Grrl Power #1212 – Brandish? More like Bland-ditch
Yes, I couldn’t think of a better page title. Sometimes I sit there thinking for like half an hour and google various idioms related to what’s on the page to turn into puns, and sometimes I just give up. There aren’t a lot of idioms about demons waving axes around in a comic shop.
I imagine a lot of interactions at demon owned/operated and customer frequented shops, there’s some expectation of belligerence at the checkout counter. You see, Sydney’s mistake here is not having a spiked baseball bat or a halberd on obvious display with a sign that says “Not for sale. The only way to get this is to PISS ME OFF!”
Demons are all about establishing dominance, which means the beginning of every commercial on Demon TV starts with “YOU PAY ATTENTION TO ME YOU LITTLE PUSTULE! IF YOU COME INTO MY STORE AND I FIND OUT YOU THOUGHT A COMMERCIAL WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR A BATHROOM BREAK I WILL KICK YOUR ASS! YOU WILL BE TESTED!”
Most people would be put off by that, but a lot of demons would think “I like the cut of his jib.” or “He’s no nonsense.” but also “I could take him.”
What I’m saying is Loki-horns-battle-axe-hammer guy here is trying to establish that he’s a serious guy. Sometimes you gain the upper hand, sometimes you get arm-barred by a neon-blue space noodle. It’s all part of the demon social contract.
The September vote incentive is up! Let’s call it the November vote incentive and just say I’ve still got two I.O.U’s, eh?
Well, Dabbler is doing her Dabbler things, and the Patreon version has a nude variant and a comic that… I don’t know, expounds on the goings on of the initial picture?
.
.
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.
You know, this actually brings to mind a thought; how much leeway do Archon members get for dealing with personal threats/assaults by powerful entities that are upset but not committing other crimes unrelated to the argument? Sydney is not on duty right now, but at the same time, she’s the only one present *qualified* to deal with a demon throwing a temper tantrum in public.
Doesn’t matter, they are trespassing, since she told them to get out, and threatened her with a lethal weapon, she has every right to defend herself. Not only that, but I am pretty damn sure they did not go through the proper channels to get there, meaning they are illegally on US soil, and delivering death threats (he pulled the axe; thus it’s a death threat) against an off-duty US soldier. By that metric alone, Sydney has every right to detain them, and if they become violent, stop them, with lethal force, if needed.
This. It’s not an office abusing the law it’s a long list of reasons of why doing that is bad news.
This is a very American response
For the moment Sydney reaction is OK considering French self-defense law…
article 122-5 of french penal code
N’est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d’elle-même ou d’autrui, sauf s’il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l’atteinte.
N’est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l’exécution d’un crime ou d’un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu’un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l’infraction.
English
A person is not criminally liable who, in the face of an unjustified attack on themselves or others, performs, at the same time, an act required by the need for self-defense of themselves or others, except There is a disproportion between the means of defense used and the seriousness of the attack.
A person is not criminally liable who, to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offense against property, performs an act of defense, other than intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued. as long as the means used are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.
Compilant for the moment but the breaking of the fiend arm get to murky waters , considering the power gap between the fiend and Halo…
She is not in combat gear, she don’t have deployed her force field and the two other are not actually threatening and going to combat stance, murky if she break the arm but threats are if they are not followed by act acceptable in this case.
For the moment compilant to french law , if she kills not so much…
Somehow I don’t think French law is going to be all that relevant in the middle of Texas.
… The point was it’s not just an ‘American response’
U.N Owesen’s reaction was enough.
Homep’s reaction shows that the reaction is less location dependent than Amalasan is implying.
French are not fond of self defense as US , in US laws about self defense and weapon ownership are more lenient.
If it pass in Paris France concerning this subject it will pass in Paris Texas.
It’s more a answer about the sentence “This is a very American response”…
By exposing the view of another NATO member.
Funny enough, this wouldn’t pass in Washington State, U.S.A. The reason is, in WA, you’re not allowed to escalate, and are required to use minimum neccesarry force.
As a trained military combatant and having the shield orb. Sydney absolutely should have just popped a bubble around him and her, then used lighthook to impede his progress towards her. Considering the tools at her disposal, in WA specifically (where this does not take place), she would have overstepped.
Interesting to see that a European country more lenient towards gun use than part of the U.S.
Is she escalating, though? He pulled out a clearly lethal weapon. For all she knows, that axe could be enchanted and have anti-bubble capability. We HAVE seen a few examples of offworlders showing up having made preparations for dealing with supers.
This is not analogous to a cop drawing a firearm on a child playing with a toy. This is one of several threatening individuals, possessing an unknown threat level (in video game terminology, he’s got a ??? for his level, attack, and defense levels), and making a naked threat of violence if Sydney doesn’t comply with his apparent desire to engage in felonious kidnapping.
By contrast, Sydney has nonlethally restrained him and is delivering a clear, unmistakable directive to leave the premises. She’s actually being a lot better about this than she had to be.
I believe she is a ‘law enforcement’ person. thus she has qualified Immunity unless in that particular federal circuit there is a clearly established constitutional case (in that circuit) involving a demons right to threaten a shop owner with lethal force. (it probably needs to be even more specific. this needs reform badly.)
this post does not contain legal advice. it may contain sarcasm, please read responsibly.
True. Since demons/aliens are just now becoming a known quantity in the world I doubt any laws have been modified yet to recognize non-human sentients as being under the protection of those laws. At worst she’d probably be hit with a cruelty to animals charge. Kind of ironic though that we’re sitting here with most of us thinking that doing the same to a dog would be more heinous than to an alien(demon) that by our standards of beauty is ugly. Would we react more strongly if it was a tall, beautiful by our standards succubus?
The dog equivalent is the dog growling, baring its fangs, raising its hackles.
I love dogs. I really do. But if a dog did that to me and I had Sydney’s capabilities – that dog would find itself tossed on its back and forced into submission.
I would respond but right now i am in the middle of a blackout. :)
The problem with your example of trapping the big guy in the shield and using the lighthook to restrain him, is that Sydney would be inside with him (and his axe), and she can’t deploy the lighthook inside the shield to restrain him.
So far, all she is doing is restraining him, which is what you are suggesting.
She has him in a non-lethal hold, and one which will not even injure him unless he pulls his own arm out of the socket by resisting. The only thing she’s arguably doing wrong is not stating, “I am part of this nation’s official police force. You are hereby placed under arrest, come along quietly.” And since she’s off-duty and acting in self-defense as a private citizen, she may not be required to do that much (we’ve got lawyers around here who could clarify the issue w/respect to off-duty officers, which is likely to be jurisdiction-dependent, though Sydney is more likely to be under federal jurisdiction now that I think about it–so rules for military police dealing with a citizen who is conducting a crime are probably most applicable).
In the US, a kid was allowed to murder two people and claim it was self-defense, so… yeah.
You know, that trial is the most fascinating thing. It really cuts to the core of pro-crime thinking. Literally any argument you make against the kid could be bounced right back onto his assailants.
“He shouldn’t have been there”
“Neither should they.”
“He was looking for trouble”
“So were they”
“Attacking him shouldn’t have been worth a death sentence”
“Being attacked shouldn’t be a death sentence.”
The only difference between the kid and the attackers here is that the kid is held to the highest of standards and his assailants are held to no standards.
The whole event was caught on video from multiple angles. Every step of the way, his assailants instigated each escalation of violence, and every step of the way, he stopped being violent as soon as he was safe. The only way you can look at that and come away thinking he did wrong is if you have a pro-crime life philosophy. One where you cannot lay blame at the feet of anyone engaged in criminality, for their actions are never their fault. While victims of crime are expected to act like victims and to ever attempt not to be victimized is considered a wrongdoing.
He travelled rather a long way specifically to put himself in a situation where he knew he’d be likely to be able to kill people of a group he hates in self defence.
If a black man walks into a KKK rally wielding a gun, is it self-defence when he opens up on the guys in robes? Or does why he went there matter?
As a perfect demonstration of my point, you are assigning full agency and responsibility to the victim and no agency or responsibility to the attempted murderer.
The only way your argument makes sense is if we assume the murderer has no control over their own actions and not only cannot help but attempt to commit murder but also that it is wrong to stop them from committing murder once so inclined.
Your mere existence is not enough provocation to forfeit your right to self defense.
In a conflict between two people in which one ends up dead, and the other alive, why should we assume one was in the right, and the other in the wrong? They both have a right to self-defense, but the dead don’t get to tell their version of the story.
@Changer
You’re defending a murderer.
Rittenhouse specifically armed himself with a lethal weapon and traveled great distance to insert himself into a law-enforcement situation. There is no interpretation of “self-defense” that includes a minor civilian traveling miles out of their way to _approach_ an active scene of violence.
Put down the shovel.
@Illy
> He travelled rather a long way specifically to put himself in a situation where he knew he’d be likely to be able to kill people of a group he hates in self defence.
Do you have evidence that this was his motivation? If so, why didn’t you submit it to the court so Rittenhouse could be convicted on it?
His actions showed him trying to retreat when he was attacked. This is not the behavior of someone looking to kill.
@Bharda:
On the contrary, no definition of self defense excludes armed people, minors, civilians, people who traveled great distance or who approached a violent scene.
Also Rittenhouse didn’t approach a “violent scene”. There was certainly violence happening in the general area – which means increased risk of being attacked, making it prudent to prepare for possibly necessary self-defence. But the didn’t go to the actual violence – that only started when Rosenbaum attacked him.
> Do you have evidence that this was his motivation? If so, why didn’t you submit it to the court so Rittenhouse could be convicted on it?
To quote Danny Hebert: “This isn’t a courtroom”
> As a perfect demonstration of my point, you are assigning full agency and responsibility to the victim and no agency or responsibility to the attempted murderer.
Nah, everyone has agency.
> The only way your argument makes sense is if we assume the murderer has no control over their own actions and not only cannot help but attempt to commit murder but also that it is wrong to stop them from committing murder once so inclined.
So you’re saying KKK members can’t help but threaten the lives of black people?
Interesting argument.
> Your mere existence is not enough provocation to forfeit your right to self defense.
Joining the KKK isn’t merely existing.
Being black is.
Answer the question or stop pretending to be unbiased.
>Nah, everyone has agency.
If you agree that everyone has agency, Illy, then the attempted murderer is responsible for attempting a murder. Its not the victim’s fault. Don’t victim blame.
> So you’re saying kkk members can’t help but threaten the lives of black people?
No. I literally did not say anything even close to resembling that. In fact, it’s rather offensive that you’re attempting a lie that brazen right now.
>Joining the KK Isn’t merely existing
I’m sorry, hold on. Did you just literally confuse your own analogy for the real event? Are you justifying violence against a person based on an entirely fabricated scenario you made up in your head and then convinced yourself was real? Do you need a doctor?
> To quote Danny Hebert: “This isn’t a courtroom”
That doesn’t mean you can just make unsupported claims and expect people to believe you. As expected, you can’t support your claim, so you have no leg to stand on.
> Its not the victim’s fault. Don’t victim blame.
True. It’s the fault of the kid who crossed state lines and bought a gun so he could play police.
Crossing state lines isn’t illegal. Attacking someone is.
Sounds to me, Illy, like you’re just mad people are allowed to protect themselves from attackers.
Vigilantism is also illegal.
Go read up on why he was there.
@Illy:
> Vigilantism is also illegal.
What specific illegal things counting under “vigilantism” did he do? Because standing around guarding somethig isn’t illegal, and I’m not aware of anything else. Neither was the prosecution, apparently.
Did the people there not have a right to defend themselves from someone threatening them with a weapon?
I suspect your definition of crime is incoherent. Virtually nobody is “pro-crime”. But some people have sympathy for people who have been systematically mistreated by the legal system.
> Did the people there not have a right to defend themselves from someone threatening them with a weapon?
Yes, Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself from Grosskreutz threatening him with a gun. He himself didn’t threaten anyone, meanwhile.
> But some people have sympathy for people who have been systematically mistreated by the legal system.
Do you have any evidence that Rosenbaum, Huber or Grosskreutz have been “systematically mistreated by the legal system”?
You do have a right to defend yourself from someone actually threatening you with a weapon. You do not have a right to decide that someone merely being armed threatens you, and pre-emptively assault them.
> He himself didn’t threaten anyone, meanwhile.
To quote you: Prove it.
@Illy: A court of law found that he didn’t. If you disagree, make your counterargument. (Also you implied he threatened someone, me rejecting that doesn’t shift the burden of proof anyway.)
I’d appreciate if you don’t misquote me, by the way. There’s a relevant distinction between “do you have evidence” and “prove it”.
> “Yes, Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself from Grosskreutz threatening him with a gun. He himself didn’t threaten anyone, meanwhile.”
That’s a spectacular claim, considering that Grosskreutz called upon Rittenhouse to put down his gun and surrender to the police. I guess that’s “threatening” to gun fetishists? Rittenhouse was absolutely a threat to those around him, of course; he’d just killed two unarmed people! Grosskreutz’s choice not to blow away Rittenhouse in the street was his to make, but he’d have been legally justified in doing so, as Rittenhouse had demonstrated that he was a danger to the lives of those around him. It would have been an open and shut ‘good guy with a gun’ shooting if Grosskreutz had pulled the trigger.
> That’s a spectacular claim, considering that Grosskreutz called upon Rittenhouse to put down his gun and surrender to the police.
Citation needed.
> Rittenhouse was absolutely a threat to those around him, of course; he’d just killed two unarmed people!
“Unarmed”* people who attacked him, he was defending himself. That doesn’t mean he’s a threat to anyone who wouldn’t attack him first. Much less did he threaten anyone.
They might have believed so, but they weren’t right. And Rittenhouse isn’t required to let himself be harmed just because his attackers falsely believe they’re in the right.
*This is a red herring anyway, because your attacker being unarmed doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, but still, Huber was armed with a skateboard he was using as a melee weapon.
> And Rittenhouse isn’t required to let himself be harmed just because his attackers falsely believe they’re in the right.
That applies the other way around just as much.
If not more because Rittenhouse was waving a loaded gun around.
> That applies the other way around just as much.
That doesn’t matter, because none of them were on trial. Only Rittenhouse was, and he’d only void his right to self defense by actually being the unlawful initial attacker.
Also no, because Rittenhouse actually was being attacked, not just falsely believed it. In the hypothetical, they would probably still walk though, if they had good enough reason to believe they were in danger.
Too bad none of them are in any position to be put on trial or walk away. And that’s what’s most unfortunate about any self-defense trial: the person who used less violence has already been sentenced to death. This incentivizes killing other people, rather than deescalating conflicts. The dead don’t get to defend themselves at a trial.
Gaige Grosskreutz evidently was in a condition to appear before a court, so there would have been nothing preventing him from being tried. Self defense doesn’t necessarily end with the death of the attacker.
> This incentivizes killing other people, rather than deescalating conflicts.
You gain nothing from them not being able to be tried. If you manage to deescalate, you won’t need to go before a court at all (which is not exactly a fun experience even if you are acquitted.) Self defense is for the situations where deescalation isn’t realistically possible – if you don’t defend yourself, you might be the one in no condition to appear in court afterwards.
Limiting self defense would encourage letting yourself get victimized.
I wonder if Grosskreutz would prefer to have shot Rittenhouse and gone to trial, rather than endure the extensive injuries, surgery, and physical recovery.
Attempting to deescalate a situation increases the likelihood that you’ll be the one to die.
> I wonder if Grosskreutz would prefer to have shot Rittenhouse
Yes, Rittenhouse was just quicker on the draw.
Grosskreutz tried surrender and back off at first, which would have worked, but he (incorrectly) thought Rittenhouse was going to shoot him and tried to shoot back. Only then Rittenhouse shot him.
What Grosskreutz would have preferred the most is neither being shot nor going to trial. His tragedy is that that would have been an option but he misjudged the situation.
> Attempting to deescalate a situation increases the likelihood that you’ll be the one to die.
Yes, although it depends on the nature of the threat. If it’s not real at all, then you can only die if you try (what you think is) self-defense, by losing the ensuing fight, and deescalation just means not attacking. That’s what happened to Grosskreutz, minus the dying, and probably Huber.
Rittenhouse, meanwhile, was dealing with a real threat, but was in the comparably “lucky” situation that after he tried deescalation and it failed, he was well-armed enough to still successfully defend himself at the last moment and not being the one who died.
It’s not pro-crime to belief the accused deserve their day in court, rather than be executed by armed vigilantes.
That’s just factually inaccurate, Torabi. None of the people Kyle shot were executed. They were all actively in the process of attacking him. Had Kyle been unarmed, he would either have been hospitalized or killed by his first attacker.
Your belief IS a pro-crime belief because you would prefer the victim to have been harmed more, so that the criminal could suffer less.
My belief is that we should try to avoid harming anyone. And that criminals should be tried in a court of law, not on the streets.
You seem to have decided who was a criminal and who was a victim, independent of their actions.
In Germany, last I read up on it, you’re screwed if you ever set foot in a martial arts club. Having any sort of paper record indicating that you might know martial arts prohibits you from ever defending yourself because either
a) You are using martial arts while wearing shoes, which makes you guilty of armed assault even if you are the defender.
or
b) You took your shoes off, which means, you had time to undo and take off your shoes, which means, it was not an emergency self-defense situation, making you at best, along with the attacker, guilty of causing a public disturbance; at worst, guilty of aggravated assault.
What if:
c) you normally go out barefoot
?
Odd in France not because :
1) The French Savate – French boxing (boxe Française) – use shoes
2) The situation is taken into consideration:
On street shoes perfectly normal , steel toed shoes not – using steel toed shoes to kick in street could lead to armed assault –
3) Kicking a downed disarmed man could be also considered as an assault
4) In French law key words are proportional use of force and immediate credible threat:
Shooting someone who threat us with a pistol with a shotgun is self-defense , shooting a raider fleeing after he robbed you ,attempted murder or murder.
Do you have a source for this? As a german, this is not my understanding of german self-defense law, which is actually quite permissible.
This is why the first thing we do is hang all the lawyers.
– Bill Shakespeare
Removing everyone who is professionally trained to read the law, only makes everyone who isn’t incapable of defending themselves from the powerful.
Is that the world you want to live in?
Bharda:
I think I would prefer a world in which the law was simple enough for the average person to comprehend it, and lawyers were unnecessary. The more complex the rules, the easier they are twisted to benefit some at the expense of others, to elevate some to power over others.
@Torabi:
Attempting to fit a complex world to simplistic rules not only doesn’t work, it both creates even more exploitable opportunities for bad actors, and opens the door to horrific – but simple – solutions to the complexities of human existence.
I do empathize, mind you, but while it is absolutely true that something really are simple, other things are very much not. Even worse, people often judge to be simple what is, in fact, merely intuitive to themselves. It often becomes a matter of perspective, and the good faith of the individual.
Where the specific matter of “let’s hang all the lawyers” gets its popularity, is in the frustration & resentment of the lay-person who finds their desires thwarted by application of the law. That desire may be for good or ill, but that’s the root of it. For every case of a malefactor avoiding justice due to some legalistic technicality, there is also a case of one being caught because the law was more thorough than they assumed.
That all being said, if you want a simplification that would both create a more equitable world, and also benefit everyone on the whole, then start by eliminating the idea of “fine or time.” Make it impossible for a rich person to buy their way out, and you’ll an immediate reduction in the amount of antisocial behavior in the world.
Lawyers don’t just interpret complicated laws, they also defend suspects being accused of breaking said laws, sometimes with serious and deadly penalties
*Citation Needed
If I recall correctly ou German neighbors are more lenient than us on this subject
An english translation of german code
German criminal code section 32 to 35
FOURTH TITLE: SELF-DEFENCE, NECESSITY AND DURESS
Section 32 Self-defence
(1) A person who commits an act in self-defence does not act unlawfully.
(2) Self-defence means any defensive action that is necessary to avert an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another.
Section 33 Excessive self-defence
A person who exceeds the limits of self-defence out of confusion, fear or terror shall not be held criminally liable.
Section 34 Necessity
A person who, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb, freedom, honour, property or another legal interest which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an act to avert the danger from himself or another, does not act unlawfully, if, upon weighing the conflicting interests, in particular the affected legal interests and the degree of the danger facing them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with. This shall apply only if and to the extent that the act committed is an adequate means to avert the danger.
Section 35 Duress
(1) A person who, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb or freedom which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an unlawful act to avert the danger from himself, a relative or person close to him, acts without guilt. This shall not apply if and to the extent that the offender could be expected under the circumstances to accept the danger, in particular, because he himself had caused the danger, or was under a special legal obligation to do so; the sentence may be mitigated pursuant to section 49(1) unless the offender was required to accept the danger because of a special legal obligation to do so.
(2) If at the time of the commission of the act a person mistakenly assumes that circumstances exist which would excuse him under subsection (1) above, he will only be liable if the mistake was avoidable. The sentence shall be mitigated pursuant to section 49(1).
Kiravok statement seems exaggerated…
I would be writing so much right now if not for my being in a blackout woth only a phone with 42% battery life at 1:30am :)
Considering French Law is Guilty Until Proven Innocent… Pretty lenient! :D
False.
That is propaganda but forward by people who benefit from social atomization, and are terrified that the impact of placing the right of the community not to be harmed above the right of the individual to, say, dump toxic industrial waste into the water supply, or fill sausages with sawdust, will lower their profits.
Thanks Bharda
False and insulting in the XIXth century you , me and witnesses , and me having the has the choice of arms.
1789 déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen
Article 9
Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable, s’il est jugé indispensable de l’arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s’assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.
english
Article 9
Any man being presumed innocent until he is declared culpable if it is judged indispensable to arrest him, any rigor which would not be necessary for the securing of his person must be severely reprimanded by the law.
And every French republic must be compilent with this…
did you know this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
Could I call you racist and bigot.
No… But unknowing, yes. And reading the wrong fictions…
I generally refrain from using Wiki as a primary source … too easily vandalised with bad edits by “reliable” sources.
That being said… Is Switzerland still following Guilty before Innocence?
Ok it’s a touchy subject for a French citizen this principe is a constitutional one , and Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 is a non-partisan* source of national pride… Like the constitution in US…
* democratic left an right agree about it.
French being an official langage in Switzerland I could answer :
Source droit fédéral de la confédération Suisse ( version Française)
Federal law of Swiss confederation (french version)
Art. 10 Présomption d’innocence et appréciation des preuves
1 Toute personne est présumée innocente tant qu’elle n’est pas condamnée par un jugement entré en force.
Any person being presumed innocent until he is declared culpable by an enforced judgement.
Also No … Every country in EU + Switzerland is pretty democratic…
For EU every country must enforce the European Convention on Human Rights…
Described in this EU site:
https://fra.europa.eu/en/about-fundamental-rights#charter
The main difference between EU and US about law is US is a common Law area* and EU is a civil law
area in EU only Éire – Republic of Ireland – use common law.
In North america only Quebec and Louisiana had somme items of civil law… due to their origins.
Se défendre avec de la technologie des “N” ? Je pense que ça, c’est une disproportion évidente entre les moyens de défense et la menace originelle hahaha
Ce n’est pas prouvé dans le cas de orbes de Sydney et la 3ème loi d’Arthur C.Clarke est fonctionne dans les 2 sens:« toute technologie suffisamment avancée est indiscernable de la magie » implique que toute magie assez puissante est équivalente à la technologie …
Un démon defiant ouvertement un seigneur démon ne doit pas être pris à la légère.
In the case of Sydney’s orbs the N origin is unproven , and the Clarke’s 3rd law apply in reverse “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” implies powerful magic is equivalent to technology .
Don’t make an assumption about the power level of a fiend willing to defy a powerful archfiend.
Its any country response, who you are kidding any shop keeper that is protecting there if a noncorporate business will defend there place
I may be mistaken, but I thought that Archon were police officers? Paramilitary Police, but police nonetheless?
They’re organised under the DoD, so they’re technically a military branch, not civilians. They chose to do it that way because it’s easier to move soldiers around within the military than it is for them to be discharged and then hope that they go and join ARCHON.
They’re a sort of hybrid between military and police. I got the impression that they’re supposed to have police powers.
This falls directly under Archon’s mandate, They are extra-terrestrials that have engaged in illegal activity, and she is required to deal with it. Sydney is trying to defuse the situation through talking, and this ass is being just that, an ass.
Plus a business can and will deal with an unruly customer either by security or more if it is required. he had a weapon and was pulling it to attack/intimidate the people inside the store. It’s no different to an “entitled Karen” slapping a checkout gal!
This could mean that Halo not specifically ID’ing herself as having authority (as opposed to merely having power enough to put him down) might be the sort of error that has her being watched over by Max as she writes out, “I will say, ‘ARCHON, you are under arrest’ once someone breaks the law in my view, once there is no imminent threat,'” one hundred times on the break-room whiteboard. (Note that in this case, that would mean she should have identified herself as a prelude to telling them to get out, but that she would NOT be in trouble for using a non-lethal, non-injurious restraint on the someone who pulled a weapon out–disarming him was necessary to ensure public safety, and that would be considered a higher goal than issuing the proper warning/ID.)
They are kinda like the Coastguard, but landbased (something about comatose possums… )
An off duty cop can still subdue someone trying to threaten and destroy private property, including their own.
Yep.
If they own the property totally have the right to defend there establishment if they are forced into a hostile environment (my first comment messed up was trying to say if it’s not a owned corporate property)
Oops, sorry, I didn’t see your response which mine is very similar to until I scrolled down from Changer’s comment.
Also a fan of Academy’s Undercover Professor? I only ask because your nick is the name of Moriarty / Rudiger’s organization in Letherbelk…
Well, at the very least, considering he was threatening her in a public space, she’s absolutely qualified to take care of this one under self defense.
Further, since they portaled in, and they obviously don’t know that on Earth it’s customary to not threaten the shopkeeper, they’re likely also to be considered illegal immigrants which would afford some protections, but not as much as a full citizen, and assulting a citizen is a big no no for an illegal immigrant. And that’s before you take into account her position in a federal defense-oriented organization.
Honestly, yea, she can basically just go to town on him at this point.
Why is the inside of Sidney’s comic book selling business constantly being described as public space? I thought business is private?
It is open to the public, it’s normal and expected that people can walk in; as opposed to if these Demons had barged into her home, which is private and having strangers walk in uninvited is immediately a reason to call the police.
habeas corpus
Having an inter-dimensional portal is waaaay better than a backhoe and 40 acres.
No corpus no problems
It boils down to Americans having exactly zero understanding of the distinctions between types of property.
That is, of course, entirely by design. It makes it much easier to confuse and control them.
Have the new pages not been showing up on the front page of the website for everyone else, or is it just me? The only way I can get to the new page is going back a page then going to the most last page.
I hope Sydney isn’t unintentionally flirting here, that could be very awkward later.
Everything has been working normally for me, so far. But I did just get an update for Chrome.
That happened with me the last two pages. Also the last three or four an oddity with the comments section where it will show a smaller number and then after refreshing show a larger number *the I assume correct number*. Which is worse on my phone as it seems to cut the number of comments down from ten to almost half the number I see on PC. Only site having the issue, so not sure on which end is causing the problem.
Incogneto window seems to fix it?
Which is bizzarre.
Caching issue, I think. Lately I have to force-refresh (ctrl+F5) a page to get new comments to show.
Am I the only one who thought “Option two is you still end up in the parking lot, but sodomized by your own shinbones.”
Sodomy, no matter the object or body part that is being threatened to be used, is probably not the best threat to deter a succubus, which I’m assuming the pink haired one is.
You just sodomize the other ones in the parking lot, and the succubus will follow by herself.
You are just supercharging the succubus with that strategy, not a smart move.
Just invert the threat for her: “If you don’t behave, no tentacles for you!”
I’m amused that Sydney’s initial takedown is done with one hand behind her back.
Sydney is the NPC the Adventuring Party met, that invited herself along for the ride, and refuses to get off of the ride until someone gets her another plate of chilli and hotsauce souffle. She’s the Chaos Incarnate NPC that became Main Character simply because the DM didn’t realize what they’d done, and the Party was all in for it, so the DM just kind of rolled with it. X-D
Potential strip names
“Coincidentally, the former church’s damage insurance DOES cover demonic incursion.
Oh no he diint.
Hellfire sale up in 3-2-
He has chosen… Poorly.”
Alternatives:
“Axe nicely, or take it outside.”
“Axe stupid questions, and find out.”
“Axe and you shall receive, pain and humiliations.”
“Break-a the glass, I break-a you face. Or arm.”
“Intimidation fail. Why the adventuring party needs a face.”
“Pickup your axe and follow me, untrained in diplomacy.”
“Not getting a 5 star Customer service rating.”
“While the hired security was elsewhere.”
“Three Demons walk into a comicbook shop, one brandishes an axe and…”
Considering a legal representation that deals with marketing, I imagine the security feeds are likely relayed to Archon, with trouble warning algorithms, that likely trip off so often they go ignored, or key individuals are distracted, exhausted resting, or busy due to results or aftermath of Lust auras. Unsure of elapsed time.
I was gonna go with “Comic-Book Chop” on account of the Axe
Yeah it might be a demon friendly zone maybe they’re also needs to be a sign of some sort that they understand.
Question is how would you do it politely?
Don’t do anything you might not be able to rue later
“Be polite, or else”
“If you lose, your ass is mine!”
Yeah, it’s like the US First Amendment: just because it’s a demon friendly zone doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want and expect to get away with it
I would love for Sydney get to keep that weapon and hang in on a wall in the shop as a trophy/warning.
As they say: to the victor goes the spoils, Axehole should be glad if she just takes his weapon and not his horns
In that case she should take the horn and do an incantation:
“Frome whence you came
you shall remain
until you are
complete again.”
She probably would not make a bong out of the horn afterwars though.
She definitely needs a warning sign of that sort. Despite her protests in the previous strip, she’s too easy to underestimate if you don’t know what she’s capable of. So it’s either put them on notice as soon as they enter, or waste a lot of time handing out painful lessons.
Wondering if acts-totally-normal demon guy is in a puppet king situation. He’s supposedly got the most skin in the game but also seems to care the least and just be along for the ride.
Alternately he’s either extra-sneaky, or actually a reasonable guy who thinks all of this could have been handled via e-mail (the e in this case stands for evil).
Succubus is like, “That is NOT how I usually see tentacles used! I don’t like that use for tentacles!”
Using tentacles for restraining only would be boringfor a succubus, unless it’s foreplay.
it might be a…bonding experience
Remember, consent, Ladies, Blokes, and non-binary Folkx….
Be
Darn
Sure,
Madam!
Technically, Sydney asked them a question, Bug-boy gave her the answer (in the form of a request :P )
You would think that anyone off Earth would know to watch out for superhero’s on Earth, and how dangerous ANY of them can be, but there’s always some jerk that thinks they are strong enough to bully their way through. Sydney has 2 lighthooks now, so she could scoop all 3 up and cart them outside without breaking a sweat. Then she can bubble up and “play” with Mr. Big-mouth if he won’t back down.
I hope Olivia is calling in back-up, Sydney’s strong, but having Max there will make it easier for all. and it would be easier to walk them to the portal to go home with. Even Hiro would be enough!
Might be calling for Dabbler. “Hey some demon asshole is here asking about your sister, and it’s not your friend Tom”
“Brandish vs Staying on Brand-ish”
Well – Sidney has warned ax-hammer guy that she knew martial arts. More or less – but does Chuck Norris need to introduce himself?!?
If he still wants to harm her – “He chose the wrong profession” then according to our civil courage coach a few years ago.
Of course he may try to sue her, being male – Oh crap.
But he’s got lucky Halo didn’t aim for his Family(?) jewels…yet.
Didn’t some idiot try to mug Chuck Norris because he assumed everything on TV was faked?
Yes. And Someone else tried to dropkick Arnold Swartzenegger for the same reason and the austrian ex mr universe /terminator barely even budged. :)
A real life incident of same sort occurred in France in 2016
https://www.politico.eu/article/french-armed-robbers-mcdonalds-news-police/
Two armed robbers had tried to hold up a McDonald’s in eastern France in the presence of almost a dozen off-duty GIGN members.
GIGN : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGN
Sounds like the sub-plot in some 1980’s cop movie (will let you guess which one: one hint, it involved a resurrected cop)
Wow! Worst possible place to confront her! Every particle of her OCD will be focused on “SAVE THE BOOKS! SAVE THE GAMES! SAVE THE MINIS! SAVE THE TOy… err “COLLECTIBLES”! ” For once she WILL have focus on not breaking anything but bodies. I imagine this is what its like if supers attack a museum or ritzy auction hall owned by a super… He/she will bend over backwards to prevent breakage, but they will take every dent or scratch out on the attackers -with interest!
I see Olivia on her phone to the Archon base, only to get a busy signal or is informed that Sydney will have to handle those demons herself…!
She’s talking to someone, she did ask if Sydney know the hotline to Archon. Who knows, maybe there’s a on-line number to call? She might of grabbed Sydney’s phone to make the call, although Sydney has called Dabs with her glasses before, and she might be broadcasting this “conversation” to Dabs cyber-eye as she’s pinning the a-holes arm.
Huh. I would have done something like, “Brandish? No, generic is good enough.”
Give him a wedgie for good measure.
He would need to be wearing panties for that to work…
And Kronachrome isn’t around to give him panties
Wait until she posts the surveillance footage on the demon version of you-toob.
Disarming somebody is not escalating. Putting a threatening customer in an arm bar is not escalating.
You know, you’ve put so many qualifications on the ‘slavery’ that succubi undergo, that it really falls into “you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means”…
Honestly we can probably toss it into the translation not found, or no specific equivalent in one language.
We have a foreign/alien concept being translated into English that might be related to the English term being used but is not exact.
A real world equivalent can be translating Greek to English, especially ancient Greek with (love), there were/are a wide variety of variations of love in Greek while English usually requires context rather than having a specific word for the version, or requires an additional word such as platonic or familial .
In fact even slavery in the real world had variations. Usually based on the relationship and rights of the slave to the enslaver. I doubt though outside of SM circles there is anything close to the version used by Succubi here in the real world.
It’s basically called slavery for historical reasons, because it’s a magical bond that used to constitute slavery.
You Could also have tried something with “bardiche” (basically a long handled axe, successor to battle axe, predecessor to halberd)
– he is Bad-ish at Brandishing his Bardiche, he had an unfortunate Axe-ident after ax-ing the wrong question.
–
Sigh!
Sometimes you just gotta twist some arms just to be taken seriously.
To be fair though, the radius & ulna should not be touching each other in the middle but it does tend to focus someone’s attention quite nicely. At any rate, I’d bet that the demon-dude doesn’t find this humerus at all.
bone puns are surprisingly resilient.
Wrong extrapolation.
The correct one is more along the lines of “His arm get’s broken, and he’s thrown out!”
He’s obviously not strong enough to escape the lighthook, not intimidating enough to manipulate Sidney, and it seems, not smart enough to realize just how deep he’s digging his own hole.
Isn’t Sydney in Texas or some such place, not France?
Based-a on her accent, she’s-a clearly in Italy.
I feel like holding her defensive orb would be a better use of Sydney’s free hand than pointing. Because, you know, the multiple hostile demons in front of her might attack and I don’t know how great that tentacle is for blocking attacks from different angles.
Just occurred to me that Sydney’s initiative bonus from hyperactivity finally came up! She beat someone on initiative in a situation where that was beneficial!
the demon girl is suddenly very short the way she is behind the counter.
Dave, you really missed an opportunity there in panel 1. It should have been “You break-a the case, I break-a you face!”