying to conquer specifically earth, fuck off with you shit arguements
“Dude, you are capable of overlooking the fact that Deus has collaborating with multiple enemy factions,”
He engaged in a business transaction with someone who is an enemy of ARCHON. That help came in the form of just giving her an idea of where Coot/Wyrmil might have been – who was ALSO on the run from ARCHON. That’s literally the extent of his collaboration. In fact, overall, he did Sciona no real favors – he manipulated and used Sciona to get her to make the Sky Breaker for him to be able to use after ARCHON destroyed her mountain lair. And if we recall, Sciona is a villain. Deus manipulated a villain to get something from the villain that she would not have wanted him to have. Doesn’t seem particularly evil of him.
“and Tom, both of whom violently conquer civilizations,”
Putting aside my argument that Tom never seriously was planning on trying to conquer Earth (and his one statement was tough talk without backing it up with force) and was actually there for a booty call with Dabbler, or at WORST trying to talk Earth into just letting him come in to run the place with powerpoint presentations, the problem with saying that Deus is collaborating with a being trying to conquer Earth is…
BY THE TIME DEUS MESSAGED TOM, HE HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO NOT TRY TO DO ANYTHING WITH EARTH AND HAD LEFT EARTH.
Comic #999. Thothogoth is officially disinvited from the UNITED STATES only, and Thothogoth agrees and leaves them to the chaos of their squabbling regimes, and considered the entire matter a total bust. In fact, Maxima left the opportunity open for Thothogoth to potentially come back in order to take Vehemence with him for almost EXACTLY what Tom is doing with Deus’s supers. (panels 3 and 4)
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-999-seven-thousand-generations-a-sex-slave/
“fuck off with you shit arguements”
For someone who claims I’m rude and engage in poor arguments, you really seem to like insulting and swearing as the summation of YOUR arguments. You are rather mean actually, and not very convincing. Very much the potty mouth.
1) He still collaborated with a foreign dignitary in her explicit aim to wage war against the united states.
2) You do realize that civilizations outside of the united states exist right? Tom’s job, stated quite clearly, is the violent overthrow of governments. I said that Tom violently overthrows civilizations, and your best clap back is that he stood down from declaring war on specifically the united states and earth.
This is another big reason why you are so fucking annoying to deal with, I say a thing, “Tom [who] violently conquer[s] civilizations”, and you act as if I said a totally different thing so that you can actually argue back. So I repeat, I made the claim: “Tom violently conquers civilizations” and you argued against the claim “Tom is actively trying to violently conquer the east”, and that is by definition a strawman argument.
“He still collaborated with a foreign dignitary in her explicit aim to wage war against the united states.”
Nope. He used her. Then helped ARCHON. And she wasnt waging war against the United States – she was at war with the Council, and her more immediate plans, which was the only thing Deus was giving any info that MIGHT have helped her (if not for the fact that he was manipulating her the entire time to get her to create the Sky Breaker so he could get it after ARCHON got her) was to escape the Council and leave Earth.
“You do realize that civilizations outside of the united states exist right? Tom’s job, stated quite clearly, is the violent overthrow of governments.”
Tom did not attempt to violently overthrow the United States. With Earth, he was going the diplomatic route with powerpoint presentations instead and as soon as he was told he was officially disinvited from the U.S., he left. Not a single member of his army set foot within the United States. The only place Tom’s army entered was Galytn where he was specifically invited on a limited basis with the trade being supers to work for him as mercenaries on a 6 month tour, which the supers seem quite happy to do since they are paid well for it. Tom also entered Mozambique, albeit as part of the war between Galytn and Mozambique, not because HE was conquering anything, with minimal casualties I might add.
“This is another big reason why you are so fucking annoying to deal with”
The only reason you think I am annoying to deal with is I argue a lot better than you do. :) Also I don’t devolve into cursing you out like you curse me out, which makes you look even worse to people after your arguments fail to be convincing.
““Tom violently conquers civilizations”
Which is irrelevant to the fact that Tom did not try to conquer EARTH, or any part of Earth. Earth has no control over the rest of the universe, and the Xevoarchy doesnt seem to be doing anything about Tom, which implies that he has pull with them, the ruling body in the galaxy, or they don’t think what he’s doing is bad (perhaps it’s based on which planets in particular he conquers, or how he conquers them).
There are people like me who do point out the blatant illegalities, but Pander and his alt accounts come in with their insane troll logic, ignore any and all evidence that they need to, to build an argument on the slightest implications or mere possibilities, and shout down any people who try to actually point it out. The excuse he gives for it iirc is that he is a lawyer practicing his arguments, but it is rude as fuck to use people trying to discuss a topic seriously as practice dummies to make farcical facetious arguments.
“There are people like me who do point out the blatant illegalities”
From what I’ve seen, at least during this strip, you havent been pointing out blatant illegalities. You’ve been saying things that don’t make much sense as far as history goes, like that ‘America still has slavery and it’s legal’ – which is ridiculous.
“but Pander and his alt accounts come in with their insane troll logic”
1) What alt accounts? I have just this one account.
2) It’s not insane troll logic. It’s just logic. I’m not trolling. I’m not even being impolite. But if you think that when anyone corrects you when you say something that’s utterly incorrect, that’s trolling, then I suspect you’re going to have a lot of people ‘troll’ you in your life, if some of the posts you’ve made are indicative of anything.
” ignore any and all evidence that they need to,”
I… literally just posted a response to you of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. This is not ignoring any evidence. This is actual evidence that slavery is illegal in America. In every single part of America, since the Constitution is the final say legally, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments very much spell out in no uncertain terms that slavery is illegal.
“to build an argument on the slightest implications or mere possibilities”
No, I build arguments on actual evidence.
“and shout down any people who try to actually point it out.”
1) Seriously, how am I ‘shouting’ anything down. I tend to explain things, sometimes in excruciating detail, but almost always in as polite a manner as possible. Or at least that’s my attempt.
2) Point what out? That slavery is illegal in America? Because uh…. slavery IS illegal in America.
“The excuse he gives for it”
she
“iirc is that he”
she
“is a lawyer practicing his”
her
“arguments,”
Actually I’m not ‘practicing my arguments.’ I’m arguing something when someone else is wrong. Like when you said slavery still exists and is legal in America. Which is factually incorrect. I wouldnt even need to be a lawyer to know that. I’d just need to ahve taken a basic civics or history class in high school and stayed awake past when they were talking about the aftermath of the American Civil War and Reconstruction.
“but it is rude as fuck”
Just so you know, it’s not rude to just point out when you’re saying something that’s factually incorrect, then point out in detail why it’s incorrect. Pointing out when you are wrong is not ‘rude as f**k’.
” to use people trying to discuss a topic seriously as practice dummies”
Why do you think I’m ‘practicing on you?’ Or practicing on anyone here? This might be a shock, but an internet forum is not exactly a good practice for court. I’m on here because I like the comic, and I’ve been reading since the start, and I eventually started posting on the forums because there are a lot of good arguments on it, with most people being pretty decent sorts. It’s not to ‘practice my legal craft.’ The fact that I can string together a good argument is helpful, but it’s not the reason I’m here. I just like when the comic and the arguments veer into legalities, because it’s something I have actual knowledge about.
“to make farcical facetious arguments.”
1) If I’m making farcical and facetious arguments, then it would not be very good practice for court. Judges do not like when you make farcical or facetious arguments. They rather dislike it, actually.
2) What have I said that was farcical (ie, what have I said that is an absurd or ridiculous statement)
3) What have I said that is facetious? (ie, inappropriate humor) I think the humor I’ve used has been pretty appropriate and usually mild and good natured. Is it the ninja stuff? Do you not like my ongoing joking back and forth with Ro and brichins and a few others about ninjas being sent over bad puns? They don’t mind it. They seem to like it.
Also, if you think my worship of Deus is inappropriate humor, then I think you might be taking things way too seriously.
Technically, America (and most other countries) do have a form of legal slavery (or indentured servitude), it’s called the Job Market. Most people who end up in it are barely paid enough to survive on (are you familiar with the phrase “One missed payment away from being homeless”?) forcing many to have more than one job (with nearly every member of the family or household having to have at least one job the moment they are old enough, with the general exception being those still receiving a formal education, but even then they usually need to find a side-job to pay for books and supplies)
Do believe they were referring to SmugD and how you dismiss all and every evidence that blatantly (even in his own words) paints him as a bad guy
And no one is saying you can’t worship him, just stop candy-scenting his farts :P
“it’s called the Job Market.”
Sorry but no. Having a job is not slavery. It’s also not indentured servitude. Despite the term ‘wage slave.’ Being paid a fair wage for services rendered is the exact opposite of slavery OR indentured servitude. Mainly because you are free to leave at any time by quitting. Your employer is not obligated to give you money regardless of your work or lack of work. It is instead a contractual agreement.
“Most people who end up in it are barely paid enough to survive on”
Then they need to either find a better job, or take a risk in becoming an entrepreneur by providing a good or service which others are willing to pay currency for. Or they need to negotiate for a better salary. Or they can quit. The employer is not obligated to do anything other than what is legally required – which is to pay a legal wage for services rendered, and any additional requirements of the state they are situated in.
“(are you familiar with the phrase “One missed payment away from being homeless”?)”
They probably should move to another state with lower costs of living. I know that sounds heartless but seriously – having a job is NOT slavery or involuntary servitude. Again, the key word is involuntary. Both slavery and involuntary servitude are…. involuntary. Jobs are voluntary.
“with the general exception being those still receiving a formal education, but even then they usually need to find a side-job to pay for books and supplies)”
Or maybe they shouldnt be in college, and instead be in a trade school where they can start working a lot earlier without racking up tens of thousands of dollars in debt in exchange for a piece of paper that doesnt even provide any sort of guarantee of work (unless it’s a medical school, because a medical diploma tends to be a good guarantee of work). Trust me on this – my law degree did nothing to assure me a job with any firm. That was my own effort. And when I left the firm I got hired by, I got a job at the ADA. And when I left that, I started up my own office. Nothing was handed to me though just because I had the piece of paper diploma. My bar certification means a LOT more to me than my diploma because that opens more doors of employment – at the very least, the ability to open my own law office.
“Do believe they were referring to SmugD and how you dismiss all and every evidence that blatantly (even in his own words) paints him as a bad guy”
No, I think Tempo was referring to how he claimed that America still allows legal slavery because he doesnt understand how the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were written, and doesnt understand that imprisonment for a duly convicted crime is for legal ‘involuntary servitude’ not legal slavery. Which he’d know if he read section 2 of the 13th amendment, or read the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments taken together. He’s argued about this before and lost his temper back then as well.
how you dismiss all and every evidence that blatantly (even in his own words) paints him as a bad guy”
I only REFUTE the arguments made that he’s a villain because he shows no actual evidence of being a villain or a bad guy. All evidence actually leads to the opposite. That he’s a good guy. At the VERY worst, he would be an antihero. But a villain? No, sorry- the evidence does not show that. :)
“And no one is saying you can’t worship him, just stop candy-scenting his farts :P”
Now you’re just being ridiculous, my good friend G. Deus, savior of humanity, protector of the helpless, defender of progress, the world’s most perfect man, is too perfect to fart. And he has a natural manly scent of money, not candy. All praise Deus, amen.
That’s the thing, people are not being paid a fair wage
People can’t just leave and find a better job, because most times, there are no better jobs, and what are they supposed to live on while they look for said mythical Better Job? That’s right, they have to stick with their current job until they have managed to save up enough to live on while they look, but at the same time, they still have to feed and house themselves and anyone dependant on them. And if they can do that, then why look for a better job if their current one is providing enough for them to save enough to live on without an income?
Yes, the employer is only obligated to pay them enough to live on, not anyone else in their dependence
And you are correct, having a job is not slavery nor indentured servitude (never said anything about involuntary), needing a job on the other flipper… (and slavery can be voluntary if the alternative is either death or someone elses enslavement)
Sure, forget about trying to get a better education and try and get a job doing something you enjoy doing, go be a grease-monkey for the rest of your life, forget about being anything better. Either that, or hope you don’t mind blood
And that last part is exactly what talking about: ‘good-guys’ don’t have a thunder & lightning-machine and practice laughing maniacally in mirrors
Every time people point out the evidence, you dismiss it out of hand
Pretty low of you to claim candy can’t be manly…
“That’s the thing, people are not being paid a fair wage”
If you don’t feel that it’s a fair wage, do not take the job unless they pay you more. Or you might have to find another job that more fits with your income expectations. A job is an agreement between employer and employee on an exchange of services for compensation. The employer is not obligated to pay you more than the agreed upon amount, and the employee is not obligated to do more or different work than the agreed upon task(s).
Or you can take the risk upon yourself and go into business for yourself, which can yield a higher reward for a higher risk, like the employer does.
“People can’t just leave and find a better job, because most times, there are no better jobs,”
Then take the job you are offered, or start your own business, or move elsewhere where there are more jobs., or cut down on expenses to live a lifestyle more in line with your income?
“Better Job? That’s right, they have to stick with their current job until they have managed to save up enough to live on while they look, but at the same time, they still have to feed and house themselves and anyone dependant on them.”
Yes, that’s called being an adult. But an employer is not obligated to pay you anything more than the agreed upon price and value of your work. If you want them to pay you more, make yourself invaluable to them so that, if you are to leave the job, hiring someone less qualified to replace you will be most costly to them than giving you more money for your services.
I know this sound harsh but this is just how life works. You are not owed work from anyone, and you are not owed compensation beyond what you manage to agree with another person upon for compensation.
There is no ‘fair’ wage in a raw number – it’s whatever both sides agree is a fair wage.
“Yes, the employer is only obligated to pay them enough to live on, not anyone else in their dependence”
No. the employer is only obligated to pay them what is agreed upon between employer and employee. IF the amount you are getting is not enough to live upon then:
1) Your talents are not worthwhile and you should get new talents that are worth more to an employer; or
2) You should become so good at your existing talents that it saves your employer money to keep you hired at a higher wage; or
3) You should move somewhere else where the cost of living is not as high; or
4) You should move somewhere where they are offering jobs at a higher wage
5) Collective bargaining – you should get together with others with similar amounts of talent and agree that if you do not get paid more collectively, none of you will work, in which case it is more cost effective to the employer to give everyone higher wages (ie, a union and strike)
6) You should start your own business – bigger risk, bigger reward, bigger chance of total failure and having to pay employees who have low risk, middle reward, like the employer experiences
7) You should find a way to cut down on existing expenses to be more in line with your existing wages.
“(and slavery can be voluntary”
If it’s voluntary then it can’t be slavery – it could be indentured servitude though, I suppose. Which is different than involuntary servitude.
“Sure, forget about trying to get a better education and try and get a job doing something you enjoy doing, go be a grease-monkey for the rest of your life, forget about being anything better.”
1) What’s wrong with being a ‘grease monkey’? That sounds very elitist to think that you’re good for a given job, even if the job does pay well, just because you think you’re ‘better’ than the job.
2) Being a grease monkey, as you describe it, is providing a necessary service where you can get a good compensation for those services. Not fulfilling? Then start your own business and take the additional risk of failure of the business but you also get the increased possibility of higher rewards if you succeed.
3) If you want to be something ‘better’ – make better choices to let you get on a better career path? I dunno. What I do know is that’s not your employer’s problem, nor should it be, unless the employer voluntarily takes on that responsibility.
Again, this sounds heartless but I’m seeing it from the employer’s side as well, and they did not sign up to be your parent – they signed up to be your employer, at a specific wage, for a specific task or series of tasks, which you agreed upon.
“And that last part is exactly what talking about: ‘good-guys’ don’t have a thunder & lightning-machine and practice laughing maniacally in mirrors”
Being a fan of villainous tropes does not a villain make. I love the evil overlord rules. So does Sydney. Sydney is not a villain. And I’m only a villain in my spare time, as a hobby rather than as a career.
“Every time people point out the evidence, you dismiss it out of hand”
Because their evidence (when there IS evidence instead of just biased conjecture) is not convincing evidence of wrongdoing. And there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary which IS convincing.
“Pretty low of you to claim candy can’t be manly…”
I will admit that some candy can be manly. I am wrong here, and I humbly acquiesce this point.
There is nothing wrong with being a grease monkey if that is what you want, but you basically said that that is what they should do if they don’t want to have a side-job to pay for their education
You seem to believe that there is an abundance of jobs that people can just pick and choose at their leisure
I’m just saying having to have a job in exchange for a salary is not slavery.
But yes there are a lot of jobs available. Just not always jobs which people want to do, and sometimes it will require moving. I’m not implying that it’s easy to always get the job you want though. Just that having a job that you don’t like or that does not pay as well as you’d like it to pay is not like slavery.
““That’s the thing, people are not being paid a fair wage”
If you don’t feel that it’s a fair wage, do not take the job unless they pay you more. Or you might have to find another job that more fits with your income expectations. A job is an agreement between employer and employee on an exchange of services for compensation. The employer is not obligated to pay you more than the agreed upon amount, and the employee is not obligated to do more or different work than the agreed upon task(s).”
You can’t take a job that doesn’t exist. Or to be more precise, hundreds of millions of people can’t all have the scant few jobs that pay enough to sustain a decent living.
“Or you can take the risk upon yourself and go into business for yourself, which can yield a higher reward for a higher risk, like the employer does.”
That costs money, that people don’t have
““People can’t just leave and find a better job, because most times, there are no better jobs,”
Then take the job you are offered, or start your own business, or move elsewhere where there are more jobs., or cut down on expenses to live a lifestyle more in line with your income?”
Above you argued that people shouldn’t take a job that doesn’t pay enough. Here you are saying that if they can’t find a job that pays enough, they should just accept the job offered. Which is it? Also: starting a business of moving costs money, that they don’t have.
““Better Job? That’s right, they have to stick with their current job until they have managed to save up enough to live on while they look, but at the same time, they still have to feed and house themselves and anyone dependant on them.”
Yes, that’s called being an adult. But an employer is not obligated to pay you anything more than the agreed upon price and value of your work. If you want them to pay you more, make yourself invaluable to them so that, if you are to leave the job, hiring someone less qualified to replace you will be most costly to them than giving you more money for your services.
I know this sound harsh but this is just how life works. You are not owed work from anyone, and you are not owed compensation beyond what you manage to agree with another person upon for compensation.”
So this is just what, the life’s not fair argument? You are also blatantly ignoring the effort that has been put in to ensure that employees CAN’T simply negotiate a higher wage in the last couple decades. They try, and try, and the companies have proven that they are willing to spend millions on anti-organization just to keep wages low. You are ignoring that the deck is stacked and just ignoring that it’s a problem.
“There is no ‘fair’ wage in a raw number – it’s whatever both sides agree is a fair wage.”
There definitely is a fair wage dude.
““Yes, the employer is only obligated to pay them enough to live on, not anyone else in their dependence”
No. the employer is only obligated to pay them what is agreed upon between employer and employee. IF the amount you are getting is not enough to live upon then:
1) Your talents are not worthwhile and you should get new talents that are worth more to an employer; or
2) You should become so good at your existing talents that it saves your employer money to keep you hired at a higher wage; or
3) You should move somewhere else where the cost of living is not as high; or
4) You should move somewhere where they are offering jobs at a higher wage
5) Collective bargaining – you should get together with others with similar amounts of talent and agree that if you do not get paid more collectively, none of you will work, in which case it is more cost effective to the employer to give everyone higher wages (ie, a union and strike)
6) You should start your own business – bigger risk, bigger reward, bigger chance of total failure and having to pay employees who have low risk, middle reward, like the employer experiences
7) You should find a way to cut down on existing expenses to be more in line with your existing wages.”
you are ignoring that companies can be perfectly willing the cycle through countless ‘invaluable’ employees until they find one that shuts up, does the work, and lives on starvation wages.
““(and slavery can be voluntary”
If it’s voluntary then it can’t be slavery – it could be indentured servitude though, I suppose. Which is different than involuntary servitude.”
You have a warped idea of what slavery is that discounts almost all forms of real life slavery. The portrayed version of slavery, that of people kidnapped and forced to be a sex slave or such, is only a small fraction of real life slavery. More common is prison labor, where people a forced to do labor for little or no pay, or immigration slavery, were people are tricked into accepting a job, moved across borders, and then held hostage via either confiscating passports or threat of calling ICE on them.
““Sure, forget about trying to get a better education and try and get a job doing something you enjoy doing, go be a grease-monkey for the rest of your life, forget about being anything better.”
1) What’s wrong with being a ‘grease monkey’? That sounds very elitist to think that you’re good for a given job, even if the job does pay well, just because you think you’re ‘better’ than the job.
2) Being a grease monkey, as you describe it, is providing a necessary service where you can get a good compensation for those services. Not fulfilling? Then start your own business and take the additional risk of failure of the business but you also get the increased possibility of higher rewards if you succeed.
3) If you want to be something ‘better’ – make better choices to let you get on a better career path? I dunno. What I do know is that’s not your employer’s problem, nor should it be, unless the employer voluntarily takes on that responsibility.”
While Guesticules is wrong to discount blue collar jobs, you are overlooking that college is pushed as the only true path forward for childrens’ entire lives where they are then pressured into accepting student loans which are uniquely non dischargeable and can plague them indefinitely. Trade school is never advertised, I for one was in my second year of college before I saw a single advertisement for any sort of apprenticeship or trade school.
“Again, this sounds heartless but I’m seeing it from the employer’s side as well, and they did not sign up to be your parent – they signed up to be your employer, at a specific wage, for a specific task or series of tasks, which you agreed upon.”
They also did lobbying perusing anti union and anti labor laws, coordinating to keep the advantages squarely on their side.
This entire time, you are trying to present it as simply being a contract between employees and employers, and trying to justify it on that ground. You are ignoring that contracts can be unconscionable, and in this case in particular, the employer is getting much more out of the deal than the employee, but the employees are being forced to accept for lack of alternative options.
For all that America places competition as something that eliminates any chance of unfairness or possibility of profiteering, companies have shown that it is perfectly possible to move in lockstep, corrode worker’s ability to negotiate, and return us to an age of feudalism where workers are chained to the land they live on and are forced to labor for their masters, in this case via a combination of high rent and low wages.
Okay now I know you’re just arguing with me for the same of arguing because you argued against both what Guesticules said, thinking it was what I said, then argued against what I said, when we had completely opposite takes. :)
The only bit where I called Guesticules wrong is when he insulted blue collar jobs and trade school as possibility, and for the large part I agreed with him. However on that topic you are also wrong as while they are *viable* as possibilities, they are unknown possibilities. To put it another way, IRL Turbotax and other tax preparer companies made an agreement with the IRS that the IRS won’t do return free filing and the tax preparers will provide a free tax preparer service. However they then hid it excessively to the extent that the only way to access their services is both already knowing what to look for and going through the IRS’ own site, as trying to google it, or going through TurboTax’s own site, only brings up a different service that advertises itself as free but is actually locked behind dozens of paywalls for all except the theoretical limit of how simple a tax return can be.
So in this analogy, is turbotax free file a viable option for people wanting to do their taxes? Yeah, and Guesticles shouldn’t bemoan it.
Is turbotax free file a *reasonable* option to expect people to use? Hell no, because it is almost impossible to find and the only thing advertised is turbotax ‘free’ edition or deluxe.
Or to exit the analogy and restate it directly, students, for their entire academic careers, are pushed towards college as the only path forward, with trade schools not being mentioned as a possibility, so it is unreasonable to expect the student to both notice and account for the failing of the school system.
On pretty much everything else Guesticules and I agree on this matter and only disagree with you.
Sorry but its clear you are not familiar with the current low income job market.
we don’t have an abundance of available jobs, and those jobs will pay as little as they can get away with, make unrealistic demands of their employees (including not working with them as they try to continue an education or work multiple job), some won’t even hire you if you have another job…and then turn around and accuse people of not wanting to work anymore; when they themselves are making their own work force suffer by overworking who they have to the point of quitting *just to repeat it at another place of employment*
I have had two jobs in a row like this; the current better than the last at least; but neither is paying anything near a living wage.
If I do (and have) done the math, divide up the cost of my bills over a month, food, gas, and other needs; by the day; I am being paid less per day than those costs per day on average.
and this job pays nearly double the job I worked at for six years.
There are NO JOBs, and starting up your own business…HOW? Have you done the leg work on renting spaces to set up, even if its online, making merchendise, ordering, zoning, etc… all variables on the specific job.
hell its no wander so many people shop at a thrift store to turn around resell the stuff online; many people are trying to do their own business angle, and still need to work the thankless retail and factory type jobs just to make ends meet.
and then there are people who can’t do labor intensive work for medical reasons and yet employers still expect them to push themselves to the point of exhaustion for something as low as 9 dollars an hour, and they can’t find other employment…period.
Sorry again, but its pretty clear that you have been a lawyer for some time and have no idea what people trying to make ends meet are actually going through…THIS is genuinely offensive to read. Its like seeing those politicians try to give advice and say, “have you tried just not being poor?”
-for the record I have a college education, but what I studied for is too niche and not in demand unless I went into teaching; which wouldn’t pay any better than what I am doing. Heck my current manager is planning to quit after they get their veterinary license. People are trying to make ends meet out here; its not easy; and no advice from anyone not in the same situation is going to come across as anything but misinformed at best and condescending at worst.
I have to split my response into several posts because I get internal service errors otherwise.
Part 1)
“Sorry but its clear you are not familiar with the current low income job market.”
I’m aware. I’m just saying it’s not an employer’s problem if you agreed to a wage which is not enough to meet your expenses. A fair wage is subjective, and based on what both the employer and employee can agree to in the employment contract. If the employee does not like it, he is not being forced to work for that employer. And the would-be employer is under no obligation to hire an employee. If they’re not offering enough money, then no one should work for that employer. The fact that someone is willing to work for that amount means it’s a fair wage.
Seriously, people are not OWED jobs by any particular employer. It’s harsh, and unsympathetic, I realize. But it’s still true. And if they don’t like it, in the final analysis, they can try to run a business themselves, then they can be the employer. I know. I’ve done it myself.
“I have had two jobs in a row like this; the current better than the last at least; but neither is paying anything near a living wage.”
Look, I feel for you. Really, I do. The economy currently sucks. This is not the problem of the employer though, except that if the employer is not offering a wage that SOMEONE is willing to accept, they won’t get any workers. Then they will go out of business or be forced to offer a higher wage.
Part 2)
“If I do (and have) done the math, divide up the cost of my bills over a month, food, gas, and other needs; by the day; I am being paid less per day than those costs per day on average.”
I hate saying this stuff because it does make me sound like an uncaring person, and I’m not. But if your wages are lower than your expenses, there are only two options. Try to get higher wages (either by getting another job, getting a new job that pays more, asking for a raise, or making yourself so indispensible at work that the employer will pay you more to prevent you from quitting) or lowering your expenses. Or some combination of the two. There is no magic panacea to fix this problem by forcing an employer to pay more, without there being some rather bad side effects. Usually in the form of the employer cutting back hours or automating if possible, so they can continue to make a profit that’s worth continuing the business (or in the case of larger corporations, satisfying their shareholders).
Part 3)
“hell its no wander so many people shop at a thrift store to turn around resell the stuff online;”
Just to be clear, I was in this sort of situation several years ago, and wound up just deciding to start my own law office – first from home and entirely online (which is one of several reasons I specialized in intellectual property), and then I had enough to rent a small office space to bring in clients. Instead of having the office in Manhattan, which was prohibitively expensive, I got one in Staten Island, which was a lot more affordable. And in that meantime, and before when I was working in the ADAs office, and before that when I was working as a starting associate at a firm, with over $100k in college and law school loans, I was shopping at thrift stores, I was not going out, I was making ends meet with whatever I happened to have in my fridge (Supercook.com was a lifesaver for me), and for the first year that I came back to New York, I was living with my mother so that I would not have the expense of rent and could save up enough money.
This does not mean I am heartless. I really am not. I just do not consider having a job, even one where you are not being paid enough to cover your expenses, to be anything remotely similar to slavery.
“There are NO JOBs,”
There actually are jobs. There just arent always jobs that we want, because we might consider ourselves to be too good for those jobs. Or there are jobs that require you to move elsewhere, and you might not want to do that either. Which is fine. I don’t think someone should take a job they don’t want or move if they don’t want to. But you’re then setting yourself up for limited options.
Part 4)
“There are NO JOBs,”
There actually are jobs. There just arent always jobs that we want, because we might consider ourselves to be too good for those jobs. Or there are jobs that require you to move elsewhere, and you might not want to do that either. Which is fine. I don’t think someone should take a job they don’t want or move if they don’t want to. But you’re then setting yourself up for limited options.
“and starting up your own business…HOW?”
I did it, and I don’t come from money. My mom is an elementary school teacher and my dad left us when I was 4 and did not pay child support or alimony. I just started entirely online, kept my expenses down, had no life at all, and I was lucky enough to actually do well enough to not have to go back to the ADA’s office or the Public Defender, or beg for work at a larger firm because I thought I was an idiot for leaving it. I also did a lot of document review temp work in the interim, and a lot of per diem work where I’d get $75 or so per case (when the attorney hiring me was billing several hundred dollars an hour for my $75 effort) and do 20 or so of those cases where I’d be running from courtroom to courtroom and made friends with some clerks so they’d put me at the end of the court roster to give me time to get there. Eventually my own IP work was enough so I didn’t have to do that anymore, and I was able to afford renting my own place again (I lived with my mom in her apartment for a little while after moving back to New York to keep my expenses down).
Part 5)
And eventually I had enough money saved that I could afford a small office in Staten Island instead of doing all my work from my home office (ie, the den/spare bedroom). Also was able to afford to rent a house eventually because I got a good amount of clients and a few businesses who kept coming back to me, mostly for trademark work, contracts, tenant law, real estate closings, etc.
“Have you done the leg work on renting spaces to set up, even if its online, making merchendise, ordering, zoning, etc… all variables on the specific job.”
Yes I have. Well not exactly, since I’m a lawyer so my education is my main ‘merchandise’ that I’m selling, so I don’t have to do anything with zoning or making merchandise, etc.
“and still need to work the thankless retail and factory type jobs just to make ends meet.”
I know and understand that. It’s still not slavery. Your employer is not the slavemaster. They are not forcing you to work for free. They are not even forcing you to work for the salary they are offering. But if you accept that salary, then don’t do the work, then why would they keep you in their business? They’re an employer, not a parent. Their responsibility is to their business, not to you.
And yes I KNOW I’M SOUNDING LIKE AN AWFUL PERSON. And I really hate that I’m having to make such a heartless statement like that, but the employer is simply not obligated to give you money except for the money agreed upon for your services. That’s just how a business works. Any business.
Part 6)
“and then there are people who can’t do labor intensive work for medical reasons and yet employers still expect them to push themselves to the point of exhaustion for something as low as 9 dollars an hour, and they can’t find other employment…period.”
And that’s awful as well. But again, it’s not the responsibility of an employer. I hate saying that because I do have friends in this sort of situation (and yes, I help them out, including having let a couple of them stay at my place until they could afford a place because I can and I’m their friend, not their employer, like my mom did for me). But they wind up having to find work which they CAN do without working to the brink of exhaustion and ruining their health, or they need to find ways to cut down on their expenses so they don’t have to… work to the brink of exhaustion and ruin their health.
In the end that’s REALLY all that can be done.
1) Find a way to raise your wages – whether from making yourself somehow indispensable, asking for a raise, finding a job which pays more, getting a side job, gain more marketable skills somehow; or collective bargaining; or
2) Find a way to lower your expenses; or
3) Take the risk upon yourself to start your own business, and risk failing badly (or succeeding).
There isnt really a fourth option that I can think of. But saying having a job is slavery is definitely not a useful route to take.
“Sorry again, but its pretty clear that you have been a lawyer for some time and have no idea what people trying to make ends meet are actually going through”
I have been an attorney for a while, yes, but yes, I do know what people are going through to make ends meet, and I’m sad about it. But it still doesn’t make the act of having a job ‘slavery.’ Even if it’s a bad job that isnt paying you enough to meet your expenses.
Part 7 (final part))
“THIS is genuinely offensive to read.”
I am genuinely not trying to be offensive. I’m just arguing that having a job where your wages are not as much as your expenses is not remotely the same as slavery. I am sorry if I’m coming off that way.
“Its like seeing those politicians try to give advice and say, “have you tried just not being poor?””
I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that in the end, it’s not an employer’s responsibility to pay you anything more than the agreed upon amount for your services. And that agreement does not amount to slavery because at the end of the day, you are able to quit, move elsewhere, find other work, gain more marketable skills, etc. Even if circumstances are awful for you, I’m not sure what any other options are to what I mentioned. I left my first job specifically because I was being paid a crappy amount as a first year associate (and that was a stupid thing for me to do when I had $100k in school loans to repay) but the option of forcing my employer to pay me more wasn’t going to happen unless they felt I was worth paying more. And I wasn’t worth paying more at the time.
“-for the record I have a college education, but what I studied for is too niche and not in demand unless I went into teaching;”
Have you thought about going into teaching? Or additional education (trades, etc).
But on a side note, having a niche degree is a problem I admit. But that’s also not slavery. It’s a series of choices having been made.
“and no advice from anyone not in the same situation is going to come across as anything but misinformed at best and condescending at worst.”
Well… I’m not trying to be condescending and I don’t think I’m misinformed. I’m just saying that having a job is not tantamount to slavery, no matter how much you hate the job or how underpaid you feel you are. At least not LITERAL slavery. If you want to use the word in a figurative sense, go ahead, but that’s just poetic license then.
And again I’m sorry if I sounded condescending or heartless. I feel bad about that.
You want to know how you are being facetious? Well firstly I had mixed it up with the word facile, and here you are being facile to the extreme, to the extent that it becomes a sick joke and becomes facetious all its own
“You want to know how you are being facetious?”
Yes I would like to know.
“Well firstly I had mixed it up with the word facile,”
So i’m being facetious because you used the wrong word.
Also I’m not being facile either. I’m not ignoring complexities of an issue. I’m responding to them and refuting when you don’t make good arguments. Or when you make arguments that have good ways to counter them. Which then results in you just cursing me out instead of trying to take apart my counter-argument.
You are reducing down the situation to an agreement between employer and employee, ignoring facets like the breakdown of labor laws and unions, of coordinated action by corporations, and general economic situations. That is by definition facile.
Your argument only works if you zoom in to just the employment agreement, use that as the only basis of morality applicable, and ignore basic things like unconscionability and legal standards employers are held to outside of the employment contract.
You do realize that most jobs are employed-at-will jobs, right? Which -does- come down to the agreement between employer and employee. Even when a labor union is involved, that’s part of the employment agreement as well. Coordinated actions by corporations – I have no idea what you’re trying to imply there or how that relates to employment, unless you’re saying that corporations might engage in monopolistic or oligopolistic practices, in which case that may violate aspects of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If you mean a Non-Competition agreement, that is again part of the Employment Contract, and has to be within certain limitations of time, distance, and type of employment.
So no, nothing I said was facile. You just don’t understand how employment contracts work. I’m going to assume you’ve never been an employer. Correct me if I’m wrong there, but everything you said seems to be ignorant of anyone who’s ever hired an employee or ran a business.
“ignore basic things like unconscionability and legal standards employers are held to outside of the employment contract.”
Okay apparently you don’t know what unconscionability means. Unconscionability is an aspect which can make any contract, INCLUDING AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, void or voidable. It has no special significance on its own outside of how it applies to the contract.
The comic definitely leans heavily on a very optimistic view of the world. The basic assumptions that they can trust very powerful people to just walk among the populace, that few of them will abuse their power, and that they can respond to a bad actor before they do considerable damage, all assume the worst case scenario simply won’t happen, ever.
As Pander would be sure to point out: what exact laws has SmugD actually been convicted of? we, the readers (including Pander, despite her protests on the matter) know what he has done, but what has he, himself personally, done and been convicted of to warrant some super-vigilante to attempt to have stopped him immediately?
He has been very good at being public with helping people, while keeping the real shit either hidden or done by ’employees’ to keep his own hands clean if anyone found out
“As Pander would be sure to point out: what exact laws has SmugD actually been convicted of?”
Yes… yessss…. come to our side, G. The side of logic and evidence…. and embrace the light which is Deus. We have waffles. Join us!
“we, the readers (including Pander, despite her protests on the matter) know what he has done,”
Yes. we know that he has made the world a better place for every part where he’s had the opportunity to do so, making win-win scenarios for millions of otherwise impoverished and helpless people. All praise Deus, amen.
“but what has he, himself personally, done and been convicted of to warrant some super-vigilante to attempt to have stopped him immediately?”
Not one thing. :) A veritable paragon of goodness, helping the weak. A young loner on a crusade, to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless. The powerless. In a world of criminals who operate above the law.
Sure, that might have been the intro to Knight Rider, but I still feel it applies here.
“He has been very good at being public with helping people,”
See, this is the ‘evidence’ I don’t get. He’s helped people, and therefore is a bad guy because he also is helping himself in the process? That just seems like… being a very good, very NON-corrupt businessman.
Seriously G, join us. Waffles. Really good ones.
Wait, we have waffles? Have I been passing the break room at all the wrong times? Or am I just too inconsistent in my attendance?
It’s in breakroom #2. Make a left at the coffee maker.
No, not that one, you really don’t want to take a left at that one, you want the other coffee maker
There’s something incredibly ghoulish about mercenaries going off to (presumably) kill people for money and Instagram fame. Sure the historical racist angle might not be accurate, but you’re still in the war for profit business.
I’m just imagining one of these people picking a trinket from someone they killed and going “this is gonna be great for instagram” as the dead persons child is crying over them.
Question is, is it any the more ghoulish for involving off-world operations than if they were hiring out in local disputes? Or is it just harder for people outside the immediate vicinity to ignore?
Thanks for not doing the “where in here is X?” joke. It’s been done so often, it’s headed into undead horse trope territory.
I think what’s important with what Tom and Deus are doing is the matter of choice. The “we’re-so-great-because-WHITE (and male)”dodos manipulated, coerced, forced, bullied, etc. (and still do to an extent). Here, the offworld tour presented as something each soldier can pick up or leave alone as they wish -and that makes all the difference.
(And Cora did make the point that a lot of the reporters would probably love to work on her ship a year in order to write a book about it. Come to think of it, how many of the shanghaied or willingly recruited star sailors of the past fought to return home vs staying in the stars.)
Sooo, does Deus have a plan for when the Xevoarchy and attendant Space Patrol police see Tom’s forces becoming even more dangerous and effective vs the Xevoarchy members -because of superbeings one of their patrol craft IDed the planet of with video evidence?
You can bet your bottom dollar they will send the entire Space Patrol fleet and any warship the Xevo member worlds can spare (Based on Maxima’s one-shotting a Fel ship) to ask some VERY pointed questions of whoever the hell gave Tom Supers, and will the golden human be one of those supers?
I mentioned this last page of comments. Where does Infernum sit with the Xevoarchy will determine their reaction, and if they will care if it is one country or hold the entire planet responsible
So instead of being slave solders they are mercenaries working for a warlord, that’s not really better. It’s just a different form of awful.
It’s a voluntary awful. And one which removes it from the realm of slavery.
But it’s also highly unrealistic. Supers can make so much money at very low risk that dangling a 50% pay increase in front of them to risk their lives in a foreign war shouldn’t get many takers. And yet we’re told that the slots are limited (and why? That’s completely unrealistic as well) and that there is a waiting list.
Take your average person making good money, say $100k/year, at a job with almost zero chance of death. Offer them $150/year to go work in a war zone. See how many takers you get. I’ve had those offers and I always turned them down. And I did my tour in the Army so it’s not like I wasn’t willing at one point in my life to place myself in risk of being in an armed conflict for very little money indeed. But once I was out and making good money, the lure of even more money just wasn’t worth it. For me. I have no doubt the positions I turned down were eventually filled, but that’s a far cry indeed from there being a waiting list to get those jobs.
If there’s a waiting list, and if the slots are all currently filled, why isn’t the offering salary being offered dropping? Employers don’t typically like to pay out more than they have to, and if their needs are already filled and they see that there is a glut of available replacements for any casualties, why would they keep the offer at the same level?
A 6 month tour is also highly unrealistic. Tom’s army would need to spend at least several months of that training the humans to fit in with his existing forces, and signing someone up for ~3 months training followed by ~3 months service followed by retirement is just poor logistics and personnel management. Massively inefficient. And then you’d be better off hiring the same people over again than you would hiring and training a new mercenary crew, but then they’d want and deserve double pay since they wouldn’t need to spend half their tour in training. The whole scenario is just dumb and stupid and bad.
You forget that only US supers are being offered such wages, and only if they join Archon. Anywhere else in the world, there’s no official employment philosophy, and even within the US we’ve been told there were supers (including ex-military) who weren’t interested in joining. Can’t recall if it was stated, but my interpretation is that they found the personal freedom and black market pay more attractive than Archon.
ARC are offering superstar wages, but it was established that a large part of the reason for doing so is to compete with the private sector. If a construction company is offering $100,000 for a telekinetic to work as a ‘crane operator’, then ARC will have to offer at least that much plus danger money. It’s not even ‘black market’ employment; the only restriction is against law enforcement and military, in favour of going via ARC for those.
Of course, that does assume that
… that the system swallowed my post before I’d finished it, apparently!
If I remember my train of thought correctly, the assumption was that the Super in question does have Powers that are readily applicable to a civilian job. The Telekinetic Crane? Easy. Mister Punchy? Probably still good legitimate money in demolitions and/or mining, especially if he has durability to match. Make-you-quack-like-a-duck boy? He’s probably either doing legitimate non-Super work at non-Super wages, shady-Super waark at shady-Super wages, or essentially non-Super work for ARC at keep-him-on-our-side wages.
So instead of being slave solders they are mercenaries working for a warlor of their own free will. That’s not better.
Doing something by ones own free will is always better then being forced under slavery.
While you’re technically correct, the morality of being a private military contractor – a mercenary – is still highly questionable, and I’d argue that signing up to kill people for money voluntarily is worse than being press-ganged into that position. After all, professional mercenaries literally kill people for money.
Meh, the specifics of mercenary work’s morality is on a case-by-case basis. I’m just saying being forced is always worse than having a choice. Because you can choose no if it’s immoral. You can’t choose no if you’re forced.
Btw Alexis, I do agree with your more general stance about ‘killing for money’ being not as moral as…. not killing period.
But that’s admittedly because I’m not much of a war hawk in particular, although I’m not a complete pacifist. But I can definitely think of examples in which it would be UNDOUBTEDLY the moral choice. D-Day, a sniper shooting a terrorist before they can kill a hostage, a cop shooting a would-be rapist/murder as they’re about to commit the crime if they don’t surrender or if there’s no reasonable time to get them to surrender first, etc.
My main response was about having a choice vs not having a choice. And like you said, I’m technically correct.
And as Bureaucrat #1 says, “Technically correct [is] The best kind of correct!” :)
You saying countries don’t pay their regular armed forces? o_O
That’s a good point as well, which I should have included in my post. Good catch.
Better for whom and what? Also, what ethical system are we using?
There’s wellbeing and morality to consider for each if the various parties, i.e. slave owner, slave, slave renter, their enemy.
It is a whole lot better for the morality of the owner of the slave soldiers, since now they’re just a CEO instead of a slave-owner. Likewise for the slave renter, they’re now not the kind of warlord that uses slaves. The slaves themselves are morally worse though, since they now have a choice and they use that choice to go murder people. It makes the enemy less moral because they are no longer fighting slavers.
The slave owner’s wellbeing is potentially slightly better since owning slaves makes people try to kill you. It is a whole lot better for the well-being of the slave soldiers, since now they’re not slaves. The slave renter’s wellbeing is slightly less since they now have to pay actual wages.The enemy’s wellbeing is now slightly less since free people apparently fight better than slaves.
I was going to bring up the comparison to Cora talking about voluntarily conscripted sailors being the reason for the existence of humans in space but you beat me to it with a nicely done post! :)
now thinking about soldiers who go overseas and would bring back wives and children from those lands, only now aliens *or space born humans unless this setting is going to go Ben 10 with the biology and humans have the special power to produce children with any alien sapient life forms somehow,,,seriously HOW was there a half human half Pyronite?*
Rewinding back a few pages with the conversation about Parfait being 18 and Tom being around 200 and the whole power dynamic in the relationship and relative age issues *granted both demons here even of different ancestry*.
I am surprised no one brought up Yashahime in regards to some really uneven relationship power dynamics and age differences and even original relationship roles.
So I was thinking of rewatching Inuyasha, as its been like twenty years, before watching Yashahime.
now I was looking into it and something stuck out to me that I genuinely find a tad uncomfortable…
so the premise is there are three teenage girls, twins and their cousin. the cousin is the daughter of Inuyasha and Kagome, okay, yeah despite the age difference Inuyasha was very teen like and for a demon basically a teen himself. So only mildly iffy…
however the twins Towa and Satsuna are the daughters of Seshomaru and….Rin.
for those that remember the show Inuyasha that may be raising some “what?’ thoughts right there.
when Rin is first introduced in Inuyasha she is anywhere from 5 to 7 years old, never directly stated, but implied very young, and ends up following Seshomaru around, he eventually shows genuine emotion for her…in a fatherly way. We get the impression he becomes a surrogate father figure for this orphaned human girl.
well…guess he really is a dog as he ended up raising to adulthood the mother of his children…
Anvil not ACTUALLY offended, because she knows “imitation is the highest form of flattery” is what motivates Sydney’s “bit”. ;)
Pulling such off in writing, even on a comic page, in this day and age without giving offense is HARD.
Especially since so many people, in so many places are going out of their way to FIND ways to TAKE offense at anything.
If Anvil didn’t take offense at it, I won’t but I am sure SOMEONE will.
True dat.
(Hah… didn’t even do that on purpose!)
Though hopefully that reaction is mitigated by the fact that Anvil already called a “not cool” on Sydney doing this (if quite gently).
The “problem” has already been addressed, so SJWs shouldn’t feel like they have a crusade to mount up for (one hopes).
on the “what in the here” type jokes.
Honestly reading the panels I didn’t see the line a pandemonium of a punch as a “Oh heavens” -Moxxie from Helluva Boss, type of thing until reading the blurb.
and remembering its also a noun *capital of Hell or something*, instead reading the sentence with the literal version of the word; which fits just as well when said by a demon.
“wild uproar or unrestrained disorder” in other words another word for saying chaos or a riotous,
Rolling back to slurs, insults and such…America has a long history of adopting slurs against us as compliments and rubbing our successes in the face of those doing the insulting. Yankee Doodle Dandee…think we did pretty well with that one (yes, we probably wouldn’t have succeeded as well without French assistance). :P I’d say the practice is alive and well today, we just don’t see it as such and many choose to be offended rather than see they are being trolled.
The Persian empire ended over 2000 years ago. Wtf dude, even you parroted back the date that it ended and somehow still have a problem with that statement.
They were pointing to the modern treatment of jews in the region, in a country that started 43 years ago. How are you this thick.
You’re being a little facile there, Tempo.
A) that isn’t what facile means
B) how the fuck are you blaming an empire that ended over 2000 years ago for the actions of a country that began less than 50 years ago and a religion that began 1400 years ago
Facile means you’re ignoring the argument in favor of focusing on something superficial. Which you are doing by focusing on the whole 2000 years ago aspect of the Persian Empire, instead of focusing on what happened in that region for centuries afterwards, as well as ignoring that even slavery persisted during most of the life of the Persian Empire itself, aside from the brief 9 year period (out of 228 years) that Cyrus ruled and the few years afterwards that his sons did, before Bardiya was murdered by Darius the Great and took over the Persian Empire. At which point there were slaves again.
When did persian culture end, or did those people who “began” a culture 50 years ago just quit their ways and say “Marg Bar Amrika!” on their own?
Got to say Pander is correct the whole persian culture with slavery lasted over a 1000 years easily.
Excuse me, I need somebody to translate that Gallifreyan, stat! My Doctor’s cot is … ahem … a little rusty.
I’m consulting the chart, but I’m having trouble making it out, especially the leftmost one. Need it in higher resolution.
The sticker. The chart is fine.
African nations are doing this right now. Where do you think most UN peacekeeping troops come from?
Soldiers from poor nations lent out (and paid by) UN money. Often led by a commander from a “first world” nation.
The poor country gets foreign exchange and are able to keep more soldiers than they otherwise would, the troops get experience (and possibly get paid more), the commander gets experience dealing with foreign troops. The commander’s country and the UN get bragging rights.
I suppose the region where the peacekeeping troops are deployed might get more peace, though this certainly isn’t guaranteed.
I suspect what Deus is doing is quite legal since he’s part of the government of Galytyn. The soldiers aren’t “mercenaries”, they’re likely on “detached duty as a liaison” or “part of a multinational peacekeeping force”.