Grrl Power #1152 – General matchmaker
To clarify from the prior page, Max isn’t necessarily on board with trying to loot Galytn technology from under Deus’s nose. But she’s in the room with her boss’s boss and there are already plans in existence, so she’s going along with it in the moment. After all, Briggs said to “devise plans” not necessarily to execute them. You can see here that she’s gently trying to steer away from that course of action, but I don’t think there’s anyone who makes it to her rank, especially someone like her who has more than the usual amount of top secret clearance, who doesn’t understand that the U.S. is involved in a lot of shady shit. Sure, the average Air Force Major (her rank before getting the bump to Archon) isn’t getting read in on all the underhanded stuff the CIA gets up to, but a person would have to be especially ignorant not to recognize that the U.S. sometimes protects its interests in ways that are morally questionable. Also downright reprehensible. And sure, most every government has skeletons in their closet, if not mass-unmarked graves full of them. Max is taking the gentle pressure on the rudder approach here, because telling the guy three ranks above you to take a hike is generally not the most productive strategy.
America being put in the position of being at a significant technological disadvantage would cause a considerable reaction, IMO. Combining that with Deus marching an army of literal demons onto the field and I think there would be a lot of movement behind the scenes, and a lot of pulpit pounding rhetoric. The only reason Deus’s demon army wouldn’t be front and center 24/7 on every news station would be if something else dramatic happened. If there’s anything the last few years have taught us, it’s that “the public” has crippling ADD. Something bad happens and everyone is outraged, then something else bad happens and everyone forgets about the previous thing immediately to focus on the new thing. In the less than 6 months, the Grrl-verse populace has had proof of superpowers, proof of aliens, proof of humans living in space, aliens visiting NY, aliens landing in Africa, proof of demons, and several public superpower and/or alien battles. At this point, a lot of people would be going “You know what, I’m going back to my woodturning facebook group/knitting circle/book club and/or r/InstantBarbarians.
To be fair, there would also be a lot of people panicking and spiraling. So, business as usual.
The April vote incentive is up! As promised, it’s a Sydney pinup. Not airplane bathroom selfies, but hopefully her cuteness will satisfy.
Variant outfits and lack thereof over at Patreon, as well as the semi-usual bonus incentive related 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.
Look at that strong jawline, Mustache!
He would be missing out.
Deus could do better than General Steven Moustache.
Like me! Or Maxima! Or ME.
… You have a bigger moustache? Or a stronger jawline?
*snrk*
Maybe Deus just like natural beauty, and would be put off by the brick that Briggs apparently had implanted in place of his lower jaw.
Do not mock.
I once knew a sergeant with the real-world, biologically accurate equivalent of what General Steven Mustache has there. Back then, we called him Sergeant Leno.
(Which almost worked, given his name was Leonard)
I just realized that I know the General’s full name.
General Steven Briggs. Faulk used his last name and his rank, and the woman on the panel used his first name. But I like to think his middle name is still either Moustachio or Thaddeus Ross. :)
Perhaps he is a super himself i.e. The Crimson Chin.
That was clever, subtle, and didn’t require the use of any foul language. And yet I could identify it as a joke.
https://i.imgur.com/bgCaPj7.gif
Only mildly disappointed.
I was expecting the rules of the internet to be invoked, and us have a picture of Deus with Gen. Briggs.
Oh well, it was a good consolation prize.
Too much raw masculinity for Deus to handle.
I’m not sure about that. I get solid pansexual vibes from Deus. He’s willing to boff mythical creatures and aliens and creatures from beyond the abyss. I don’t see a guy being remotely that far out there in comparison.
I mean he COULD be (I mean he’s definitely not limited to humans so that’s sorta ‘pan’ I guess?) but so far what we’ve seen is that he’s into the ladies, regardless of species. But he does seem to have a particular body type that he prefers, judging from his talk with Sciona about his past sexual conquests.
He is a bit of a renissance man with many different skills. Also a hedonist who likes variation.
This makes assumptions about Big D being into guys.
I know that it’s a ridiculously overused trope forbad guys to be queer-coded, or for Smart Guys to be queer-coded, or for wealthy sophisticated guys to be queer-coded (noticing the pattern yet, kids?) but I don’t recall seeing anything thus far to indicate that Big D is anything but a big ol’ cishet horndog. Which is perfectly fine, and also average.
Might be the only average thing about him, actually.
It might be a case of getting so much action from the fairer sex, he lacks time to pursue or, be pursued by, males.
I…actually don’t see the pattern in those 3 examples, other than “unlikely to be the primary protagonist (which applies to many character descriptions). I don’t want to be ignorant—-Cculd you clarify?
to be fair maybe he just never met a guy that fit his physical attraction tick boxes.
I have known people who have said they feel bi or pan, but most men *aside from a few fictional characters* never do it for them. The genitals aren’t the issue, *and may be a plus depending on the mood*, but guys they met just never really checked off those boxes
which as shallow as it sounds is step 1, like hair length, body shape, height, weight, voice, etc…(and the criteria can vary of course but sexual attraction, especially for a man like Deus who has no interest in pursuing a relationship will be their first criteria. Actually funny enough this same unnamed individual I know has actually ranted “why do all the gay and bi men have that stupid short hair cut*…and realizing their taste in women, and fictional characters all had the *crazy high or long hair* in common despite many different body types.
Are you trying to suggest that Big D might be into femboys? X’D
Hmm…you know, I wonder if we should consider developing a vocabulary to further specify sexuality within a narrow classification. Something like “hetero-femme-sexual,” to describe the idea that a cishet male is specifically only into normatively-feminine-presenting cis women. Or, “bi-femme-sexual” in the case of what you seem to be suggesting. Would this be useful nuance, or just navel-contemplating? X’D
Maybe. We didn’t see much of his “trophy case” aka the books he keeps cataloging what species he has had sex with. We do know it includes both supernatural beings and aliens.
Now aliens we get the idea some precursor or precursors had been meddling with genomes to become humanoid. However how traits express isn’t always universal. You can have a species with male and female but both look masculine to a human (Machoke) or both look feminine (Lopunny, Meowscarada) even if it’s just a shape. We also know or have imagined ways for species to have other feminine traits like venom sacks, male bipeds with display sacks, pollen sacks, just fat sacks, poison glands, etc… As well as species with just that body shape but nothing else , wide hips and V torso could be enough.
So yeah we’d have to know more about his books to get a better cross section of what gets his engine running.
Do you really think having a vocabulary of sexuality helps us at all? What positive purpose can it be put to? Or is it used primarily to judge and harm others?
Are people really attracted to categories, or just to specific other people that tend to fall in a consistent range? How is information about what a specific person is attracted to useful?
Having the language to describe a range can be useful.
Particularly where interpersonal relationships are concerned.
While people may or may not have attraction to specific individuals exclusively, it seems more in line with biology to assume that there are clusters of characteristics that provoke a response in individuals. Being able to more effectively describe those clusters could help to preempt a certain amount of unwanted pursuit.
People often don’t know what they really want, even in a partner. Perhaps especially in a partner. I would posit that the ways in which a partner surprises us are what’s most valuable about them.
But sure, let’s assume that some traits are non-negotiable to a person. Where and how could they usefully express those preferences, to make that vocabulary useful? My impression is that the primary use of such vocabulary is reductive and pejorative. Do you really need to tell someone why you’re turning them down? Are they then supposed to repeat that information to others to deter them from asking as well?
I just have a hard time imagining a model where this information is useful that doesn’t make a lot of incorrect assumptions.
Straight men are allowed to be into femboys without “compromising” their sexuality.
Aw, come on. He’s at least halfbaked.
The proper reply to Maxima’s statement on dating would be: “I’ll pre-approve that date if you choose to go ahead with that, Colonel, but I don’t think I need to tell you to be careful around him.”
Which takes care of regulations, makes it her choice, and warns her while acknowledging she doesn’t need the warning.
I don’t know why but the face of the general just makes me laugh in that last panel. And general Faulk is back ! It feels like I haven’t seen him in forever. Since the press conference in fact. Damn.
He’s been here for the past couple days…
Plus we have seen him a few times since the Conference
Speech bubbles are messed up in panel 2; the second one should not belong to Maxima.
Agreed. really throws the conversation off.
Replacing “would” with “wouldn’t” would (heh) work just fine for Maxima being the one saying it. Perhaps that’s what the author intended?
Makes sense to me that she’s the one answering her own question though…
Yeah, answering her own rhetorical question
Fixed!
I love the use of 20 dollar words to hide the simple, embarrassing, uncomfortable, and problematic truth.
all that being said- I see a top secret dispensation sent to Maxima’s boss and the people who monitor clearance issues that Max MAY date Dues if she so desires. I believe that besides her feelings, there would be issues if someone with as much clearance as Max has starts dating a head of state. people with routine clearance have to tell the agency that they are leaving the country and be ready to be interviewed about it.
… We see her boss right there: Faulke
Not only did that general start to say something inappropriate it is ILLEGAL. Which is also why Max and Hiro can’t date, Max is above him in rank, therefor it would be considered sexual harassment. Which is why it’s not openly talked about even in the CIA etc… I’m not saying it isn’t going on, just not openly in a hearing like this.
This isn’t a hearing though, and very very far from public. It’s a private briefing in the inner sanctum of Archon’s oversight committee, and possibly isn’t even being documented to have ever occurred, even with meeting minutes or an attendee list. Let alone audio recordings.
Also, Harem is already dating Deus and both sides know that has the potential to be a two-way street. Deus is explicitly aware and planning on Archon leveraging her, and Archon leadership has to have at least considered the implications and possibilities already.
This is part of why both degrees of clearance exist, and why all cleared information is still “need to know.”
I strongly suspect Daffy has lots of clearance, and very, very little Need to Know.
Big D almost certainly knows this already, and probably sees her more as a way to keep abreast of what Srchon thinks they know about him, and possibly stay ahead of their equipment requirements, than as some sort of secret back door into their classified data.
There are easier ways to get that.
Minor question, who is Daffy? Daphne (Harem?)
Mhmm.
It seems likely that Smug D is playing a deeper game. While the eyes are on his relationship with Daphne, who else is he interacting with on the down low.
Harem does have clearance about the Council at least. That’s restricted to ‘Corporals and above’ according to what she said in the comic. I’ll find where she said it when I’m not on my phone.
Yeah, but Deus knows openly knows about them.
Does he? I remember Maxima saying Deus PROBABLY knows about the Council when she talked to Sydney while he was wearing the rebreather, but she wasnt definitive about it. And Deus did hint more than a few times that he knew about aliens, even before Cora arrived and the Alari landed on the planet and the tour group landed in New York and the Fel invaded. But there was nothing mentioned about the rest of the Council, except Deus stating it to Sciona in the Black Reliquiry.
Deus knew about the Black Reliquary.
Of course he knew about the council.
VERY good point!!!… which I brought up when he stated that to Sciona. :)
But what I mean is he wasnt ‘openly’ saying he knew about the Council – ie, to ARCHON or the US government, which Sciona is not affiliated with. Sorry if my post was not well worded.
Not a dis on Harem, but I think Deus sees her as his “consolation prize”. Personally I’m not particularly attracted to either of them, my tastes run more to Sydney and Pixel, but I’m also neither blind nor stupid and Harem and Max are more conventionally beautiful, large-busted women.
More a combination of superior rank AND being directly linked in the chain of command.
> I love the use of 20 dollar words to hide the simple, embarrassing, uncomfortable, and problematic truth.
I’ve always enjoyed words like ‘lithobraking’, which is like aerobraking except it uses the ground instead of the atmosphere. For example:
The airframe experienced an unexpected terrain interaction followed by a brief period of rapid lithobraking. This has magnified our no-launch window and will result in an increase to our monetary outlay during the next two quarters so that we may implement improvements to the hull. The improvements are expected to provide a major enhancement to the vehicle’s current top speed and maneuverability.
Translation: The plane crashed and we need more money so we can rebuild it.
There’s indeed no accounting for taste. With an epic moustache like he has, all characters in this webcomic should be looking to go on a date with him.
Also, he seems kind of….disappointed he’s not Deus’ type?
Mare like sassy about it. Can’t get to his rank without being able to fire off snappy banter.
It’s funny that in a roundabout way, Briggs is inadvertently implying that he’s more desirable than Maxima.
Some people take the attractiveness of a powerful moustache a bit too far. :)
Every character who like-likes people who can grow moustaches, at least. I doubt Math would be interested, for one.
He wants them shields. Deus has *protection*.
“Also, he seems kind of….disappointed he’s not Deus’ type?”
As would anyone! Except maybe Guesticules, I dunno. :)
In the second panel I don’t think the “You think he’d sell to countries antagonistic to America?” should be from Maxima, but from the off-panel people asking her things.
Nope, she asked a rhetorical question, and answered it
It’s not phrased as a rhetorical question would be. If she were asking a rhetorical question, it would be something like “Would he sell to countries antagonistic to America?”
It’s fixed.
Is General Faulk concerned for:
I. His subordinate getting an unethical and amoral order
II. His subordinate hand blasting a superior officer to ashes for ordering said order
III. Both
Your choice.
I’ll take option III for $100, Alex.
Probably 1. I think Maxima is a disciplined enough officer that she wouldnt do that. Plus her plasma beams might deflect off his moustache and hurt someone else anyway.
He probably doesn’t want to be known far and wide as General Pimp for issuing such an order. The gag orders that usually accompany such meetings are not enough to stop rumors of these sort of goings on even if the specifics do not get spread about. Everybody complains to someone else.
One of the few things worse than General Run Away.
Brave Sir Robin.
Sorry, I inadvertently chuckled at a few misuses of the phrase “gag order” that my brain came up with.
That is perfectly acceptable response.
Not sure such an order would even be legal. And if it is an illegal order, then Max would be well within her rights and duty to refuse it. Do not know about the Grrrl Power verse, but in the US Military (at least when I was in) we are only required to obey ‘legal’ orders from superiors.
You forgot the option where he want Deus single until he gets to ask him out himself.
There’s indeed no accounting for taste. With an epic moustache like that, he should be able to go on a date with every single character in this webcomic.
Also, he seems kind of…. disappointed he’s not Deus’ type?
(hope this comment doesn’t go double, second time i try to comment, my first one got eaten)
Looks to have doubled up. Sorry for you.
“The” public doesn’t have crippling ADD. Let’s not mistake the very loud segment that thrives on outrage (and drown out the rest of us), and the media that feed on them, as being representative.
Want me to post that quote from M.i.B.?
Love to spoil things for you: but the ‘calm and collected’ segment of ‘the public’ is in the minority, like the 1% minority
My respect for Faulk has skyrocketed. What a gentleman!
Most of the American public tend to be misinformed and opinionated about everything and believe only THEY are the only ones who understand the situation. Which is quite untrue because if they did, they couldn’t deal with it. “You can’t handle the truth!” comes to mind. Think about a land of “Karens and Kevins” and then watch the news. (puts on riot gear and prepares for the attack) Yes they get air/ink/internet time mainly because they are the most vocal, but are also the least educated on the subject.
People, people, stop getting your information from social media, it’s NEVER accurate! Or educated. “Those darned aliens only want our water!” or our women, or Fred’s livestock over there… (never mind he never fixes his fences or does a headcount)
That depends on who you’re paying attention to on social media
I follow quite a few experts in their fields and trust their comments more than I do the general news
Few and far between, and sadly those few don’t get much attention simply because they are “boring”. People want drama, fear, and righteous indignation, not facts. We’ll never have world peace simply because it’s boring, “Hey! Those people aren’t like us, we should kill/subjugate/run them off!” and so on…
Sorry I’m old, cranky, and sick of the BS.
I think Guesticules is correct but I also believe there is a special place in hell for the founder of the 24 hour new networks. In my imaginary kingdom there will be no advertising content for 15 minutes before, during and 15 minutes after any “news” content.
“The public” has a very long memory for some things, it’s the 24-hour news cycle feeding off attention that makes the general public look fickle. Plenty of activists out there trying to change the world after bad things happen, it’s just not nearly as visible as the mega-corporation news channel content.
Amen.
The 24 news cycle essentially has the effect of homogenizing the news. Local & regional coverage gets muted, at best, because in terms of logistics & cost, the big national & international stuff is easier & cheaper. And anything that contradicts the interests of the corporations & billionaires who own those outlets is going to get left on the cutting room floor, or at a minimum severely muted & downplayed. Never, ever forget that in a capitalist society, “the news” is a profit-seeking venture first and foremost.
So what we are left with is the “pink slime” of homogenized, pasteurized, filtered, infotastic clusterfuck of factish-like material that exists entirely to serve the interests of the owner class, especially the war machine they pay our government to maintain for them, fueled by our taxes, and greased with our blood.
I was trying to be diplomatic. It was hard for me not to go on some political tear when writing this page.
I hear ya DaveB, there are times I want to line up ALL politicians in a straight line, climb on the back of my son’s Harly, take a metal baseball bat and tell him to go all out while I’m smacking each and everyone of them, 3-stoogies style! It’ll sound like a sub-gun going off >;D
You wouldn’t be the first webcomic to do that.
I’m reading the Clairemont X-men run atm, and just got to the anti-mutant villian group called “The Right.”
Okay, this is probably going to get me in trouble, so let me just get it out first.
Referring to the ever-contracting News Cycle as ADD – or using any other form of neurodivergence a shorthand for the negative consequences of capitalist media behavior – is disrespectful, ableist, and just fucking rude. Nobody should be doing that, so don’t fucking do it.
Second, mellyrn, nobody “thrives on outrage” _except_ the capitalist media entities looking for clicks/views/ratings to driving ad revenue. Just have the fucking minerals to say what you mean, that you think people who value Justice are dumb, and you just wish we’d all shut up so you can go back to being unaware of things that aren’t directly impacting you, personally. Except now that you are aware, you can’t go back to being ignorant, so guess what you really want is to ignore those things.
So it suddenly becomes _super_ important that you make sure to assert that the people who care about Justice are very definitely _not_ representative of the general populace, because holy shit, if we are, then that means we might be Right, and you & your apathy might be Wrong, and that just is not to be contemplated, is it?
I’m pretty sure they just mean that a huge portion of the public has a very short attention span and are very low-attention when it comes to non-pop culture data much of the time thanks to the 24 hour news cycle, where we are constantly bombarded with ‘the next big thing,’ combined with a very small oligopoly of media companies and tech companies that have, for quite a while, pretty much been gate holders on what news enters the public zeitgeist.
gatekeepers not gate holders. Sorry.
I would submit that it depends on how you define “the public”. It doesn’t necessarily mean the population as a whole. Keeping your opinions to yourself is being private, not public. So in a way, the “loud segment” is “the public”.
“Sorry General, Colonel Leander is not that particular kind of operative.
Also, may I kindly request to not involve my personnel in your suicide attempts. I’m sure you have enough options to accomplish a spectacular end to your life within your own chain of command.”
Nice work, as always :) It is nice to see someone else trying Maxima’s patience a bit, especially in a non-combat situation. (Unless…)
Second panel – Is the “You think he would” speech balloon meant to be coming from someone else, given her’s reaction?
“Second panel – Is the “You think he would” speech balloon meant to be coming from someone else, given her’s reaction?”
That was my thought too, that seemed really weird to be coming from Max.
Pretty sure she’s just being rhetorical
And/or *what* now?
*checks out that subreddit*
Nah man, I’ll pass on that craziness. I’ll stick with cute cats, science, and my entertainment-related subreddits (D&D, video games, writing…)
It’s actually a pretty mild subreddit. It’s about people celebrating hard when someone does something awesome.
Oh, I didn’t look deep, at a glance it looked like people getting crazy and possibly violent. Whoops, my bad for only glancing at it.
There are subreddits that thrive on that sort of thing, so I tend to be leery of anything that looks like it’s trending that way.
Unless Maxima is doing the rhetorical thing of asking questions just to answer them, I think speech bubble #2 in panel #2 should not be hers.
Yes, yes it is a rhetorical question, nice of you to spot that
So that’s why the author fixed it, then?
So many sparklies. On everyone. Is there a laser super trying to scorch everyone to ash, and an Arc-Dark agent trolling them by only letting it reflect off medals and Maxima?
The more polished the insignia, the more important the officer. It helps clarify how you should still pay strict to someone even when they’re talking out their brass.
“Assassination is the highest form of public service”
Chiun from the Remo Williams novel series by Warren Murphy and others.
You pale piece of pig’s ear.
I kind of lost interest after the 100 or so but those book were fun, especially as Remo and Chiun built their relationship.
It was funny as heck seeing Capt.Janeway in the movie version
Anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me to whore myself out as my national duty will only get themselves on my personal death note list.
If they think it’s someone’s duty to whore themselves out for king and country, they can go there and spread their ass for duty themselves.
Think there is a difference between “whoring” and a date.
she is not going there to fluff him up.
he wanted a date.
he gets a date.
she goes home with shield technology and he got someone to talk to during dinner.
What’s the difference between a prostitute and an escort?
About $200
Really? Because mustache rides are only $1.
Escorts sound classier and thus are more expensive.
o.0
I dunno, given the choice between being ordered to go on some suicide mission (pretty common in the military) or being ordered to get a medal for having snu-snu, I know which option I’d jump at.
And while it doesn’t come up much in the military (unless you’re robust enough to boink an enemy soldier to death), I hear it is pretty common in the job description within the spycraft community.
I do believe him when he says he would do it himself.
Every society has taken unpleasant steps to protect its’ citizens, the US just gets its’ ations dragged out in the open by a press that isn’t necessarily working in the peoples’ interests.
That said however…some actions go far beyond the intent of protection and stray into political favouritism, we see that now and THAT’s what has to be stopped.
Protecting the populace is one thing, allowing your politicians of choice to rule over them by force insteadf of governing as administrators of the public interest is another entirely and sadly, is the preferred method of operation in many if not most countries nowadays. What was once reserved for failed dictatorships is now acceptable for ‘democracies’, or what the media would have you think is a ‘democracy’.
In actuality, democracy means mob rule, which is why most ‘first world’ countries are republics or similar and why many socialist ones have the word ‘democratic’ in their name. The US, is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic because there are fifty states and the residents of a half dozen of them shouldn’t be able to override the other 40+ solely due to population and why the representatives of those few states are the ones trying the loudest to convince everyone else that they have a ‘democracy’ that needs defending. We have that problem up here where two out of thirteen provinces and territories can essentially choose the gov’t and ignore the rest.
So much to unpack…
First:
1: “Everybody else is doing it,” isn’t an excuse for wrong action.
2: “Well you weren’t supposed to know,” isn’t an excuse for wrong action.
3: “Our intent was good,” isn’t an excuse for wrong action.
4: “We’re impartial about it,” isn’t an excuse for wrong action.
Second:
Democracy does _not_ mean “mob rule,” and the only people who say that are fascist-leaning, or outright fascists who imagine themselves to be superior to others, and extrapolate from this imagining that “the ignorant, unwashed masses” must “need” to be ruled over by their supposed betters. It’s a view taken right out of the ancient world, that assumes that “some people” are “slaves by nature,” and the only reason that particular idea hasn’t been exterminated is that it was posited by Aristotle. A very smart guy who nonetheless was still obviously wrong about quite a lot, some of which can be excused by the era of his life & relative ignorance, and a lot more of which cannot. For example, his assertion that women are essentially overgrown children, who are “capable of reasoning, yet choose not to.”
The entire root of “democracy is mob rule” boils down to two things: the fear of one’s neighbors, and the desire to control them.
Furthermore, the endless refrain of “it’s a constitutional republic” as if this were inis completely meaningless. A Constitution is just an underlying framework of law that establishes how a government is to be built and operated, which is nothing especially unique, and a Republuc is, definitionally, just a representative democracy, which is to say rule by democratically elected representatives. Which itself is designed specifically to undermine and disempower the people of Rome, creating an explicit political class, which originally was the wealthy Roman owner-class.
And remember, Democracy was devised by the Greeks with the people at the center (dimós + kratia), whereas the Roman derivative Republic (res + publica) was defined explicitly in terms of the State entity. In the Republic, only those with wealth & property were permitted to stand for office. In the Democracy, _every_ citizens voice was heard & counted.
And before anyone chimes in, yes, I am aware that the Greeks only extended the franchise to native-born free men,held slaves, treated women as chattel, just as did the Romans, but the idea of popular Democracy was there, and times have, thankfully, changed for the better. Moving on…
Once upon a time, there were some decent arguments in favor of Republicanism. Most people weren’t well educated, distance was a major impediment to participation, and the time investment of most necessary labor was too great to allow for consist, thoughtful, deliberative engagement in governing. However, technology has largely disposed of most of those barriers. The biggest one left is the one imposed by labor demands in the economy, but even here, we can greatly expand the principles of real democracy. The EU has done it already. While policy goals are set by a majoritarian vote, the specifics of execution are determined by _consensus_. And given the parliamentary structure of the EU, that means every voting bloc has to get something they can agree to live with. It’s a bit slow, yes, but it _works_.
So take that “mob rule” fear-mongering elsewhere.
Better things are possible.
What you said about democracy sounds good in theory and contain lot of solid arguments, but success of populists is proving it wrong. The problem is bribing the population with actions providing short-term gain with long-term expense. This is not about right or left ; this is about most people not thinking long-term enough and politicians abusing it.
On the other hand, republicanism doesn’t seem to really solve this problem. Nor does any method limiting who is allowed to vote. The only solution would be better education.
As someone living in EU, I can assure you that no, it’s not solved in EU. The situation here is generally better than current total divide between two parties who are unable to agree on anything in US, but not that much better.
As a fellow european (from France) I abound.
Populist target tend to be inumerate – 72<8 is a joke about Zemmour's sayings about Marshal Petain -, without any economical , historical knowledge.
Populism is like behaving like a vodka* male – agressive drunkard – and with harsh langage, agressive and vulgar attitude and a choice of a scapegoat , submit the weak-willed and uneducated into veneration.
https://youtu.be/isLNLpxpndA?t=73
In EU second economy and first military power ( France) , alt-rigth is at about 30%.
*it's a volontary joke
I didn’t mean to imply that the EU has “solved” things. Ultimately, there is never going to be a perfect solution the ever-shifting landscape of human politics. I mean, at its core, that’s what politics is, really.
Conflict resolution/management.
All I was trying to get across was that, on the axes of various conflicting ideological positions, the EU has a more democratic, inclusive, ethical, and consensus-oriented operating procedure. It isn’t perfect, obviously, but it’s a damn-sight better than the current and ongoing state of disfunction here in the US. Setting aside the design intent of the framers for a minute, and turning solely the populace itself…
It all really boils down to a massive failure of trust between the various “tribal groups” in the US. And it’s important to remember that there are _many_ more than just the artificial “Democrat v. Republican” narrative currently suggests. And I won’t even get into how that very artificial grouping came into being in service to neoliberal capitalism. It’s relevant in the larger scope, but…for the moment, I think it’s mostly a distraction from my core point.
Fundamentally, for various reasons, there’s been a massive cultural breakdown, nation wide, and across multiple strata, while _some_ of those breaks map onto each other…many do not. The one thing they all have in common is that this alienation has resulted in enormous fear of, if not “outsiders” generally, then very specific “enemies.” The most obvious example is the positively _manic_ assertion by hard Right reactionaries that everyone not echoing them perfect and marching in lockstep is, secretly or openly, an Enemy of America, hellbent on the destruction of everything that is Good and Pure. These are your Trumpists and Qanon types. A less obvious example would be people like me, transgender folks who mostly just want to be able to live our lives, without the fear of being literally murdered…especially if, like me, they have to travel to places where the predominant rhetoric is openly hostile, and there is a vocal promise of violence.
The thing is…even though I know – rationally – that the overwhelming majority of “them” will not attempt to touch me, or even be particularly verbally abusive…I can’t help seeing “them,” as “them.” And I know that they feel the same way. Somewhere along the line, we Americans stopped seeing ourselves as “Us,” together. We lost our capacity to accept that it’s perfectly fine for other people to be different from us and be able to still say, “We’re all Americans, and I will show you the same respect I want for myself, even I don’t agree with/understand/like you, at all.”
Nowadays, it’s all, “My way or nothing,” and it doesn’t matter if your talking about social justice issues, religious practices, the basic principles of economics, or just whether or not the US should approach the world as an equal partner, instead of a Commanding Officer.
And this is _not_ to say that every opposing point of view, ideology, or belief is equally valid. The “marketplace of ideas” is a bullshit canard that essentially tries to convert matters of ethics or morality into transactions of equal worth, and I’m sorry but, “we would like to move about freely and not be murdered” and “we want you to be removed from and kept out of here” are not remotely equal propositions.
But the conflicts run within larger groups as well.
Southerners hate and distrust anyone outside the South, New Yorkers (the city, not the state) look down on everyone else as bass-akwards bumpkins, except for Los Angelenos & San Franciscans, whom they resent as economic and cultural rivals, Midwesterners are convinced everyone but them is some flavor of insane ideologue, and _nobody_ likes or respects Florida Man.
Within smaller groups, centrist liberals resent conservatives for being bigots, and are terrified that anyone to their own Left is a literal genetic clone of Joseph Stalin, and trying to take their favorite toothbrush away. Most conservatives hate the fact that they’re associated with reactionary fascists, and wish the Q Crew would just cool it with the Replacement Theory rhetoric. For now, at least. Traditionally masculine men are afraid that they’re being slow-rolled out of the culture, and still hate the Andrew Tates & Steven Crowders of the world for making them look like self-serving, abusive, hedonistic animals. “People who like videogames” are constantly contending with a toxic amalgam of crusading “gamers” determined to keep the entire artform stuck catering to an adolescence that should have been over AT LEAST a decade ago. Otherwise decent and compassionate people in Portland want the homeless literally deported to literal concentration camps, because they’ve convinced themselves that homelessness is not only a personal moral failing, but a symptom of literal existential evil, and they will murder them in the street for no reason.
And do not even get started on the cops. I could almost feel sorry for the near-universal hate they receive, if it wasn’t almost entirely self-inflicted, through panicked killings, incompetence, and often just demonstrable sadism.
…the point is, for various reasons that I will not immediately dive into (I don’t want to do yet another teardown of capitalism today), Americans have gone beyond “normal” tribalism, to the point where our entire National Identity is disintegrating. And yeah, some people are cheering for that, insisting that we’re supposed to be a loosely confederated assortment of Independent States…but that entire argument was the point of the Civil War, and they lost, because it turns out that artificial hierarchies, exploitation, and division don’t actually accomplish much, in the face of broad inclusion and cooperation. But these people, these antisocial, anti-democratic fascists and hyper-individualists, they refuse to see the bare facts. They want their enforced hierarchies, their atomized populaces, their I-Got-Mine little tin pot oligarchies, and they don’t care what the collateral damage might be, to anyone, including themselves.
But…But.
More people are actually just confused and afraid, because they don’t understand what’s happened. To them, it seems like everybody but them has gone insane, has become some sort of cartoon caricature of villainy. Media plays a large role in that, both in the mainstream fearmongering and demonization, as does social media, in the siloing and bubbles of information, interaction and propaganda. I think, however, that the larger cause is just the increasing rapidity with which the world is changing. We’ve said for decades, “the world is changing faster than ever, faster than ever,” but I don’t think most people ever really internalized that until the last fifteen or so years, here in the States. And so it seems to them, to be a sudden thing.
These people, they need answers, and assurances. And in the absence of that, they’re following the old pattern of instinct, turning inward to the groups that reinforce and reassure them, even if that means viewing the “outside” as a hostile, dangerous place, and everyone in it as a threat. And so you see someone like me, who used to love rolling across every mile of this country, interacting with people everywhere and just generally reveling in the grand tapestry that we used to call ‘America,’ suddenly saying, “No, I don’t take freight to Texas anymore. It isn’t safe.”
…90% of my job these days, is taking fresh fruit from the port on the coast, to Arizona, and coming back.
I do not stop over in AZ. I get in and get out, and I don’t stop even to sleep until I am safely back in California. I do not buy fuel in AZ, I do not buy food. I only stop to use the restroom if the alternative is shitting myself, and even then I only use rest stops, not actual truckstops. I turn down freight to a lot of places, these days, because I can’t get back into safe territory fast enough.
…this turned into a ramble, so I’ll stop now.
I think our national identity relied on the illusion that we were all fundamentally the same, even if we disagreed on some political issue or another. Maintaining that illusion required ignoring the needs of minorities and excluding them from that national identity. Those minorities have a voice now, making them impossible to ignore, but we have yet to adopt a system that can respect and respond to the needs of a diverse population. People are too used to it being winner take all, and don’t know how to compromise, how to reach consensus. We need a system that acknowledges everyone’s needs, and finds a way to meet them, rather than a system of choosing whose needs to ignore and discard. We need to learn to live together without trying to rule over each other.
Exactly.
And while it isn’t an excuse, this stems in part from our history of slavery, as well. I’ve often said, “The hand that holds the lash, fears it most.”
…whoooole lotta people are afraid of slipping down their hierarchy, and literally cannot imagine just…getting rid of it. *facepalm*
The problem there is all the people who don’t care how good their own lives are, just that it’s better than someone else’s. They’ll forego an improvement to their own lives if it also benefits someone else. They don’t want the tide to rise and lift everyone up. They’ll push other people down to get ahead.
People should be upset with the existence of a hierarchy. Instead, they’re just upset about their position in it.
Democracy doesnt mean ‘mob rule’ per se, but it easily CAN fall into a ‘tyranny of the majority’ danger zone in a ‘pure/direct democracy’ if there are not some sort of countermeasures to protect against that.
The Federalist Papers went into a lot of detail on this. Mostly Federalist No. 10 (by James Madison), 47, and 51. Madison cited that there is a destabilizing effect of “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” on a government, although the only person to actually use the actual WORDS ‘Tyranny of the majority’ was John Adams, when he was arguing against government by a single unicameral-elected body.
Madison:
Federalist No. 10 “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” (November 23, 1787)
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed…By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.
Other people who argued about the tyranny of the majority were also distinctly not fascists – Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ book in Chapter 8, Edmund Burke’s 1790 letter that “The tyranny of a multitude is a mutiplied tyranny.” And John Stuart Mill quote a book that was heavily influenced by Tocqueville called On Liberty, in which he summarized that tyranny of the masses is an inherent weakness to majority rule, in which the majority of an electorate may pursue exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those in minority factions, which can result in the oppression of minority groups much in the same way that a tyrant or despot would do.
In more modern writings, Todd Donovan, Profesor at UC, wrote as recently as in 2014 that:
“One of the original concerns about direct democracy is the potential it has to allow a majority of voters to trample the rights of minorities. Many still worry that the process can be used to harm gays and lesbians as well as ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities. … Recent scholarly research shows that the initiative process is sometimes prone to produce laws that disadvantage relatively powerless minorities … State and local ballot initiatives have been used to undo policies – such as school desegregation, protections against job and housing discrimination, and affirmative action – that minorities have secured from legislatures.”
(sorry for the spelling errors – Professor, not profesor, and wrote, not quote) – I was doing this post on my phone.
To be fair, most of what James Madison wrote about in the separation of powers sections of the Federalist were originally the ideas of the french philosopher Montesquieu, of whom James Madison was an incredible fan.
In practice, the tripartite system in the US has mostly created in modern times a system which cannot effectively govern – which is in part by design, the system arose as a compromise to get disparate states to buy in to a federal government which by necessity had to have a significant amount of power to provide for communal protection and allow the nascent US to function as a state actor on the global stage after the Revolution. The states did not want the Federal government to be able to tell them what to do, and created a system where state interests could override populist sentiment, the Senate.
Which of course now is the house whose main purpose appears to be preventing the government from operating.
Republicanism shifts the issue from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority. Which is mostly then used to oppress other minorities. It is the Senate’s actions in obstructing the Executive and appointing a stacked Supreme Court which led to the current issues with that court. And the way they act, the ‘independence’ of that branch is now called into question, with it’s impartiality already disbelieved by most of the population.
And of course, the other minorities such as LGBT and immigrants haven’t been having such a good time under the separation of powers system which allows Florida and Texas to openly discriminate without judicial oversight, and without a strong federal response due to the effective impotence of the Executive and Legislative bodies as a result of their non-cooperation.
The framers could not have forseen a world in which a sitting president could commit open treason, and his own political party would then bend over backwards to protect him.
I really really hope this doesnt become a whole big political flame war. Just want to say this in advance.
“The states did not want the Federal government to be able to tell them what to do, and created a system where state interests could override populist sentiment, the Senate.”
This is incorrect. The Senate was simply meant to represent the states, which you need to think of as their own separate nations at the time if you look at the Constitution and how it was specifically written, while the House was meant to represent the people.
“Which of course now is the house whose main purpose appears to be preventing the government from operating.”
This is also incorrect. The House was meant to represent the citizenry, while the Senate was meant to represent the States. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about centralized government since they had just rebelled AGAINST a centralized government, and the concept was that people are better equipped to govern themselves than to have a distant ruler govern for them and tell them what to do. The closer to local the government is, the more likely it is to represent the people’s interests because the more likely that government is to know what the people’s interests and problems are, and also the more likely the people are to be able to deal with the government should it get out of hand and start trying to trample the people’s rights.
The Founding Fathers tried to reiterate this with the 10th Amendment, stating that any powers NOT specifically delegated to the United States Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It also gave the states a reason to want to bother to join the union in the first place. They had just rebelled from one oppressive and distant authority – they saw no reason to trade that for ANOTHER oppressive and SLIGHTLY less distant authority.
“Republicanism shifts the issue from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority. Which is mostly then used to oppress other minorities.”
This is also very incorrect. Republicanism (and you need to separate your dislike of the party from the WORD republican – it’s very tribalist thinking) simply means that the participation of the citizens is necessary for the common good of the community. It’s the concept that the sovereignty of the people is the source of all authority in law, rejecting monarchy, aristocracy, and hereditary political power. It’s a counter against a direct democracy AND against central distant authority, which was believed would lead to tyranny. If it helps you to recognize that majority of the Founding Fathers found a strong central government to be a problem and reduces the tribalistic view you’re having, just consider that the Democratic Party was originally called the Democratic-Republican party, and their viewpoint was that of the Anti-Federalists, not the Federalists. The Republican Party did not come into existence until much later, in 1854 (as an anti-Slavery party who were against the Kansas-Nebraska Act).
Also what you’re saying really makes no sense from a logical standpoint. It’s not minorities that trample the rights of other minorities. And when I say minorities, I do not just mean racial and ethnic, I also mean minorities of opinions. It’s historically the MAJORITY that trample the rights of the minority, which was repeatedly the problem most had with a direct democracy, especially if a cult of personality was able to sway the majority of the people into tyranny (think Hitler in Nazi Germany, or think – as the Founding Fathers did – the Romans voting for a dictatorship). Basically, direct democracy is seen as a lynch mob. Republican/representative democracy (again separate the word from the party so your tribalism does not get out of hand – the Republican party didnt even exist at the time of the Founders) is seen as requiring a trial first.
“The states did not want the Federal government to be able to tell them what to do, and created a system where state interests could override populist sentiment, the Senate.”
This, too, is incorrect – at least the second part of your sentence. You are trying to combine ‘federal interests’ with populist sentiment. Populist sentiment comes locally from the ground up, not federally from the centralized state down. Again please just take a look at Article IV and V of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. The primary limitation on the states and the people is Article VI of the Constitution (ie, the Supremacy Clause), in which the Constitution and laws of the federal government are the highest in the land, CONSTRAINED PRIMARILY BY THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION for what few powers are specifically given to that federal government, which was reiterated by the 10th amendment.
The Founders never thought ‘hey, the central government will be the populist government’ so this particular sentence you wrote ‘where state interests could override populist sentiment’ is pretty much ahistoric.
“Which of course now is the house whose main purpose appears to be preventing the government from operating.”
… and… again… this is incorrect. Sorta. Within the federal government, the House is the most conducive to populist opinion, as they represent the PEOPLE rather than the States. It’s why the House size is based on population, while the Senate is static and each state gets the same amount of Senators. You might be confused about this because now, the Senate is also elected by the people, but from 1788 until 1912 (thanks to the 17th Amendment), the Senators were appointed by each state legislature.
Your view is simply not historically accurate. Sorry.
“and appointing a stacked Supreme Court which led to the current issues with that court. ”
The Supreme Court is not stacked – whether there is a majority of one opinion or another opinion is not ‘stacking’ the Supreme Court. That’s just appointment of justices. There are always 9 Justices as of 1869 – before which the number of SCOTUS justices ranged anywhere from 6 to 10. Before that, SCOTUS was a LOT more subject to the whims of political parties (read up on Congress’s continuous beef with President Johnson where MOST of the shifting of the number of justices occurred).
STACKING the Supreme Court mainly happened during the Johnson administration, and ceased after he was no longer President, and was only threatened during FDR’s presidency by FDR in order to force his way in a rather totalitarian mindset. STACKING the Supreme Court means adding ADDITIONAL Justicies in order to secure a desired majority – it’s not ‘the opposing party currently has a majority in the number of judges who have a certain ideological view which has remained static and stable since 1869.’ Otherwise you’d be able to argue that the Warren Court (a very activist SCOTUS rather than a more conservative SCOTUS) was stacking the Supreme Court…. which it wasn’t.
“And of course, the other minorities such as LGBT and immigrants haven’t been having such a good time under the separation of powers system ”
This sentence makes no sense to me. What does Separation of Powers have to do with the difference between state government and federal government. I think you are confusing Separation of Powers (the act of vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government into three SEPARATE bodies) with the 10th Amendment and Articles IV, V, and VI of the Constitution, in which the Constitution describes the rights and duties of the States vs the Federal Government vs the People.
“under the separation of powers system which allows Florida and Texas to openly discriminate without judicial oversight”
Also you will have to specify what discrimination WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT you are talking about (please pay attention to the part that I capitalized in particular. If a state does something that’s argued to be unconstitutional (illegal discrimination) and they are able to sue to challenge that law and appeal up the chain to the federal courts and ultimately the supreme court…. then there IS JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
Also illegal aliens are not covered under the 10th Amendment since they are not citizens. There are four types of immigration status categories – citizens, residents, non-immigrants, and illegal (undocumented) immigrants. Any laws stating that an illegal alien/illegal immigrant/undocumented immigrant is not allowed to come into the nation illegally is not illegal discrimination – it’s an enforcement of the law. Federal law, in fact. And even under Article VI of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), a State is authorized (and technically required0 to follow those federal laws in regard to border security.
“and without a strong federal response due to the effective impotence of the Executive and Legislative bodies as a result of their non-cooperation.”
Please explain this part of your sentence as well, as it made no sense to me. No offense intended, but it’s hard to even respond to it because I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
“The framers could not have foreseen a world in which a sitting president could commit open treason,”
I’m going to sidestep anything specific about Trump, which is where I’m assuming you’re trying to go (rather than Johnson or Nixon or Clinton) because I’m being very non-partisan here and trying to just explain historical application, and don’t want to see people start a political flame war like it’s CNN/MSNBC/FOX. Instead I’m focusing on what the FRAMERS could or could not have foreseen, and using their actual viewpoints for the most part.
Please read the Federalist Papers. Jefferson and Hamilton had quite a bit to say about this. And many of the Founding Fathers (the Anti-Federalists, as well as Washington himself) wanted a President who had their powers significantly constrained. The expansion of the executive branch powers is a problem – the best counter to a President committing treason is for the powers of the President to be reduced as much as possible in GENERAL. That way, when your ideological side is no longer in power via a President that favors your ideology, you do not have to worry as much about the President who has the other ideological side’s viewpoints (or just viewpoints which you do not agree with in general).
Plus there is impeachment as well in order to determine if there actually was treason (or other high crimes and misdemeanors) in the first place, followed by a trial.
Also please read over Federalist Papers 69. The Framers totally DID foresee a world in which a sitting president could potentially commit treason. You need to stop seeing them as some ignorant bumpkins that had no concept about what might happen in the future. They debated a LOT about all of this. Unfortunately a lot of people have not bothered to read ANYTHING about their debates whatsoever.
Federalist No. 69 (The Real character of the Executive) – March 14, 1788 – Alexander Hamilton:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.”
Also the Founding Fathers were not particularly thrilled about having political parties in general. They viewed parties as a necessary evil. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government. This was discussed at length in Federalist Paper No. 10 by Hamilton that a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Meanwhile, Jefferson countered that “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties” and since people did tend to group up in a tribalistic fashion, you would never actually be able to get rid of factions, so instead you could at least try to constrain them under a set of laws. It’s also why Washington had both Jefferson AND Hamilton in his cabinet – to TRY to calm down the differences in the two opposing viewpoints. It didn’t work that well as they both eventually left Washington’s cabinet and preferred to argue with each other via newspaper articles.
Btw Annatar please take what I wrote with a grain of salt because I’m realizing you MIGHT take my post as a personal attack. I’m not trying to be rude or mean. I’m just correcting things you said which I think are ahistorical and/or legally incorrect. I have nothing against you personally. I’d say the same types of things to someone who had your opposite ideological bent if they make the same things that I perceive to be ahistorical mistakes.
I’m sure this will come as a total surprise, but IDGAF about the Federalist Papers.
A quick perusal of history reveals that a “tyranny of the majority” only seems to occur when aid majority is being manipulated to protect/promote the interests of a minority with outsize influence & power. Case in point, let’s examine chattel slavery in the US.
It is common for anti-democratic people to argue that “the majority use to support slavery.” This statement completely ignore a couple important facts, however. The first being that “the majority” (referi gonlyto the voting population, remember) at the time the Constitution was written – coincidentally a period when the practice was still a widespread economic reality and therefore had to be addressed – consisted almost exclusively of property-owning white men. This is a group who, even in that time and place, were a _minority_ of the population. The second fact ignored is that the position of the popular majority, unsurprisingly, changed, and equally unsurprisingly, it changed in a fairly short period of time. Why? Because wait turns out most people have empathy towards their fellow human beings, and when not directly dependent upon the suffering of them for wealth and power, prefer to see their suffering ended. It’s weird, I know.
It is because of these facts, that as the franchise was inevitably expanded, and the minority group that once was “the majority” started losing their grip over the institutions of government, that they ramped up their propaganda campaign. It’s why the 18th and 19th centuries saw such an unprecedented turnout of racist literature and pseudoscience, all aimed at convincing the expanding electorate that the institution of chattel slavery was in someway objectively justified. Not because the actual, popular majority wanted it, but because a specific _minority_ was economically dependent upon it for their wealth and status.
And this holds true in 20th Century Germany as well, since you saw fit to bring it up.
The fact is, the Nazis were a tiny, minority party within Germany. Yes, there is a history of relatively widespread antisemitism in Germany, and yes, they exploited it…but it wasn’t until the rise of popular, Left-wing movements in the government that they saw a rise to prominence & power. Why? Because once again, an entrenched, wealthy _minority_ wanted to halt & reverse the growth of the increasingly popular Left-wing politics & social policies that the majority were in favor of. And so they funded & empowered the Nazis, and legitimized them with endorsements from von Hindenburg.
And this is the pattern of history, time and time again, wherever a so-called “tyranny of the majority” emerges. It is invariably the product of a minority group trying take or hold wealth, power, and privilege.
Fun fact: humans are social creatures, because social behavior has emerged as our best survival strategy. Cooperators invariably emerge as more successful than competitors, developing greater prosperity, stability, and capacity. _This_ is the root of the legitimacy & power of democracy. It is literally written into our DNA, the abstract logic of it has been identified and formally codified in writing since the time of ancient philosophers, and we are literally surrounded by the fruits of it in our daily lives, from infrastructure to iPhones.
And before you latch onto the mention of iPhones as an example of the supposed superiority of competition & the myth of superior individuals, let me remind you that every piece of technology, every uncovered scientific principle, and every single second of labor that made that device possible, merges not from some blindingly brilliant paragon, but from literally millennia of stacked collective accomplishments.
We stand not upon the shoulders of Giants, but upon the shoulders of our predecessors, and they upon theirs, and they upon theirs, so on, and so on, in a vast and towering human pyramid. And we _do_ err, and we do fail, and we do sometimes do vile, evil things to one another. However, we invariably return to our cooperative nature, and we overwhelm the greedy, selfish ambitions of the predatory few. And we do it by _expanding_ our definition of “us.” We do it by expanding the franchise, and listening to the collective, greater conscience.
Al Smith once famously said, “The cure for the ills of democracy, is more democracy.”
Eventually, this has to mean replacing majoritarianism with consensus. And _that_ is going to requiring taking away the special privileges afford to wealth. Not “taking away wealth,” Pander (or anyone else imagining that they are “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”), so calm down. I mean eliminating the ability to influence elections or referendums with money. One person, one vote; one person, one voice…and no artificial amplification via media purchases. It’s also going to require taking a page from the Canadians, and making deliberate misinformation illegal. And a National Fairness Doctrine, in order to break propaganda bubbles.
So…coming back around. The “Founders” had a lot of good ideas, sure, and plenty of concerns, yeah, all of which was relevant, maybe, in their time & place. Things have changed, and the material concern of the present are what matter, in the present, not the theoretical concerns of a group of men who were, if we are honest, mostly wealthy minoritarians in their _own_ day. Their primary gripes were that they didn’t want to pay their taxes, did want to seize more land from the Natives, and saw that Parliament was going to end slavery in the colonies sooner, rather than later.
You’ll pardon me, then, if I continue to NGAF about the Federalist Papers.
“I’m sure this will come as a total surprise, but IDGAF about the Federalist Papers.”
That’s fine. But when they set up the government to prevent ‘tyranny of the majority’ (or at least put roadblocks in the way), the reason for why they did is shown IN the Federalist Papers, rather than whatever more modern reason people might claim that people actually mean when they say ‘tyranny of the majority.’ It’s NOT because of fascism historically – it’s because that’s how the Founding Fathers set up the American system of government. That’s all I’m saying.
“This statement completely ignore a couple important facts, however.”
I didnt make that statement. I’m explaining the reasoning for why ‘tyranny of the majority’ is used.
“The first being that “the majority” (referi gonlyto the voting population, remember)”
Yes, the majority used to refer to the majority of people capable of voting vs the minority of people capable of voting. That’s since expanded (rightly) to encompass all citizens, not just land-owning citizens, and the basic premise of the danger of ‘tyranny of the majority’ still applies. But that still doesnt mean ‘all people’ can vote- illegal immigrants justifiably cannot vote, for example. Neither can children under 18. Neither can convicted felons (although I think they should be allowed to vote again once they’ve served their time and are no longer on parole, and the laws should be further expanded again). Neither can people who live in other nations, obviously.
The fact that the population which CAN vote has since expanded does not change the basic tenet of the dangers of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as set forth by people like Madison, Adams, Burke, and Alexis de Tocqueville, or brought up more recently by Donovan et al.
“This is a group who, even in that time and place, were a _minority_ of the population. ”
Yes, and today, even if you take every person who’s able to vote (which includes non-land-owning men and women of every race), they are still going to be a minority of people compared to the world. The majority/minority dichotomy that matters with the ‘tyranny of the majority’ relates to the people who are actually voting. Otherwise you can try to expand the total number of people outward to an extreme.
“Why? Because wait turns out most people have empathy towards their fellow human beings, and when not directly dependent upon the suffering of them for wealth and power, prefer to see their suffering ended.”
I’m pretty sure that there was actually a war over it, not just people being compassionate. Plus there were court cases like Brown vs Board of Education, necessary in order to overrule prior cases like Plessy vs Ferguson by declaring Plessy unconstitutional. Plessy vs Ferguson was decided on a 7-1 margin, while Brown vs Board of Education was a 9-0 margin in favor of ruling that racial segregation “Separate but Equal” was unconstitutional.
I will grant, however, that people like MLK Jr were able to force racist people to see the suffering of minorities on camera, and even many of these people, even if they were still bigots in their personal belief systems, were more uncomfortable when seeing the outcome OF their bigotry on innocent people who were engaging in non-violent protest.
“The fact is, the Nazis were a tiny, minority party within Germany.”
They were a minority party but they managed to get a majority of the VOTERS to vote for them. Again, when people talk about tyranny of the majority, they’re talking about tyranny of the majority of the VOTERS, not tyranny of the majority of everyone who exists. When the majority of Germans voted in the Nazis, the majority of the population became a tyrannical majority by allowing their party to encroach upon the liberty of the minority.
It’s the same way in the United States when it comes to parties vs everyone capable of voting. There are more undecided and ‘independent’ voters (41%) than there are Republicans (25%) OR Democrats (31%). The same argument you’re making about the Nazi Party could be made about the Democrat party OR the Republican Party.
“And this is the pattern of history, time and time again, wherever a so-called “tyranny of the majority” emerges. It is invariably the product of a minority group trying take or hold wealth, power, and privilege.”
It is invariably the product of a group that gets the SUPPORT of the MAJORITY of voters in that society. Again, the voters is who the ‘tyranny of the majority’ is referencing.
“Fun fact: humans are social creatures, because social behavior has emerged as our best survival strategy. Cooperators invariably emerge as more successful than competitors, developing greater prosperity, stability, and capacity.”
Yes humans are social creatures. But we are also tribal creatures, and the larger a society, the more likely it is to break down into smaller tribal groups of similarly minded ideologies.
“Cooperators invariably emerge as more successful than competitors, developing greater prosperity, stability, and capacity.”
And what if they are cooperating to have a stable system of competition? Take you and me for example. I don’t hate you (I think you’re pretty cool actually), and I’m hoping you don’t hate me (I don’t think you do – you’ve been rather civil to me even if you engage in the most diabolical of puns). We are obviously, however, having a civil argument about two sides of a topic. And I think the result of this sort of debate can be, at the very least, informative to the other side’s arguments being made. The important thing is that there is an agreement to not get beyong a certain level of incivility. Namecalling, cursing each other out, making threats, etc – that wouldnt actually make the argument better. We are cooperating to having a set of rules in our argument – our competition of ideas but put forth in words.
Likewise if two attorney argue before a judge, they are in competition, but also are cooperating. They are cooperating in the types of rules required for their competition. They agree to the judge, they agree via Voir Dire to a jury. They agree to the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Professional Responsibility. They agree to the format in which the trial takes place. They agree to the venue. And so on. There is both cooperation AND competition.
As far as to whether competition works better than cooperation in a marketplace…. one could argue that innovation comes FROM competition. If everyone just agrees and cooperates, there’s no incentive to try anything new. There can be stagnation of progress. Or worse, the people running the marketplace cooperatively could cooperate to screw over the consumers. That’s the whole problem with when oligopolies collude with each other.
“It is literally written into our DNA,”
I’m pretty sure it’s written into our DNA to compete, not to cooperate. Biology is about competition in nature. Cooperation tends to be an invention of civilization instead, especially once a population gets over a certain size.
“the abstract logic of it has been identified and formally codified in writing since the time of ancient philosophers,”
It’s still arguments. Rousseau vs Hobbes, etc.
“and we are literally surrounded by the fruits of it in our daily lives, from infrastructure to iPhones.”
Again I’d have to say that we are surrounded by the fruits of competition, not cooperation. Or a combination of the two. Competition on a macro scale, cooperation on a micro scale. Or possibly cooperation on a macro scale and competition on a micro scale depending on your philosophy. The iPhone would not have been created with just cooperation. There would have been no incentive to build a better phone if everyone agreed that a Motorola flip phone was just fine and we didnt need anything more.
“let me remind you that every piece of technology, every uncovered scientific principle, and every single second of labor that made that device possible, merges not from some blindingly brilliant paragon,”
Actually it does sometimes emerge from some blindingly brilliant paragon. Especially for the MAJOR shifts in technology.
“but from literally millennia of stacked collective accomplishments.”
The fact that people use previous people’s knowledge to build upon that does not mean it’s cooperative. The incentive structure itself is still from competition. Bill Gates didnt cooperate with Xerox when he made Windows. Technology like the microwave, general purpose computers, radar, antibacterial treatment, blood transfusions, largescale production and distribution of penicillin, aeronautics, and the space race were spurred on by cooperation – they were spurred on by competition (war). There can be cooperation within a company during the free market, or within a country during war, but in the grander scale, it’s because they are competing with someone or something else.
I’m not really sure how we got on this tangent btw, but it’s fun.
“However, we invariably return to our cooperative nature, and we overwhelm the greedy, selfish ambitions of the predatory few. ”
I do not think it’s in our NATURE to be cooperative. I think it’s in our nature to be competitive, and civilzation is designed to force us to instead be cooperative instead. The thing I like about capitalism is it uses our own natural competitive natures to MAKE us be cooperative – something that does not come naturally to most people without an incentive structure being in place. Most people are, unfortunately, not altruistic. If they were, the history of humanity would be both a lot less bloody and our technology would be a lot less advanced. Our knowledge base would be far more shallow because there would not be a drive to do more than the bare minimum for us to survive.
“We stand not upon the shoulders of Giants, but upon the shoulders of our predecessors, and they upon theirs, and they upon theirs, so on, and so on, in a vast and towering human pyramid.”
I would say that some of our predecessors ARE the giants upon who’s shoulders we stand, actually. :)
” And we _do_ err, and we do fail, and we do sometimes do vile, evil things to one another.”
And if we’re lucky enough to not destroy ourselves in the process, we do learn some lessons from that which could possibly be used for good as much as it can be used for evil in the future.
“And we do it by _expanding_ our definition of “us.””
I think there is a limit to how many people ‘us’ can generally entail for the average human mind (and no I am not talking about Dunbar’s number). Eventually groups become more and more fleeting as far as close, stable social bonds are concerned, and that makes cooperation more and more difficult the larger a population becomes. Competition, on the other hand, thrives when it comes to large populations. And there are a LOT of humans in both the United States and in the world in general.
In 10 years who knows how much I’ll actually remember about you, or vice versa (assuming the webcomic is still around even). It’s not like we actually know each other beyond this website’s forum. We might stop reading the comic. It might end and we would no longer continue to converse. We might decide there are more important things for us to do than talk on the forum even if we still read the comic. Yet in the same period of time, I’ll still be more likely to maintain social bonds with my best friend in RL.
“We do it by expanding the franchise, and listening to the collective, greater conscience.”
I actually like your sentiment behind this philosophy. It’s very hopeful. But I just don’t think it’s very accurate when it comes to what human beings are are actually like in their behavior and inclination for the most part.
You seem to be advocating for Rousseau (maybe I’m wrong but that’s what it seems like to me). It’s not a bad thing if you are, but I just don’t find the argument realistic when it comes to how human beings tend to act. Roussean philosophy leads to the premise that Man is naturally good, essentially. That our need for cooperation is our natural state.
I’m more advocating for Hobbes. That Man is neither naturally good nor evil, but that they are naturally self-interested, and that self-interest, and how it’s directed, will determine if Man will be good or evil.
“Al Smith once famously said, “The cure for the ills of democracy, is more democracy.””
I’m fine with that, although I think that sounds a bit nebulous. I’m more of the belief that ‘the cure for the ills of democracy is rigorous debate.’
Amazing. I’m a lawyer. :)
“Eventually, this has to mean replacing majoritarianism with consensus.”
It also usually assumes everyone will be able to agree upon everything in order to achieve consensus. That just doesn’t happen naturally (or at the very least, not easily) in human societies. Especially as the population of the society increases.
Eventually people will start disagreeing with each other. And that makes consensus more difficult, and eventually impossible unless you have some sort of strict totalitarianism style to force people to keep agreeing, or at the very least to be quiet about their disagreements. It’s why communes tend to be limited in how large they can grow into before people either start leaving them or things become a lot more forceful to keep members from leaving (and thus it stops being a truly communal society).
“And _that_ is going to requiring taking away the special privileges afford to wealth. Not “taking away wealth,” Pander (or anyone else imagining that they are “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”)”
I’m assuming you’re not describing me as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, since my stance tends to just be based on historical reasoning for why competition works well for long-term stability, not because I think I will or will not be a millionaire in the future. Hence why you said Pander OR anyone else.
“I mean eliminating the ability to influence elections or referendums with money.”
I am COMPLETELY fine with eliminating the ability to influence elections or referendums with money. Or at least put people on a relatively even state when it comes to that sort of influence. I think things like SuperPACs and Lobbyists are deleterious to how a republic is supposed to work.
However I don’t consider them a minority as far as voting goes. It doent change the whole ‘be wary of the tyranny of the majority (of voters)’ stance. I consider them to be subverting the entire process of voting in the first place.
“It’s also going to require taking a page from the Canadians, and making deliberate misinformation illegal.”
That does create a major problem of determining what is and is not misinformation. And to paraphrase something I mentioned earlier, the best way to point out if something is misinformation or not is to have rigorous debate, not to just silence what the majority CLAIMS to be misinformation. I’m basically using the the whole ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’ argument when it comes to misinformation. You should definitely NOT want the majority to be able to determine what is and is not misinformation WITHOUT that rigorous debate, because then you will be thoroughly screwed once you are no longer in the majority and those thing which you believe to be true are deemed ‘misinformation’ without you having the chance to argue why it is NOT misinformation. I’m not sure that eliminating freedom of speech is a good way to fight propaganda. It’s just going to encourage more propaganda and misinformation by whoever happens to be in charge, once the ability to argue AGAINST it is squashed. Again this is something the Founding Fathers discussed in GREAT detail during the Constitutional Conventions and throughout the Federalist Papers.
“and plenty of concerns, yeah, all of which was relevant, maybe, in their time & place.”
And if you consider their concerns to be no longer valid, you should be allowed to argue that. But those who think their concerns ARE valid must be able to argue that as well.
“Things have changed, and the material concern of the present are what matter, in the present, not the theoretical concerns of a group of men who were, if we are honest, mostly wealthy minoritarians in their _own_ day.”
It wasn’t theoretical concerns for them, given they had just broken free of an oppressive tyranny. They were, as you put it, looking for a way to build a new society which would NOT repeat what they had fought to escape. Which required both rigorous debate AND, eventually, some form of cooperation in the form of compromise as to the final form of the Constitution. But it’s not like they had no concept of the future or that things might change, so many of the rules they set in place were very broadly described. The Constitution, after all, four pages long, not including the 27 amendment which were added slowly over the next 200+ years. It’s actually the shortest written Constitution (and the oldest one) of any major government on the planet BECAUSE of how short and broadly written it is.
“Their primary gripes were that they didn’t want to pay their taxes, ”
More specifically, no taxation WITHOUT representation. It wasnt just ‘no taxes.’ It was ‘No more taxes for you if you’re not going to let us have any say over us when you live 3000 miles away across an ocean and have no clue what is involved in our day-to-day lives, King George.’
“did want to seize more land from the Natives,”
That actually was not a reason for wanting the Constitution. The whole Manifest Destiny thing came afterwards. (and was not unique to the colonists, since the Native Tribes were doing the same thing to other tribes as well).
“and saw that Parliament was going to end slavery in the colonies sooner, rather than later.”
This part is accurate (at least for some of the Colonies), although the King also was the reason for slavery in the colonies in the first place. There was also a very healthy and firm abolitionist belief, largely based on religious objections to slavery, among many of the Founding Fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Paine, John Adams (and his son, John Quincy Adams), Roger Sherman, John Laurens, Samuel Adams, Robert Paine, Oliver Ellsworth, and Governor Morris. All of whom refused to ever partake in the practice of slavery even when it was accepted as a given. Others who were closely associated WITH the Founding Fathers, like the Marquis de Lafayette (one of Washington’s closest aides and friends), were also similarly disgusted by the practice of slavery (and Frederick Douglas considered him to be one of the men who were the truest of abolitionists who embraced racial equity).
“You’ll pardon me, then, if I continue to NGAF about the Federalist Papers.”
You’re free to not care about the Federalist Papers.
I’m just countering that, considering many of the most important ones were written by Founding Fathers who were both abolitionists and were in arguments with Madison about Manifest Destiny, I’m not sure that the reasoning is sound to completely dismiss them.
Not to mention the Federalist Papers do offer insight into the minds of the people who were arguing about the tyranny of the majority in the first place.
My read on the “Do your duty” Is that it’s a little bit less of an order, and more that Maxima probably is expressing, not visible in comics speech bubbles, that she’s not 100% averse to the idea. They do have a bit of tension between the two of them. Therefore, it’s possible that the general is more indicating that he feels that she’s already headed that direction.
Or maybe I’m just being too charitable.
He may have been about to say “duty to lead him on as long as possible and exploit his interest for US gain”, rather than “to seduce him” (or equivalent wording). But probably not, and even that isn’t something he can order.
I doubt he was going to say that but nevertheless, good spin, brichins!
Of course whenever someone mentions just taking what you want instead of going the easier path of just buying it, it will be taken. especially by Military/politicos
Lucky Maxima is there to advise them to still take Deus’s deal because this panel is NOT bright.
That being said, obviously Maxima should date him. Not because General ‘Steven’ almost said so. Just on general principle, she should date him. All praise Deus, amen.
Until Deus drags out his book and draws Max on an empty page with his “assessment” of the encounter, Max would simply ash him on the spot and end all his plans…
He’s called “smug-D” for a reason!
Or she’ll discover it and storms out (through his bedroom wall) and Deus just shrugs it off…
I strongly suspect that Max will never find out about Big D’s Little Book, until and unless someone already in it – and aware of it – tells her…probably to send her after him. XD
I didn’t think anyone but Guesticles called him that.
Max has called him smug etc… on many occasions so the name fits, and I’m sure anyone that’s had dealings with him has called him far worse! I like Deus, don’t get me wrong, he’s the super-smart anti-hero type that loves to show off and brag. I’ll bet it’s the main reason Max wants to little to do with him even though she also “likes” him. (insert soap opera closing theme here)
Max would be too busy being impressed with his staying power and defying the ‘Woman of Steel, Man of Kleenex’ trope to ash him.
Besides, a lot of women have a thing for artists. :)
I think Max knows Deus isn’t into monogamy.
So why would she get upset at him having memoirs, as long as the ones about her don’t go public?
Briggs must want that shield tech very bad…!
Meh. Despite modern sensibilities, dates don’t always have to lead to sex.
When you’re getting down to some serious monkey buisness you would do well to have a reprehensile tail.
Financial record keeping is the main reason so many restaurant startups fail. There’s just no accounting for taste.
wow… I am impressed. based on research of dubious ethics I know that the Ninjas you may be dealing with love hot dogs. the pirates of course are on a quest for Skippy peanut butter, Fluffernutter sandwiches, and cheeseburgers. (warning do not get McDonald’s just don’t)
This got a nice laugh from me at first 15m break this morning. Mr. Handlebar looking just a little like I’ve seen memes of some male… escorts, recently.
The wording kind of implies that Max in panel 2 isn’t supposed to have her dialogue lines through the 2nd bubble of that panel 2, it seems more like a reply to her with the “you” instead of “I.” Small thing, fixable by either different dialogue lines or having her preclude the next question and sort of direct the conversation a little more firmly, simply by fixing the pronoun there. Guess it depends on whether or not millitary brevity would win over cautious defference. Diferrence? Sp.
Want to bet that Dabbler would be fine with the idea of going… undercover under a Maxima-shaped hologram?
Of course. Deus will see through that in about the first ten seconds. And *then* Deus and Dabbler would used extreme long words and double meanings to plan out how to turn the situation to whatever is maximally embarrassing for General Moustache without any of the people listening through various bugs and so forth being any the wiser.
Want to be if Dabbler heard “They’re thinking of ORDERING me to do things to get his tech” that Dabbler would burn down several buildings and start handing over all kinds of tech and magic training? She’s really BIG on “consent”
I also think Deus wouldn’t be happy. He wouldn’t want to just be handed a win like that.
I don’t understand this post. And I think Deus would be quite fine with being handed a win. Path of least resistance means he can focus his brilliant mind on other areas and other plans to make the world better for all mankind.
All praise Deus, amen.
We’ve already seen that Deus is pretty big on consent when it comes to sex.
Oh i wasnt arguing that he isnt big on consent. Despite his villain tropes (tropes only as he is actually a paragon of virtue, all praise Deus amen) Deus has always had what looks like a very firm code of morality. I was arguing that Deus would probably be just fine with being handed a win. :)
It is pretty simple.
Let him sell it to someone else that they do not really agree with him selling it too.
then go in and MURICA the heck out of them before they even get a chance to use the shield technology. and then take it away from them.
He is gonna sell it to anyone he wants regardless, why should he not sell it to more than one country/group.
On the second panel the top right dialog balloon should be separate as it’s from someone else.
Didn’t Maxima say “I won’t have any member if my team doing silk work” or something like it? Don’t think she’d care to be Eskimo Sisters with Daphne, though… or Dabbler.
I am still waiting to see that Deus*s super power is that any woman he sleeps with he gets a bit of their power.
All you need to do is search on “reaction to Sputnik” to see that Dave is spot-on regarding how America behaves when behind on technology.
When you’re rich, it is always cheaper to buy it than to steal it.
It’s not just the ‘tash, though. He looks like the Crimson Chin’s secret identity
I understood that reference dot gif.
But seriously, fuck that dude. Or fuck that, dude. Punctuation counts.
He sure as hell ain’t Cleft the Boy Chin Wonder.
I feel after the last couple days talking about Deus that some people are missing a potential point.
There has absolutely no definitive proof that Deus doesn’t have more super powers, and a LOT of subtle proof that he does.
Deus lives in a world where being super-intelligent means power. Now, sure, everyone naturally thinks science and gadgeteer, but that is not HIS power. That’s the tech’s power. If Deus wants to have his OWN power, it’ll be the kind you can’t take away.
It is ENTIRELY likely Deus is an extremely powerful wizard, which turns his intelligence into POWER!
1) Deus has absolutely no problem associating with beings super-powered or magical, and definitely has many, many contacts in the magical community.
2) Deus is not intimidated by beings far more powerful than him, despite not seeming to have any recourse if they get violent.
3) His bodyguard is an eldritch abomination that, if not afraid of him, respects him greatly. Just brains isn’t going to do that, you need POWER.
4) He has incredible information resources. That screams scrying/divination magic to me.
5) Look at that picture of him last issue. Doesn’t it almost look like he’s got a third eye in his forehead? :)
6) Deus is smarter than Dabbler, Dabbler just has information/tech resources he lacks. Him figuring out the Superion field is proof thereof. Note how condescendingly he treats her after the revelation?
7) While Deus may not have massive amounts of ‘mana’, as it were, he likely is the fastest-casting, spell-comboing, chain-hurling, pre-selected spellflinger on the planet, if his super-intelligence is true.
8) He’s not afraid of Maxima because, like Dabbler, he has shields, and has the magic to escape her or restrain her enough to get away if needed. That’s likely true of all of his associates.
I have a fan-fic I write (it’s not online anywhere, sorry) where that is the case, and it just explains So Much about him.
I find him to be a super-genius and not exploiting it far better than Lex Luthor would to be utter nonsense on the face of it. Having an Iron Man suit as a back-up is naturally on the list, but he wouldn’t be satisfied with power that wasn’t available all the time.
Not to mention that his super-intelligence includes “super empathy.” He’s really PERSONABLE. He knows how to attract loyalty from his superpowered minions. Which means if anyone gives him crap, he won’t have to point imperiously and command, “get them!” He’ll already have everyone stepping in front of him and declaring, “you want him, you have to go through ALL OF US.”
Notice how Cthillia pointedly refrains from killing any innocent people to charge up her dagger? She really, really, REALLY wants to use her dagger, and yet she refuses to go against Deus on this. THAT’S loyalty.
Deus was even able to make Vale cry (from emotional manipulation) once to the point where she will NOT disobey Deus about not harming innocents. :) Based on Vale’s own statement.
He’s also a REALLY good leader to those who work for him. Fairness + success + efficiency generates loyalty, and Deus (unlike others like Sciona) understands the benefits of engendering loyalty among your subordinates and/or partners.
I think his super power is gonna turn out to be that anyone he has sex with he gains a bit of their stats/powers
Which would explain his gigantic boink books collection.
And now you’ve mentioned it…
Yes, Deus would be an idiot if he didn’t know a pile of magic.
We know he’s not an idiot.
Therefore he knows a pile of magic.
A logical fallacy, else you could imply he knows absolutely everything just because it could be useful.
But he absolutely knows it exists, and has hired expert magic users (as well as supernatural and super employees), thus trading money for the same result and saving himself decades of study in an area he may physiologically be prevented from accessing anyways. Money really is the best super power.
Looks like the only brain that can manipulate Deus’ Super Intelligence is his other brain.
I don’t know what this general is smoking.
First, the idea of stealing something that you can have for the cost of recycling a billion dollars through the economy. (Because all of that construction equipment is supposed to be made in the USA) is just stupid. If it were $100B, that might be a slightly different story.
Second, one of the basic rules of the game is “You don’t honeytrap your friendlies”. I think even blackmail is supposed to be limited.
The only way that even begins to make sense is if he sees Deux as a fairly near-term active enemy regardless, and even then…
No, the rule is that you blackmail employees of friendly powers by threatening to tell their bosses of said blackmail. And you don’t threaten to have them and their family killed. Respect the alliance by having allies discipline their own minions. Honeypot spy traps are perfectly acceptable between ‘allies’ and their people.
This does of course change when you ‘honeypot’ the leader of said alliance. And who’s to say they aren’t actually increasing the alliance? A foreign wife is a great backchannel into eachother’s governments. How many alliances were sealed by marriage of their kids again?
I think if Dabbler found out that Max was ORDERED to do something like that she would burn down buildings and then just start HANDING OVER tech/magic. She’s BIG on consent.
Deus would refuse because it would mean he didn’t actually *win* but was handed a victory.
I strongly suspect Big D also big on consent.
From what we’ve seen of him, yeah, Deus is big on consent.
I don’t think Dabs would start handing over tech though. I think she might do something permenant and unpleasent to Mr Mustache. And them start looking up the chain of command with her old adventurer attitude. The one that found unwinder rounds hilarious.
I think Demons (though actually just a species of aliens that [look and] call themselves Demons) supporting local invasions/wars would be a hard thing to get out of the collective consciousness for christian, catholic and muslim majority countries. Maybe if the Angel species showed up, but otherwise I’m pretty sure that would be everyday in a lot of circles.
Before the Space Force broke off, the USAF was the smallest branch. In my command chain, there was a CHASM between a newly minted O5 and the nearest O6. My boss didn’t talk to his boss’s boss unless invited to speak. Tried not to garner the attention. I about got us all in trouble when I spoke to the Wing King as an O3. I have a BAD habit of saying what i really think. It’s acceptable in a military hospital setting, but not elsewhere. Didn’t repeat that action again.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re hamming up that conversation for the audience, or actually making this story more realistic by doing so.
At least Gen Briggs is not asking others to do what he wouldn’t do himself.
Are O3, O5, O6, etc real things? I didnt realize that. I had only heard of those types of ranks on SCP stories and websites.
I just learned something new :)
It’s an US rank
O3 capitain O5 lieutenant colonel 06 colonel
I’ve more grasp about NATO ranks:
It’s from OF-10 to OF-6 for General officiers
OF-5 to OF-3 for senior officer Maxima is OF-4 as lieutenant colonel
OF-2 to OF-1 for junior officiers
OR-9 to OR-5 for NCO
OR-4 to OR-1 for enlisted
I’ve been during my military service an OR-3: Quartier-maître de 2ème classe in french navy
This designation is used because in some armed force ( french army for exemple) Major is a senior OR-9
In US Major is an OF-3 or O4 ( US) the french equivalent is Commandant OF-3
Very cool. I seriously thought it was something made up for SCP.
Society of Creative Piracy?
No um… the SCP Foundation. It’s a wiki/website for creative stories about… weird stuff. Mostly an international secret society htat does scientific research and paramilitary paranormal intelligence :) Basically a collaborative fiction project that’s been going on for about 15 years. Pretty cool but a major time sink. SCP Stands for ‘Special Containment Procedures.’ But it also is the abbreviation for the unofficial motto – Secure. Contain. Protect. Also it’s what they all all the anomalies they keep track of and/or contain/imprison/have working for them – Skips (SCPs). Think the cartoon ‘Inside Job’ but creepier.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/
That sounds as if the 007 books were writen by Stephen Reeder Donaldson, edited by Governmental Committee, and proofread by a room full of monkies high on kratom. I’m IN.
Between those two descriptions, looks like I have some new weekend reading as well.
Going to the scp wiki wensite would be much much longer than a weekend. :D
With respect to the plans for stealing technology subject, any military command worth its salt has contingency plans in place for pretty much any situation, no matter how unlikely or outlandish, and regularly dusts them off and wargames them to test and update said plans.
There’s a large difference between plans people would have wargamed and a plan you’d use to steal a particular piece of alien technology from a country with particular known and unknown super powered beings (including a super genius of unknown capabilities)
I wonder what the plan is for when some idiot general makes Max think “No, I’m not following that order. And the fact that you made it makes me reconsider my loyalty to your country.”
Because I can see Deus flipping some folks loyalty *real easy* if that general had finished his statement.
Also, I just have to mention this evil idea that must happen;
Cooter sneaks aboard a space ship, and gets trapped in the tentacle closet with the safeties malfunctioning because of his poor shape-shifting.
Wrt devising a plan to seize the technology, my understanding is that it’s pretty standard, and accepted good practice, in geopolitical strategerizing to detail a wide range of possible actions, including some unthinkable ones just to make sure that, A: you’re making a well informed decision, B: you have options and plans already in place in case the situation becomes unthinkable outside of your control.
“Plan C! Plan C!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitors_Gate_(video_game)
I just dated myself didn’t I?