Grrl Power #1091 – Deck the private
So finally we get to the page I decided to delay until after showing Maxima returning to base. You can see why I delayed it, as I’m depicting evening in Galytn now, so it would have looked like Maxima’s return trip took a lot longer than it actually did. Galytn is 7 hours ahead of Archon HQ, so Sydney and crew haven’t missed out on the data recovery operation, it just looks like they’ve been hanging out for a while. They’ve been hard at work in the interval, however. Most of the focus was on extinguishing all the fires at the edges of Sydney’s little art project, but some of the helicopters that attacked with Darude pushed on past the factory and struck at infrastructure further in. Given Galytn’s population of supers, they didn’t make it very far, but still managed to leave quite a bit to cleanup afterward.
Yes, the sunset is super orange because of the fires – which are largely out, but the air is still smokey.
I guess Vale is feeling sassy, as she usually just looms menacingly and doesn’t usually score off the boss like that. Or maybe it’s a routine the two of them have to “humanize leadership.” Hard to tell with them.
I just realized I drew Sydney way too short in the middle two panels. Dabbler is 5’10”, so the top of Sydney’s head should be about lip-high to Dabbler? Oh well. I guess Sydney’s sitting on something that shaves a few inches off her height. I was going to say one of those cement highway divider things (which I just learned is called a Jersey Barrier or a Jersey Wall) are like 32″ tall… Hmm. I think if she was sitting on one of those it might actually make her slightly taller. Bags of cement then. Doesn’t really matter. She’s been using the orbs non-stop for hours so she’s allowed to be a little run down.
The September Vote Incentive is still up!
Enjoy variant outfits and lack thereof over at Patreon.
I don’t know why the new one is taking so long. Honestly I might need to switch up my ADHD medicine. It’s possible I’m spending half my art time staring slack jawed into space and don’t even realize it. :/ I’ve got the nudie version almost done, but then I have to do clothes and the background. The BG will probably be simple like drapes and sheets, so maybe it’ll be ready for the Thursday comic?
.
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.
Ohhh how I love the last panel so much. Deus and Sidney have a history, this sums it up perfectly.
Deus will turn out to be Sydney’s/Maxima’s Nemesis.
Deus is more like David Xanatos from Gargoyles than Luther. In Many, many storylines: Luther’s central motivation is hatred of Superman. Deus doesn’t seem to have a singular focus that gets in the way of seeing the bigger picture.
Yes, in the Death-Metal Saga Luther may have changed to becoming an anti-hero trying to stop the greatest threat to everything, but that was extremely uncommon for Luther to take the focus away from Luther.
Despite everything that’s been shown, I don’t actually think Deus is a supervillain.
He’s a real super a-hole, though.
As I’ve always said, he’s not a supervillain. He just is very fond of supervillain tropes. But he keeps doing things which winds up helping humanity… while also being profitable to him long-term. It’s not evil to monetize bringing people out of poverty and terrorism and make them an advanced, educated, happy society that isnt always on the brink of starvation and death from warlords. :)
Say it with me…
All praise Deus, amen.
1) He is not a complete idiot like most villains.
2) He has contacts and networks thoroughly with said contacts.
3) He has read history and knows what NOT to say. (ie a fascist calling someone Hitler is just hilarious, because to them it is a profound compliment! To everyone else is a worrisome moment, but to them, it is just ‘normal’.) Deus knows better.
4) He has a plan and multiple backup plans. Victor Von Doom would nod and keep a VERY close eye on the man as a very dangerous potential rival.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not an adherent to the cult of Deus like some, but I can admire his skill and daring at tweaking Maxima and Sydney like he does. He does not seem to do what he does out of a need for glory or additional extreme wealth like so many in the real world and his ego, while huge, does not blind him completely. If HE had committed open treason in the US, he would not have been caught or boasted about it on national TV. As I said, he is not a complete idiot and that puts him head and shoulders above most comic book villains.
First just want to say I love your post.
Second: :)
“1) He is not a complete idiot like most villains.”
Plus also not a villain. :)
“4) He has a plan and multiple backup plans. Victor Von Doom would nod and keep a VERY close eye on the man as a very dangerous potential rival.”
Deus is far better than Doom. Doom rules with fear. There’s a rather large peasantry class in Latveria, despite under Doom becoming the 9th richest and most technologically advanced nation in Marvel’s Earth. With Deus, there isnt a peasantry class anymore. Everyone benefits with him in charge, while only the upper echelon benefits under Doom (plus if you use the Ultimates universe, it’s still impoverished and Doom is a dictatorial theocrat). Also Deus hasnt been fighting with the world’s superheroes – he works with them. Yes, I know that Doom has occasionally worked with superheroes as well when there’s an ‘enemy of my enemy’ scenario, but Deus ALWAYS works with the superheroes, without there being a threat to him personally. He literally does things to make the heroes more prepared and stronger (with his business that helps supply ARCHON). Doom only conquers. Deus gets people to WANT to join because of financial incentives, and when he resorts to war, he only seems to go into areas where the people are begging him in advance to come in to free them from corrupt governments or into evil dictatorships run by monstrous murdering psychopaths that are actively harming the populace.
Also there’s nothing evil about being prepared. He’s like a big ol’ boy scout. Like Superman. Except no powers (that we know of) and better fashion sense. :)
” I am not an adherent to the cult of Deus like some,”
I have faith that you will eventually join the winning team. You seem like a smart chap.
” that puts him head and shoulders above most comic book villains.”
With the added benefit of not being a villain in the first place. Just really liking people thinking of him as one for the genre-based tropes. :) Sort of like how the CDC has a plan in case of a zombie apocalypse, but doesn’t actually think there will be a zombie apocalypse – it’s just a general idea of ‘worst case scenario preparation.’ Deus uses the Evil Overlord List in much the same way in running his businesses and leading the world into a better and brighter tomorrow.
All praise Deus, amen.
Doom get most of his press from conquering, but in the most recent comics, he is shown a ruler, not JUST a villain.
I actually wrote a fanfic where Doom showed up and acted heroic, baffling ‘everyone’. It turned out that he had taught another character that I had made up about how to rule. She was tossed into the role of a leader with little preparation and less training and had the ability to walk between realities so she knew she needed to learn fast.She went to someone she KNEW could rule and asked for help. Respectfully, legally and with no desire to supplant the man. She wanted to keep her people safe. Doom is not a ‘nice’ being nor is he ‘good’, but he DOES keep his people safe.
Funny… And when Captain America Sam Wilson entered his country illegally, Doom did not have the man executed (Which he could have) Nor did he have the man kidnapped and transported to embarrass a political rival unlike a real life governor. Doom as not happy, but he made it clear that 1) he would work within his own laws and 2) The same threat that might affect Latveria and Doom would not stand for that.
Funny, the last time I saw Doom interact with ‘a’ Captain America, it was during another mess that could have had insane diplomatic issues, EXCEPT that Cap walked ‘into’ Latveria, walked up to the first robotic thing he saw and ‘asked’ to speak with Doom BEFORE he tried to be heroic. Doom neither likes nor trusts heroes, but Cap put forward a concise and detailed argument about a potential threat to Latveria (Involving US nukes no less!). Doom immediately took steps to help Cap win!
Love him or hate him, Doom is a ruler and knows about ruling. Not JUST a villain or conqueror although that is what he is best known for.
“Doom get most of his press from conquering, but in the most recent comics, he is shown a ruler, not JUST a villain.”
That doesnt change that Doom is a villain, while Deus is not a villain (even if he wants people to see him as one via tropes).
Doom is a villainous ruler.
Lex Luthor is a villainous businessman. He’s still a villain.
Baby Doll is a villainous actress.
Doc Octopus is a villainous scientist.
Kang is a villainous conqueror/scientist.
Poison Ivy is a villainous ecologist/botanist.
Queen Bee is also a villainous ruler.
Most people in fiction are not going to just be ‘villains’ without being anything else on top of it. Being a villain alone usually lacks any motivation with a few VERY well designed exceptions, like the Joker. Mephisto is a rather flat character because he’s evil as his literal everything.
“I actually wrote a fanfic where Doom showed up and acted heroic, baffling ‘everyone’”
Doom has occasionally done things which one might consider ‘heroic’ but they were actually just self-serving. IE, if he defeats Galactus, it’s not because he actually is trying to help others – it’s that he doesnt want any consuming Earth because then he can’t conquer it. If he defeats Thanos (which he did once in a universe he created), it’s because Thanos is a threat to his rule and was going to try to stand against him. If he joins up with the Avengers to defeat a world conquering enemy that neither of them can defeat on their own, it’s because he will not allow anyone ELSE to rule everyone – that’s HIS plan.
Doom is not de facto heroic though. Interesting fanfic though. :) What IF stories can be fun.
” Doom is not a ‘nice’ being nor is he ‘good’, but he DOES keep his people safe.”
From everyone outside of Latveria, not from his own machinations, which tend to be very dictatorial and villainous. A large portion of the population of Latveria follow Doom because they fear him, not because they admire him. Black Adam is probably a better example of a villain who’s people actually love him, although not because he makes their lives better – they just think of him like a god and pretty much worship him for protecting them from every nation surrounding their nation.
“Funny… And when Captain America Sam Wilson entered his country illegally, Doom did not have the man executed (Which he could have)”
Doom doesnt start fights unless he has an endgame strategy in mind. The only result from just killing Sam Wilson would be a declaration of war with the United States, which is a problem and also an additional difficulty he doesnt need as a distraction from his other plans.
“Funny, the last time I saw Doom interact with ‘a’ Captain America, it was during another mess that could have had insane diplomatic issues, EXCEPT that Cap walked ‘into’ Latveria, walked up to the first robotic thing he saw and ‘asked’ to speak with Doom BEFORE he tried to be heroic. Doom neither likes nor trusts heroes, but Cap put forward a concise and detailed argument about a potential threat to Latveria (Involving US nukes no less!). Doom immediately took steps to help Cap win!”
Doom likes it when his enemies treat him with the respect that Doom deserves, which Captain America did when Cap asked for an audience with Doom. Doom has an ego – it’s his primary weakness. The big reason he hates Reed Richards so much is that his ego cannot handle the idea that there’s someone who even he has to admit, if only in private (never publicly), is MORE INTELLIGENT than he is.
Deus snuck into a secure vault and stole from it. This is a crime. Deus is a criminal, which is opposed by law enforcement. Due to the scale at which he acts, Deus is opposed by supers in law enforcement. And criminals who are opposed by supers are referred to as supervillains.
Deus is a supervillain.
Deus isn’t just a Supervillain. He’s one that knows that the role of the villain is to act as a foil for the heroes. And since he’s set his sights on Archon, that makes him that much more dangerous when he wants to be, because he can subvert the expected tropes… and he likely follows the Evil Overlord Checklist to a fault so as to avoid bad PR and so that he can act as a Chessmaster behind the scenes with nobody being any the wiser.
“Deus isn’t just a Supervillain”
Remove that ‘just’ word and we’re in full agreement. :)
“He’s one that knows that the role of the villain is to act as a foil for the heroes.”
He is aware of that. Yet he isn’t actually a foil. He has helped them, multiple times. He’s literally in business with them. He barely even hides from Archon, or the rest of the world, what he does (he goes on TV to announce it in a very amiable way even – no threats), beyond for corporate protection and internal national security means.
” And since he’s set his sights on Archon,”
As a business partner, and as a means of doing completely legal business with the United States government. Also they set their sights on him as a business partner as well.
“and he likely follows the Evil Overlord Checklist to a fault so as to avoid bad PR”
Following the Evil Overlord Checklist can be useful even if you’re not an EVIL overlord. Just like the CDC has zombie apocalypse protocols in place… but they are not ACTUALLY using it for a zombie apocalypse. The concept is ‘if you are prepared for a zombie apocalypse, you can be prepared for anything less than a zombie apocalypse as well.’ It’s just a way of teaching the importance of emergency preparedness.
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6023
“so that he can act as a Chessmaster behind the scenes with nobody being any the wiser.”
In other words, he’s a savvy businessman and to an extent, a politician. But in an amazing twist, a relatively honest politician who actually makes things better for the people he governs or hires. The loyalty Deus gets is earned, not coerced.
Deus did steal and broke galactic law when he used one of the items that someone else stole and he recovered to make his “stargate” to acquire more things and tech. Any strong businessman will bend and break a few laws that hinder their plans in the long-term.
Granted the ones he broke were pretty major but so far we haven’t seen him use these items or tech to harm, only to build this empire that benefits others and not just him. A supervillain is only out after himself and whom ever is working with him. That is the major difference between the common villain and Deus.
A true villain would kill anyone that opposed them while Deus has all but begged his opponents to stop fighting. And until Gaylin was just attacked tried to limit the death toll in those opponents.
I like your post a lot, although I have some things I am going to critique and others I massively agree with. :)
“Deus did steal and broke galactic law”
Neither Deus, nor Galytn, nor EARTH for that matter, are members of the Xevoarchy, and are not subject to their laws unless they also get representation among the Xevoarchy. In 2017, I woudl not have been accused of breaking the law when I drove a car just because it was illegal for a woman to drive in Saudi Arabia. The person who SOLD Deus the technology, on the other hand, did engage in criminal action. But Deus did not. It’s completely legal under U.S. law and Galytn law to acquire and use alien technology, as we saw with the Alari in Galytn and the fight about the Fel ship in the U.S., where they eventually accepted an FTL starter ship, although they had EVERY legal right to the Fel ship.
“Any strong businessman will bend and break a few laws”
Again, I don’t see any laws that he BROKE. And it has to be laws that are jurisdictionally accurate, and also which the government in question has a right to enforce on HIM. Many nations criminalize homosexuality, for example. They don’t have a right to criminalize homosexuality on people from other nations though (and honestly there’s a major humans rights problem with criminalizing it within their own nation, but that’s another argument altogether that would have both parties arguing about national sovereignty vs crimes against humanity).
“Granted the ones he broke were pretty major”
I havent seen him break ANY laws which he is subject to, major or otherwise.
“so far we haven’t seen him use these items or tech to harm, only to build this empire that benefits others and not just him.”
This is completely accurate. :)
“A supervillain is only out after himself and whom ever is working with him.”
This is partially true. There are sometimes villains who might not be doing the criminal actions for his/her own benefit though, like Mr. Freeze, who does everything he does to save his wife, Nora. Or Poison Ivy, who does what she does because of an insane view brought on by her connection to the Green that has her obsessed with ecoterrorism (as opposed to Swamp Thing, who has an even greater connection to the Green but went a more heroic route). Or Ozymandias from Watchmen, who’s entire goal was to prevent World War 3, not his own aggrandizement, although what he was doing was killing millions (which does make him a villain in any scenario).
But yes, in general, villains are in it for themselves ONLY. Whereas Deus is in it for the win-win scenario for all sides, which is REALLY hard to do compared to doing it easier ways which would be far more profitable for him. :)
“That is the major difference between the common villain and Deus.”
True :)
“A true villain would kill anyone that opposed them while Deus has all but begged his opponents to stop fighting.”
Absolutely true. Deus always…. ALWAYS has gone with the route of trying to get peace FIRST and using force as an absolute last resort, usually when it winds up becoming self-defense. The one (and only) time I had trouble defending him was with putting to death that preacher who was trying to destabilize Galytn, mainly because I’m a big free speech proponent. But that’s a personal thing, more than a legal argument. Legally Deus would be in the right there as well, in Galytn.
“And until Gaylin was just attacked tried to limit the death toll in those opponents.”
Yep. Deus only tend to engage in something that will involve death when it turns into a self-defense issue. :)
Pander: I would argue that the merchant on Fracture broke no laws either. It’s clearly not illegal to sell technology to humans, because there are many humans living on planets or ships with the requisite level of technology. Cora says the travel restrictions are “mostly about preventing technological paradigm shifts“. If you can get to Fracture and back on your own, you already have the capacity they’re concerned about being transferred. What the merchant did that was unscrupulous is that he sold something to someone without confirming that they had the ability to transport it themselves, so they might have been unable to take it back home through the gates, and had it confiscated by customs. Probably not illegal. Maybe they just wanted to use it while visiting Fracture, and didn’t intend to take it back to Earth? Or maybe they had their own transportation. The merchant doesn’t know or care.
What would presumably violate the Xevoarchy’s restrictions would be to travel to a pre-FTL planet, and give them technology that would allow them to skip the necessary developmental phases to achieve FTL travel on their own. As Cora explains at the press conference, the galactic community thinks it’s best if a species overcomes the great filters on their own… or doesn’t.
“I would argue that the merchant on Fracture broke no laws either. It’s clearly not illegal to sell technology to humans, because there are many humans living on planets or ships with the requisite level of technology.”
It’s not illegal to sell technology to humans, but it is illegal to sell technology to TERRAN humans, because they’re on a planet that isnt advanced enough yet. Assuming the alien merchant presumably lives under the laws of the Xevoarchy, they’d have jurisdiction over punishing HIM, should they find out. But not over Deus. Then again, like you’ve mentioned before, if it wasn’t already the case that Earth apparently already has technology to get TO Fracture Station (more than one, in fact), they also now, thanks to Cora and the trade of the Fel ship, have access to FTL technology as well, so there’s a precedent set there that the merchant could use as a defense.
“Cora says the travel restrictions are “mostly about preventing technological paradigm shifts“. If you can get to Fracture and back on your own, you already have the capacity they’re concerned about being transferred.”
That is actually an excellent argument that you could definitely make to defend the merchant. It’s one I would make if I was defending him, too. Excellent points, Torabi.
”
What would presumably violate the Xevoarchy’s restrictions would be to travel to a pre-FTL planet, and give them technology that would allow them to skip the necessary developmental phases to achieve FTL travel on their own. ”
Another excellent point. Plus now Earth, or at least the United States on Earth, has access to a ‘starter FTL ship’ which was traded for the Fel ship that Archon downed. So… one could easily argue that Earth is no longer a pre-FTL civilization. And aliens have started visiting Earth OPENLY, rather than secretly, thanks to Ray Cosmos, space entrepreneur extraordinaire and lothario of the stars.
I’ve actually done a LONG series of posts about this before, but i’ll go over it again to explain why Deus has not committed ANY crimes re: the Dark Reliquiry. Or any other time, actually.
“Deus snuck into a secure vault and stole from it.”
1) It was in international waters, and the Council cannot own anything in international waters. They just made a vault in an underwater cavern of items that the COUNCIL stole from others after killing those people. That’s salvage. :) The legal definition of “breaking and entering” is “the entering of a building through force without authorization. The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary.” The Dark Reliquiry is into a building – it is essentially a cave over 1000 feet down in international waters in the ocean. Also, even if you argue it is a building, which it is not, he did not enter through force. He did not even open a door. He went through a portal. He WALKED. Through an uninterrupted space. Not even the slightest use of force. Not even the use of fraud, threats, or collusion. He intentionally used the most legal means possible, as he explained to Sciona when he talked about all the different less legal options available. You can argue that Sciona, engaged in breaking and entering if you insist that the Dark Reliquiry is a building, but not Deus.
2) Since the Council stole all the items in the Dark Reliquiry from others who they killed. I won’t say murdered necessarily because it might have sometimes been in self defense, but even according to the council itself, there have occasionally been times they’ve straight up murdered wayward council members. The legal definition of theft is “the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property” It wasn’t the Council’s personal property. Therefore what Deus did cannot be defined as theft. So no, it was not a crime.
“Deus is a criminal, which is opposed by law enforcement.”
Saying he is a criminal does not make it so. In fact, I can argue far more easily that ARCHON has engaged in multiple instances of criminal action, although they likely have qualified immunity for most of what they’ve done.
“Due to the scale at which he acts, Deus is opposed by supers in law enforcement.”
He’s clearly not opposed by supers in law enforcement, since they do business with him, quite openly. Unless you’re saying that law enforcement is in collusion with a criminal, and is engaged in criminal action as well? Which you’d be wrong about, since the underlying statement, that Deus is a criminal, is incorrect. Also, accusations are not convictions. I can accuse you of being a murderer, but if I can’t prove it, it doesnt mean you’re a criminal. It means I’ve made an unfounded accusation about something you did not do.
“And criminals who are opposed by supers are referred to as supervillains.”
Again, your underlying statements, that he is a criminal and that he is opposed by superheroes, are both incorrect. Therefore your conclusion is also incorrect.
“Deus is a supervillain.”
Deus is a hero. I won’t say superhero until I know if he has powers, although Batman is a superhero and has no powers so… yknow what… yeah. Deus is a superhero.
Honestly you’d probably have a better argument if you try to argue he’s an anti-hero antagonist. You’d still be wrong, but you’d have MUCH better arguments that I’d have a little more trouble arguing against, since there’s SOME evidence that might support that claim at least.
All praise Deus, amen.
The Reliquary is an artificial and completely enclosed structure with a sealed entrance. It most certainly counts as a building as far as the law goes. He did use force to enter it- there was, after all, a significant amount of force used to open that portal, and not all definitions of the crime require force in any case. Its at least criminal trespassing, any way you slice it.
“You cant own stuff in international waters”? I’m sure every cargo ship on the planet will be delighted to hear nobody owns them. The council most certainly owns the vault. For laws in international waters, the laws of the owning group (usually a country of course) apply to crimes committed on their property. Steal someones wallet on a British cruise ship in international waters? British law applies. Stowaway on a Turkish cargo vessel? Turkish law applies. The Council is a known and recognized group to the US government- Council law applies, and they will be happy enough to apply their law to the intruders/thieves regardless of the intruders opinions or semantic arguements, same as Sovereign Citizens dont succeed.
“The Reliquary is an artificial and completely enclosed structure with a sealed entrance. It most certainly counts as a building as far as the law goes.”
The legal definition of a building is “any structure that has roof and walls especially a permanent structure.” A cave would not be a building. The Reliquiry has no roof.
“He did use force to enter it- there was, after all, a significant amount of force used to open that portal,”
There was no force whatsoever used to open the portal. It’s as easy as just walking. He did not open any structure of the Black Reliquiry. IF someone else opens a door and walks in, and you see the door is already open and walk in…. you did not break and enter.
““You cant own stuff in international waters”? I’m sure every cargo ship on the planet will be delighted to hear nobody owns them.”
I think you really need to brush up on maritime law. Structures on the ocean are different than ships passing along, under, or over international waters. There are international agreements that no one ‘owns’ international water. Which would include caverns within international waters. The Council is not even a nation so they can’t even have rights over it based on Exclusive Economic Zone laws, like other structures might (ie, the Marianas Trench).
“The Council is a known and recognized group to the US government”
International Maritime Law is not the sole domain of the United States. If other countries do not recognize the Council, and the Council is not a signatory to those international laws and treaties, they have no say. Sorry. How exactly will they prosecute anyone in any remotely legal fashion? What law can they point to?
Would love to read that fanfic. Any links to it?
I’d love to also btw.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13606536/1/Warframe-Not-So-Good
This is a continuation of a LOT of Warframe fanfics I wrote when I was between jobs and then just to stay sane. (Long and unfun real life story)
I think this will work. I hope it does. If you need clarification on anything, drop me a PM on http://www.fanfiction.net
Thanks :)
CDC plan for zombies is like the militaries plan its a out side the box thought experiment for non traditional threats no more no less and being pa standard movie troupe makes its a fun one to work on because of how out there the very idea of real zombies are. Also Deus is a supervillain but that comes down to his plans ultimately come down to his control of the entire world he isnt rushed though so from what we have seen he does some really bad stuff but none of it is outright evil like how he wont let the beholder for a head guy just kill innocents to recharge the knife thing, He lets him kill bad guys but to what level are they bad guys nor did they get a court hearing. That means he is still a supervillain but gives its a odd not evil nuance to the meaning.
“CDC plan for zombies is like the militaries plan its a out side the box thought experiment for non traditional threats no more no less and being pa standard movie troupe makes its a fun one to work on because of how out there the very idea of real zombies are.”
That’s exactly my point about Deus and the Evil Overlord List. :) Using it is a good way to do a thought experiment on how to successfully manage a business or nation. Like a modern version of Machiavelli’s The Prince.
“Also Deus is a supervillain”
I havent seen any evidence of that. Just that he likes Supervillain tropes and likes people to THINK of him as a supervillain, but doesnt actually do anything actually villainous. He’s actually quite ridiculously good in most of his actions.
“but that comes down to his plans ultimately come down to his control of the entire world”
It’s not villainous to have ambition. It’s also not villainous to want to control the world. It depends on the methods used to do so, and the reasons you have for wanting to control the world. Deus is legitimately concerned about Earth being in a losing situation in the greater universe, and also about the Earth being likely to destroy itself before it gets past certain great barriers to galactic prominence.
Think of it like Star Trek. The Federation won’t take you into the Federation when you’re a fractured society. RL Earth is, by Federation standards, incredibly fractured. :) The problem being that centralized authorities, in real life, tend to suck because the person in charge is 1) human and subject to human foibles and flaws, 2) corruptible because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and 3) mortal, because even if the person in charge is a perfect saint, that person will eventually die and be replaced. And eventually you’ll get a not-so-benevolent, or downright corrupt, dictator. If anything it’s the biggest and only flaw with Deus’s plan, but I’m guessing he might have a broader plan than even his own mortal existence to make sure there is long term peace and prosperity, because I’ve learned to not underestimate Deus in the comic.
“he does some really bad stuff”
Depends on your concept of what is bad, I guess. Like I thought the only bad thing he did was killing the priest who was there to cause destabilization with the whole abortion issue, but that’s because of my own personal views on freedom of speech and other issues. I can’t easily argue it legally though, since this is Galytn and not the U.S.
“none of it is outright evil like how he wont let the beholder for a head guy just kill innocents to recharge the knife thing,”
Yep. Which is another reason I don’t see how Deus could be argued to be a supervillain. He’s not remotely evil. The best argument people on the ‘Deus is a supervillain’ team should go with is that he is, instead, an antihero. They’d have more points that they can argue then.
“nor did they get a court hearing”
This is true also, although one could argue that it was a private court hearing, out of sight of the public, like how in the US we have FISA courts, or certain military tribunals which are not open to public review (even though I think FISA courts are inherently unconstitutional and will hopefully eventually be seen as that in the law). In the end, I can’t really argue US Consitutional issues for Galytn, since I don’t know what is in the Galytn constitution (if one exists – I’m assuming one does exist though and that Galytn is a constitutional monarchy, but not going to make arguments based on that assumption, or what is IN that constitution).
“That means he is still a supervillain but gives its a odd not evil nuance to the meaning.”
I was mostly with you until that last sentence. The fact that he is not evil and you can argue not even bad doesnt seem to imply that he’s a villain – super or otherwise. He’s just effective. Like a modern day, FAR less violent Alexander the Great.
“because I’m a big free speech proponent.”We cannot declare :FREE Speech, in a country, where there is none. Which, we do not know about!
I don’t understand anything you said in this post.
Most villains are focused on just taking more of the pie. Deus knows that making the pie bigger results in far more pie for him with less effort and hassle.
Yes, that’s because Deus is not a villain. He is a capitalist entrepreneur. The genuis of capitalism is wealth creation, not wealth transfer. It’s ALL about creating a larger pie, rather than just taking pieces of the existing pie. That’s why there’s more money today than there has been in the entire history of the planet. Wealth was created, not just transferred from one person to another.
Wealth is the abundance of valuable possessions or money, or having material prosperity (money is only as useful as what it can purchase – $1 trillion zimbabwe dollars, before the currency completely collapsed under hyperinflation in 2009, wasn’t going to mean you’re wealthy, and a person with a loaf of bread was far more wealthy than that $1 trillion zimbabwe note holder).
As I’ve mentioned in the past… take buying a computer.
You want a computer that costs $1200. Another person has a new computer that they don’t want, but they want the $1200. You want the computer more than the $1200. The other person wants the $1200 more than the computer. Both sides are enriched by the transaction. You can then use the computer to make more money, and the other person can use the $1200 to invest in their business and make more money as well. Wealth is thus created, not transferred.
And there’s nothing villainous about being a capitalist entrepreneur unless you are doing something evil and villainous with the spoils of that effort.
Deus knows that he can be more powerful and richer with the ‘Cut Lex Luthor a Check’ method (look it up on TV Tropes), and is the anthesis of the ‘Reed Richards is useless’ trope. If he created a weather controlling device, he would not use it to rob banks or hold people hostage like Weather Wizard. He’d market it under a patent or use it as a trade secret, in order to irrigate farmlands and solve world hunger issues, turn deserts into paradises, etc. For a fair price, since people would be getting massive benefit in return. He might even make sure that the poorest nations don’t have to pay until they are successful and prosperous as a result of his invention (under contract of course), because that’s exactly what he’s done with Galytn and now doing with Mozambique.
Obligatory reminder that “capitalism” is not a synonym for “trade”. What you’ve described is something that happens within the context of capitalism, but is not itself capitalism, and can occur under other economic systems as well.
Actually I described is completely capitalism.
(what I described)
What you described is benevolent capitalism, which is capitalistic. Negative capitalism is capitalistic, too, but the wealth creation merely happens to a smaller or select group of people, instead of broad and low.
You two are viewing Capitalism, from different perspectives!
What I’m describing is capitalism capitalism.
There is no economic term called ‘benevolent capitalism’ or ‘negative capitalism.’
It’s just Capitalism. Period.
If you’re trying to refer to cronyism (aka crony capitalism) when you’re saying ‘negative capitalism,’ that’s not capitalism because it does not involve free enterprise, it involves collusion between the business class and the political class – and that’s closer to mercantilism (the predecessor to capitalism).
There’s a reason the world gained a LOT more wealth after capitalism, but during mercantilism, wealth only amassed in, as you said, a select group of people.’
People really need to understand what wealth is. It’s not money. It’s the value of ALL assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country (the total market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts).
It is NOT currency. Currency only has worth in what it can buy. If you just print money without increasing goods and services, you’re not creating wealth, you’re just devaluing the individual currency’s worth.
You’re describing the idealization of capitalism in the form of wealth creation, nowhere else.
Capitalism doesn’t concern itself with societal and cultural upheaval, ecological impact, and has no long-term impact calculations built into itself.
Furthermore, capitalism in the real world is not ‘perfect’. In addition to creating wealth, it also acts as a vehicle of wealth transferal, generally from the poor to the wealthy, frequently leaving them in as bad or worse straits than when they started.
A blanket statement like doubling median income for the world can be hugely skewed by lowering or keeping steady the income for a number of people, and raising the income of a much smaller number of people, which is basically the wealth spread occurring and persisting in most economies today, where 80% of the wealth lies in the hands of 20% of the people. In poorer societies, this is often 90/10 instead. The vanishing or shrinking of the middle class is one of the signs of this growing disparity.
The rampant abuse of the land to make more money, levels of rampant criminal behavior to make more money through abusive substances, continuous attempts to evade legal restrictions on behavior detrimental to societies, etc, also are all hallmarks of fallout from a capitalistic system. It creates wealth for those involved, but society as a whole?
So, yes, pure capitalism creates wealth. It also creates a lot of non-wealth problems that, in the end, can’t be solved by capitalistic means. These are all parts of the system, and why being a capitalistic entrepreneur is great for you, but often as not, bad for those underneath you.
Deus is not practicing pure capitalism. He’s investing too much in the legal, cultural, societal, and ecological side of things to call it that, none of which involve wealth creation. Odds are he could get just as wealthy personally by being a tyrant as being a benevolent dictator type, and it would still fit fine in the capitalist ideology.
Also, he IS a villain. As I pointed out in another post, villains are intrinsically able to make moral decisions that heroes would not, AND are also able to make all the righteous and moral ones that hero-types are. Deus has specifically proven able to make some very harsh decisions, delights in trampling over laws and rules, has no care for releasing dangerous artifacts into the world, killing instead of deporting annoying missionaries, executing heads of state instead of imprisoning them to further his plans, blah blah.
The fact he can also help out heroes and the little guys just means he has a much broader and more workable idea of what a villain can do and be than most villains, who arguably just have a cartoonish, childish view of what they are supposed to be doing, or are severely hampered with psychological flaws that make them act like arseholes.
He is a very enlightened villain, and he wants to be a successful one. He is happily not burdened with insane fixations on an ideal or being to overcome like so many are…
I am reminded of the recent Iron Heart encounter with Stegron in the comics, where she points out that with his genetic genius, he could have cured cancer by now, or something. His reply was, “I don’t want to cure cancer! I want to turn people into dinosaurs!”
So go the many Evil Geniuses of the world… Deus isn’t one of them.
Considering the sheer amount of suffering caused by whatever economic system we’re being subjected to, either you’re not describing actual capitalism, or we’re not operating under it. Take your pick.
What you’re describing most likely never existed, and never will exist, and thus you cannot attribute all of mankind’s progress to the adoption of it.
1) I am most definitely describing actual capitalism.
2) We do operated under capitalism partially, if you’re talking about the U.S. But like most nations, we have a mixed economy. But even to the extent that we, and other nations, practice capitalism, the effects on the world as far as wealth creation for EVERYONE, including the poorest people, has been extraordinary.
3) I can most definitely attribute mankind’s progress in the creation of more wealth since the creation of capitalism than all economic systems before it (including mercantilism) combined, because it’s true. And don’t strawman my statement. I did not say ‘all of mankind’s progress.’ I referred to wealth creation for everyone, including the poorest people both in the US and on the planet. Answering the post as if I said ‘all of mankind’s progress’ is trying to change my statement to create a flaw in my statement which does not exist. A classic strawman argument.
You described the “ideal” of capitalism, from the perspective of someone who is pro-capitalism.
Would you like to spend some time discussing the practical realities of capitalism, the euphemistically named “externalities” that those of us on the receiving end of it are forced to endure? Because this is a conversation I am very prepared for, and you might find it more than a little uncomfortable.
You are a lawyer. I am a Poli-Sci, with a minor in econ, and another in ethical philosophy, and very wide swath of life experience to boot, and I find that most people who like to champion capitalism, are actually championing _markets_ which are not exclusive to capitalism, and in fact predate the ideology by literally thousands of years.
So, with the understanding that I like & respect you, I ask again…is this a conversation you want to have?
I would like to watch this conversation maybe judge points or just pun off it.
I will send so many ninja hit squads after you in a blatant display of how capitalism creates wealth, in the form of the services provided by the ninja hit squads.
I need the entertainment. just remember like energy ninjutsu is conserved, and no longer taught.
Labor provided by ninja who are paid less than the value of their labor, in order that the Boss Ninja may pocket the difference…which is an example of upward wealth transfer.
The Boss pocketing wealth created by the labor of someone else.
That’s what capitalists call ‘profit.’
We little people call it, getting “******.”
objection. this is the side comment. bharda has laid a foundation below
pander 6 points for hiring ineffective ninjas
Bharda 8 points for being on topic. (needed a pun to get max points)
yes this judge is on The Wall.
@Pander- Those are Value-Added-Attacks.
Bharda:
“Labor provided by ninja who are paid less than the value of their labor, in order that the Boss Ninja may pocket the difference…which is an example of upward wealth transfer.”
1) The ninja are paid based on an agreement that both the ninja and the boss ninja agreed to. The value of their labor is based on what the Boss Ninja and the ninja underling agreed to in their employment contract.
2) The Boss Ninja took all the risk when they created the Ninja Emporium, as they had no idea that pun hit squads would be so profitable when they made their investment in the company out of their own pocket or from loans they took out from the bank, risking their Boss Ninja home and their Boss Ninja children’s futures on their business model.
3) The underling ninja trades huge rewards for not having huge risk. Also, when people stop punning and I don’t have to hire so many ninja hit squads (a dream that I hope will one day become true, but probably never will), the ninja underling won’t have to SPEND money, while the boss ninja will.
What you’re calling pocketing the wealth created by the labor of others is actually just a return on an investment made by the Boss Ninja, who worked the business up from a small ninja emporium out of his garage into the multinational Ninja Emporium this forum knows of today.
Random Guy:
I sort of want to send a ninja hit squad out after you for your post….
Palmvos:
I could pay for better quality ninja, but I like you guys for some godforsaken reason, and only want them to maim you usually.
“You described the “ideal” of capitalism, from the perspective of someone who is pro-capitalism.”
I’m describing the actual effects of capitalism, from the perspective of someone who has seen the effects of capitalism on the world, and has studies the effects of economic models that existed before and leading up to capitalism – feudalism, distributism, statism, despotism, communism, socialism, mercantilism, etc. I’m also aware of when capitalism is done in half-measures, like cronyism or corporatism, or other mixed economy models. And even in a mixed economy world (which we unfortunately live in, including in the U.S.), capitalism has still done a lot better for the world than pretty much any other economy system when it comes to wealth CREATION, from the richest people to the poorest.
The global median income has more than doubled since just 2000, entirely because of capitalism. The reason being that capitalism is the economic model which actually creates wealth, rather than just transferring it. Again, wealth is not money. Wealth is the total market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. As explained by Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’ (full name – An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations).
“Would you like to spend some time discussing the practical realities of capitalism,”
The practical realities of capitalism, even taking into account the worst aspects, have still been far more beneficial than any other economic model in history for creating wealth instead of just transferring it. It literally is about making a bigger pie, not just taking pie from another person.
“You are a lawyer. I am a Poli-Sci, with a minor in econ, and another in ethical philosophy,”
Yes, I’m a lawyer. That’s law school. In college, I majored in Poli-Sci and Biology (I originally wanted to be a doctor then discovered I couldnt handle blood so I dropped my pre-med sequence and went into the pre-law sequence instead, since some fields like patent law could still use my science background), with a minor in Economics (Brandeis University was where I got my undergraduate degree and masters before law school), and taught it for one year at a preparatory school (I hated teaching economics – and hated teaching in general) before I went to law school, then after law school, DA’s office, then private practice (mainly dealing with intellectual property – patents and , bankruptcy law, contracts and litigation). And yes, I know ethical philosophy as well, since it’s a core aspect of the study of law. The US Constitution is all about the ethics of balancing governing with people’s inalienable rights (ie, the Constitution is about negative rights – you have rights because you exist, and the government is there to protect those rights that you already have, not to grant you rights that you don’t have). I’m fine with being able to debate this.
” and I find that most people who like to champion capitalism, are actually championing _markets_ which are not exclusive to capitalism,”
Free markets are a key aspect OF capitalism, which is why it’s capitalism, not cronyism. The free market economy concept was first developed in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations in 1776, and began in earnest in the late 18th century after the Industrial Revolution. A market economy is an economy in which the prices of the products and services are chosen in a free price system that is decided by supply and demand.
While markets existed before this, it wasn’t formalized as an economic model until then. A free market economy is not merely ‘trade’ – which HAS existed further back than written history. Barter is ‘trade.’ It’s not a free market economy though. Proto-banking systems of Mesopotamia and Rome were aspects of trade and using monetary mediums of exchange, but that also was not a free market economy (plus it sort of fell into the aether and that didnt re-emerge until around the 15th century.
If you want a free market economy, you need voluntary exchange and private property. You can have trade with only one of these, but that AGAIN would not be a market economy. It would be a centralized economy.
There is a huge difference between a market economy and a centralized economy.
“So, with the understanding that I like & respect you, I ask again…is this a conversation you want to have?”
Bharda, I like and respect you too, and even though I’m very sure we are not going to agree on any of this, I’m not going to suddenly not like you because we disagree. I argue with a lot of people who I disagree with, and who disagree with me. Don’t worry about offending me as long as no insults are hurled my way. And hopefully no strawmen arguments (although that doesnt offend me either, I just tend to point out when people are making strawmen arguments though) :)
Puns, on the other hand, will definitely cause me to send ninja hit squads, as always.
Very well.
*rasp of metaphorical steel drawn the marbled halls of…some vaguely Romantic setting with neoclassical architecture*
Let us begin with the metaphysics, and establish our first concepts.
En garde: If a person is under a compulsion in the course of choosing a course of action, that is to say they are required under threat to their health, well-being, life, limb, liberty, or sight, to seek a particular state or outcome regardless of their wishes, is that person acting of their own informed, affirmative free will, or are they coerced?
“*rasp of metaphorical steel drawn the marbled halls of…some vaguely Romantic setting with neoclassical architecture*”
I approve of the symbolism. Although I’m still going to say ‘Ello. My name is Inigo Montoya.’
“Let us begin with the metaphysics, and establish our first concepts.”
Metaphysics? Can’t we begin with economics, since capitalism is an economic system? If you want to deal with metaphysics, the only thing I can think of using is the pareto principle. Which definitely supports capitalism if you want to make the pareto principle work FOR a society.
“En garde: If a person is under a compulsion in the course of choosing a course of action, that is to say they are required under threat to their health, well-being, life, limb, liberty, or sight, to seek a particular state or outcome regardless of their wishes, is that person acting of their own informed, affirmative free will, or are they coerced?”
Parry, balestra, thrust! : They are not under a compulsion to work for a specific person. They can work for other people, or they can take the same risk their prospective employers have taken and start a business themselves. Thus your initial statement is based on something not proven – compulsion in choosing a specific course of action against their own informed, affirmative free will.
@Pander
I am using the word ‘metaphysics’ in the technical sense, hence I clarified by stating that we should establish first concepts.
In this specific instance, I am making certain that we understand the conditions of the participants, pursuant to your repeated insistences that – and I am paraphrasing here – ‘capitalism is about people engaging in free exchange.’
So, returning to my question, is a person who’s decision is being subjected to pressure in the form of a threat of harm to their health, well-being, life, limb, liberty, or sight actually exercising their own free will – that is, engaging in a ‘free exchange’ – with informed, affirmative consent, or is their ability to consent in the first place compromised by the aforementioned threat?
This is a very straightforward, very clearly defined question about the ability to give consent, counselor. You should be able to answer it easily, without attempting to introduce new and extraneous information, or otherwise alter the parameters of the inquiry.
“and I am paraphrasing here – ‘capitalism is about people engaging in free exchange.’”
A major problem here is you’re paraphrasing incorrectly. This is not what I said at all.
I said, and I will quote:
“A free market economy is not merely ‘trade’ – which HAS existed further back than written history. Barter is ‘trade.’ It’s not a free market economy though.”
…
“If you want a free market economy, you need voluntary exchange and private property. You can have trade with only one of these, but that AGAIN would not be a market economy. It would be a centralized economy.”
You’ve inadvertently (I don’t think intentionally) started off the argument with a strawman argument by quoting what I said in a way that contains flaws or holes to be exploited, rather than what I actually said, which is both a more accurate representation of capitalism AND very difficult to argue against.
Like I said, ‘barter’ by itself is the people engaging in free exchange as well, and has existed since the dawn of man when one person had something another person wanted. It’s not capitalism though, and DEFINITELY is not free market capitalism.
“is a person who’s decision is being subjected to pressure in the form of a threat of harm to their health, well-being, life, limb, liberty, or sight actually exercising their own free will – that is, engaging in a ‘free exchange’ – with informed, affirmative consent, or is their ability to consent in the first place compromised by the aforementioned threat?”
I’m trying to figure where you’re going from here, mainly because your premise of what I said was inaccurate. I’m guessing the following might be what you’re arguing (correct me if i’m wrong but I think this is what you are arguing because you’ve argued it in a past debate we’ve had a WHILE ago).
If you are implying that an employer is obligated to give someone a job, since if they don’t the employee can risk starvation from being unemployed…. they aren’t. The employee always has another option – getting a different job elsewhere, moving to another place where there might be better work, becoming so invaluable in the job that the employer would lose profitability if they do not acquiesce to the employer’s demands, collective bargaining, getting more education in order to get skills for a different trade, or if all other options fail, the option is trying to start up their own business. That involves risk, though. Risk of failure. Which is the same risk that the employer made when starting up his or her business. That’s the difference between an employee and an employer. The employer has a lot of risk, but also a lot of reward if they succeed. The employee has not taken any risk (if the business loses money once quarter, they don’t have to give the business money, they still get paid their salary or wage unless fired), but less reward.
“This is a very straightforward, very clearly defined question about the ability to give consent, counselor. ”
Unfortunately it’s not very straightforward if the premise is incorrect. Since the premise is incorrect, new information is required.
“In this specific instance, I am making certain that we understand the conditions of the participants, pursuant to your repeated insistences that – and I am paraphrasing here – ‘capitalism is about people engaging in free exchange.’”
When using my words, please be specific since I choose my words rather carefully, since I am an annoying lawyer. You left out half of what capitalism is when you paraphrased. And I had a whole paragraph about what happens when you leave out either half of capitalism.
I’ll quote myself:
“If you want a free market economy, you need voluntary exchange and private property. You can have trade with only one of these, but that AGAIN would not be a market economy. It would be a centralized economy.” – Pander, Attorney-at-Law and President of the Deus Ex Machina Fan Club
“‘capitalism is about people engaging in free exchange.’”
But I did not say this. This is an example of those strawman arguments I was talking about. Free exchange alone isnt capitalism. Free exchange + private property are necessary for capitalism.
@Pander
We’ll get to the rest of it.
First and foremost, I want to be certain of this question of consent, as it is foundational to every later point. So, again, is a person who’s decision is being subjected to pressure in the form of a threat of harm to their health, well-being, life, limb, liberty, or sight actually exercising their own free will – that is, engaging in a ‘free exchange’ – with informed, affirmative consent, or is their ability to consent in the first place compromised by the aforementioned threat?
Was saying that about Sci-frights’ ‘choice’ when it came to sleeping with SmugD, specially after Valyeur actually threatened her, and then proceeded to stay and watch
@Bharda:
Consent depends on what you’re consenting to, if you have other options, and if you think that another person owes you a duty to hire you. I’m assuming your argument is going to be that, if an employer is not paying an employee what the employee wants, but instead what the employee agreed to, that there is somehow a lack of consent? Would that be an accurate guess of the route you’re taking in this argument?
The important thing I’m trying to make sure of with your question is what you consider ‘threat of harm’ and if that ‘threat of harm’ involves forcing another person to do something against their free will (such as hiring a person and having to pay them more than a wage agreed upon by both parties, as shown in an employment contract).
@Guesticules:
Sciona most definitely had a choice. She could either pay the price Deus was asking, try to use violence, sleep with him and get the access for free as a result, or leave and NOT get access to Deus’s list. She is not ‘owed’ access to the list if she has not given due consideration (that’s a contract term) for the list.
Contract term – consideration. In any contract, there’s an Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. You must have all three to have a valid contract. Deus made an offer. The Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Acceptance occurs after the consideration is given. Without consideration by both parties, there is no contract. Both parties gave consideration, there was an offer, and there was acceptance. At no point was Sciona forced.
As for Vale’s threat, that was as a bodyguard, to remind her not to try to MURDER Deus, because if she was to try to murder Deus, Vale would stop her and was giving a reminder that she would be capable of killing anyone trying to kill Deus. So she should not keep referring to Deus as ‘mortal’ as if Deus was killable and Sciona was not. The threat was NOT ‘sleep with Deus or I will kill you’ and you know that good and well, because she had already, more than once in the past, threatened to kill Deus.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-607-a-magnificent-proposal/
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-608-twofer/
(Panel 3 – Sciona: “Can I kill him just a little?”)
The reason there’s more money today than there has been in the entire history of the planet is because the people in charge of the money supply decided to print more of it. You’re right that there is more wealth today than there was a thousand years ago, but that’s unrelated to the size of the money supply.
“The reason there’s more money today than there has been in the entire history of the planet is because the people in charge of the money supply decided to print more of it.”
COMPLETELY and utterly incorrect, and what you are describing is not wealth, but is hyperinflation, which is why many centrally controlled economies fail in a disastrous way if they don’t move into market economies.
Wealth is not currency. Wealth is the value of all the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company, or country. Wealth is determined by taking the total market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. Essentially, wealth is the accumulation of scarce resources.
Thinking wealth is ‘how much currency is printed’ is a guarantee to devalue your currency. Again, for example, the Mozambique dollar. You do not ‘print more money’ to have more wealth, because the amount that that dollar can purchase becomes LESS. Printing up more money does not create more items which can be purcahsed BY that additionally printed money, which did not need to come into being because of more products and services available. Capitalism does that, not just printing money.
“You’re right that there is more wealth today than there was a thousand years ago, but that’s unrelated to the size of the money supply.”
Why did you leave off half my sentence when answering it? You talked about money… you did not talk about possessions. If I have 1000 pounds of gold bullion, technically I have no money but a lot of wealth. If I have 100,000 shares of stock in Microsoft, I technically have no money, but I have a lot of wealth.
“You do not ‘print more money’ to have more wealth, because the amount that that dollar can purchase becomes LESS.” Look at Nazi Ruled Germany! It cost 1 million DM, to buy a loaf of bread.
I’m not sure if you’re supporting what I said or trying to argue what I said and accidentally supporting what I said. Or if you meant to respond to Brilliand and instead responded to my post. Although the hyperinflation in Germany you’re referring to was prior to nazi germany, following the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War 1 (not Nazi Germany), not World War 2 (Nazi Germany).
In any case, you seem to have made my point. If you print more money, you do not have more wealth unless you also produce more services and goods for that money to buy. If you just print more money, without producing more goods and services, then all you are doing is making that money less valuable for what it can purchase. Wealth CREATION includes goods and services.
The loaf of bread is included as ‘wealth.’ The currency is wealth only in that someone is willing to give you something you want in exchange for that currency. If no one wants to give you anything for the currency, then the currency has no value, aside from as paper or metal, or possibly numismatic value as a collector’s item.
Correct, I realized that, after I posted, that missive.
No problem :)
Didn’t the US Government print out extra notes recently? To improve the value of the worthless USD?
Uh, what?
Printing more money acknowledges more wealth has been created, OR devalues existing money, making it easier to pay off debt denominated in that type of currency, such as, oh, the national debt, mortgages, etc.
It also makes good denominated in USD easier to buy. This is the trick that China used with the yuan for many decades, and is now coming home to bite them in the arse.
the USD is the strongest currency in the world, much as many other nations might not like it. When there’s financial trouble in the world, the speculators flock to dollars in relief.
“Didn’t the US Government print out extra notes recently? To improve the value of the worthless USD?”
If you’re talking about the stimulus, it was a BAD idea which DID cause inflation, and did devalue the dollar. And the only reason it went through without people even thinking of what a bad idea it was is the government had basically forced all businesses to shut down. Which actually made things worse for inflation because the government both increased the money supply to an insane degree while also almost completely stopping the production of most goods and services (aside from big box stores and online megacorporations like Amazon, which made out like bandits in the last two years). You’re… sort of making my point.
And no, the stimulus was not to improve the value of the USD, plus the USD is not even remotely ‘worthless.’ Not sure where you got that from. It’s one of, if not the, strongest currency on the planet, largely because it’s backed by such a large and vibrant consumer base, as well as a huge amount of products and services being created in the USA and by multinational corporations situated in the USA. The GDP of the United States is the largest on the planet. It’s not even a competition. The US GDP is 23 trillion USD, while the next largest is China with 17.7 trillion – a distant second. As a nation, the US is incredibly wealthy.
It’s only when you adjust it per capita that we’re no longer #1 – largely because of our huge population. The adjusted GDP per capita is about $70,000, which puts us in 9th place. That being said, China is not even ON a list of the top 50 if you adjust it that way, except for Hong Kong, which is #11 and operates under a much more capitalist economy than the rest of China largely because of being under western oversight for so long. When you use the adjusted GDP per capita, #! would be somewhere like Luxembourg, at around $134,000, and has a VERY tiny population, as do the other 8 nations above the US in adjusted GDP per capita (and also most of the ones below the US until you get to Germany at #17 with an adjusted GDP/capita of $58,000).
And like RED very accurately pointed out, China only got into second place because of decades of manipulating the yuan, which is now hurting them because you can’t do that permanently without destroying an economy.
To be fair the other part of how China has been able to build its economy, other than manipulation of its currency, has been via economic stupidity on behalf of the US outsourcing so much to China and not understanding the properly advantageous use of tarriffs to enforce fairer trade deals, over the past several decades.
That… is about the worst explanation of money supply I’ve ever heard. As Pander said, printing money has NO effect on the money supply. All you did is devalue a specific measurement unit of the money supply. The total value of it stayed exactly the same, i.e. the material wealth that money represented.
Money supply is used to control inflation, and revalue or devalue the measurement unit to make it easier or harder to buy things. The items the money represents do NOT change in actual value just because your dollar is worth half of what it was. The Price of them will simply rise or fall in accord with the excess printed units.
In terms of actually helping people, Deus has done far more good than any of the nominal heroes. He’s healing the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and, presumably, clothing the naked. Sometimes he reverts to Old Testament ways when dealing with the corrupt or violent, but as despots go, he’s as benign as it gets.
Yes yes, it has been mentioned ever since SmugD was introduced
And Luthor is, will be, and always has been, only out for himself (he is anti-Supperman because Supperman refuses to be bought off, like every other so-called ‘hero’)
In the story line prior to Death-Metal, Luthor sided with Perpetua in an attempt to takeover everything, but, when she got stopped, Luthor is claiming that he was the one who lead the fight against her
Luthor qualifies for the Orange Lantern most strongly: His defining characteristic is his ego, and his greed.
He wants to prove that humans are the best and don’t need aliens and gods and things with natural superpowers to be the mightiest around (which doesn’t mean he won’t take those powers, he certainly will if he gets the chance, just another display of his intellect).
His ego means he thinks of himself as the most qualified human around, and so he should be in charge, intellect without empathy.
His greed means he wants it all: the recognition, the power, the authority, everything, from being on top. If he can’t have it, he will bring it down so he stands on top.
Combined, the two are great reasons to loathe Superman. Superman is an alien, blessed with great natural power, and he has an unimpeached moral authority and respect Luthor does not. All reasons to totally trash him as a threat to his own plans and ambitions, coloring them with defense of Earth/humanity to justify himself.
I would not call the farm boy’s “moral authority” unimpeachable.
Consider a day when the Joker went to Metropolis.
He had a conversation with big blue that went like this:
S: *heat isioned J’s flank*
J: I don’t believe it. You won’t do it. _Batman_ doesn’t kill.
S: Batman has a code against killing. I don’t have a code, I just generally don’t do it.
He then allows Joker to withdraw. Later, farm boy confront Batman at home. it goes like this:
S: You let him come to Metropolis.
B: I wanted to see how you’d react.
S: So this was a test?
B: And you failed.
S: If this ever happens again, he won’t be coming back (strong implication being that S will kill him)
This completely undermines any idea that the farm boy is any sort of moral paragon. There’s no reason for him to make such a threat. Containing Joker, for him, is trivial, and so killing him is purely a matter of convenience.
Anyone who kills as a matter of _convenience_, is definitionally immoral.
That was exactly one issue in hundreds. It is a HORRIBLE example of Superman as a moral example, which is probably why you picked it.
In all those OTHER comics, and even in this one, Superman still literally does nothing even abusive to the Joker. He doesn’t let him go, he brings him to jail. Doesn’t even finger-flick him unconscious, because there’s no need to. The Joker is literally a joke to him, and finally realizes it.
I think the ‘strong implication’ is that he’ll put him in the Phantom Zone or some other place he won’t come back from, NOT kill him. You automatically leapt to the worst conclusion.
Although note that SUperman is a farmer. Farmers kill things all the time, it’s part of farm life. Seeing the Joker as a rabid dog and quietly removing him is hardly the worst thing Superman could do. The strange words in this comic is Batman saying Superman ‘failed’, when he took a much higher road than Bats would have in the scenario.
Superman is Batman’s moral compass. I think that right there tells you what his character is like. You simply cannot pay Superman enough to do what he does, yet he does it for free.
So, I’m just going to call authorial semantics on your extremely isolated and very tilted interpretation of that issue. There’s 80 years of counter-examples which simply do not match your words.
“Does nothing even abusive.”
He literally blasted him with an energy weapon that several wounded, even crippled him, when he had literally just demonstrated that he had others options, and stated as much himself.
“I can do lots of things.” – Superman
Look at the pattern you’re following.
He didn’t hurt him.
Well, he didn’t kill him.
And, if he did, it would be okay.
Pretty seriously undermines your claim that Superman is Batman’s moral compass.
And let’s be clear, I’m not claiming that Batman is perfect, I’m not even claiming that he hasn’t/won’t kill when necessary. But that’s the key difference here. Batman was prepared to commit genocide on Apokolips.
But that’s the key factor.
Necessity.
You may not want to acknowledge it, but the writer and the artist of that particular story made it implicitly clear that Superman would kill Joker. The intent is clear. Now, we could argue about whether or not they realized that by also making it clear that containing the Joker is trivial for Superman, his killing him would be purely a matter of convenience, and that they had _indirectly_ and _unintentionally_ also implied that Superman would, therefore, be killing as a matter of convenience. There’s room for debate about that.
But we cannot argue with the text, and the art.
And going on to suggest that ‘oh, he was talking about dropping him in the Phantom a zone,’ is nonsense. If such a thing was suggested by Superman to Batman, I can’t imagine that Batman would actually say anything other than, “Why didn’t you do that, then?”
This is one of the things I seriously dislike about Superman, as a character.
He is an absolute Mary-Sue.
And I mean this in the sense that everything else has to contort around him. Including the writers and the audience. Look at your own words.
“Superman is Batman’s moral compass.”
How does this work in any story where there is no Superman, either by involvement in the plot, or existencce in the world of a given narrative? You are essentially predicating the existence of Batman’s character on the existence of Superman’s character. If that isn’t a massive distortion of the narrative, I don’t know what is, and that is the literal definition of a Mary-Sue.
The basic fact is, Superman _can’t_ be anyone’s “moral compass,” because he doesn’t live it same reality as anyone else. He doesn’t have to make the same choices we do. He doesn’t have our limitations, in terms of power, knowledge, resources, or awareness. He is specially privileged.
And please, don’t get me wrong. I like Superman. I enjoy a lot of his stories. One of my favorites is The Long Walk.
I’m also a fan of the 90’s Death of Superman, no because he died, but because he wrestled with mortal consequences for the first time in my experience.
And I’m glad they brought him back! Again! X’D
I also especially loved this one issue where he was confronted by the brother of crippled Vietnam Vet, who’s been given the weapons & tools to defeat him. The solution wasn’t a fight, but a conversation that confronted the realities of that war.
And you pointed it out yourself: The author and writer OF THAT STORY.
There are literally HUNDREDS of issues of other stories where Superman is facing characters who are not a threat to them, and this whole schadenfreude mindset does not exist! The points you are making leading to terrible conclusions are refuted by all those other stories, and you… are just denying it.
In other words, you chose one story out of hundreds to support your point, and ignored all the rest that are counter to it. Thus, I can’t give any weight to your point of view.
Superman is Batman’s moral compass. BATMAN admitted to that, and has in multiple stories and books. Superman is a better man than he is. Perhaps it is because it is easier and because he CAN be… but it doesn’t change the fact.
Yes, Superman is an impossibly charitable character no one alive and human can emulate. It doesn’t stop the fact that he IS a moral ideal, right on the godly level. He doesn’t have to do anything he does. He could charge for his services. He could act whimsically. He could take over the world. He could ignore the rest of humanity save for his friends and family, and just work to their benefit.
In other words, he could act like a normal human, and he would instantly lose all his mystique and not BE Superman. There’s a thousand expy’s of him exploring all those other things he could be.
He doesn’t do that. He generates his time and effort to helping the world and protecting it.
One isolated story that breaks the paradigm if interpreted harshly isn’t going to convince anyone of your viewpoint. If anything, Superman’s greatest moral weakness is not recognizing when you have to STOP being morally righteous, and when doing the right thing would step past his moral comfort zone, to the point where people die (including himself!)… and then his inability to stop himself from going even further once he’s taken that step (which is also utterly stupid… do soldiers coming back from war keep shooting people to resolve their problems?).
But, yeah, that story? It was a one-off for a reason. It’s been years since I read it, and I found it entertaining and don’t recall it perfectly, sorry. But I didn’t have near the negative impression from it that you have, because I shadowed everything in the light of all the other Superman stories, and you did it as a stand-alone with a cynical mindset.
I admit that I did find the idea that Superman doesn’t have a moral ‘code’ interesting, but then, Superman has never been described as someone who goes deep into philosophical issues, so he never worked out a code for himself.
On the flip side, Superman obviously DOES have a code, and in many ways it is far stricter than Batman’s, even if he never lays it out. When Superman has to break his code, the consequences are almost inevitably described as tragic, when for a normal human, they would just be regrets we’d get over quickly. Pretty much anytime he’s gone outside his comfort box of decision-making, it has been with great reluctance, hesitation, and even temporary insanity, and if it persisted, well, then you get Injustice Superman and all his expy clones, proving Luthor right in the end when someone pushes him too far.
Amusingly enough, that harsh judgement of him having to stay that unimpeachably moral (and yes, I’m using the word deliberately!) is often levied on him by his friends and associates, and any deviation from it is a clear danger sign, given his level of power. Superman is either inhumanly pure in deed and action, or he falls like a rock. DC doesn’t let there be a medium ground.
The fact that it “is easier” is what makes it impossible for human be the moral compass you’re asserting him as.
He doesn’t have to choose. He’s never forced to leave his comfortable little black & white world.
In terms of morality, Superman is a perpetual infant.
That’s why the Injustice story happens in the first place. Because once he was forced to confront failure, he threw a global tantrum.
This is yet another reason why I love Red Son.
“Why don’t you put the whole world in a bottle?”
The Soviet Superman is a deeply flawed person, but he has much greater moral fiber than Clark Kent.
He has had to confront & learn from so many mistakes & failings, on his part, and on the part of the system he actively heads up. He’s learned to stand up, correct himself, and keep moving forward, living with terrible consequences & guilt.
He’s a Man, and not just Superman.
If an infant is kind and an adult is cruel, that doesn’t make the kindness any less kind or the cruelty any less cruel. If a king chooses to follow the ideal of good, that doesn’t make him any less moral than a peasant who decides the same. One’s ability or inability to live up to a moral standard does not change whether a choice is right or wrong, or make anyone morally “stronger” or “weaker.”
(Just because a person is unable to make anything other than a wrong choice doesn’t make those choices anything other than wrong choices.)
Ideals are ideals for a reason. Failing to live up to them doesn’t give us any sort of moral high ground. And Superman being able to live up to them doesn’t put him below us. He embodies an ideal to aspire to. That’s… sort of the point of Superman.
Then you completely missed the lesson of Job.
Being ‘good’ is easy, when it’s easy.
But when ‘good’ is hard? When it pays no dividends and actually costs you?
Now _that_ is a mark of character.
Tell me, who has better moral character, a multi billionaire who gives away several million dollars every year, or a poor, homeless man who shares his last crust of bread, because his fellow has none?
Lincoln once said, “if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
I might add, “…or, take it away.”
It’s not about what Supperman can do, it’s what he will (or won’t) do, which is what make him the opposite of Blatman
If you think that they’re “opposites,” then you aren’t paying attention.
At their most basic level, they are both agents of the status quo, working to preserve and protect entrenched systems. To paraphrase Fredrick Douglas, “they strike the effects of injustice while leaving the causes undisturbed.”
That, more than anything else, is why Deus looks very attractive to some of us: he recognizes the need for systemic change, and also seeks to act on it.
I tell you for true, if I were a super in the Grrlverse, about the only thing that would stop me from signing up with Deus is his seeming commitment to capitalism…which I would need to investigate, because I think it entirely possible that it’s more of an act. A means to an end.
They are opposites because Superman is someone who wants to help but doesn’t have the cash so helps in ways openly and tangibly, Blatman has the money but instead of spending it openly and tangibly he prefers to hide in the shadows and beats up the victims that fall through the cracks that his money plasters over
Also, with Blatman, it’s what he won’t do as opposed to what he can (or could) do
Superman “doesn’t have the cash” because he chooses not to spend his time earning it. Maybe that’s the best use of his time and abilities, or maybe earning money and using it to help people would be better. But it’s not a fundamentally different choice than Batman’s.
@Bharda:
“If you think that they’re “opposites,” then you aren’t paying attention.
At their most basic level, they are both agents of the status quo, working to preserve and protect entrenched systems”
I think what Guesticules is relying on is something that Batman said to Catwoman in Hush (or says in a monologue in the comic book version):
“If Clark wanted to, he could use his superspeed and squish me into the cement. But I know how he thinks. Even more than the kryptonite, he’s got one big weakness. Deep down, Clark’s essentially a good person… and deep down, I’m not.”
What people tend to overlook is that this doesnt mean Batman ISNT a good person deep down as well (possibly even moreso than Superman, especially when you take what happens to break Superman’s world and how he reacted to it in Injustice vs how Batman reacts when something similar happens to him in other comics)
Batman IS a good person deep down as well. And Superman might NOT be a good person deep down, or he might be as good a person deep down as he acts. But Batman does not THINK that he’s a good person deep down, because he’s always so incredibly hard on himself, in order to keep himself set on the Mission. Because he genuinely THINKS that if he ever starts doing things that are bad, he won’t be able to stop. Like he said to Jason Todd in Under the Red Hood, when asked why he didnt finally kill the Joker when he killed Jason by beating him near to death with crowbar and then leaving him in a fiery explosion:
Jason asks why – he said ‘What, it would be too hard to bring yourself to kill the Joker?’
Batman says:
“No. God almighty, no. It’d be too damned easy. All I’ve ever wanted to do was kill him. A day doesn’t go by that I don’t think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he’s dealt out to others, and then… end him.” This earns a humorous response from Joker before Batman finishes with, “But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place… I’ll never come back.”
Batman genuinely thinks that he would be a murderer if he did not hold true to his principles with unyielding rigidity, and never stop even for a moment.
The only time he finally ignores the No Killing rule was when he shot Darkseid with a Radon bullet (which is deadly to New Gods), because 1) The entire world was about to end because of Darkseid if he did not, and 2) Batman knew for a fact that a fraction of a second afterwards, Darkseid’s Omega Beams were going to annihilate him, so it would literally be his last act in life, so he might as well make it one which saves everyone.
If you abandon your morals when they become inconvenient for you, then they weren’t morals in the first place. Morals are what you do, or don’t do, when those choices are hard.
Agreed, and Superman sticks to his morals even when fighting things where just killing them would be a much easier and safer way to resolve the situation.
Superman donating his time to do what he does is the greatest gift he could give. Nobody could pay him enough money to do what he does. The dollar value of it simply cannot be paid.
Anyone that thinks Superman couldn’t get impossibly wealthy literally overnight hasn’t thought about what he is capable of doing at all… and that’s before we get into mastery of Kryptonian-level technology to lead us along the tech curve.
But he spends that time protecting the world and helping people out. He doesn’t go after the root causes of evils because that’s OUR job; he’s there to show there is a better way, and he can take care of problems we can’t face, not the ones that we can. We can’t pay enough for him to do that job, so he just donates it.
Superman has faced death on behalf of the planet many times; exile, imprisonment, enslavement, magical enchantment, mind control. Saying he has not had to fight to keep his morals steady is utterly ignoring the history of who he is and who he has fought. Sure, there’s many people who he bowls over. He’s also suffered horribly in ways that have broken Batman, and come through it.
Sure, he’s a god, but that’s who he fights, too, and he’s paid for it. Ignoring all the shit heaped upon him in the comics for one issue is just disingenuous.
Deus is indeed the best kind of supervillain. Proof you don’t necessarily have to be evil to be a villain. I mean, it helps, but it’s more fun to be a villain within the heroes own rules. Victory by playing by the rules is soooo much more satisfying.
he is an antagonist. he antagonizes the comment section expertly.
I like to think of it as “motivation.” X’D
Hmmm. Deus cam off as a business tycoon who could respond to opposition questioning with a surprisingly high level of intelligence mixed with full of himself. If not actually suave because he was unabashedly full of himself and a bit of a caricature of himself, he still come across as nerdy.
It feels like the extreme nerdiness is far more about his reveal to Maxima that his super power is extremely high intelligence and a meta now how acts that way than him just acting differently among his own employees. He’s done the latter before without being a goof…or a goof in this way.
Any chance we can get Deus’ face in that last panel blown up to be used in reaction images?
Schadenfreude.
I, for one, support this request. David, could we get this? I’d also like to see a closeup of that medal! Beautiful!
Last panel. Can we get that blown up a bit? Especially Deus’s face.
It’s perfect for schadenfreude meme.
Yeah I seen that and first thought was about the old meme of Fry saying “shut up and take my money!” cut to that smile….
he’s training her for villainy. how else do villains learn to monolog except by impromptu speeches?
there needs to be a side comic- Archon on Toast. the Archon Toastmasters club.
Toastmasters, blahhhhh.
Lived with a family member who was doing their schtick. It’s a weird vibe, like a cult without a god. They’re not religious, but they have their traditions and rules and uphold those religiously.
…I have no relevant life experience, but I begin to wonder: is this what fraternities and sororities are like??
Go for an Elks or Masons meeting sometime…
I’m biased but fraternities and sororities are mainly ways to allow the well-to-do to exclude the proletariat. (the dues are fairly high). A way to get drunk mostly without consequence. and a network to make sure the ‘right people’ get the good jobs.
Can’t have The Poors getting into places they don’t belong, right?
Things like this make it hard to argue with Willie Lorax.
*Lomax
…friggin autocorrect.
who, what, and why is Willie Lorax.
“Willie…was a salesman.”
Go read Death of a Salesman.
It’s short.
Bharda. I am TRYING to make my way through Truth of the Divine and I’m stuck at the hearing. (spoiler- this is a depressing book) everything i’ve seen and heard about Death of the Salesman sounds like it will make it worse.
It will.
DoaS is essentially a conflict between “it’s what you do,” and “it’s who you know.”
The ending is very sad, though entirely predictable, and examining it through a structural lens will make it even more so.
The Willie Lorax speaks for the trees. :)
And typos.
“Death of an Environmentalist” would be a hideously depressing story, in that it mostly reflects the current reality…
For the record, “Biggering” is a _much_ better song than “How Bad Can I Be,” and the choice to drop it was the most obvious bit of pro-corporate child-audience manipulation.
““Death of an Environmentalist” would be a hideously depressing story, in that it mostly reflects the current reality…”
And yet I think I’d still want to read it. Mockery can bring self-awareness. :)
I feel that the movie of missed the entire point of of Seuss’s ideas when he wrote it – the evils of excess without paying ANY attention to the importance of conservation and presevation of natural resources.
I liked both songs though. Or at least the beat. Which was probably the point of the song – to be an ear worm for the kids.
ok,
putting that on the No list.
Deus wants what he wants and notoriety is among the foremost things he desires. As a super villain he gets to do that without bending over backwards to keep his quote unquote moral code uncompromised.
You think that a villain can’t have a moral code?
So, you admit SmugD is a villain
Is that what I said?
No, it isn’t. That’s a whole different thing you just tried to shove into my mouth.
Maybe don’t do that.
You take things far too seriously.
Maybe don’t do that.
I expect my boundaries to be respected.
I expect not to have words out in my mouth.
I expect you to have the integrity to engage with what I actually say, and not what you want me to have said.
That’s something politicians do. “Answer the question you wanted to be asked.”
It’s petty, manipulative, dishonest, and I’m not going to indulge it.
E_Voyager was specifically talking about SmugD, then you chirped in about how villains should be able to have a moral code
No, what I did was _ask_ if they thought, “a villain can’t have a moral code,” which is not the same thing.
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth, and tryin to engage what you want me to have said, instead of what I actually said.
It’s petty, manipulative, and dishonest, and I’m not going to indulge it.
I’ve found that some people are allergic to abstractions. They assume that all discussion must be about a specific referent, and can’t tell when a conversation has made the leap from the concrete to the abstract.
You’re not wrong, but in fairness, there are also a fair number that can’t tolerate moving from the abstract, to the concrete.
As soon as you move the discussion into specifics, they panic & start insisting that ‘changing anything would changing everything and that could make everything bad!’
*facepalm*
True. Some people seem to like abstract discussion as a distraction, a way of “solving problems”, or looking like they care, without actually doing the things within their power to actually change things or make a difference. That’s the tactic I would attribute most to politicians. It’s rare for the outcome of an election to change anything for the better.
Bharda didnt say Deus was a villain.
She was saying villains, in a broad sense, can still have a moral code. This is VERY true.
For example…. take someone in comics who is UNDENIABLY a villain. Lex Luthor.
He still has a moral code. He actually tells it (or at least different aspects of his moral code) to many people. He told it to Death of the Endless. He told it to Clark Kent in All-Star Superman. He told it to Amazo in Justice League Unlimited.
Lex Luthor’s moral code involves the idea that a human being can achieve anything if they have the will to back it up, and the reason he despises Superman so much is he feels that Superman did not gain his powers through will or ambition – he gained them because of his alien physiology.
To quote in All Star Superman, it’s why he respects Clark Kent, even if he sees him as a bit of a bumbler, while he hates Superman.
“It sickens me. That insipid boyish grin, the smug self-regard. Tell me the truth. Doesn’t his very EXISTENCE diminish you [Clark Kent]. Diminish us all? Can you imagine a better world, Kent? That’s all I’ve ever asked. In a world without Superman, the unattainable Lois Lane might have noticed good ol’ Clark. Pining away in the corner.” … “I’m just saying, a strapping farmboy with brains, integrity, no discernable style of his own – you’re a prize catch for a cynical city girl! But with him around, you’re a parody of a man. A dullard. A cripple. Next to Superman, even LEX LUTHOR’S greatness is overshadowed!” … “I’m trying to educate you [Clark]. We all fall short of his sickening inhuman ‘perfection.’ (makes a muscle with his bicep) Feel that, Kent! Real muscle! Not the gift of alien biochemistry. The product of hard work.”
Then after he saves Clark Kent from Parasite (although Clark actually did a lot of the saving without Luthor realizing it), because Luthor actually DOES value human life, he says:
“I’ve always liked you, Kent. You’re humble, modest, comically uncoordinated. Human. In short, you’re everything he’s not.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZCNDwKgi7o
Also in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel:
“Those red eyes, I’m sure they look right through me, like I am nothing more than a nuisance. But when I see you? I see something no man can ever be. I see the end. The end of our potential. The end of our achievements. The end of our dreams. You are my nightmare.”
He also explained his moral code to Amazo:
https://youtu.be/K4TC1xMyZDI?list=RDLVMZCNDwKgi7o
His final words to amazo pretty much sums up a general view on morality and purpose. “We create our own purpose in life. Now go create yours.”
Lex, at his best, is a man worth admiring.
Not a villainous caricature…just a man trying to live up to what he sees as his full potential.
Yes, he’s a bit a narcissist, and he definitely suffers from hubris. But he is definitely very human.
Honestly, if he could just let go of his insane grievance against Big Blue for simply _existing_…he’d be both happier and infinitely more productive. But he keeps treating his mere existence as a deeply personal wound against himself, as an individual.
“Lex, at his best, is a man worth admiring.”
I agree with this sentence entirely. Although Lex, unlike Deus, IS a villain because of his obsession with Superman, which you get into later in your post. :)
“Not a villainous caricature…just a man trying to live up to what he sees as his full potential.”
Yep! EXACTLY. And in many other Earths, Lex Luthor winds up being a hero because of a lack of the obsession with Superman. Or sometimes a lack of a Superman as the heroic ideal, and instead Superman being the villainous ideal instead, making Luthor the heroic counterpart (Earth 3 – Crime Syndicate of America Earth, or Earth-22 – Injustice Earth).
“Honestly, if he could just let go of his insane grievance against Big Blue for simply _existing_…he’d be both happier and infinitely more productive. But he keeps treating his mere existence as a deeply personal wound against himself, as an individual.”
This is literally what happens, almost word for word, in All Star Superman at the end, when Lex Luthor finally just accepts defeat, puts his hatred of Superman behind him after having an hour of Superman’s power and ability to see the world in the same way Superman sees it. After Superman dies, Lex realizes his wasted potential because of his misguided obsession with Superman, winds up writing all his ideas in a book and giving it to Leo Quintum, who uses Lex Luthor’s ideas to literally help the entire world and solve most of its problems.
There have also been examples in which Lex Luthor becomes President, like in Batman/Superman: Public Enemies, where Lex Luthor becomes President and immediately starts solving most of the United States’ problems, gets unemployment to almost zero, creates massive advancements, cures diseases, and promotes world peace. Although it was all a ruse to get at Superman, and he eventually tries to frame Superman for the murder of Brainiac, then goes nuts and tries to show up Superman by trying to destroy the kryptonite meteorite. Although by that point he’s completely insane. Possibly from kryptonite poisoning. Possibly because Lex’s obsession made him insane.
Even in Justice League Unlimited, when Lex was in prison and Mercy Graves was in charge of LexCorp… she starts focusing the company on non-Superman related stuff and make the company even more successful because of the lack of waste. Then she gets fired when he’s out of prison because there were legal steps in place for her to NOT be allowed to do that as CEO. :)
Long winded point is if not for Lex’s obsession with Superman, he probably would have been humanity’s greatest hero. Largely because of his own hubris. Like the quote said “Next to Superman, even LEX LUTHOR’S greatness is overshadowed!” :)
I think it’s a reason why Lex is such a well-made villain. Because he’s just a step away from being a good man the entire time, even according to Death of the Endless in the aftermath of the Blackest Night saga.
Luthor doesn’t value human life that much. He straight up murdered a martial arts instructor woman who managed to hit him in a fight. He murdered his step-parents. He arranged the murder of the mayor of Metropolis.
In the original Crisis on Infinite Earths, he murders his Earth-2 counterpart, and then holds the five surviving Earths hostage, bow to us or be destroyed, and he’s ready to make good on the threat. One of the Superman 1/2 team-ups is the Luthors planning to merge earth 1 and 2 and BLOW THEM APART.
He kills his own wife just so he won’t be annoyed by her… AFTER he is elected President.
Luthor definitely does not have human lives high on his value meter historically. Even in his more modern businessman/politician form.
The fact he could use Superman to guard the world while putting his name into everyone’s mouths by improving it just never occurs to him because he’s so damn envious all the time.
“Luthor doesn’t value human life that much.”
It depends on who writes him, admittedly. But for most of his canon, he does value human life, at least in a ‘broad’ sense. Although he will kill individuals who get in his way or stifle his ego or plans, like the examples you gave.
“The fact he could use Superman to guard the world while putting his name into everyone’s mouths by improving it just never occurs to him because he’s so damn envious all the time.”
There was this one storyline where Mercy Graves found that Luthor had a fully functioning moon base that was essentially a city on the moon hidden from view, specifically to come up with ways to kill Superman. She pointed out that he could make so much more money and power by just.. yknow… marketing that. She was told to never bring that up again, with the very heavy implication that she would be fired at best, killed at worst, if she did. There have also been multiple storylines where Mercy Graves IS killed by Luthor so that he can keep himself protected or his plans in place, even though she was one of his most trusted underlings. The only person he’s ever worked with that he hasnt tried something like that with was Amanda Waller…. who’s almost as ruthless as he is. And even with her…. he completely played her and betrayed her (although partially because he was insane by the end due to kryptonite poisoning).
Victor Von Doom has a moral code. It is just…. A bit flexible.
so is Mr.Fantastic’s
And no one tries to pretend he isn’t a villain, even when he helps his country and people, kinda like a certain someone else…
OI lost track, which one do you mean? Deus, Doom or Fantastic?
First Doom, but he’s more of villain because Mr Faptastic has painted himself the hero… kinda like in The Boys where the ‘heroes’ are the biggest bunch of bastards the planet has ever seen, but they’re the ‘good guys’ so they can get away with it
Billy Butcher is definitely not ‘getting away with it.’ Even his partners think he’s a bad person. :)
Plus he has about 18 months to live thanks to that Compound V variant, at least in the TV show. No one thinks Butcher is a good guy. It’s just people like Homelander and Stormfront are much, much, much worse. No one in ‘The Boys’ is entirely good. Not even people like Hughie or Annie or Mother’s Milk, who are probably the three ‘most good’ people in that show. But they all have negative traits as well (usually based on the need for revenge or hubris – M.M. is probably the ‘most good’ person in the show). They just seem a lot better when you compare them to others who are much worse, because those three are not outright monstrous people. Then there’s people like Frenchie and Kimiko, who were also bad people but have a good redemption arc to become good-ish people.
Was talking about Homelander, but thank you for missing the point, would expect nothing less from SmugD’s cheerlaywer
The analysis still applies.
There are no “good guys” in The Boys.
Except, Homelander is the good guy, or at least was before The Boys decided to show them up for the arseholes they truly are
Remember in the first episode? When the speeder splatters that girl leaving her boyfriend holding only her arms? Was he ever legally held accountable for that? Or did he get away with it because he was one of the ‘heroes’? (even though he was drunk as a raccoon at the time)
@Guesticules
You should read the comics, if you haven’t.
I say again, there are no good guys in that whole narrative world.
Your post was a bit nebulous in how it could be read, although my post still applies either way.
Homelander was NEVER the good guy. He was always a psychopath, largely because of how he was raised, but also because of the concept that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ The only reason he doesnt CONSTANTLY act on his psychopathic impulses was he was addicted to the celebrity of being ‘seen’ as a hero. But he wasn’t one. Not even remotely.
Billy isnt a hero either, but the main difference between him and Homelander is Billy knows he’s not a hero. He’s doing this for vengeance for his wife. But he does have a few heroic tendencies at least. Not many, but a few. Like wanting to keep his promise to his wife. Or wanting to protect Hughie from the consequences of what Butcher got him into. Both Butcher and Annie (Starlight) feel that Hughie is a better person than either of them. And everyone realizes that M.M. probably has the most noble goals in the group, although he’s haunted by the same desire for vengeance that Butcher has. Main difference is M.M. managed, mostly, to put that behind him until Butcher brought him ‘back into the game.’
Even with the few positives about Butcher though, EVERYONE knows he’s not a good person, including Butcher himself. Everyone knows Homelander is not a good person as well, but Homelander has no redeeming values. Even wanting to be a father to his son seems to be more about giving his own life meaning than anything about his son’s own well-being.
Oh and the comic has everyone soooooooooo much worse than even the TV show :) I agree with Bharda. You definitely need to read the comic. They’re all awful people. It’s just a matter of degrees of how awful.
Yeah, nah, after seeing the promo for the first episode (and that drunk speeding bastard vaporizing that girl) have no intent on watching it (guess that means can’t comment on it then)
Watching people do violent things and not being able to make them pay for it always makes me very angry, so prefer to avoid being put into that situation, specially if it’s for ‘entertainment’ like a tv show
“Watching people do violent things and not being able to make them pay for it always makes me very angry,”
You REALLY should read the comics then.
Spoiler alert for a comic written in 2006, 16 years ago:
In the comics, Hughie does kill A-Train for Robin’s death. He does wind up paying for his crime. The TV show is a LOT different in many areas from the comic.
Maybe, but Robin still dies
Stop trying to force me to view something have chosen not to, but then again, you don’t stop trying to force me to lick SmugD’s leaky taint (and do remember: have never attempted to change your opinion of him)
“Maybe, but Robin still dies”
Um… yes. The point of the show is the so called heroes are not heroic. But you said the reason you don’t like it is A-Train never gets his comeuppance. But in the comic book, he DOES. He is killed by Hughie, in revenge for his manslaughter of Robin.
“Stop trying to force me to view something have chosen not to”
I’m not forcing you to do anything. Please look at the thread.
You made an nebulous post about heroes in The Boys. I figured you meant the actual ‘heroes’ in the comic book/TV show. You meant the Seven. Who are actually not heroes in the show. They are just celebrities with the celebrity persona of ‘heroes’ (only Starlight and Maeve have any actual heroic qualities at all within the Seven – the others are all genuinely evil people). I figured you meant The Boys, who are the ‘heroes’ (as in the protagonists).
You said no, then said that the reason you don’t want to watch ‘The Boys’ (which you were somehow arguing about despite not knowing the story), was, and I quote: “Watching people do violent things and not being able to make them pay for it always makes me very angry,”
So I responded to let you know that, in the comic book, A-Train DOES pay for what he did, with his death at the hands of Robin’s fiance, Hughie. Which is pretty much a staple in the heroic narrative (Conan killing Thulsa Doom, who murdered his people; Robocop killing Clarence Boddicker, who killed him; etc).
Now you’re saying I’m trying to force you to read The Boys. I’m just pointing out that the bad guy, at least from the promo you watched, does get his just desserts in the comic book.
“you don’t stop trying to force me to lick SmugD’s leaky taint”
I have never forced you to do that either. Also it is not leaky. He has an amazing kegel exercise regimen.
The entire range of moral options, both good and bad, are available to villains. They can kiss the babies and shoot their grandmothers, it’s all one. Villains can be as nice as they like, or as bad as they like.
That’s Doom.
Heroes don’t have all those moral options. They have to be heroes to be heroes, and can’t do the villain shtick at ALL without moving down the moral meter.
That’s what makes them heroes.
Deus being able to play the utter nice guy to get what he wants is perfectly permissible to get what he wants. Killing missionaries who think condoms are evil instead of deporting them and employing otherworldly mercenaries in a plan of conquest is also totally within his remit.
Villains are allowed to do anything. Most of them simply never bother with the heroic side of the equation.
Yes feelings can and most do have moral codes. Most living sapiens in comics have some form of more cold or not even Darkseid has a moral code though his cold is more about leading others into corruption and the belief that life itself is a futile Endeavor because everything should be under the Dominion of himself Darkseid. With Deuce him being a super villain means that why he can have as much of a nice personal I’m a nice guy face for the public he can pursue his other interests without worrying about any legal gray that does not go against his personal what is too much to do as opposed to where if he was a hero he would have to try and keep his own personal moral code in line with what the good guys are allowed to do as a super villain that is not a problem. Heck if Lex Luthor really tried in the course of 10 years he could take over most of the world through legal means some of them might be Shady and others would not but he does not do this because his whole thing is proving himself greater than Superman for some reason. Deathstroke’s moral code generally resolves around always completing his mission he has two missions that were never completed one of which he inherited from his son who died trying to kill the Teen Titans. I think the other one was to kill the first Robin but Batman stopped to that one
And this is why Deus is Best Character and Spirit Animal!
Dabbler could be standing on something instead. Maybe a rogue Games Workshop sculptor snuck in and slipped a tactical rock under her feet while no one was looking.
I would upvote this comment if I could.
The lack of pupils or iris in Deus’s eyes in the last panel is really creepy.
Everything about SmugD is creepy, in every panel
I’m liking Sydney’s longer hair.
Same length it’s always been, it’s just not tied up in a ponytail
I think Sydney looks short next to Dabbler because she is slouching from exhaustion. This is a lot for a comic book store owner to deal with.
Yes, in the first panel, she’s the correct height, but in panel three and four, she is slouching not from exhaustion but from perceived guilt over the glassing
I… genuinely feel like Deus and Sydney would get along rather well given the chance. If for no other reason, because they would enjoy playing off of each others quirks.
I strongly suspect that when we get the inevitable “everyone else in Archon has been turned evil” arc, Sydles will be running to Deus for help.
And getting it.
because Dues is Batman without the obsession. his contingency plans have contingencies.
and here’s a case for Pander
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4162470
and no I will not print these for you…
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2765491
Deus is the answer to the question, “What if Bruce Wayne had had Harley as a therapist as a child, and decided to tackle the structural causes of crime & suffering, instead of dressing up like a bat and punching poor and/or mentally ill people all night long.”
That’s…. an excellent analysis.
+1 internet.
A friend of mine showed that first link to me a few weeks ago.
He told me to look at it, just in case.
I’m still wondering if I should allow him out of the dungeon. I’m leaning against it.
I’m pretty sure Sydney’s dead on her feet by this point, so she’s kinda slouched down with the weight of weariness. Also, she might be standing in a bit of a hollow between Dabbler and Anvil, resulting in an even greater height differential.
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen a pair of glasses where the arms attached near the bottom. At first I thought she was wearing them upside down for some reason.
I’ve seen it before, but it is rare.
As, have I.
Believe Deidre from Coronation Street had glasses like that (or maybe she just had the record-sized lenses)
The framing of Anvil in these panels is… a sight to behold
Dabbles left eye looks off in panel 3. I would need to know about perspective to be sure, but it looks off.
I wish we could see Anvil’s face
Ten bucks says some thing Deus put in that “medal” serves another purpose.
Maybe it’s a bug that listens in on Top Secret pillow fights. Or it’s a tracker t9 find Sidney’s hidden lair or bedroom.
It could have additional hidden and subtle anti-Super powers. Or worse!
He doesn’t have to, he has more reliable methods that aren’t in something that if discovered would immediately point fingers back at him endangering his relationship with Archon and the US government. So chances are he would consider it beneath him as villains of his type tend to.
I vote for the last panel to be fully expanded into a vote incentive!
Deus’ expression needs to be seen in full glory.
Deus: Oooh, I got tingles! Say it again!!
Syd: … *points at Deus* Supervillain!!
Deus: *pressing Lightning button* MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Vale: *sighs and shakes head* Dorks.
in my head, this is Canon.
Dangit! With the ‘tingles’ line, I can’t help but hear my mental depiction of Deus’ voice combined with Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi in Lion King. With Syd being Banzai and Vale being Scar.
Of COURSE that attack wont be the last. He’s not addressing the fact he has literal daemons from Heck attacking any country that happens to be in his way! He could have gotten away with a mixed bag of alien soldiers and supers winning handily. Sure the members of the UN would be “CONCERNED” but not freaking out.
Nooo, he’s got to showboat with MAXIMUM LEET HAXOR OVERKILL with a 3rd army and make any nation with a sizeable religious population flip the heck out! I would be surprised if the UN in-universe does not vote that any further use of daemonic forces is equal to use of nukes…
They’d have to expand the language to “any extradimensional, extra-planar, or other force originating outside the bounds of space-time as experienced by the preponderance of unpowered human Terran natives in the temporal and spatial coordinates such force would be deployed in/at/during.”
…or somesuch.
The implications on UN treating deamonic forces like nukes would be interesting for past Arc missions considering most religous groups that have a description of demons would 100% include succubus types as well. Poor Dabbler would get shafted in a decidedly untantric way.
To me, Deus appears more like a 13 year old super nerd that has somehow gained super intelligence. He generally to me seem to act not so much arrogant as emotionally, socially, and mentally immature. It is like he was previously the kid that got put into the locker but now knows he has the ability to out think his “enemies.” He thinks he has all the answers.
Consider how he keeps going after Maxima and what his place was like and how he behaved when he was showing off to Maxima including his mistake of showing all the porn stuff too.
It feels like he really is trying to improve things. The problem is, Deus’s definition of improvement is not one the people he is subjecting want. He is bound and determined to drag the people holding onto whatever anchor.
Oh, I’m pretty sure that Deus’s subjects are absolutely down with the idea of wanting reliable and accessible water, food, shelter, clothing, education, jobs, consumer products, leisure time, and of course the bleached bones of all of the warlords, criminals, and bandits that had previously made having any of that impossible.
The brutal truth of the matter? Deus is an excellent king. Alas, the problem with absolute monarchies is that, as Poul Anderson once noted, eventually a meathead takes the throne.
Technically, SmugD ain’t a king, he’s just the turd in the bowl the real king is sitting on
is it … legal for a soldier to be awarded a medal from a nation not their own? like, without any forwarning to their own military body. cause that Might have some consiquences.
The award can be given but can’t be worn until it is approved. Certain awards can be worn on a US military uniform, that are civilian or foreign power sourced. With a few exceptions they all fall at the end of all of your other ribbons.
I think because Maxima is not here, Deus is using Sydney to add another legitimacy brick to his fight with the UN for if Gatlyn is a sovereign entity. If the medal is approved for wear, then the country making the award has the legitimate right to do so.
I’m now expecting some “I don’t like sand” speech
“She hates this sand!”
For whatever reason the image isn’t fully loading for me, Normally I can zoom in to read small print. But when I do that for the panel where Sydney is flying up it’s still pretty pixally. I think it says tepid clapping but that’s really a shot in the dark. It’s almost like the final layer of interlacing didn’t come in.
Huh, I thought Anvil was a lieutenant not a sergeant?
Acording to the cast page Anvil`s rank is 1st Lieutenant, not Sargent.
Those two…. oh good lord they are nuclear when together. I am fearful of what is going to happen next.
the usual. Politicians and priests living together. Women who are not barren paying to become barren. etc. etc.
note this post contains an attempt at humor. please read responsibly.
Maybe an appropriate Rudyard Kippling poem to lighten the mood?
“The Gods of the Copybook Headings” By Rudyard Kipling:
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Kipling wrote that as a protest against social & economic reforms.
It’s an atavistic reactionary screed against the anti-war, feminist, and socialist movements.
There is nothing “light” about it, unless one is of the opinion that Might Makes Right (to borrow the copybook style)and Better the Devil You Know.
Disgusting.
And here I thought it was an appeal to common sense.
“Common sense” is a subjective term, and all-too-often used to justify cruelty & injustice by asserting that cruelty & injustice are ‘natural laws,’ i.e., “fire burns “ and “water wets.”
That tradition continues today, in the likes of Jordan Peterson, who continually asserts that because hierarchies occur in nature, that hierarchies are therefore automatically both “good” and “necessary,” and therefore mustn’t be challenged.
Very convenient for a wealthy white male in the American Imperial Sphere.
Because “Robbing from Selected Peter to pay for collective Paul” is a perfect description of Marxist Lunacy, I suppose it offends you, and that’s presumably your entire reason for disliking the poem.
And I’m pretty sure that Kipling was British, not American. So I award you zero points, and may God have Mercy on your soul.
Killing was a Brit, and had a career in the Imperial service too boot.
He also lost his son in WWI, and the body was never recovered.
I never even implied he was an American, and when I mentioned America I was referring to Jordan Peterson, in the present era, who is a Canadian, currently employed by Shapiro’s ‘The Daily Wire,’ and who lives within the sphere of US imperial culture & influence.
The Peter & Paul line is only one of several such snide reactionary comments, and demonstrates his complete (and arguably deliberate) misunderstanding of Marxism. Further, the way you’re trying to brandish it against me (calling it ‘lunacy’) indicates that you not only have no idea what my personal policy positions are, but also no real understanding of Marx, either.
Hint: I’m not a Marxist.
Goddamnit…*Kipling
…autocorrect strikes again. -_-
Why is it that everyone insists on calling the autocorrupt ‘feature’ autocorrect?…or…is it possible that AI already exists and is trying to generate good press for itself? hmmmmmmm.
I think it could be interpreted as chastising humanity for being unable to live up to the ideals they strive for, particularly with the comparison to dogs and pigs, but there is a certain tone of accepting the inevitable to it, that you can’t judge natural outcomes as morally wrong, so you should accept them as morally correct. “We’ll always fail at progress, so don’t even bother trying”… I don’t think the former is guaranteed, and even if it were, it wouldn’t be a reason to stop trying. Embracing that failure would itself be a moral failing. Fighting for what’s right, even when you’re guaranteed to lose, is the essence of virtue.
hmm… I have not read responsibly with this post and now mush suffer for it.
I need a good Pun or ten. then some comically ineffective ninjas to power my mechanistic ambitions.
Mama mia, this thread went WAY off target.
What’s with the comment posting delays lately? Half an hour is an awfully long time to post a plain text comment.
Are the comments getting re-routed through Gaitlan Via Timbuktu?
SOP for this website. Sometimes quick, sometimes slow as heck.
I actually ship them. I they would be great, or destroy eachothers life.
well, the title of the authors note. if he does that more than once then it will be below the belt.
My headcanon: Sydney really did say “I knew it! You are a supervillain!” out loud, and got nearly as much laughter as Vale did in panel 2. ;-)
Nah, more shocked silence (with the odd cough) because she dared to say it out loud
Why do I get the impression that if this were to be animated, Deus would be voiced by Jonathan Frakes?
Honestly, that could work.
Because Deus has a very David Xanatos feel to him often. And David Xanatos was voiced by Jonathan Frakes.
That ‘Snak’ with the medal case reminds me of Pretty Woman.
Was that an ad-lib the editor left in?
It’s Thursday. No new Grrlpower. Did I miss a hiatus notice?
Been following the comic for years and nothing like this has ever happened. Dave operates like clockwork. Something really serious must have happened.
Hey Dave, re: the vote incentive; seems like it might be time to skip a month, maybe get a bit ahead on the upcoming months, rather than playing catch up.
Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the vote incentives, but not as much as I enjoy the whole comic, especially the writing. I can miss a month of the bonus art if it benefits my favorite webcomic creator, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
That is some seriously sweet obsidian knapping.
And yes, they probably just had some geo based meta shape it that way, but let me have my delusions.