Grrl Power #139 – Safety pins, almost as good as unstable molecules
This is one of those pages that suffers from the weekly format. The “…what?” isn’t supposed to some dramatic cliffhanger, the end of this page just happened to be a good place to break the conversation, but having to wait a week to see what caught Sydney’s eye will make it far more dramatic that was intended.
In the meantime, marvel at Peggy’s incredibly spartan workbench which also happens to take a lot less time to draw than if she was a big slob. Don’t worry, this is just the tinker bench in her room, she has a proper one down in the armory.
For anyone wondering, they have a machine shop down in the vehicle bay and a… fabric… fabricator… is that just a tailor? A seamster shop? Whatever it’s called they can drop a design into a machine and it makes a sleeve they can slide over one of the choker blanks which is how they came up with Sydney’s so quickly. As soon as Arianna said “Halo” she was thinking of color schemes, icons, t-shirt designs and how you’d incorporate those orbs into action figures.
Edit:
Rebecca Cohen who does the fun GynoStar comic I’ve linked before is trying to get a Netroots Scholarship, which basically means she can attend an otherwise expensive conference and hobknob with other feminists and bloggers. Stop by and read her comic and if you’re so inclined, throw her a vote.
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.
Science… you made it rock
“What if Earth is just a prison for aliens that were thrown into a volcano millions of years ago and exploded with hydrogen…”
Ooh. You’re playing with fire there, DaveB. Hope the lawsuit-happy Cult of Happyology doesn’t pick this up. ;-)
One interesting rule for superpowers in this universe is given, based on the cast being different from Syd and Peggy: the superpowers must originate internally from the person in order for them to suddenly look so beautiful and buff. Sydney’s powers are externally sourced (her halo of orbs, although bonded to her) so she physically remains the nerdette that she is.
That is an interesting observation, glad someone else noticed that about innate powers vs gifted powers
They can’t sue for parodies. We can all thank Larry Flynt for that one.
Also it helps that’s not parody. It’s just what they believe. It would be like suing themselves.
Yeah, sometime I wonder it that cult was really just a way to squeeze money from the gullible or if it was meant as an example of Poe’s law.
It was the result of a $1000 bar bet between L. Ron Hubbard and Robert Heinlein over who could create a science-fiction religion IRL first. L. Ron won the bet.
Which makes the fact that it is an actually followed religion a very sad commentary on human gullibility.
And that can be said for all religions, it’s just that the older ones can be somewhat excused for building on a bunch of ignorant peasants and running on inertia and social pressures to the modern day, while Scientology is followed by a great many highly educated persons.
When people question my atheism, I usually need to explain very slowly and carefully how I’m just one more deity an atheist than they are.
there was actually research into a connection between intelligence and gullibility, and hte results showed that smarter people learn faster because they believe that “these people know something i don’t” so if the other person is intentionally misinforming them then the smart person will believe it more frequently.
Believing that made you feel smarter, didn’t it?
. . . and somewhere in the background a drummer does a sting; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_(percussion)
Except that it has been my experience that truly intelligent people know how to do their own research and verification of data than unintelligent people.
Not to mention, if you give any con even a few moments thought, it is rather transparent. That is why so much of advertising and religion is based on a “Do it NOW!!” mentality, so you don’t have time to analyse facts.
A good example of the “do it now” mentality: The Obamacare push through Congress without giving our representatives time to even read it, let alone debate it. Pelosi and her “we need to pass it in order to find out what’s in it,” INDEED!
Midnight, both sides have been using that trick for years. It’s one of the reasons nobody is happy with Washington.
I have not seen any research on that specific matter myself, as such I would be hesitant to casually dismiss what svnhddbst reports. Especially as he makes a very interesting point. I would be interested to check out the credibility of the research, as it sounds plausible.
Personally, I am aware of my limitations and requirements, so structure my own research carefully. Part of which is recognising that trust is implicit in the process. My areas of interest cover vast grounds. More than it would be practical for anyone to become expert in. So, it is essential to be able to judge whether specialists in each field of interest are trustworthy in their conclusions.
In doing that, my first line of defence is to obtain the expertise of people trained in just such a role. Professional science and technology correspondents, by example. Being my intermediaries to the scientists, I examine their credentials carefully.
To highlight the perils of choosing such poorly, it is worth mentioning interesting research that has been done on the matter. Taking all the English speaking newspapers and magazines (not differentiating between “serious” publications and those that have a lighter agenda) in the major English speaking countries published for just one week (a vast volume of data), they set their minions (err undergraduates) to looking for articles purporting to report science, technology or medical claims.
Further categorising them between those that just reported the research and those that made a recommendation or gave advice as a result (eg a headline saying “scientists claim you should eat more chocolate” is the latter, regardless of any clarifications which may come in small print).
The aim being to assess if each article reliably reported the underlying paper. To reduce subjectivity on the matter, they set the standard as being “would the information reported in the article itself pass the basic standards required to send a paper for peer review” (not to actually put it through such, just that it is sound enough to be submitted). Using the specific rules already laid out for such.
The results found being that the vast majority would not be fit for publication (from memory, but in the region of 60% – 80% depending on whether applying the tougher or more relaxed rules). Sloppy reporting degrading a paper that has passed the entire process, into material that is not even fit to be posted for consideration! Likewise, comparing any recommendations made found that a very high proportion were making claims that the original researchers did not. Quite often actually contradicting their conclusions!
So, I do take care in my reporters. Key points being appropriate qualification (a science or medical degree), actual experience within their field (the specific field being less important than the fact that they have made the transition from theory to practice themselves, and can more easily spot pitfalls that others might be making for themselves) and journalistic competence (other than not wanting to be bored myself, it is vital that they ask the key questions, which I would expect, when interviewing the scientists).
By this stage, I recognise that I am extending my trust in several ways. Amongst others, the biases and agendas that the hosting organisation have will be exerting subtle (or overt) influence and propaganda over the selection of material to review and their presentation of it. For instance, I generally trust the BBC. But they have their flaws. Tree-hugging hippies that they are. But, at least they make the appropriate attempts at journalistic impartiality, and do a fair job as a result. And their political bias can be adjusted for.
If my areas of interest were narrower, and my own academic background was appropriate to analysing the source material directly, it would make sense to cut out this tier of trust. As it is, they provide a vital role in sifting through the vast seas of research out there. Picking out items of interest that have potential ramifications for the future. Likewise in distinguishing between the credible (such as peer-reviewed papers, in a journal with an appropriate speciality) and the suspicious.
Good scientists are not always good communicators as well. And can often even fail to get their message across to even other trained scientists if they do not share specialities. So having somebody who can draw out their explanations in an understandable way, to clarify such when it looses the plot and to interrogate seeming inconsistencies is very helpful.
The first line of defence helps filter out the junk. Plus ensures that what does come through to your attention is of good quality. Obviously the second line of defence is to verify anything that is important, or which you notice the first line failed to investigate directly. Although time constraints can limit this. As can source papers that are not accessible without a credit card! This can be worked around by looking for independent debunking sources. But that likewise can hit the pay to view problem.
So sometimes, once you have done the legwork of ensuring your intermediary is credible, then you may have no choice but to trust that they are doing their job well. Subconsciously thinking “I trust this guy, of course he has checked out that the trials they are talking about have done the appropriate protocols, such as having a control group”. And such is reasonable, as you have heard him question such things frequently enough, that if he omits the boring preamble about such, it is because there are more important things to get across in the time available.
But if somebody chooses to deliberately break this chain of trust, it is actually very easy to do so. This just being one example of one that was exposed. There being quite a few others that I could give too.
Seeking grant extensions a scientist knows he will have problems, as his hypothesis has a fundamental flaw that has already been debunked by two earlier papers. To avoid this being spotted (or, at least, delay until after he has obtained publicity, and ensured his grant renewal) he publishes in a journal that is outside his speciality.
Close enough that it will pass scrutiny by diligent journalists, mind, being an apparently overlapping speciality. Unbeknownst to them though, the one area it has been chosen to not overlap is that of the known flaw. So the peer reviewers they had as established contacts, would be unlikely to pick up on that. And the rest of his research, protocols and the like were all sound enough to pass inspection.
The editor of that journal resigned when it became clear he had been deliberately hoodwinked in this way. To have gotten the position in the first place, he must have been reasonably clever. His very job is to ensure the worthiness of the research published. Plus he was obviously honourable, as he promptly accepted responsibility, rather than waiting to be pushed. Yet he was still fooled. Being smart and a responsible researcher does not make you immune to fraud.
One of the reasons Scientology ‘works’ is because it’s based on quasi-pesudo-scientific and psychological fads. Their members regularly go through processes like detox, and they use the ‘dianetics’ concept of exposure therapy, which is basically talking about your worst experiences and getting through and over them, in addition to whatever little fad might be out there. Like oxygen bars.
Their process works because they offer to their members stuff that has been proven to work, plain and simple, then they wrap it up in a religious package and call it quits till the next thing comes around that they can latch onto and call their own.
But those things don’t work. “Detox” is all nonsense, since that’s what the liver is for. There are a few kinds of detoxification procedures that work for very specific toxins, but there are no over the counter “detox” diets or substances that actually work. Scientology’s “Purification Rundown” has been shown to be unscientific, inaccurate, and potentially harmful, even lethal in a few cases.
“Exposure therapy“, at least in real psychology isn’t, “talking about your worst experiences and getting through and over them”, it’s exposing you to your phobias in a safe way so that you can get used to them and be less afraid of them. Furthermore, studies show that “talking about your worst experiences” over and over can actually reinforce trauma and increases the odds of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). So anyone doing that is just making things worse.
Scientology’s “therapies” generally don’t work when scientifically tested. Just take a look at the studies of their Narconon and Criminon “therapies” (read “sneaky religious indoctrination plans”, sometimes paid for with government funding).
So not only do those things not work, they can even make worse exactly what they claim to prevent.
I have what may be a genuinely unique world-view. So it is probably not worth trying to read implications into this, as I cannot be pigeon-holed in any existing category of thought. Having researched the current categories. The head of philosophy at a university agreeing with that assertion.
That said, your comment reminded me of the following:
Darwin introducing Evolutionary theory to the world caused a lot individuals to start using scientific thinking to prove or disprove the existence of God. Amongst them an atheist mathematician. Who came up with a surprising conclusion.
“I believe in God.”
When asked why he replied (and I paraphrase) “If I believe in God, and he does not actually exist, then there is no harm done. Whereas if I do not believe in God, but he does exist, then the implications for me are profound.”
Look up “Pascal’s Wager” to see why believing in god “just in case” actually works against you.
Sounds like pascal’s wager. It’s actually a false dichotomy: There are other options and chosing wrong does do harm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
Contextually, I was thinking of a piece about a contemporary of Darwin. But, clearly he was simply re-examining Pascal’s wager, as both you and DaveB spotted. Doubtless my source would have mentioned it, but I tend to fixate on the nugget of information that interests me, and will simply have forgotten that ancillary part.
Sadly, my memory for names is abysmal. Which is one of the reasons I love this comic – having the who’s who panel. Compounding that problem, I also have an interest in a vast range of subjects, so find it impractical to remember all the peripheral information for every item. So the best I can do is to try and ensure I understand the key information at the time of learning it. To allow me to place it within my mental model of associated interesting ideas, with reasonable confidence.
I find it curious that the clip, having gone to the lengths of showing that there are an infinite number of possible “bets to place” should choose to conclude that it is best to exclude most of infinity.
Anyhow (and quite truthfully) I have found a solution to the problem, even when you expand the scope from a binary option to an infinity of choices.
Keeping to the (rather unnecessary) analogy of gambling on a horse race here is my answer to the final question of the clip:
Make mine an each-way bet.
Stepping away from the now solved analogy, yes, there is a way to apply that to the real world. It just requires looking at the problem from a different angle. One which allows solution despite individual dogma which might seem to preclude it.
There is an argument against Pascal’s wager I’ve not heard used in its context so it may be just me: That we even need to make the bet in the first place. He says ‘believe in god just in case. If you do and he doesn’t exist you lose nothing but if he does you gain everything.’
But really, what is it that is gained? What if god does exist and I don’t believe, what do I lose? An eternal afterlife? Why would I need that in the first place? The promise of a second life is a great comfort to those who fear an ending to this one but it’s not a fear I share. I share Mark Twain’s outlook on death: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
If I’m wrong and there is a god and he shows up while I’m in limbo and says ‘so, you going to take me up on that offer now?’ I do believe I would decline: “Thanks but no thanks, I’ve had my fair share of time, no need to get greedy.”
One must consider that Pascal‘s Wager only encompasses Christianity. Logically one must also include all other religions (all things being equal) just in case as following the same logic. So in essence you need to be sure to practice all religions you can find so all bases are covered. Within the logic of the wager.
So I would say that just on that alone, Pascal‘s Wager is a waste of limited time. Unless you accept reincarnation. But that is another can of mind worms.
@Night-Guant
Ah yes, but didn’t the Judeo-Christian god say: You shall have no other gods before Me. & I the Lord your God am a jealous God?
If the Christian god IS the one true god including any of the others will only piss him off and earned you a trip to hell.
Then of course there’s the question of whether it’s enough to simply believe. Most religions have a set of rules you have to follow to get into Heaven. Jesus himself was asked “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” The answer was NOT ‘believe and pray.’
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV
It takes as much faith to believe in no gods, as it takes to believe in one or a thousand. Respect.
that’s a completely false answer with no facts to back it up and made only to make youself feel better. if you want to fight this fight bring facts are don’t even try thank you.
“Faith” in this context means “believing something for no sufficiently good reason”.
Atheism, meaning that you do not have a belief that gods exist, is not “believing in something”, therefore it takes no faith at all to not believe in something.
It’s like the old joke, if atheism is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair color.
This mistake largely comes from the mistaken idea that atheists have an active belief that gods do not exist. While that may be true for a minority of atheists, known as gnostic atheists, the vast majority of atheists do not claim to be certain that gods do not exist, and these are known as agnostic atheists. It’s false to assume that just because I don’t accept one stance that I therefore endorse the opposite stance. For example, if I say, “I don’t like dogs,” it’s false to assume I must therefore hate dogs, because I could actually be completely neutral on the dog issue.
Heck, babies are implicit atheists, since they have no belief in gods, which is simply because they have no concept of gods. All it takes is not holding that one belief to be an atheist.
The point is, it takes faith to believe in gods which haven’t shown sufficient evidence of their existence, but it takes no faith at all to not accept claims for which there isn’t sufficient evidence.
HiEv, you need to look into a dictionary more.
If someone does not explicitly believe “there is NO God”, then they are not an atheist.
Similarly, an “agnostic atheist” is a contradiction in terms, since the proper definition of an agnostic, means someone who has not decided whether there is a god or not.
What you’re repeating aren’t the definitions we use to describe our positions, they’re merely the common misconceptions based on the narrowest definitions.
Please read:
Wikipedia – Atheism “Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.”
Wikipedia – Agnosticism “Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.“
You are in error. Science fills the blanks that gods inhabit. Or the dark areas illuminated by searching, analyzing and categorizing. No religion there, no empty blind belief either. Don’t fool yourself yet again with that dead dog issue.
From what I understood, it was a $20 bet, not a $1000, but the rest is true, nonetheless.
Sounds a lot like the plot of the first “Wildcards” book…aliens release a virus called the “wildcard” on Earth, which in most cases kills you horribly, but in some cases keys in on your subconscious and gives you powers based on your personality.
Thus with the superpowers could come the superboobs…
You beat me to that. That’s exactly what came to my mind.
Because with great power, comes great hooters.
The “Aliens testing biological weapons on Earth” is a direct reference to Wildcards. :)
who also wrote a game of thrones series. both series are cool. i happened although to read the comics for wildcards before the books.
Actually, the “Wild Cards” universe was written by multiple authors. This meant that the quality of the books varied a bit, though most of them were pretty good at first.
But wasn’t “Wild Cards” started by just one or two authors way back when?
… because the virus resides upon the sternum of females (and groin of males), thus the bodies’ anti-contamination processes drives a lot of swelling in the region?
I read that one BTW.
I confess when I read that I totally assumed it was a highlander 2 reference XD
Other than the title, I have erased that film from my memory. I advise you to do likewise. The world would be a better place if it had never come into existence!
There was only one!
The tagline also refers to the movies… “There can be only one!”
They look good in uniform!
Also, yeah, Sydney, what’s up? Or down, as the case may be? :-?
Maybe the choker is choking her.
That is a very impressive piece of scientific explaining.
I really love how this comic’s world has comics. Are you actually going through the tropes and incorporate them in or does it just happen?
I find the sort of stuff I enjoy writing fits fairly well into existing tropes, but that’s because I was raised on all the stuff that informs those tropes. My favorite thing is inverting tropes though, so expect that as well. :)
An inverted trope is still a trope, just with a different name. The inverse of a buttmonkey is a Mary Sue, as an example.
A lot of people forget that ‘tropes’ were around a lot longer than that stupid website (they used to even have another name: cliches)
A cliche is only a type of a trope. A trope is a storytelling tool. A cliche is an overused storytelling tool. Conflating the two is a good way to ruin your enjoyment of fiction.
the joys of subtly redefining terms every decade or so.
And how did they already have a neck thingy ready for her, when they just came up with the name Halo? Or is it 2 minute work to make with all the tech in it?
Good catch. If it was 2-minute tech, you’d wonder why they don’t have an insta-seamstress on hand to give Sydney her uniform.
Then again, maybe that choker is just a completely mundane one, without any tech at all, easily made at almost a moment’s notice for appearance’s sake. A complete uniform would be a different case.
Or she was given one of Harem’s spares.
Thought that myself.
Harem’s collar is blue though, not white
And a different ‘H’ shape, kinda like –||H||–, rather than Sydney’s –H–
They probably have a stockpile of blank replacement “neck thingys” on hand in case one gets damaged and just print whichever logo(?) is need on the surface.
Orrrrrr. . . we could just read what Dave wrote: Whatever it’s called they can drop a design into a machine and it makes a sleeve they can slide over one of the choker blanks which is how they came up with Sydney’s so quickly.
There we go.
Yeah, there we go rushing to get a comment in before we take the time to really enjoy all of Dave’s hard work.
:)
Or maybe, somebody made it from a few strips of colored vinyl tape. It’s not a complicated design, and they could always make a real one later.
Duct tape….can do anything, and they sell it in 50 different colors and patterns at a store near you. :)
The Mythbusters have whole shows on duct-tapes uses. Everything from sailboats to bridges. They even made a plane out of it once.
My personal fave was when they (literally) chopped a car into MANY pieces, duct-taped it back together and drove it through an obstacle course.
My favorite was where they blew up a full cementtruck, but that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with ducttape
If you have not already seen it, You might be interested in my comment yesterday regarding Duct tape and the Mythbusters.
You guys want to know about Duct Tape, you need to watch the Canadian show Red Green. It’s like… well, it’s hard to describe, but there are a lot of duct tape jokes in it. In fact, the Mythbusters episode about Duct Tape had a clip from Red Green in it with two cars held together with several rolls of the stuff.
DUCT TAPE: The handyman’s secret weapon!!
ARRGGH!
OK, you guys said “duct tape” enough to trigger my pet language peeve. The product under discussion was invented to have a water “proof” tape (which is actually only water resistant) by the military in World War 2. Due to the need for this water resistance, the resultant tape was called Duck Tape. For duck work, this particular tape is actually not very good. In fact, it is against fire code in most areas in America. An adhesive aluminum tape is designed for duct work. So PLEASE, put the Duck back in the tape! (Oh great, I’ve just created an avian bondage image!)
… … I hate you now…
@dragontech64: The other reason it’s called ‘Duck Tape’ is because it’s made with duck feathers. (At least, in the original version.)
Sorry, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers. I was quackers to think that I could spell a branded product without looking it up. I better duck out of this conversation, before you get the urge to tar and feather me!
Red Green: If the women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Sorry, I meant to link directly to the comment, not just to the page. The correct link hopefully is:
direct link
Yeah and as if to prove that point – I only just now spotted the safetypins.
I told you goofballs that it was Syd’s choker. But did you listen? NOOOOO!
When?
Here
You mean something like an embroidery machine? If they don’t have one themselves they might have the local shop on speed-dial. Though I know of knitting machines I don’t know if computerised pocket looms exist, but hey, maybe.
Or one of those transfer things? Means you can print onto special paper (inverted like in a mirror, like), or perhaps cut lettering by hand, then transfer onto cloth, say by ironing. Works plenty fine for temporary jobs, like for a press conference and a few days before the real one comes in.
I’m actually a bit more interested in the difference in uniforms.
…or perhaps they have a specialized super that makes such things: “The Weaver”
My guess is that in panel 5 Sydney has just spotted something to do with Peg’s prosthetic leg. And she’s thinking she just signed on to a job with real risk to life & limb.
Ooh, I’d say that’s a pretty fair bet right there. Perhaps Peggy will initialy convince Sydney that her and Dabbler are making a combat android just to see if she wigs out.
Being ex-military, she has probably added a few enhancements. A ‘TOE’ missile perhaps?
[groan]
Hey, the biography says Peggy has blue eyes. They’re yellow here.
…and they don’t seem to have been blue for the past few months either.
Actually, I think that is a version of green eyes.
They’re supposed to be Hazel, though really the color I picked looks more like a green olive with a yellow highlight. There are a number of corrections needed on the cast page actually.
Like maybe finding Dabblers second set of breasts?
2 sets was Dablers original design, 1 set is the new one.
The extra ones in her profile photo were just when she was trying out the latest range in cybernetic breasts. But she has gotten out of that phase now.
She got tired of the nipple-lasers frying her lovers/meals.
nice quote pics nyone know what it says all i can read is headshot
Zooming to 500% I can read the following:
ADSHOT
squiggle squiggle
Perhaps it is a specialist weapon to shoot TVs when the adverts come on? I think Elvis had one of those. Perhaps Peggy is in contact with the aliens who took him? If so, they probably speak Squigglish.
More than likely, it’s supposed to be the last part of the word Headshot.
Considering Peggy’s a sniper and all.
I kind of want to see what the subtitle (subtext?) of this particular Demotivational/Motivational poster really is.
There was an actual one. I think it said “Headshot: For when you have to REALLY reach out and touch someone”
It’s supposed to be one of the demotivaitonal posters in CS-Office from Counter-Strike Source, but I could not for the life of me find picture of one with image search.
Really? I found one in 5 seconds; https://rlv.zcache.com/headshot_poster-r31591a63d3664686b80842d9f16d74c1_axvp_8byvr_216.jpg
Cool.
Thanks.
My guess is a motivational (or demotivational) poster with the title “Headshot” maybe “Headshot for when you really have to shut them up!”.
“Headshot: for when they beg you too often for you to give them ‘head'”
Headshot: For when the guy in the movie theater just won’t shut up.
Peggy’s “Headshot” poster in panel 1? “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, complain.”
i played CS a lot and that is not true at all. truth is Those who can do, those who can’t, scream hacker.
Maybe by gaining super-power Sydney will get some curves in the long run. Most super-sized heroines are life long power- wielder after all, so that could stand to logic.
Also, I love the lighting effects of the orbs. Never noticed until now but it’s great work !
Not likely.
In the first place, Sydney’s powers are based externally, not in herself or within her body, but in her orbs. They may be bonded to her, but her powers are contained in them and not in her.
Second and more importantly, that would destroy the main premise of the comic: nerdette who’s a superheroine but without the so-called “Most Common Superpower” trope while surrounded by an entire team of people who have it. The jokes we have now are all derived from that.
Maybe she will be affected. Maybe her boobs grow to an A-cup. :P
Of course, it is possible for something like that to happen *temporarily* to her. I’ve seen similar stuff in superhero comics with a more serious tone, such as in She-Hulk (although it was the reverse scenario).
It’s also possible Syd’s going to get a lot more exercise with this job. Or course she’s not going to develop the Marvel Body Mass Index but she will lose the flab and gain some tone.
That will make her prettier, but she’s not so much going to look like Max, Harem or even Heatwave (with powers off)- just a leaner version of herself or more like Perggy.
What flab?
Agreed. Last week it did not look like she was “pinching more than an inch”. In no way would I describe her as “flabby”. Although she may feel that way by comparison to super-humans, waif catwalk models and pro-athletes. But down that path lies anorexia and bulimia.
What she has is probably a healthy ratio, for someone in a sedentary role. Although, granted, she will loose some of it if she goes through the equivalent of basic training.
Yeah, at the most she will become toned, but in no way become buffed (and certainly not the girl-abs so beloved by Spinns)
Actually, if getting super powers give you a perfect body, where do I sign up?
You raise an interesting point: *How* do you gain powers in the Grrl Power universe? We have Sydney’s origin and we barely know anything: she found weird artifacts in the Florida Keys, that’s it. It’s still a mystery. We’ve got Math’s word that he’s the latest and best in a long line of martial artists, but he may not even be a true super (Archon can’t tell even though Math can take on almost everyone on the team).
For that matter, said superpowers have to be internal and directly affecting the super to give her or him a perfect body, or you’d be just like Sydney.
Math isn’t a super, he’s just rilly rilly good at what he does (not the best, just rilly rilly good :P)
You forgot Maxi: she woke up one day and blasted a hole in her neighbourhood (before then, she was just the local Golden Girl :P)
The inference is she gained her powers as she came of age and before then was more like Sydney mind and body. There have been hints she was once a nerd and had much smaller assets(?).
Being a super shouldn’t come at the occlusion of being a nerd, she just moved into a different sphere of influence and her nerdage was simply neglected but not forgotten (just look at how quick she come out with ‘Ioun Stones’ for the Orbs)
I can’t help but stare at Syd’s bare shoulder in panel 2…
I think that is Sandy’s hand as she hooks up the choker.
Ah. You’re probably right.
I think that’s actually Sandy’s hand as she adjusts the fit of Syd’s new choker . . . [and as I type this I’m just now seeing David has already said the same thing – rats!]
What is with the chokers anyways? They make me think of dog collars. . . . *insert ominous music here*
Dave has said they’re throat mics; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone
No, a dog is a hero of another webcomic. Okay, she is actually a wolf.
And another.
OMG! An update. I guess you subscribe to the RSS feed or some such? I don’t but check periodically, and even very recently there had not been any change for about a year. Glad it is active again.
I met him at the last A-kon and we talked a bit, I noted the similarity of the bangs of our main protagonists. I keep an eye on his page via RSS. I know he had to take some time off due to a repetitive stress injury he was aggravating by drawing, but it seems he’s back on it now.
I should get around to changing my reader. Google Reader being due to shut down sometime. I have gotten hold of a couple of different reviews of alternatives. I have been putting it off, as I hate having to break in new bits of tech, when my existing arrangements work just fine.
Can anyone narrow the field by suggesting (free) readers which would be fairly idiot-proof for the following uses?
Obtaining science and tech news articles from various sources. Plus radio podcasts on similar subjects, as well as comedy. And (why I thought it might be a good idea to get advice from this readership) I will start clicking on those weird “RSS” buttons on a variety of comics.
*Eyeballing the one further up this page for a start*
I do all my reading through RSS as well, and I have yet to find a decent substitute. I know a lot of people have moved to Feedly, I see it climbing the ranking in my analytics, but it wasn’t customizable enough for me.
I’ve had pretty good luck with “Vienna”: https://www.vienna-rss.org
That looks nice but it’s standalone and also Mac. Standalone isn’t… necessarily a deal killer but Mac is since I don’t have any OSX devices.
Thanks for the comments. I should have said that I am using a PC with Windows 7, and Google Chrome, if that makes any difference, for any further suggestions.
Hey DaveB, thanks great link to Paradigm Shift, just trawling its archives now. That must be the fifth or sixth one linked from the commentary or comments that was new to me and was well worth an archive dive!
And since it doesn’t get said often enough, hitting your schedule every week with consistently good art is way better than rushing it or having a whacky schedule, so keep it up I’m really looking forward to see where the story takes Sydney and co :)
Thanks! I should probably give Paradigm Shift a proper shout out up in the comic comment, I guess I was waiting until he was updating regularly again.
What if the hyper-intelligent mice running everything just got bored waiting for the question for 42?
Oh good, somebody else here reads Douglas Adams.
Read his first book. Got bored halfway through the second, when he bogged down on Zaphod Beeblebrox. Still, I have enjoyed the BBC radio version and television series. Haven’t bothered with the movie, though.
Interesting to note that the choker shares the same colour-scheme and general style as Sydney’s T-shirt on that same page she got her nickname: https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/852
Not sure if that’s brilliance, laziness or unoriginality of Arianna’s part.
Let’s call it brilliance on my part, even though I just noticed that too. :)
Likely you subconciously influenced yourself :)
Hmm, I think I have heard something similar to Panel 3 before. Science podcasts or my and Adams’ ramblings from last week. Actually, it is possible to have a mutation cause a wide-ranging effect. Individual protein-generating genes are managed by control genes, which turn on and off groups of genes at a time, such as a control gene that gets activated when to much sugar is in the blood and turns on the genes that generate insulin.
Control genes are in turn managed by architect genes. These ones manage the development and timing of large structures. Turning off an architect gene and entire structures disappear. Turn it back on and big things happen again. Humans having fur or not, as opposed to just this light body hair, is thought to be controlled by an architect gene. Turn on a particular architect gene and apes (including humans) will grow a tail. These are mutations that we see occasionally in humans.
I know, most people do not make a hobby of evolutionary biology.
Sorry to be off topic, but how often do I meet an evolutionary hobbist?
In your opinion, the three pony races of the My Little Pony universe…
They can’t be the result of evolution?
Ok… I can see EarthPony to Unicorn…. They’re super ponies.
But Pegasai….? The four limbs to six limbs change is too big a jump.
Oh… Back to Sydney… They’re in a sub-set universe where they are fictional characters?
My Little Pony is obviously a “created” universe. This means that there is Creator who left clear evidence of his meddling. “Ponys” likely would have never evolved.
Or perhaps it is the other way around, they all started as pegasi and some lost their wings because flying is a great waste of energy…
You will be either pleased or disturbed to note that there is already a My Little Pony Evolution chart.
Ponies are a created species, created by a loving Creator who made them perfect embodiments of adorableness! Where are the intermediary forms between the wingless pony form and the non-wingless? What is the evolutionary point of the wings when they are clearly aerodynamicly unable to support the mass of a pony? Pegasi obviously use a very narrowly defined form telekensis to achieve flight. Meanwhile the unicorn ponies can not use their telekensis to fly. What is evolutionary point of cutie marks?
cultural development, all new borns are marked with a design provided by the mare and a seer as the childs true name or identity based on what destiny has set to occur.
And remember that Twilight Sparkle got her wings after another ultra type zapped her with transformative energy that brought out the dormant genes and accelerated growth of wings to make her too an ultra type of pony.
Earth Ponies aren’t the ancestors of unicorns, any more than chimps are the ancestors of humans. They’re just adapted to different niches.
I wouldn’t even say the earth ponies are worse off: in a pre-civilisation environment, being able to make food is a great survival trait, and telekinesis could end up being a colossal waste of energy.
Pegasi having wings is weird, though. If you wanted to explain it in evolutionary terms (for a fanfic or something), you could point out that they’re not the only six-limbed animals around in the MLP universe (gryffons spring to mind). Maybe the ponies’ and gryffons’ common ancestor had wings, and some of the ponies just lost them as they weren’t useful any more. X-rays of unicorns might show small vestigial wings attached to their spine.
Or they could be an engineered race, in which case all bets are off. *shrug*
One present here. Although, like Osk and Dabbler, I like to dip my toe into many different fields. As an example this is what I had been looking up this morning, before the update:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)
Due to still thinking about some of the implications from the various discussions on genetics we had been having last week.
As an amusing co-incidence, it has a section entitled “The origin of supergenes“. Although, as you might expect, it is referring to real world biology and not x-ray vision or the like.
In short that link shows that you can have two different types of creature, within a single population. . For instance queen bees are simply the larvae of regular bees that are fed royal jelly, and grow into a very different form. And the differences between the two are a lot more than accounted for by just a single gene.
Humans are actually polymorphic. Each of us having different blood types. Who has which, being determined genetically, rather than environmentally.
So the unknown difference between humans and Grrl Power natural supers may be down to polymorphism. A single species which genetically encodes two (or more) distinct forms. The trigger for choosing which form is expressed possibly being either genetic or environmental.
If the latter is the case, then every baby in the human population has the potential to grow up as a super, if exposed to the appropriate environmental trigger. And different triggers might cause different variant forms to be expressed (especially if it is a combination of genetics and environmental triggers). Explaining the variety of powers.
Although it does not explain why humans have powers but animals do not (unless they do, and that just has not been mentioned yet). So one of the exotic options, such as alien tampering, would still be in the running for how humans became super polymorphic in the first place.
That’s kinda like why you never see zombie animals (not sure if Jack the Monkey from the Pirates movies counts, as they seemed to be more skeletons than zombies)
Seems to me you are speaking of epigenetics,/b>. A new field. An alternate form dictated by environmental factors. So in essence these super versions are a biological reaction to dangerous times. Don’t know what the trigger or triggers account for it but DaveB may be working on it right now as a kind of meta arc to his entire story. As background.
Actually, since my hobby is ‘everything’, I do, sort of. One of the more interesting things was that there is a large body of molecules, prions among them iirc, that seems to have its own code and is not directly linked to dna (a bit unsure there) but that functions to gloss over mutations in ‘active’ DNA (as opposed to the inactive mentioned in the comic) The effect can be compared to reading a sentence with a printing error. If it’s not in an obvious place, your brain fills it in as if the correct letter is in place. The sentence is completely comprehensible, the printing error or mutation doesn’t prevent the correct message from being submitted or task being performed. The prions twist ‘faulty’ molecules the right way aroun so they still perform their intended task for instance. Only if something causes the ‘security’ to be distracted such as environmental changes, do mutations get a chance to express hemself.
This was about 5 to 10 years ago, so old news for anyone seriously studying the field, which is not me, and definately not old news for anyone holding on to biology taught in… high school I gues it would be? sorry, different school system here. DNA as a ‘blueprint of life’ is old news and partly discarded at least, there is too much other stuff having a hand in it too
anyway, the throath things (yes, I read comments a bit, they are mics)… lots of h’s around. Halo, Harem (x5), Heatwave… did I miss any?
Wow. Just …. wow.
Probably I’m reading way way too much into this but, if true, the implications (to me) are rather awesome. It seems to prove that “Life” (especially ‘Advanced Life”) was never an ‘accident’ in the Universe (as some folks believe), but as fundamental to it as fusion.
Or just inevitable given how molecules interact with each other.
That’s not exactly right. It looks like you’re confusing some things together.
First of all, prions are self-replicating misfolded proteins, that reproduce by changing some particular correctly folded proteins in an organism into copies of itself. Prions are the cause of diseases like mad cow disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and Kuru. So, prions are not a good thing.
As far as a “large body of molecules, prions among them iirc, that seems to have its own code and is not directly linked to dna”, it sounds like you might be referring to epigenetics? It basically includes anything that changes gene expression without modifying your DNA. And yes, prions are epigenetic.
Now, cells do have several ways of dealing with mutations. The simplest ways are apoptosis, where the cell basically self-destructs, and senescence, where the cell goes permanently dormant. However, since DNA strands come in pairs, some mutations can be corrected by copying from the other strand. There are a couple of different DNA repair mechanisms in the cell.
What you’re describing sounds sort of kind of like translesion synthesis (TLS), but you have the mechanism and what it does wrong. Basically if there is something like a collapse in the stairs of a “DNA helix staircase”, TLS allows the cell to get past the broken stairs instead of just stopping. It doesn’t necessarily fill in the correct letters, and in fact, it often assumes the wrong letters with certain kinds of damage (in E. coli, for example, TLS usually guesses “A” for any damage). However, it does work well enough that it’s better than simply stopping protein synthesis when a DNA lesion is encountered.
In any case, I’m just glad that all of these clumsy and flawed processes for DNA replication work well enough most of the time for us to exist. It almost gets scary if you study enough to know how poorly it really works.
first of all, thanks for the word protein, I just couldn’t get it in my head and yes it’s epigenetics. However, one thing I am sure off, though I can’t remember the example given, was that prions are vital to your functioning. Yes, there are some disseases, which are caused by prions. If the wrong prion gets to the wrong place, results can be bad. Very similar to various bacterial strains of e. colli, common in your intestines, which you don’t want anywhere else, but you don’t want to do without either. I do remember the basic message. prions have a direct influence on how you devellop and how you function, but are not encoded in the DNA. Maybe the DNA is there to provide prions with the right proteins so they can make everything tic? no clue, but they perform an important task. lots of important tasks.
for ‘design’ supporters, I have to admit, no proof against it, in a way, except for a “no need for a designer” which doesn’t mean there is non. However, if there is a designer god, it was definately not one skilled in such things. One of the funniest examples I read about is that there is a virus inside you! Well, the DNA that is. Interupted in a way to keep it from being active. Only one part is ever used, and it’s vital for you being here, as it stops the immune system from attacking the ‘virus carrier’, most bacterial and viral agents have something like that. In this case, it is used to prevent the immune system from the mother from attacking the foreign DNA from the father in a fetus. If there was a designer, why not just put in that little bit? No, just put in the whole thing, right? too much effort to seperate it from the rest. If that is the case, god has a work ethos comparable to the (below) average office worker on Friday, 4 PM after a busy week.
Oh, on the later comments on Pascal’s Wager, if a god does exist and you go through life like that, for meeting god after death, I’ll quote Pratchett: “This is what we think of mister smart pants in these parts.”
“Why not?” is rarely enough to religions
If you want some good information about hard science one source is “SciShow” on Youtube.
Example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1bZEUgqVI
I’m not sure where you got the idea that prions are helpful and/or necessary to human functioning, but it’s incorrect. Prions twist functional proteins into copies of themselves, and those copies make more copies, and so on. All of these copies turn into amyloid folds, misshapen protein structures that cause disease. There is some work suggesting that some types of prions in some fungi might not be harmful, but even that is debated. All of the evidence we have so far shows that prions in the human body are not only unnecessary, they’re harmful. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post some links.
I wonder if you’re thinking of the “chaperone” proteins that JP mentioned below. They’re proteins that assist the folding of other proteins into the correct shape. This is kind of the opposite of what a prion does, in that prions are proteins that fold other proteins into an incorrect shape, that’s identical to their own.
As for having virus DNA in the human genome, we have DNA from not just one virus, but bits and pieces of many viruses in our DNA. Endogenous viral elements (EVEs), DNA sequences that come from a virus found within the DNA of non-viral organisms, are actually quite common in all species. These endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) make up nearly 8% of the human genome, and are made up of around 98,000 different fragments of viral DNA. Viruses have actually been quite helpful in the evolutionary process, since they can end up transporting chunks of DNA from one organism to another in this way.
As for the design argument, yeah. If you look at individual organisms from the tiniest elements, like their DNA, to the largest elements, like their anatomical layout, it shows everything from stunning brilliance to forehead slapping stupidity that could only come from a non-sentient bottom-up process like evolution. No “intelligent” designer would build a chromosome from scratch and make it look exactly like someone had glued together two chromosomes and left in most of the extra stuff in that indicates that they were was once two separate chromosomes. Nor would any “intelligent” designer make a nerve that goes all the way from the brain, loops down around the heart, and then goes back up to the throat near the base of the skull for no good reason… especially in giraffes (it’s like using 15 feet of extension cord to get somewhere a few inches away).
There’s simply no way there’s a designer that’s simultaneously that incredibly lazy and also creates 400,000 individual species of beetle. And it’s absurd to think that any single being could make such occasionally brilliant designs and obviously stupid blunders at the same time. (Who thinks installing a sewage system in a playground is a good idea? ;-) ) Evolution explains all of these things though, and that’s its strength.
The “playground,” as you call it, did not start out as a playground. Look at the fishes. The muscles used to excrete eggs and sperm as well waste need some structure, like a firm pelvis, in order to do their work more effectively. As we move to the land and internal fertilization, these structures get adapted to the new circumstances. The male need to have reproductive organs near the pelvis decreases, but the females’ need remains, or in the case of placentals, increases. Keeping the male stuff in the pelvic region make meeting the female’s requirements easier. Waste elimination still is helped by having some bones to push against, so don’t bother moving it.
Oh, you were arguing against there being a supreme creative being in charge of designing everything. I wonder if He just said, “Okay, that should get things started. Now, let’s see what happens.”
He did not need to tell Noah about His last major extinction events: a big rock to the Yucatan 65 million years previous (give or take a few decades) which wiped out pretty much anything not burrowed in the ground, and an even bigger rock that wiped out 95%-99% of all life about 252 million years previous to his time. He just warned Noah about a big flooding event in the local region.
I can assure you that not a single nice, worthy member of the intelligent dinosaurs failed to be evacuated from Earth before the impact.
Quite handy for us that it did happen, mind, otherwise we would likely still be furry little egg stealers. Although it would be preposterous to propose that an event 65 million years ago might have had intended as a side-effect. That would be a most mysterious way of working.
By the way, I have no bones to pick (or should that be fossils?), with the scientific explanations. They are perfectly rational and reasonable. But just because you are satisfied with them does not mean that folks who have other world views need to change theirs to match yours.
You (speaking generally, please do not take it personally, I have no wish to insult and genuinely respect your opinions) judge things based based on scientific scrutiny, whereas others place a greater weight on other criteria. Faith being just one amongst others. I do not feel that any one need take precedence over another. Each has its own strengths, purposes and impact on the world.
Different ways of thinking about the world come and go. The memes come into existence, if they have utility, they spread, if they do not, they die out. Those that survive must also be adaptable. If society changes they need to be able to change likewise. Those which do not evolve a method to defend themselves against more aggressive memes can also be under threat of extinction.
You only need go back a handful of generations and what we now consider scientific thought did even not exist. Various forms of rational thinking did, of course, under one name or another. Proponents of which often believing that theirs was the best, and the only sensible way of living life. Any particularly successful society promoting its preferred memes as being the ideal for others to aspire to.
Scientific thinking is a very powerful tool for accelerating the rate of innovation. As such, we worship it. It gives us televisions, aeroplanes and medicines. Who would not think it wondrous? The trouble is that the meme is becoming all powerful. Those three examples were chosen randomly, but look at how the meme is using each.
Television is used to spread scientific thought. Aeroplanes transport those who advocate it everywhere on the globe. Medicines allowing them to live longer and in ever greater numbers. Anyone who wishes to promote the meme need only point at any one of them and say “See, this is the result of my preferred meme. Your meme contributed nothing to it, and is therefore worthless in comparison to mine. You must abandon yours. Bow down and worship mine!”
Ok, I may have paraphrased slightly.
Scientific thinking is a great tool for progress. But unchecked innovation also exposes us, as a species, to greater and greater risk of extinction. I am not too worried about that. If we die off, something else will come along to replace us. Unless the means we stumble on is particularly effective and take too much of the rest of the eco system with us.
Wiping out 90% of the life on Earth, allows plenty of scope for the remaining 10% to survive and adapt to the new environment. Wiping out 99.99% of life may not leave enough of a functioning eco-system for interesting memes to start up again at some time in the future. The planet will only be around for so long before our sun engulfs it, after all.
Dropping a big rock on us just before we commit Gaeacide would be doing memes a favour.
Oh, you thought God was interested in people? He he. What a ludicrous idea!
But prions aren’t organisms in the usual sense. They are more like mythical vampires who can influence other brain proteins to refold themselves under certain conditions. Though it takes 6-8 foldings to make them into the dangerous prions we know and fear.
The so-called “architect genes” you’re referring to are the Hox genes, which control the the basic layout of what body parts you have and where they go. Click the link for details.
I knew there was a name I was forgetting. So I described their function instead. Thanks for the reminder.
‘the fact that they just happen to look like hyper-idealised humans probably isn’t a coincidence’
Well, we’ve seen Diana Castle (sorry if I misremembered the name) on here, maybe we’ll get the Whateley explanation:
https://crystalhall.wikia.com/wiki/Body_Image_Template
I really laughed when I saw J’s comment. But the Whateley Universe works under the ‘architect gene’ system, with the vague term ‘the meta-gene complex’ used to describe a huge array of sections of chromosomes which are all related to the changes in people when they manifest their mutation(s). A key point is that we also made up an area of physics called ‘pattern theory’ to explain how the powers work too, so part of the mutation is an ability to tap into this energy source in order to be able to do wacky stuff like flight or shooting lasers out of your nostrils or whatever…
Funny thing, when I saw the name Whateley I thought of the monstrous hybrid Wilbur Whateley from H. P. Lovecraft‘s “The Dunwich Horror” and the denouement in the Miskatonic University library.
– So what’s the deal with the choker things? I haven’t seen so many of them since ’70s porn. Throat mikes for their comms systems or something?
Throat mikes, locator beacons, etc. In Sydney’s case, I might add some behaviour modification elements. Just how much weight do those things add?
Heh. An “Invisible Fence” shock collar with a Parental Control chip to control the swearing and hyper-spaz incidents. I’m guessing she may end up with a “minder” when she is on duty, to help her to stay focused.
Since there already is a throat mike, it would be simple to add swear detection which triggers noise cancelling. I don’t think the noise cancelling could come from the choker (too small) but an external source could be used for, oh say, media conferences. :-)
Maybe a constriction device that will allow Max to ‘Force Choke’ Sydney as needed…
Sydney: You ought to have !@#^%$^Y@# seen it! I gahk!
Ariana: That is enough out of you.
First of all I LOVE that you actually think out how super powers should work. What you mention has been a BIG personal complaint about “mutants” for a long time (in comes in second to the fact that it seems that children of “mutants” NEVER seem to inheirt their parent’s powers).
However I do want to direct you to something that you may have missed. I wish I could find the article now, but scientists recently discovered a “master gene”. The job of the master gene’s job is to keep mutations to many (not all) genes shut down. Evently over time one of three things happen. One, the number of mutations over time overwhelm the gene and start slipping through. Two, the master gene mutates and all the mutations it was suppressing come out suddenly. Three, the genes it was suppressing could mutate back to what they where originally.
So it is possible for there to be big leaps forward. Though usually when all the suppressed mutations express themselves result is usually death.
Also in relations to this. This master gene works through epigenetics, so if a person was exposed to the right chemicals, it could counter the master gene’s suppression and turn on the genes. Though what happens after the chemicals are removed is not predictable yet.
But even given all this, a lot of the “mutants” we see are inconcievable great leaps forward. About the only “mutant” I see as being a remotely realistic leap forward is Wolverine.
It’s starting to sound like Lysenko was right but at the wrong level…
Well, at least Rachel Summers got her mom’s abilities. Not dad’s though. Of course, given who mom is, you have to consider the possibility that she had some control over it.
Good memory. I forgot about Jean Grey’s children.
If the super powers are a result of drastic mutation, then that requires that the environment has drastically altered recently, and Nature is responding in kind. The question then would be, what was the change, and has anyone been able to detect it and determine its significance?
In the novel ‘Soon I Will Be Invincible’ (by Austin Grossman), one narrator muses on the big surge in super-types since ww2, and how nobody can agree on the reason for this. As he put it, “everything from nuclear radiation to chlorinated drinking water to people dancing the Twist ….“.
I just recently read that, like within the last month. It was pretty good, but the main character was a textbook definition of High Int Low Wis.
Well, they do say he is suffering from a mental disorder
‘Malign Hypercognition Syndrome’, as I recall.
This is common misunderstanding about evolution. Mostly due to need to dumb down facts for laymen. The reason you see “a lot of evolution” during times of eniviromental change is not because living things have consciously choosen to evolve or some metaphysical aspect of nature is making them change. During times of enviromental change or crisis, the “standard” does not work effectively anymore. So thoses species that are lucky enough to experience beneficial mutations or already had them in their population shift suddenly to make these mutations common place. Those that don’t die out. The result is a fossil record that suddenly shifts and shows great change over the space of a few inches of rock. But the over overall rate of mutation does not have to change to explain this change.
Furthermore “superhero” genes could greatly benefit from a modern “soft” society. For example:
https://www.dw.de/berlin-mutant-boy-extra-strong/a-1247023-1
This young boy will easily be stronger without trying than many athletes and could potentially become stronger than any man in the world with a little training and no steriods. However his mutation forces him to consume more calories and protein than the average person. If this boy had been born just 300 years ago, he likely would have starved to death or been sickly because he could not get the nutrients and calories he needed.
The biggest inhibitor to superpowers evolving naturally is that they are often calorie prohibitive.
Very interesting point about the calories… I wonder what Archon’s catering bills are like, between Harem having 5 bodies and Heatwave’s power involving large amounts of energy.
I think this is kind of a “establishing” page that makes it clear that no one fully know where there powers come from. No only is this realistic but it also gives the writer fudge room. So the energy source of superheroes could be “external”.
This one of the things I am liking about this superhero comic. It tries to approach superheros like they really would be approached. Look at Superman for a example of how not to do it. Superman assumed that just because he feels stronger from the sunlight shining on him, that he gets his powers from absorbing sunlight. But for someone so smart this is obviously VERY sloppy science. The amount of energy that Superman produces through his heroics is FAR more than he could accumulate from absorbing a sunlight.
DaveB? Given how powerful Maxima, have the Arc Scientists established that Maxima’s powers are externally powered? Given the level of energy out she can achieve it would be very easy to discover if their is a huge discrepcy between the amount of energy her body is absorbing through food. And if she was achieving it through some sort of fusion it might be possible to measure it through a very tight labratory environment.
It is thinking like that which gives Sydney nightmares!
She and the other heroes can output far more power than can be accounted for from calories or sunlight or anything else they’ve come up with. They’ve fully sequenced many of the teams’ DNA, so they know what’s different, they just don’t know how it accounts for some of the things they can do.
So basicly they can say “This is different” but not “What this difference does”
That’s what the Labcoats are for: for ‘working with*’ Supers to find out what the new junk does, and possibly why
*substitute ‘with’ for ‘on’, and they don’t always ask for the Supers’ cooperation, some may or may not be in a position to agree or disagree
Huge respect that you have actually thought this out!
Internalized matter/ energy conversion as a power source? Miniscule amounts of body fat undergoing complete conversion could easily yield enough energy to throw a tank.
Proving it would be difficult though. Trying to detect if Maxima lost an ounce of body fat while holding five tons overhead would require some *really* precise measurements.
Personally, I’m a big fan of “organic cold fusion” as an explanation for the power source for many superheroes. I seem to recall that I first heard of it in the book “The Science of the X-Men: From Biomechanics to Genetics; From Professor X to Wolverine” (if you go to that link, check Lincoln Yaco’s review of his own book, it’s a story in itself).
Are you looking at total energy conversion, along the lines of
E=mc2? 1 gram of mass converted to energy would yield 90 TJ (terrajoules). On someone likely to weight more than 200 pounds noticing a 1 gram change would be extremely difficult to detect. When she breathes out, she loses way more than a gram. An Abrams tank, with a mass of about 61 tonnes, could be lifted 3 metres (by Max, maybe Anvil) using only 1.8 MJ. 90 TJ would allow her to throw said tank to the moon, more or less.Let’s try that again. I need a Preview button.
Are you looking at total energy conversion, along the lines of E=mc2? 1 gram of mass converted to energy would yield 90 TJ (terrajoules). On someone likely to weight more than 200 pounds, noticing a 1 gram change would be extremely difficult to detect. When she breathes out, she loses way more than a gram. An Abrams tank, with a mass of about 61 tonnes, could be lifted 3 metres using only 1.8 MJ. 90 TJ would allow her to throw said tank to the moon, more or less.
One flaw in your logic is that the only process that converts matter 100% to energy is a matter/anti-matter annalihation. Fusion produces far less energy from a starting mass than that (though still far more than chemical reactions). And their is perfect engine limit. There is a limit to how much an energy can be converted into work by an engine. It would still be a small amout of mass though.
Frankly what I would look for if I was scientist would signs of waste heat. If fusion or matter/anti-matter annalihation were occuring somewhere there would either be waste heat or some means of coping with waste heat somewhere in the body.
So when Sydney accidentally punched Max at the bank, instead of comparing her face to Mount Rushmore, Sydney would comparing it to Mount Vesuvius or Mount Kīlauea instead, just because of the waste heat being emitted from Maxima’s skin.
Zero-point energy protein synthesis? They can generate a protein that draws energy from quantum fluctuations to power ADP – ATP transformations?
At some point we have just break down and say “scientifically produced magic” or “magicky science”. Take for example Maxima. We might be able peg down scientifically rational & testable explainations for some of her powers, but other things are beyond our current scientific devices to measure. It also sounds like this might be a universe (Dabbler is stated to be a sorcerer) in which magic exists. So it may very well be that when dig in deep enough Maxima has brain cells or organellas in her body that allow her to work narrow forms of magic. And magic is basically an overriding of natural laws so our ability to test it with science greatly diminishes.
Okay, so the topic for an upcoming Dabbler’s Science (?) Corner would be “How does Maxima fly supersonically without being inside a aircraft?” I would love to see that one.
BTW: Peggy’s “Headshot” poster in panel 1? “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, complain.”
Thanks! I was just going to post a question on what the poster said.
Okay, you did say that Peggy has a “proper” workbench elsewhere. My first thought upon seeing this “tinker bench” was “Where is her reloader?” Because there is No Freaking Way she would use someone else’s loads. She’d want to make sure that every last cartridge had exactly the same charge. That’s one key to successful long-distance sniping.
I googled “gun workshop” “gun bench” and a few other things, and even the most obsessively neat table would have taken as long to draw as the rest of the page, which is unfortunate, since I think stuff like that really adds flavor to the world. Makes me appreciate all those Masamune Shirow comics with a garage with a half rebuilt mech in it and tools and cords all over the place.
Dave, guys like that have a lot of “interns” that do that shit. He’ll sketch it out and they’ll finish the rest of it off.
Yeah I know. It’s a little discouraging looking at professionally produced comics and wanting to match them point for point on quality only to realize that there’s like 5 people working full time to produce any given book. Then I feel better knowing I do as much as I have when it’s part time. Except Gold Digger is a one man operation, except for some editing work, so then I feel bad again. :/ Fred has said on a good day he can produce 3 whole pages. It makes me want to re-examine how I do my art. The coloring is the most time consuming part, so maybe I should switch to cell shading? Who knows.
I just figured the reloading bench was out of frame on the other side of the safe.
Another thought: What about those with super powers who never step up? They keep it low key and go on with their mundane lives. Or does the receiving of super powers trigger something in the mental make-up of the individual, forcing them to need to play with the powers, show off, and put themselves out there? Personally, if I was a super genius, I would keep it low key, like writing a series of children’s books, that are also appealing to adults, which are so popular that they are quickly turned into movies, and rocket me into billionaire status within a short period of time. Then I would quietly use the accrued power and wealth to subtly improve the world instead of bashing heads.
Works for me.
>ahem< https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/664 Carry on…
Err, “low key” and “probably the most famous living author” * seem rather contradictory (if amusing). Otherwise though I totally agree with the sentiment about working quietly and out of the limelight. Of course, regardless of the field chosen, being a highly successful billionaire with the looks of a super model, might make that rather easier said than done. Unless, say, limiting contact with the world to media where anonymity can be maintained. And avoiding easily guessed pseudonyms such as “JKR”.
* My only basis for that assumption is having gone into the world’s biggest bookshop, a few years ago, looking for something very specific. Which required walking through all the language sections, on the way. As far as I could see covering pretty much all the major languages in the world. Only to notice the latest Harry Potter book, in every section, in the appropriate language. Easily recognisable from the highly distinctive cover. Subsequent TV footage of massive queues in bookshops around the world only helping to reinforce that impression.
Better than Dr. Totenkopt of the “Sky Captain” universe using his super genius to stop World War One in 1917, and tried to destroy the world in 1939 decades after his own death.
o.0 Sydney has been boobified. Somewhat.
I approve.
She always had boobs, they just weren’t as prominently displayed (looks like that jacket is a might tighter on her than just her twin shirts, which she also seems to still be wearing, at least yellow under-shirt)
look at Dave’s DA account and look at her in a wetsuit. She got ’em just not “bowling ball smuggler” size.
I am aware that she has them, wetsuit was also approved of though I did not know that picture is now on DA.. I’m not very good at braining at times.
I dare say however that even the rest of the super cast would have looked mind bogglingly less stunning in regular ‘Sydney style’ clothing. Sandy does magic with safety pins.
The question is, while I and likely others approve of this boobier image… Does Sydney?
(Braining is likely not a word.. Or was not. Now it is. As is bogglingly, boobified and boobier. So there;)
Ooooh! I’m betting my quatloos that Alvin is right about Peggy’s, uh, peg leg (ironic, much?).
As for the science, it sounds good, but I don’t really care about nailing it down. I’d point out the theory of large numbers, where unlikely things that can happen will happen, given enough opportunities. I don’t know what the odds are of this many supers existing at the same time, but the world is a far more connected place than it’s ever been. Maybe they’re just not hiding anymore. I’m just glad to see them.
I don’t know why, but I’m getting an Emma Peel vibe from Syd in that flightsuit. I didn’t get it from Peggy, though. Don’t know why. Maybe it was those karate moves. or something.
There is a distinct difference between extremely unlikely and impossible. The first just has to happen once; the second can not happen at all.
Is it possible to prove that supers are impossible?
That is always the question: Is it extremely unlikely or impossible. Is there a circumstance where an electromagnetic inversion could occur? Take the coelacanth. Fossilized remains had been found for decades, dated to correspond with amphibians starting the journey to land all the way up to dinosaur activity but nothing after 65 million years ago. It was thought by most scientists that the coelacanth was extinct, although it was possible that some diverse decedent species still remained. Imagine the surprise of biologists when they found living specimens today. The local villagers told them that the fish were all over the river system but they were not that good for eating. They were essentially unchanged from the ancient fossils, well except for the part where the modern fish are still alive.
Hag fish are even older but the fossils only go back 300 million years but the genes say 600 million years. Dragon flies appeared in the Coal Age about 350 million years ago and yet a version of them are still here today, the ginkgo tree too is prehistoric.
My point was the western scientists thought the coelacanth had been extinct for millions of years; they know that dragonflies and hag fish. If you had asked a zoologist in the 1980’s if coelacanths exist, (s)he would have told you they used to, but that there is no evidence for them now. Then they get recognized as just hiding out in south-east Asia. The locals knew about them, but the zoologists did not.
Just because you can’t find something does not mean it does not exist. It just means you haven’t found it yet.
Yea. Nessie and the Yeti are extremely good at hiding.
Scientifically speaking, you can’t disprove a negative, since new evidence may turn up in the future.
I believe you meant “you can’t prove a negative”, since disproving one only requires providing one positive example. “There are no blue apples!” “What about this one?” “Er… Except that one?”
Still, you can prove a negative in some cases. For example, “There is no bird in this birdcage,” can be proven provided you can search the birdcage with sufficient thoroughness to exclude anything which would be defined as a bird. Also, you can prove negatives by definition. If “glorps” are defined as things that are 100% green, for example, then you can prove that there are no red glorps by definition. Anything that is red cannot be a glorp.
However, in cases where the search space is too large or inaccessible and it can’t be ruled out by definition, I agree you normally can’t prove a negative.
Such is the god problem. Atheists say there is no god because none have been produced. They don’t prove a negative, they simply show that the positive “there is a god” hasn’t been forthcoming.
Well, when atheists say “there is no god” they often really mean “though I am open to evidence that would prove the existence of gods, I do not believe that there are any gods because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence for them and naturalistic explanations appear likely to explain everything”, however the latter is a bit of a mouthful. ;-)
Still, what you’re talking about is basic burden of proof: the person making the positive claim (“X exists”) is the one who must supply sufficient evidence if he expects others to believe his or her claim. Attempting to say “you have to prove X doesn’t exist” instead is a shifting of the burden of proof, and is a completely invalid argument, especially in cases where it’s impossible to disprove X.
You should not believe in fire breathing dragons simply for the reason that nobody has proved that they don’t exist. Instead it’s far more reasonable to not have a belief that fire breathing dragons exist until sufficient evidence for their existence has been given. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so implausible claims require much stronger evidence than mundane claims. Once you shift the burden of proof, however, you can argue that almost anything exists. And if your argument for God existing works equally well for dragons, fairies, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then your argument has some serious problems.
Out of curiosity, if it does not exist, what is the critter on the right hand side in this painting? ;-)
If/when Sydney’s eye patch is eventually removed, I’m really gonna miss it.
I did a quick search and didn’t find it, so I’ll just drop this here.
Monogram machine.
CNC Embroidery.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=monogram+machine&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=monogram+machine&sc=8-16&sp=-1&sk=
They exist and would make for a quick choker around a “blank”.
I’ve seen at least two science fiction settings (Undocumented Features and Orion’s Arm) use the term “autotailor.”
Coolest Plot Twist Ever :
The new wave of super powered individuals was actually CAUSED by Halo’s orbs. They’ve been in the world influencing and imbuing humans for centuries. They are only semi-sentient however, what they’ve done up til this point is more random than directed. Also, the orbs need sustenance in order to maintain their powers. The “food” they eat being a particular type of mental energy; a combination of chaos and psychic power.
Let’s call it Psychaotic.
While there have been small snacks of Psychaotic energy here and there, even the occasional five course meal… (Seriously, how do you think Rasputin could survive poisoning AND beheading and still get the last word in, hmm?)… it wasn’t until modern times that there was born a person whose personal level of Psychaotic energy was more in line of an all-you-can-eat-it’s-okay-to-undo-your-belt-and-zipper-in-the-restaurant BUFFET.
Thus the world explodes with the orbs’ effects (ie-superpowers) and the people affected become god-like in appearance (to fit Halo’s subconscious perceptions of what superheroes should look like). Halo is unaffected physically by all of this because the orbs, in their semi-sentient sort o’ way, realize that messing with her directly could spoil the flavor/quantity of their food supply. Also, her powers being based on the orbs themselves requires her to keep them close at all times.
Let’s just hope all this binge eating doesn’t result in a sort of cosmic indigestion.
That would be seriously awesome. Raw chaos could actually be a pretty good explanation for the total randomness of, and lack of scientific basis for, superpowers. Of course, this would mean the team has to NOT discipline Sydney lest their powers weaken with the orbs… fun times.
What happened to Rasputin is mostly legends.
He didn’t eat sugar due to hyperacidity, didn’t drink. Which is why the poisoning account seems to be bunk (the claim is that the poisoners served him cake and wine). He was shot, stabbed and clubbed with one of the bullet holes being fatal.
Funnier is that they burned the body after the revolution and didn’t take the usual measures, severing tendons, so that it seemed he tried to get up while being cremated.
All perfectly appropriate debunking.
Until it is subsequently proven that he actually is immortal, being still alive today, and that being burnt alive just made it very hard to “play dead”. An immortal, with access to people in power, could arrange a cover up in such a way that subsequent debunking becomes credible.
I think it really comes down to the conspirators trying to kill Rasputin – and making an absolute dog’s breakfast of the attempt AND the follow-up tries. They pretty much had to claim he was superhumanly tough just to hide how incompetent they had been.
Not saying that Rasputin was a wimp. Plenty of instances of people being extraordinarily tough (refer https://www.badassoftheweek.com/ some time). But, everything I have read / heard about his assassination suggests the actual effort turned out more like a comedy routine than anything else..
Is that a Tau pulse rifle on the workbench?
It’s the stock of an AWSM.
Looks more like the standard design for most modern sniper rifles. Without it’s barrel attached the Barrel is sitting next to the stock. Looks like a TPG1 from Unique Alpine closest in stock. Though the bolt is missing since it needs to be removed for the rifle to lay down flat like that on the right side, unless it is semi auto which causes issues with accuracy.
This is how I think Arianna would figure how the orbs fit in to a toy. Pieces to lose. Replacement kits.
I’m surprised Sydney isn’t more excited about all this. A superhero team, a superhero name, a… well, not a superheroic body, but two out of three dreams coming true is pretty sweet.
You are joining a super hero team and you just found out that they know as much as you do as to the source of the powers. I would be more worried then happy the moment I learned this as well. Call it the oh shit now we are in for it.
Quatloos? Methinks we have discovered Peggy’s entertainment interests. Now the question becomes, hair or no hair?
love the fact that Sydney is tugging at the choker in panels 2 and 3
I know the reason! It’s to appease the readers! THE READERSSss!!
Also, I want to give you mad props for using Quatloos.
okay last panel examples that came to mind.
1: Guyver, Marvel’s Celestials and Kree, Prometheus, ect… (alien origin of superpower is oddly common)
2: Kampher (I think anyway, the explination given sounded like a half-lie for a set up that didn’t fit it)
3: Scientology
I rather like however the dimension rip explination that some anime do. S-Cry-ed, Needless, and Deadman wonderland as examples.
someone breached the dimension between dimensions and the resulting power alters humans giving them superpowers.
there is also the nanite explination (which can be fairly simple, or insanely complex even allowing magic via a dimension tech grid, thank you Japanese sci-fi videogames that want magic).
Sandy is an odd character.
{creative}
She seems to have a latent super-power: the ability to change, chameleon-like, from a non-descript, non-noticable person with a slightly fat neck and face, to a trim, sexy teammember like the other major women chars.
{/creative}
.. Or maybe it’s just that Dave unconciously is habituated to drawing Super-looking women ;-)
(Panel 2, she looks great. Others, she’s back to not-so-great. I’ve noticed this chameleon effect before with her. Dave COULD say he’s just getting used to drawing her. But I like my explanation better ;-) )
All characters by all artists go through that: guarendamntee, that if you go through every bit of artwork (comic and old-school animation), you will find every character has a few occasions when/where that happen to them, specially when depicted at odd angles
Hi, long time fan, but first comment. I love biology and science and all that stuff. And one thing I find interesting is in this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
Long story short, the Turritopsis Nutricula is a small jellyfish, which also happens to be immortal. It can, when damaged or under stress, revert itself back into a polyp, the baby stage of a jellyfish. Then, it can reproduce more clones of itself, all of which can then go through the reverting process when they turn older!
Look up Shin Kubota, the Japanese marine biologist who studies these. He is in fact one of the few people who does study this species, and the only one to raise them in a lab.
They are immortal, but they have no brains or complex organs, so they are unaware of how amazing their power is. As if in exchange for immortality, they gave up being intelligent or complex. We could learn a lot from these immortal jellies.
The diversity of life on Earth makes me especially disappointed when a sci-fi show has lazy alien designs, like that new SyFy show, Defiance. 7 alien races and from 20 feet away you can’t even tell if they’re aliens or not, and the one that actually has a full face mask looks like a bunch of fat extras from Planet of the Apes? Boo.
Bacteria are the other know immortal life on this planet though that jellyfish is the only complex one to do so. Reminds me of a Keith Laumer novel about human like beings who go through that same transformation but their minds are reset. So whatever experiences they have had are erased but the basic information remains. Can’t think of the title but it is very good.
“With great power comes great boobs”
Or, as Tom Smith said: With Great power comes great power bills.
( https://tomsmith.bandcamp.com/track/with-great-power-comes-great-power-bills )
Random Guess… Sydney sees a picture of Peggy with whats-his-face from the comic book shop.
Joel, her business partner? Or that customer with the hot sister?
So interestingly (believe it or not, I have a Ph.D. in genetics) I once saw a seminar that could explain the genetic basis for super powers — see, in the cell, there are a group of proteins called chaperones. Chaperone proteins are responsible for the correct folding (and thus function) of many other proteins, and when you have non-lethal mutations of chaperone proteins (at least in plant studies), the resulting symptoms vary widely based on the rest of the genetic code in that specific organism. In other words, mutating chaperones means you could get bigger plants, or smaller ones, or wrinkly ones, etc., all depending on the remaining genetic background of that specific plant. After the seminar, I thought, “Dude. That totally explains how you could have the X-Men.”
That does sound like something you’d use as a starting point to explain whatever you want in a sci-fi world. I like trying to stick as close as possible to real science, obviously at some point you have to just diverge from what is known, depending on how detailed you try and get with explanations.
Oh, I wasn’t complaining – I really enjoy your comic, and thanks for all the hard work! I just had the same thought as Sydney many times, before finding that there was actually a “real science” explanation that could work. Doesn’t preclude the external forces explanation given on the page in any way