Grrl Power #198 – Sydney’s a what?
Like I said under the last comic, biggest reveal yet! I’m a little nervous about this one, but hopefully there won’t be too much gnashing of teeth and lamentations. Some people aren’t so keen on vegetarians and vegans, but really that’s because there are some of them who won’t shut up about it and endlessly try and convince you that having one more bite of your hamburger will give you soul cancer. Sydney is obviously not one to make a fuss about it. There’s been scant evidence in the comic to make anyone think she is a vegetarian, except I put little tofu cubes in her meal back at the King of Siam restaurant… although looking at that page now, you can just see one cube and it’s bright red from the sauce.
So anyway let me explain. When I started the comic I wanted to avoid a few common writing problems and two I knew of were 1) the man with boobs feminist for Maxima, and 2) obvious author insert. I knew Sydney was going to be very nerd literate and very A.D.D. like me and I wanted some characteristics that set her further apart from me. I’m not nearly as hyper as she is and obviously I’m not a gal, but I wanted some other differences, and I am very much not a vegetarian of any sort, so I figured, why not. While it may seem that it hasn’t affected her behavior in the comic so far at all, I actually got the idea that she started eating spicy food as a way to replace the loss of “savory” as she weaned herself off of meat. That’s right, despite having already named her Scoville, (which I did because I have that same naming alliteration sickness that Stan Lee has evidently) her affinity for spicy food came out of her being a vegetarian. Since I’m sure people will ask, the particulars of Sydney’s diet will be covered on the next page.
I made this page much harder on myself than it needed to be by including Gwen in it. I could have easily kept this scene between Sydney, Peggy and Goth Harem, but no, without Gwen I couldn’t use the phrase “The Hot Topic twins.” Oh and I know I said that all the pages up to 200 had a mini comic under them, but for this one apparently I was thinking of the intra-page mini comic (panel 6), but 199 and 200 definitely do.
Update: ComicMix tourney round 2 is live here. Remember you vote using the checkboxes under the brackets.
<– If you like supporting things like some sort of anthropomorphized bra, then consider lifting and separating this comic!
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.
that “KA KLICK” means something, like a certain bunny taking out his jack knife with mayhem on his mind.
Yes it does. Fortunately, the antidote is an alfalfa margarita (hold the alfalfa), a bundle of cash, or a baywatch video, so your options to continue living are quite good.*
*Unless you’re a telemarketer. Then your life is forfeit regardless.
Bah! This KA-KLICK means you’re going on The List, a fate far, far worse than death!
I can sympathize with Sydney. Being a virtual cowitarian (I think that’s backwards, it means I avoid beef, and it’s not religious, only health based), going to a lot of restaurants and especially steak houses makes for a fairly limited menu. And ordering pizza with friends we pretty much need separate pies, as my friends prefer the “meat lovers” type of pie, while I find that meat on pizza equals grease and I never order anything that isn’t a vegi pizza.
I was quite amused by Maxima’s “Eh. Peggy’s armed.” It seems she has a lot of confidence that Sydney isn’t going to start the typical superhero “misunderstanding / proud warrior” slug fest, despite Sydney hauling 3 of her team into another room using her super powers.
Inconceivable!
Try making your own pizza? It’s often healthier that way anyway, and that way you can use turkey pepperoni, which tastes the same (said by a beef-lover!) and produces practically no grease at all. Most meats on pizza are pre-cooked; if you’re making it yourself, it’s just a matter of picking really low-fat (like turkey pepperoni) or properly draining (and rinsing, if you’re obsessive) when you fry the meat (like the sausage).
If you have a chest freezer, it’s really easy to make your own frozen pizzas too. Veggies lose nutrients and texture if they aren’t frozen a special way, but you could readily make a dozen or so cheese pizzas except for the baking, wrap them carefully (foodsaver maybe? I use plastic wrap and ziplocs), and stick them in the freezer. When you want to eat them, pull them out, add toppings and a little cheese on top to hold the toppings in place, and bake. ‘Course, you’ll need to experiment to find the right baking time for your pizzas, but that’s not really a biggie.
I do occasionally make my own pizza, but when I’m with a bunch of friends it’s just easier to call for delivery. Even if we’re at my home my over would only handle 2 pizzas at a time and that’s just not enough, in addition to taking me away from the game if we’re gaming or the party if it’s just social. And some of my friends would just prefer a mass market “meat lovers” pizza to anything I’d make anyway, so it’s also being a better host to order delivery.
When I make pizza my favorite is tomato, basil, and goat cheese, along with the usual mozz/parm/romano blend. With or without any tomato sauce, it’s good either way. I can’t remember the last time I put meat on a pizza. I do like turkey bacon and turkey pastrami though!
Huh. I’d always figured cheese on pizza = grease. Perhaps I’m doing something wrong then…
No need for it. My all-time favourite pizza was actually a modified supermarket one. I much preferred it to even various types I tried in Rome, and they do some awesome pizzas, as you would expect. It was a meat-lovers variety (surprise, surprise), with a lot of variety and so much meat that you could barely see that there was mozzarella cheese underneath it.
Ok, my mouth is watering at this stage, remembering even that. But, that was not good enough for me. I would then grate Red Leicester cheese on to it (I have never found a better basic cheese*) usually in a swirly pattern. With the gaps in the pattern filled in with a mild Cheddar cheese. Totally covering the meat up. Then zapping it all in the microwave (it being designed to be cooked that way).
It came out with swirly alternating golden orange and light yellow molten cheeses, with the peaks and edges of the meat poking through. God I would love to have that again. Sadly they long since stopped that range. :-(
But, it never came out greasy. You would get a small bit of liquid on the top, but it was a cheese residue that actually seriously enhanced the overall taste. Much as you would get grilling cheese on toast. I would not class it as ‘grease.’ I totally hate greasy pizza, and it would gross me out if it was like that. To the extent that I do not like to even see other people eating that type of pizza.
* Something versatile enough to use for cheese on toast, welsh rarebit and all the other regular cheese type dishes. I love a huge variety of specialist and smelly cheeses, other than just that.
A lot of people bring up ethical imperatives on whether or not eating meat is moral or not.
One thing i would say on the matter is you cannot create a logically sound argument either way for two reasons. The reason being is you cannot universally substantiate either argument. That is to say, you cannot make a rule that logically covers all basis, one way or the other.
Pro Vegetarian arguments seem to be often be along the lines of “Harming animals is evil. Eating animals harms them. Therefore; Eating animals is evil.” It sounds reasonable, however universalizing the rule: “All harming animals is an evil act”, causes all carnivorous animals to be committing evil by way of their very existence. We do not recognize that animals can choose between good and evil as they are not given to understand that choice. Nor do we hold it factual that any animal is inherently good or evil, therefore they cannot commit an evil act, thus the statement “Eating Animals is Evil is logically unsound.
Anti-Vegetarian: “We are biologically Omnivorous, therefore we should include meat in our diets” It sounds very reasonable and maybe even scientific, however the universalized version is “All humans should eat both meat and vegetables.” This theory falls apart for people who have dietary needs that specifically preclude meat, and once again the argument becomes bad because it cannot be universalized.
This is only one type of moralistic proof (Kantianism) but the point remains, Trying to show beliefs for or against Vegetarianism isn’t universally provable, and as such we should not try to universalize beliefs either for or against.
The second reason is that “Morality” is actually a very difficult thing to pin down, and attribute to an action. Humans have been trying to give a scientific definition on what differs an action between right and wrong for thousands of years. If your curious to how much progress has been made on that. We still haven’t proven if there is any kind of universal “good” or if all “good” is based upon our society and social cues.
Most people have a joking disrespect for the other side on this argument, but personally, I hold fast the believe that all people should have the right to self determine, including what they do or do not eat. It is only our responsibility as a society to not falsely represent any choice they make, and to have information available should anyone wish it, but otherwise mutual respect should be had for our own decisions, and we should maintain the same level for the informed decisions of others that we wish to be had for our own.
[Sorry if my post are a bit wordy, i tend to Wall-O-Text if i don’t have a word limit… XP ]
i find it amusing all those that argue about either for or against eating meat. Both sides are completely 1st world problems. go out side the better nations (and likely the majority of the posters in here are in the 1st world) and those arguments just go away. you will have to eat what ever is there, be it plants and/or animals. that or starve to death. to me, being a vegetarian, more so a vegan is a luxury so, so few people can afford to be.
You are answering your own counter argument in the case of vegetarians.
Animals can kill humans, those that take the stance that killing humans is wrong do not call an animal evil because “We do not recognize that animals can choose between good and evil as they are not given to understand that choice. “.
Your argument works the same way for harming humans as for harming animals, since animals can do both. Thus nobody who has ethics forbidding harming humans should find you counter argument compelling.
I don’t have anything against vegetarians. It’s their choice what to eat. But arguing that not eating meal is making them morally superior … well, ok, if they keep talking about being vegetarian I wouldn’t like it anyway and if they don’t, I wouldn’t know about their reasons … but I find not eating meal for moral reason stupid. You didn’t killed the animal. You think that by rejecting that steak they return it to the cow? Almost all animals served in restaurants are specifically breed for being eaten. Without humans eating them, they wouldn’t exist. Even if you free them, they wouldn’t survive in wild. And hell, what makes you so sure that killing animals is bad and killing plants is ok? What did the plants do to you? Lacking chloroplasts, human is biologically unable to survive without eating something which was alive.
It’s true that I’m against whale hunting. Whales are intelligent (apparently more that some politics :-)) and I consider killing them morally the same as killing humans. Worse, because we are making them extinct. But I wouldn’t even blame person eating the whale for hunting if the Japanese whaling program wouldn’t be powered by market for specifically whale meat instead of the science they claim it to be. If you found that whale dead on your favorite beach, you can eat it.
I don’t really care since I don’t really have a rule based ethical system anymore. But most of the time you are starting to argue that something won’t magically alter the past you are arguing against strawman. Actions can only influence the future, not buying meat is about demand. Consider, would you find this convincing (random company) “Since they suddenly made murdering people to sell their organs legal there has been this new company which sells very cheap organs only from healthy people they killed themselves. You don’t think we should buy their organs? Why? That won’t unkill their victims.” Which is true using perfectly good organs doesn’t cause harm, paying money for it however leads to the practice continuing. If you think that is too unrealistic think of people boycotting firms doing something they find unethical in general.
Also, killing isn’t the only ethic based argument, not eating them because meat production uses too many resources is in the end also morality based.
The old argument that we breed them for eating, many of them couldn’t survive alone anymore and there are many cows this way than there would be normally is much more interesting, which is ironically why I won’t answer it here. You probably won’t be back to read this, nor will I (most likely) ever come back to read a possible answer which isn’t a good setting for a lengthy argument.^^ There are better discussions of that point on the internet than I’m willing to make at the moment without even the possible benefit of an interesting answer.
PS. another interesting argument is the number of small animals which die during the production of vegetarian food there is some interesting calculation about which kind of diet leads to the least amount of dead animals.
PPS. Was that “why can you kill plants but not animals” argument serious? Sure one can make that argument beginning with the right axioms, I just kinda doubt you base your moral system of axioms which would naturally lead to the argument. And even them you would need to actually bring them up in an argument this way it sounds like you didn’t even bother to think what possible reasons and criteria your opposition could have for the distinction which is quite rude in a discussion
Have never heard about any dietary reasons to avoid meat
well, besides the “Too much” arguments, but hell too much Oxygen can kill you a hell of a lot faster.
Most of my family has to avoid beef b/c we cannot break down a protein that comes from the cow and it makes us sick. We can eat fish, chicken and pork though. So that would be a dietary reason even though ours isn’t all meat.
That’s more along the lines of an allergy which I freely acknowledge is a reason to avoid such things.
Is it beef in particular or all red meat? because pork chicken and fish all tend to be white meat. (i’m not sure about pork) just out of curiosity.
Yes, pork is ‘white’ meat, it is often referred to as ‘the other white meat’
“Morally” speaking I have always despised the argument about not killing animals so they went vegetarian. For one is does nothing to save any animals, the meat industry shall continue unchanged despite someone who stopped buying their products. And secondly, as a living being we kill so that we may live, its a natural part of life and in no way evil. Even vegetarians are eating the carcass of plants. Sure they arent as cute looking or didnt scream in a way we understand or hear as we rip them from the ground but to make a salad you have to crack a few heads…. of lettuce. Really so long as a vegetarian is not using their own human waste as fertilizer they have taken the intents of edible plants trying to reproduce through consumption and fertilization and flushed them all away.
I personally believe that most vegetarians avoid meat not because they love animals but because they HATE plants. On another note scientists found that some plants have a kind of sensory memory and as such can (possibly) learn fear and feel pain.
Yes, vegetarians are pro-meat and anti-vegetable, rather than pro-vegetable and anti-meat
“Nor do we hold it factual that any animal is inherently good or evil, therefore they cannot commit an evil act, thus the statement “Eating Animals is Evil is logically unsound.”
Do we consider insects animals? I imagine it would depend on your definition. If so, your statement is obviously false. Wasps are definitely evil.
As Cirith pointed out, you take the none anti-vegetarian law and apply to “all humans”, but the vegetarian law to “All harming animals” instead of humans harming animals. Even with that, there are times that (as long as you believe a human life is at least equal to if not greater then an animals) killing (harming) an animal is necessary, so the main argument still works with that change.
Sorry if it sound like I don’t agree,I had to pick that inconsistency out. Still a good argument though, and I agree with the conclusion.
I guess Cirith didn’t exactly point this out, but he pointed out a possible problem with an argument and I was compelled to continue. I know I had a point in there about Cirith’s post, but now I can’t remember it…I guess I should be getting to bed if I can’t even focus for a few nimutes…or spell minutes. Bah, night all.
Let me first say, I adore this comic, its beyond awesome.
It doesnt take itself too seriously all the time, and I cannot imagine how much time you must devote to drawing all this in such detail.
About the vegetarianism, I never understood the frankly absurdly huge deal people make of it. I´ve been a vegetarian for years, and lots of people in my life still dont know about it, because why should it matter? If I tell them about it, they sometimes feel attacked in their habits, or think I should have to explain myself to them. Its ridiculous.
I really dont see why it needs to be an issue at all. Why should we argue rabidly about it, its just food! Yes, it implies there is a backstory, because deviation from the masses is uncommon and implies health concerns or moral objections or cultural differences and is thus interesting to people. But dont we have more important things to talk about? I dont see why this “controversy” needs to be brought up at all; it would never occur to me to judge people on their eating habits, no matter what they may be, and it kind of pains me that you have to write a sort of “disclaimer” about it below your magnificent comic, advocating tolerance and respect. Anyway, thank you for this comic, and for your non-judgemental attitude.
Have a nice week, and keep up the awesome work!
Well stated – thank you.
I’ve placed arguments higher in comments, pretty much held in reserve for those rabid souls that feel it’s their duty to dictate my personal habits to align with theirs. In fact, though, I just see vegetarians(and vegans) to simply be a type of picky eater. For my own reasons, I don’t eat fish, or onions, or mushrooms, or drink tequila… that’s no more or less valid than somebody that chooses not to eat meat or meat-related products. It’s simply a different “no thank you” list.
Thanks! Sydney’s dietary habits aren’t going to come up all that often, she’s just being preemptively defensive about it. That said, it may come up on the next page. :)
have her come round the corner writing names on the list the others will pause at the very least.
And we get to see the list again, I have a feeling Harem is going to her own section for the atrocities against Sydney she perpetrates.
Okay, totally random thought, and I really know that I shouldn’t have thought it. If one Harem gets pregnant, do they all get pregnant?
Fairly sure only the body that got impregnated would actually be pregnant, the rest would just have the fun of sharing the symptoms (morning sickness times 5 :P)
On the other hand, if she happened to reach the stage of spinning off a new body (as happens periodically) and it happened to be from a body that was pregnant…
but what would happen if she merged back into 1 and then back into 5? (I understand she can do that?)
the bodies that are “Absorbed” are basically in Stasis in the exact same condition (including any injuries,illnesses, or “parasites”[which could be argued a fetus of any mammalian species is]) as it went in so if Harme wanted to actually HAVE a kid, she’d have to have that body “Operational” for the entire 9 months regardless what she does with the others.
She doesn’t ‘merge’ back into one, the one that ‘goes away’ gets put into ‘storage’, so the body that was pregnant would still be at the same stage of pregnancy as when she was placed into ‘storage’
What that delayed growth would do to the baby is something only a truly emotionless scientist would want to study
Not true. A scientist interested in preventing things wrong with future Harem babies would also be interested. They just wouldn’t try to start a pregnancy just to study it; they’d wait and study it if it happened to occur. The emotionless (or more accurately, empathy-lacking) scientist would have no scruples about starting the pregnancy (multiple more likely) for the sake of research.
But, a truly emotionless scientist won’t be concerned with the wellbeing of the baby (or the mother for that matter) so much as seeing all possible results
That…doesn’t negate my point in any way. You said only a truly emotionless scientist would study such a circumstance. I pointed out other possibilities.
But was specifically talking about deliberately delaying the developement of baby Harem, rather than just noting natural developement while in a semi-suspended delayed-developemental stage
You never specified that until now ^_^
Apologeze, thought the statement about the delayed growth would have explained that :(
How so? Women often don’t know they’re pregnant right away. It’d be perfectly possible – even likely – for that particular body to be put in stasis several times after becoming pregnant and before discovering it. If she’s particularly oblivious about the secondary bodies, it could be into the second trimester before she figures it out. And teenagers do tend to be clueless in that regard, the whole ‘it can’t happen to me’ mentality. So the situation coming up accidentally is not only possible, but likely, especially if she isn’t thinking to use contraception on all her bodies.
Given that it is a literal stasis (ie time is frozen), I do not see that it could do the baby any harm. Neither mother nor baby would be aware of the passage of time. A year could pass on the outside and it would not even register as enough time to blink an eye for either of them in stasis. No passage of time equals no biological process to cause problems.
Understand, but talking about a ‘developing’ mind/body, rather than one that has already fully developed
You do realize that not only is Harem young enough that she’s still developing, but she was even younger when she started splitting off?
Yes, but she wasn’t a foetus
Will shut up about it now
Your point is perfectly reasonable, in fact more than that. It is an absolutely vital way to look at such issues. But not when talking about time stopping. Let me demonstrate. I will now stop time for a billion years.
*snaps claws*
Ok, did you notice? Nope. Because all the points of reference which might have caused you a problem stopped likewise. Despite being frozen in time for eons, you did not age, your biological processes did not continue, but nor did they degrade. You do not have memories of people whirling around, pigeons crapping on your head and the like. Because they were frozen too.
Where it would be an issue is if the process did not involve freezing time for the subject. Or did so imperfectly or with only a partial effect. In which case your objections are very appropriate and I would agree with them wholeheartedly.
this brings up the question can deshanti carry someone into storage, it’s noted she can’t teleport with someone, but it is a different event. this also becomes a troubling issue of when is the mother and child separate entities. if she can store someone with one of her bodies (say for example peg breaks a rip and punctures a lung) could harem hold the person in stasis till the person can be brought out at a capable medical center?
Her carrying capacity is so low that she will not be able to carry much more than small devices or keys. So that will not normally be an issue. But if people can be miniaturised, by some other means, then the questions you are asking can come into play.
This universe hates me.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to abstain from this round of voting — NAV is my current #1 webcomic and Grrl Power is my #2, and I refuse to vote against either.
Either way, best of luck to both!
I understand you! :(
For totally different reasons but I like both of them pretty much the same.
Why do not you vote for both to reflect the popularity? I will do that.
That is precisely what I wound up doing. Both are great comics.
Ah, the problems with enjoying more than one comic…*has a couple hundred bookmarked last count*
Why not vote for both than?
Hey. I like the Lakota viewpoint… Cows, Sacred. Carrots, Sacred. It’s all good. Just remember to be thankful and attentive to what you put into yourself.
The lack of lipstick in the last panel makes harem look like a drag queen.
She’s biting her lip, presumably from embarrassment. :)
She is not biting her lip, and it is not make-up (or lack thereof) that makes her look like a ‘drag-queen’, at least not to me, it’s just the way DaveB drew her this and last page
His biggest omission is not drawing her horns. But I guess they would only show up under truesight anyhow.
Harem doesn’t have horns…
Erm…are you looking at the same comic I’m looking at? She quite clearly IS biting her lower lip…you can clearly see that a bit of lip is poking out the side of her teeth on the characters right/viewers left side. And when one bites ones lower lip, upper lip tends to be pulled down as well, which would hide the lipstick on said upper lip. If you look closely it even appears that Dave drew the line of her upper lip in the same purple as her lipstick.
Dont believe me? Go find yourself a mirror, put on some lipstick, look at yourself head on, and bite your lower lip as Goth Harem is doing. You’ll look pretty much just like that. Go ahead…I’ll wait. :D
I think Halo’s misplaced anxiety over drawing attention to her being a vegetarian may have to do both overcompensating for her earlier lack of tact in making a good impression with ArcSWAT, and possibly more backstory related to where she learned to swear at military-level standards…
As for discovering her fondness of 46 Fire-Alarm levels of spicy to compensate for the loss of ‘flavor’ or such that came with her diet switch, I’m guessing simply not liking the taste of meat wasn’t amongst the reasons she switched.
Meat allergies might be too easy to assume. Among other similar reasons, personally witnessing what happens in a slaughterhouse would be enough to make her want to pass on bacon, steak, and the like for good.
Possibly, But growing up on a farm I’d say it’d be more the Conditions in a slaughterhouse.
I disagree on the slaughterhouse. Growing up, I had to help kill, slaughter and pluck our pet chickens for the table, and it didn’t turn me off poultry or anything. Historically, the butcher’s family was the one that got the most meat in their diet. Hunters eat meat they kill. Witnessing the death of the animal does not deter you from eating it if you are sufficiently tough-minded.
That said. I am fully of the opinion that you should respect the animal that died, and that means making the most of its sacrifice. In today’s society, that’s not always possible, because you usually never see the whole animal – but hunting (deer, elk, whatever) should always result in using however much of the animal you can. Hide, bones, meat, even tendons and gut if you’re creative enough. I find trophy-hunting (killing the deer and just taking the antlers) disgusting.
And yes, I apply the same philosophy to chickens that I kill and eat. Unfortunately most of their bones are too fragile to be useful for much, but there’s a plethora of things you can do with the feathers.
It doesn’t even take a slaughterhouse to turn you off from eating some foods.
My wife, a well educated and intelligent woman, has been a city girl all her life. I spent summers at my grandparent’s homes in Montana. Both were farmers and ranchers. So while I’m no farm hand I have had a decent amount of exposure.
A few years back my wife was working at a job which was near a small state park which had a small herd of black sheep. She would take her lunch there and eat it in the calm environment. One day she was telling me how cute the baby sheep were, doing the whole “Baa-aaa” thing, and I said “You mean lambs.” She said “What? They are sheep.” I say “A baby sheep is a lamb, dear.” And she hasn’t eaten lamb since. It’s not a vegetarian thing at all, she eats all other kinds of meats, poultry, fish, etc. She just couldn’t bring herself to eat something she found to be so cute.
Me, I love lamb!
Hope you don’t eat lamb laciviously in front of your wife
Has she learned what veal comes from yet? *evil grin*
YES! That was the word was looking for, could remember ‘venison’ but couldn’t remember ‘veal’ (knew what it was, but didn’t want to say it in case some people didn’t already know, and it is not for me to tell them)
Oh man i love your comic been a long time reader first time poster but i can relate i have A.D.H.D so while shiney things “do” grab my attention i can bounce off the walls like nobodys business =P took yeas before the docs could find a med for me that would keep my hyper in check with my Attention span lol
again really love the comic i have always enjoyed sydnys antics and i really gotta say you do a magnificnt job in both art and story please keep on allowing us to read more and a little more insite into your crazy mind :P
Lazy J
Check out prior comments pages. Feingold has been researching ADHD for a long time.
I really dislike it when people use “like a drag queen” as an insult
While I am not a drag king/queen, I am trans, and know more than a few of both. Drag is heavily based in ideals of camp and overemphasis that lend themselves to this particular use of the descriptor. There is very much a style to how it is done, and people just learning to do make up (A feat I never have actually pulled off, in part because I have always detested the concept) often fall into patterns of overusage that look quite similar in some ways to drag. So, in short, I’d let this one pass, myself, but it is a fine line to be aware of certainly!
My first exposure (other than dry knowledge) to the transvestite community was from Eddie Izzard. Being one of the funnier comedians out there, he makes a superb ambassador, so really helped the UK public by providing a familiar face.
Recently I saw a YouTube clip of him appearing on a quiz show panel, so decided to watch the rest of it, as he is good enough on his own to make it worth while. Oddly enough, at about the same point as the thought occurred to me, one of the other contestants said “For Britain’s most famous transvestite, it really surprises me that we do not get to see you on shows like this in drag”.
To which Eddie replied “Wow, this is the first time I have been heckled for not wearing a dress in public!”
QI, by any chance? He’d be perfect for that. Mmm, Eddie Izzard and Stephen Fry. Oh, the mental images.
Yeah Peggy wasn’t trying to be insulting, it’s just that there’s a very particular look for drag queens. I saw a BBC sitcom where a tall woman walked in to a shop for drag queens but the name of the shop made her think it was a big and tall style shop. Not being particularly worldly, she shows up later in the show dressed as one. It was instantly recognizable as such, even though it was a woman wearing an evening dress. It was just the style of the dress and some of the other affects that made it so identifiable.
That show wouldn’t have been “Miranda” with Miranda Hart, would it?
Forgot that Peggy mentioned ‘drag queens’ in the first panel, thought people were referring to comments about Gothette being more ‘masculine’ :(
Personally wasn’t saying it as an insult, just that she looks more masculine than she normally looks while still wearing a dress (and ‘drag queen’ seems kinda better than simply ‘cross dresser’)
I think Sydney might be more concerned with losing credentials with the other supers. If she wants to appear tough, being a vegetarian doesn’t seem very tough.
Most unrealistic aspect of this page: Harem is worried about her dress falling over her waist (covering her eyes I understand).
Funniest thing is the tiniest panel with chibi Maxima’s line. :)
Why is that unrealistic? o_O
There is a difference between being an exhibitionist and suddenly being thrust into unexpected exposure. Presumably she had some moral upbringing and has reverted to her childhood behaviour, in the panic of the moment. So I found the incident realistic, but would agree that without that line of thought it would appear uncharacteristic of
Satan’s spawnHarem to behave that way.The Great and Devious UltraMantis Black is a vegan! And he’s great and devious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ8NCaoroZs
The American Dragon Daniel Bryan was also vegan for awhile, until he developed a soy intolerance.
Wow, a long catch up on comments about Veganism.
I will just recall two strips of a wonderful webcomic: Leftover Soup
Contraceptives (two pages, hit next)
Unhealthy veganism
While you be there take a peek, really worth :) …and DaveB like it
And just for fun:
Vegans are weak?
But be very careful.
I hate you a lot now. You may have just committed me to hours of catching up and another webcomic to follow. Please tell me these are just archives left up, and that the author/artist has moved on to some other project, like backpacking in the Himalayas, far from any access to the web so he can’t add more content…
Leftover Soup is still updating. It’s one of my favorites.
*Fingers in ears* LALALALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
Dammit, I just lost hours of my life reading Leftover Soup from that link, based on your recommendation. *laughs maniacally* Then I went back to the beginning and read the whole thing, because I couldn’t stop… *shouts* I COULDN’T STOP! *whimpers* I had just read it, and it was so fucking good I couldn’t help but read it again…
OK, I’m writing crazy stuff because it is late and I’m so freaking tired. But it really is totally awesome.
Grrr. Now you have me going through it too. :-D
I am up to the rock paper scissors chess scene. As I love to create my own variant games, I am seriously impressed when somebody comes up with one that I have not thought of, that actually looks playable.
Of course, it immediately makes me want to play rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock wrap-around* chess.
* Wrap-around chess simply lets you move off the left hand side of the board and re-enter on the right hand side. Or vice versa. Which you can picture as if the chess board was wrapped around forming a cylinder. All the other rules remain unchanged. It does change the dynamics though. Noticeably increasing the power of bishops and queens, by example.
It is a fully workable variant, which has one wonderful side-effect. It can look like regular chess to a casual observer. So can draw in spectators, if played in public. Which makes it really funny when you do an ‘illegal’ (wrap-around) move. Especially when your opponent does not challenge it, but makes a similar counter move. It is fun to see all the nervous ticks chess nerds can spontaneously manifest.
As long as we’re at it, let’s make it rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock wrap-around 3D chess!?
ComixMix Tournament Second blood: We need YOU!
Wait, some people have actually been voting for the “——“? o_O
I have now changed my voting, and are giving a vote to every comic that I enjoy, without looking at who they are up against. Except for Grrl Power of course. Which turns out that four other comics in our group got a vote from me too. There are some tough fights ahead!
Agreed, also voting against those who beat out personal favourites in the first round
Does anyone know which state Grrl Power is set in? The attitude of “gasp! a vegetarian!” feels very much like the midwestern United States to me.
A little background: I grew up in Wisconsin, went vegetarian in the 1980’s, and moved to California (Bay Area) in 1990. The attitude toward veggies was very different in the two states, at least at the time. In Wisconsin, there was a far more ingrained mindset of, “If you practice a different lifestyle than me, then you are insulting me.” It wasn’t universal by any means, but it was common enough that trying to find vegetarian entrees in a restaurant was like walking on eggshells sometimes. There were incidents when someone AT THE NEXT TABLE overheard me using the v-word, demanded to know why I was a vegetarian (the usual moral reason), and got upset at me when I answered.
And before you ask: I tried to be as non-confrontational as possible in my answers. Non-vegs outnumber vegs by at least 20-to-1 in most places in the USA; I don’t want to get into fights where I’m outnumbered that badly. But that didn’t stop people from accusing me of stuff like “forcing my beliefs on them” once they dragged an answer out of me.
I’m pretty sure the situation has improved in the last 25 years, but that’s how it was back then. By the time I moved to California, I was like a toned-down version of Sydney in today’s comic.
California was completely different. I’ve only met one Californian who was that aggressive towards vegs, at least in my presence; the rest were more like “meh who cares”. It took a few years for me to get over my fear of using the v-word, but these days I’ll just ask “is this item vegetarian” in cafeterias and restaurants, and nobody bats an eye. It’s a better attitude IMHO.
I don’t think DaveB has said, but most of us think probably Dallas, TX. And no, I don’t think you’ll find very many militant meat eaters in the place famous in part for cattle ranches.
However, a little razzing might be had. People are strange that way.
Also, it wouldn’t be the first time someone took offense over someone else NOT being a likely customer. I keep thinking back to a bible passage involving early Christian persecution over not being interested in supporting the silver figurine votive offering trade way back when.
Not sure, as I live one step down from where you did(Where there’s more than corn), and was a Vegan during that time period, and never encountered that sort of animosity Traveling up to attend Bristol, or back home puttering about. Most of the Chinese restaurants usually had(and still do) the best hands-down Vegan meals ever(Seven-alarm Spicy too, the way I like it) Then again, whenever I had to go up into Chicago, I had to dodge egg-tossers who could not understand how I could wear a leather jacket, yet be a Vegan(I refused to toss a perfectly fine Winter Jacket just because I wasn’t eating meat any longer), and then got into a shouting match with “self-proclaimed carnivores” next breath because I wasn’t eating meat. There are ignorant jackasses everywhere. Just my 2cp.
I had to revert years later(and it took me years to do so) for health reasons, and well, I sort of have a mindset to defend the non-insane Vegans/Vegetarians now.
She must be a vegetarian for ethical reasons right? https://maximumble.thebookofbiff.com/2013/05/10/626-ethics/
I got the egg :)
It first letter is “M” :)
If “m” is for “microdot” I am not looking. :-P
This revelation suddenly puts strip #110 into perspective.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/664
You did not read what the author commented under the strip, do you?
Love Peggy’s nonchalant position as she’s being dragged off whilst the other 2 look mortified (understandable for poor upside down Harem.).
Damnit Sydney, next time, grab ALL THE HAREMS!
Why? You only need to grab one to get the message to all of them, after all.
A harem told everyone else, thats why
The only solution would be to PPO all the Harems. Grabbing teleporters not being that effective, if they are incurable gossips.
Interesting. There must be at least one other Grrl Power fan who uses the particular internet cafe, in Bulgaria, that I have just popped into! Or, at the very least, a webcomic fan. Because the browser auto-predicted Grrl Power when I typed in the search. Plus, when I decided to pop in a vote at the competition, the vote for this IP address had already been locked in. So no sneaky double voting from me! I just hope that whoever votes from this cafe first, in the next round, is the Grrl Power fan. :-D
Look up DNS masquerading, if you don’t know what it is already.
Extrapolate on the possibility of a whole ISP using a single IP address for their entire customer base, including that cafe.
They don’t. I investigated the various ISPs heavily before emigrating here. Internet access being vital for me, I refused to exchange contracts until my estate agents had clarified every aspect of it that concerned me. With documentary evidence to support it.
Even those of us who connect to the internet via radio each get our own address. Likewise each separately billed land-linked customer in the towns and cities. For the ISPs I checked out, anyhow. And I know the one the café uses.
Bourne out by the fact that I would be aware by now, from issues such as this, if we were sharing a single address. I have many friends who use the same ISP as I do, because I was the first to find a good one and encouraged everyone else to get online too. And we share a lot of common websites and activities.
Yes, the cafe itself is almost certainly masquerading as a single address, but I did not imply that would not be the case. To the contrary, in fact, given that it is my belief that only one person in that café will get to cast a vote.
I LOVE how all the comments seem to be about this shocking vegetarianism, rather than the panel where Sydney is using the molestorb (I will forever call it that, Arianna!) To kidnap three sexy ladies. Even when one of them is literally struggling to keep her skirt from falling!
I would bet a Scooby snack that the ratio would be the other way around if Daphne had failed to prevent her wardrobe accident. Given that I figure she is going commando at the moment, due to her unusual undergarment punishment.
So her nemisis is going to be someone who can manipulate ground beef like her orb. Or the Earthworm Jim cow.
love it love it love it! Simultaneously makes Sydney a more three dimensional character in a way that fits her personality, and also makes her more relateable.
Whenever a person is used to doing something bad, and is told that they can’t anymore, they flip a toddler tantrum. The worst thing you can do in this situation is let them get their way, because then they will VIOLENTLY assert their right do keep doing that bad thing forever. Grown assed men do this, all the way from slavery, to parking in the handicapped zone. It’s insane, it’s universal, and it’s tragic.
Sam Harris theorizes that we can scientifically determine morals, if we but try. So, just throwing it out there, even though my life IS totally more important than any animal’s life, it’s still totally immoral to kill one when you aren’t even anywhere near close to needing to kill one.
And when you tell this to someone who has always eaten meat, they flip a toddler tantrum. Whereupon they paint all vegans as insane harpy terrorists, or sickly bleeding heart retards. Is it any wonder why Sydney was so keen to avoid this?
If you think I’m exaggerating the toddler tantrum, then I envy you.
/toddler tantrum activated
Who are you to say that eating meat is bad/wrong? Does not the Bible say that all animals were created for man to feed upon?
Disagreeing with you is not having a tantrum. And there is a difference between breaking the law and disagreeing with your opinions on morality.
I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. I highly value open-mindedness, and that means allowing the possibility that other points of view are just as valid as my own. It does however mean that close-mindedness – including whole ‘if you disagree you’re evil (or a two year old, or stupid, or whatever)’ – is a pet peeve of mine.
Morality is not empirical. It is by definition, a set of opinions, and differs not only from culture to culture but from person to person. A person’s dietary needs also vary – what is healthy for one, might be deadly for another. The definition of ‘need’ also varies – Do you qualify someone’s needs as just what is necessary for basic survival? To what age? Or what is necessary to be completely healthy? Or to be happy? There are different levels of ‘need’. And disagreeing with where you place your point on that scale is not throwing tantrums or being immature, it is being different.
Agreed, some theoretically adult people are immature, especially at this age, and do throw tantrums when they do not get what they want. This does not mean all adults are susceptible to such behavior.
And I will be highly amused if you decide this calm, rational semi-lecture is a tantrum ^_^
Three of my best friends are vegetarians. None of whom do I criticise for their lifestyle choice. Nor they mine. Ever. Two of the three expect a good teasing though, if a suitable opportunity arises. But only because they have wicked senses of humour themselves. And give as good as they get. The third I do not recall even having teased, on any topic, simply because she is not into that kind of humour.
I’m not even kidding about empirical morality. Something being terribly complicated doesn’t eliminate the existence of right answers. There are many, many, many situations in which it would be perfectly moral for me to eat meat. But, the more each of the many variables involved are improved, the more likely it is that you’ve crossed the line into immorality by continuing to eat meat… a nice safe estimate would be… more than half of all the people living in first world countries.
Saying that your choice is a matter of subjective morality is not a get out of jail free card. A science of morality, properly explored, can be just as objective as the medical sciences.
So, you are saying that Gods’ commandment is immoral? o_O
Even if morality could be empirically determined, and I’m not agreeing that it can be, it has not yet been done, because as you pointed out, proper studies have not been made. Thus all you have are theories, and everyone has the right to their own counter-theories. I repeat again, ‘need’ has different definitions. Where do you place yours? Survival of the moment? Survival for a set number of years? Being physically healthy? What about mentally healthy? Should everyone be forced to the same diet, regardless of differences in body chemistry and dietary needs?
You obviously have very clear ideas and are very strict with your own ethical code. It is very easy, in such a circumstance, to mistake opinions for fact. Empirical data requires utilizing science; true science, not the pseudo-science or scientology so common today. It requires large amounts of experimentation, the ability to let go of your theories if they’re proven wrong, and a pursuit of the truth often at the expense of your pet theories – not trying to find facts to make your theories work.
You keep declaring that morals are empirical (AKA absolute) and just haven’t been studied – and implicating you know what those set values are. How could you possibly know? Without those studies, properly done, your theory on empirical morality is just that, a theory, and you do not have the values and measurements to work from. Acting as if you do without the proof and the studies is the attitude of a scientologist, not a scientist.
That said. I find it an intriguing notion, and I hope they do find a way to do a study on it someday. I’m not sure how you could prove things one way or the other though – feeling guilty over an action would not be a valid indicator, it’s too easily influenced socially. How would you go about determining the factual morality? What makes something ‘good’ or ‘bad’, in an empirical sense? And ‘because it is’ or ‘because I say so’ or ‘because it feels wrong’ are not adequate answers in this contest. We are, at your request, talking empiricism.
*context, not contest. That was a poorly timed typo…
I tend to use more absolutist wording in order to stress that slight scientific uncertainty does not justify believing far less likely possibilities. If I actually were a scientist, I would use far more humble and conditional language. As I am not a scientist, I would defer further inquisition about the topic of empirical morality to where I got the idea in the first place, Sam Harris.
What I CAN say, is that I spent several years constantly questioning every assumption that I’ve ever had about the dietary morality of myself, my parents, and everyone I knew. Studying how this variable can change that situation, all the whens and hows and wheres, all the whys I should care about the whats, so that in ANY given situation I could alter my diet to be fully moral, rather than just doing something because that’s how my mum does it, which is what I used to do. And although I still don’t know enough about all of the variables to make a judgement call about everyone I meet, I can very safely say… at least half of all meat eaters in first world countries are doing so immorally.
To help show that I’m not just talking out of my ass, I’ll say this: Supermassive herds of grazing animals can tremendously help and may be necessary to reverse global warming. Google the TED talk. If we go this route, what will we do with all those animals except eat them?
How about this for empirical morality?:
This entire universe exists & continues to perpetuate ONLY because the Laws of Nature operate EXACTLY in the manner that they do. There are two Prime Forces at work in the Universe, Order & Chaos. The job, or task, of the scientific disciplines is to learn & understand the Laws of Nature in Action through observation & deduction: It’s called the Scientific Method of Learning & is performed through Observation, Forming a Theory about what was observed, then Testing the theory for accuracy in accordance with the Observation.
Order represents the concepts of stability, structure & form, but also encompasses stagnation–Stagnation is the ultimate expression of substance without change. Stagnation even means that, for all practical purposes, time doesn’t pass because Time itself cannot be measured or defined if there are no changes occurring. Scientists have conceptualized this State of Matter as Absolute Zero, the temperature at which there is no motion, even on the molecular & atomic levels. There has never been any observation or artificially-induced condition that actually reaches this temperature, although they’ve come pretty close.
Chaos is best conceptualized as a condition of Constant Change with Infinite Potential. A State of Matter & Energy where nothing can really exist or obtain any kind of form. Anything that *might* come into being is instantly changed into something else…In other words, it’s the raw Force of Creation because it includes All Possibilities. Chaos also includes the concept of Entropy, because the occurrence of Change Over the Course of Time eventually unravels all aspects of Form & Structure. Modern scientists conceptualize Chaos as Quantum Mechanics.
This universe exists because of the interaction between Order & Chaos achieves a balance between Form & Motion. The Laws of Nature determine how that Balance is achieved, the “fulcrum” for the balance-point–Not too much Order & not too much Chaos.
The Laws of Nature are nothing more than the “blueprint” that determines what this universe looks like & how it works. The Scientific Method of Learning is just a means to Observe what IS & figure out how it fits together–In short, all of human knowledge (including the Laws of Physics as we know them) is nothing more than what we’ve learned about how the Laws of Nature actually work. Humanity still can’t perceive or observe EVERYTHING yet, so all of our knowledge is only a fraction of what the Laws of Nature actually are.
We can no more deny the Laws of Nature than we can deny existence itself, because we are one of the Products of Nature…As we continue to exist as a species, we will continue to evolve & change, because the continuing influence of Chaos imposes Change upon us. But in order to continue existing, we must change in accordance to the Laws of Nature. To buck against the Laws of Nature means paying the consequences. In the context of this particular discussion, if we eat too much, we accumulate fat–If we eat too little, we starve. Our bodies have the capability of accumulating fat to offset some of the effects of temporary lack of sufficient food supplies–The Laws of Nature allow for us to adapt in some degree to changing conditions. These are the some of the consequences of how well we can or can’t comply with the Laws of Nature.
You still with me on this? Are you still following how the universe itself works?
The way that the Laws of Nature have worked out so far, is that human beings are Omnivores, sustaining ourselves on a variety of food sources. To reject our Nature as Omnivores is to deny the Laws of Nature that made us what we are. To become Vegan is a deliberate choice of an individual person, but the consequences must also be paid–A Vegan must be capable of compensating for the loss of animal-based nutrients, otherwise will become malnourished & unhealthy. Yes, our knowledge & technology CAN compensate by adding these animal-based nutrients to non-animal based foods, but it’s a delicate balance that must be known & maintained. Knowledge in Biology must be pretty extensive to be aware of how to maintain that balance & it takes discipline to keep applying that knowledge on a daily basis.
But you must also be aware that human knowledge is NOT complete–As long as there is room for any kind of “theory” in any scientific discipline, that’s where our extent of actual knowledge is lacking. Human beings do not know everything already–If we already knew everything, there would be no need for any scientists to exist! The real trick is to be aware of how ignorant we still are, compared to how much more we still have to learn from the Laws of Nature.
All seems interesting and accurate, so far as we know, but where does the ’empirical morality’ fit in? I didn’t see anything in there about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Fair question, since I really didn’t seem to make it clear where right & wrong (or good & evil) fit into that.
In my view, what is right or good would be those who act to maintain the balance. Knowing that the balance can be fragile, it would be in the best interests for everyone to try to keep the balance as it is. In the universe & on our world, sometimes local conditions (local scale is just a “limited area,” which could be any size from your own household to entire galaxies) seem to sway in favor of Order or Chaos but the Natural Law can & will compensate to restore the balance on its own…It’s self-regulating & self-enforcing.
What is bad or evil is to take deliberate action to unbalance these two primary forces. Such as trying to force someone into doing something against their own will, or lying to large numbers of people to sway their own opinions towards one’s own favor. This could include action s as small as dumping your expired medications into the water supply (ie: flushing them down the toilet) all the way up to detonating a nuclear warhead. Again, the action taken does boil down to a matter of the scale over which that action will have an effect: One person flushing their meds only has a small effect on the water supply, but millions of people will have a greater scale of effect.
Natural does not mean good! Dying at the ripe old age of 39 from a fever is natural!
Also Sam Harris is a Boss. A bowss. https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww
Eight years ago or so, I stumbled across an interesting concept. One that, if true, means that we are misunderstanding a basic truth about the true nature of reality. I had not been looking for it, but having discovered the idea, I could not just ignore it. Subsequently I have tested it against everything I can. In every field that I could.
When I looked at the scientific principle, in that light, I found that it was flawed. Again, assuming that the concept I had uncovered was itself correct. I have discussed the concept, in detail, with many individuals, in confidence. For all that time we have been trying to find any flaws in the principle or any single example which might invalidate it. We have not done so to date.*
Therefore, I suggest that you do not entrench the scientific principle as being an integral part of your moral code. It is flawed. In due course, with or without my help, society will come to understand that flaw and will correct it. The professionals who use the modified techniques, which flow from that understanding, will be as much more capable of understanding the nature of reality, and how to exploit it, as scientists were in contrast to alchemists before them.
That aside though it is better to envisage morality in relative terms, rather than abstract ones. “Law” and “Chaos” smacking a bit much of D&D game simplifications to sit comfortably with me as a basis for a moral code. As said, by someone else in these comments, what is moral to one society can be considered immoral to another.
The simpler the basic principles you apply to a moral code, the easier it is to both understand and implement. For instance “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is both easy to understand and can be used to answer many moral problems. E.g. if you do not like the idea of others imposing their lifestyle choices on you, then you should not attempt to do the same on them. Regardless of what that choice is. Be it sexual conduct or smoking.
But, as regards the scientific principle, I just thought I would save you the bother of having to modify your moral code at a later date. Far simpler to just not use it now. It is a tool designed to understand how the universe works. That is not the same as a tool designed to understand the best way to behave in society. The fact that it has a flaw does not help either use mind.
* The irony does not escape me by the way. That is using the scientific principle to examine something, when I contest that there is a flaw in that very principle. However I did not say that it is wrong. Simply that it is flawed. I know how to adjust for that flaw.
There are CLEARLY situations in which “Do unto others” is the wrong thing to do. Dealing with the criminally insane, for example.
Morals are an area where you practice common sense, rather than pedanticism. That said though, I would seriously hope that should I develop a mental illness that I be treated by others the same way I have treated the mentally ill myself.
Likewise I (quite literally) behave the same whether addressing the chairman of a company or a shepherd. They get treated as equals and friends that I have only just met. And I choose topics of conversation which I think they will find interesting.
I do that even in societies which have rigid etiquette which discourages such. For instance Bulgarian has a formal (polite) version or an informal (friendly) variant for many of the social aspects, such as how you say hello. You are meant to only use the informal amongst friends. It is considered to be impolite to use the informal in a business environment or to an older person.
I ignore that and use the informal with everyone. Which I can get away with by playing the ‘ignorant foreigner’ who does not know any different. Whereas I am actually just practising the principle of ‘a stranger is simply a friend I have not met yet.’ And I break down the barriers with even the stuffiest old dear within a few sentences. So everybody treats me like a friend. Which is my intent.
Yes, before a person becomes criminally insane they would want to be locked away if they ever became insane, but after the fact you can bet your ass he wants out, and “do unto others” ceases to apply. I would think that to be rather obvious, and that you chose to pretend that you didn’t see that… disturbing.
There are numerous other examples where you would want to be treated differently than others, on the virtue that people are different. Someone with expertise speaking to someone with none.
The INTENT of the golden rule is obvious, and good. “Don’t be an asshole, so we can all reap the benefits of avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons.”
I did not ‘pretend not to see that.’ My first line was in response to that implication. It dismisses the argument as being pedantic. If somebody has become criminally insane, they are no longer capable of rational, moral thought. So your intent to show there was some specific problem with ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ fails completely. No alternative moral code you could write would fare any better. They are incapable of following any moral code (or they would not be criminally insane).
I therefore spent the rest of my reply dealing with the way that morality does apply when discussing the criminally insane. That being the way that sane and rational people choose to treat the insane. I was attempting to be constructive, rather than avoiding the issue.
I do not treat people with expertise any differently than I treat those without. I will talk to them using the best of my knowledge. If their expertise exceeds mine, and I have erred, they will correct me. If they lack expertise they will be informed. Either might find me tedious and tell me to shut up. The only way I would modify what I say is to not bother elaborating on explaining points which I know the other person understands well.
I would expect to be treated the same way. If someone else is talking to me, I would like to pass on whatever interesting information they have which I lack. If they are mistaken about something, I will correct them. If I am in ignorance of things that they are expert in, I will encourage them to reduce my ignorance.
But you are right that it can fail in certain circumstances. But moral codes exist to give guidance. They must be tempered with common sense in situations where the rules do not easily fit.
The most important bit of common sense to apply to the one in question being that one should not expect it to be reciprocal. Just because you choose to be generous and fair does not mean that others will do likewise in return. And if you do not modify your behaviour when dealing with exploitative or outright evil people, then you will suffer.
But it does not invalidate the basic code. It just means that you treat others fairly unless you know or suspect that such will be detrimental. In which case you look to other aspects of your moral code as to how best to proceed. Personally mine includes ones such as ‘if they are likely to kill you, kill them first’. Certainly not something that I would hope that they do unto me before I do unto them!
Basically, what a person’s moral code should be, to keep the good & bad at balance within themselves, is to feel free to do anything they damn well please as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone *unnecessarily*
Let’s face it…Sometimes you just HAVE to hurt someone, particularly if that person is already hurting others & they have to be stopped. Your freedom ends where my nose begins, ya’ know.
Peggy drinking… a daiquiri with a beer bottle attached to it? what even?
Yeah, there are some famous vegan athletes, like MMA fighter Mac Danzig and also Gladiators. But it can be kinda sorta hard to eat vegetarian with asian cuisine because there’s a lot of fish sauce and chicken/pork broth where you wouldn’t expect it. But Sydney can define her vegetarianism any way she wants, and that might be in a way that is loves fish sauce.
And now Arianna is going to have to update her excel sheets! Maybe makes her happy for all I know.
Round 2 of the ComicMix contest is now open: https://www.comicmix.com/mix-march-madness-webcomics-tournament/2014/03/20/vote-now-mix-march-madness-2014-webcomics-tournament-round-2/
“I predict Syndney kicking Harem’s double agent ass, should be fun” Only because your picturing a porn scenario with it. “…and if I was?”
Harem isn’t a double agent, she’s a quin-gent (quintuple agent), trying to figure that all out is like determining how 101010 equals 273 in your head
The binary number said to the decimal number “spin on my digit!”
Okay. It works if it’s trinary…which I did have to use a calculator to determine as I don’t have my powers of 3 memorized past 3^4.
Yes, it is trinary (binary would be ’42’), did it on paper by hand and took me ages :(
Hey Dave, in the next comic when Dabbler finds out about Sidney’s food choices we need another not-sure-about English joke.
“If being a vegetarian means you only eat vegetables, then what does it mean when someone calls them self a humanitarian?”
That would be good to see, specially the reactions to the question :D
The reaction will depend largely on which group one belongs to: the group who believes Dabbles is yanking the futon, or those who believe she is being genuine/serious
You..HANNIBAL!
NO! …Don’t…Kane…me, bro!
Everyone’s going off on the whole vegetarian thing.
I’M stuck on the, “…because being a Navy SEAL or an Army Ranger didn’t PRESENT THEM with enough of a CHALLENGE!” line.
She has a point there, seriously.
I absolutely love that. Even though I played up the carnivore thing, rather than complimenting that part. But, credit where credit is due, that is a very powerful line. A real “we will fight them on the beaches” moment.
Which is then destroyed by
the minion of evilHarem. But it is really clever how the final panel ends in laughs, despite the serious reactions to her transgressions.Very cleverly paced emotive highs and lows to culminate in that last scene.
THE LIST RETURNS!!! RED ALERT!!!!
Usually it is the so called “meat eaters” who yammer on and act like if everyone isn’t eating meat it might spread. Their problem is too much meat in their diet. If we cut back to say 10% of what is consumed we and our planet would be much better off. Creating all that meat takes up a whole hell of a lot of water, inedible greens (for us) and land. Sooner or later we will be forced to do it or just force other countries to be our cattle lands.
Or alternatively we can bring good medical healthcare to the rest of the world, in parallel with a publicity campaign, to point out the benefits of contraceptives, now that children will survive to adulthood in all likelihood. Poor couples only have 10 children if they are likely to loose 8 of them. If they realise that they will have to be feeding 10 mouths for the foreseeable future, enough will see the light and take advantage of the birth control options supplied.
Provided both campaigns are properly resourced and implemented, whilst accounting for regional differences, it has repeatedly resulted in turning countries from having out of control population growth to becoming stable. Without any draconic measures, like the Chinese one child policy.
Doing that is the ideal way to resolve the issue you raise. Practice it worldwide and you cut down on a heck of a lot of the world’s problems. Some of which are caused simply due to overpopulation and others of which are seriously aggravated by it. Such as the food issue you mentioned.
But, of course, selling more food to overpopulated third world countries is more profitable than providing healthcare to stop that happening in the first place. So I doubt we will see more than patchy control along those lines.
you make a pretty good point, though i could see that being paired with consuming less meat, because in the end it doesn’t matter what you do- raising meat is still much less resource efficient than growing crops. The real question is if we have the resources to spare and are willing to spend them this way (which clearly right now we are). This is coming from a heavy meat eater- I wouldn’t feel comfortable cutting meat out of my diet completely but I can understand the argument being made for eating less of it if you’re in a position where you can afford to.
I, for one, wish to thank and praise vegans and vegetarians. Their complete and total abstinence from meat leaves that much more for the meatetarians (is that even a word?) among us.(ahem…ME!)
*nods*
If all the world’s vegetarians (including vast numbers in the far east) suddenly started eating meat, the demand would sky-rocket, prices would soar out of control, governments would realise that far too much of the world’s agricultural land would have to be converted to providing animal feed and they would have no choice but to take measures to stop meat eating or face world-wide starvation and economic collapse.
If it were not for vegetarians we might all have to stop eating meat!
Hug a vegetarian or vegan today.
Agreed! More beef for me!
….suddenly I am craving a steak, brussell sprouts, and a heaping pile of mashed potatoes….
Pot roast, corn, mashed taters, gravy, biscuits, and chocolate cake,
With a large glass of milk
Dammit! Now I’m hungry, and I’m still at work!
Thought people might be interested in this
yes thank you so much. A vegetarian that isn’t reduced to a militant douche/ minor antagonist or a super tree hugging side character built entirely to be mocked for their naivete/foolishness.
Peggy might be feeling embarrassed about the vegan comment she made to Sydney, in #110 then again Sydney seems O.K with the jokes, still surprised that she turned out to be the vegan superhero.
Not vegan. Vegetarian. There is a biiiiig difference.
… Yeah, it already seemed pretty obvious that Harem is a bit of a jerk. >_<;
Where do you get that from? She didn’t do it deliberately nor maliciously
Under the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt, I would be willing to concede the lack of malicious intent. That is to say, we have no evidence to say she was purposely trying to harm Sydney as an end in itself. But it simply is not possible that she did not make a deliberate choice. You do not accidentally speak. Other than if delirious and not in conscious control. Ergo she deliberately chose to gossip.
It may be more reasonable to claim that she said it ‘unthinkingly’. She does, after all, appear to show genuine surprise at the hostility being shown to her, in the final panel.
However look at the timing. Sydney clearly makes her desire for privacy in panel 7. Then three characters (including Harem herself) all have sequential dialogue in panel 8. Plenty of time for an intelligent person to soak up the fact that it would be unethical to breach the confidence. And from her profile, we know that Daphne is mentally astute.
So we cannot give her the same leeway as we may for Heatwave, who simply might not have realised that until long after the event.
In fact there is even more dialogue in panel 8, before the time when reveal must have been made (despite being unheard to us). It not taking very long to say “Sydney is a vegetarian”, and the audible responses clearly must have been in immediate response to that, however it was phrased.
So my conclusion would be that the only applicable word would be ‘uncaringly’. She knew that privacy was desired, then consciously (or, being generous again, unconsciously) chose to ignore that, and finally was surprised that others found this unacceptable.
Understand your point, but will still stand by the assertion that it hadn’t fully filltered through to the other Daphne’s not to ‘out’ Sydney
It is very easy for a regular single-brained entity to be ‘stuck’ in a thought process: “Still thinking, stop talking while I work this out! Those guys have enhanced hearing? That means… Crap! Here they come, run!” The other Daphne’s knew that Sydney wanted a ‘private’ word, so possibly ‘tuned’ out Gothette so as not be ‘eavesdropping’ but continued the thought Gothette had started (how were they to know that that was what the “Emergency Superheroine (plus Gwen) Conference” was about?)
But yeah, Harem did it deliberately because she is a traitorous traitor out to cause as much problems for ARCHON as possible!!!
Is there even any evidence that Harem ‘outed’ Sydney? It’s obvious that the girls can hear everything said at the table (i.e. the reader is shown the speech balloons from around the corner), and they weren’t shouting. So why shouldn’t the table be able to hear what’s being said by the girls?
The same evidence for Harem ‘outing’ Sydney paint her as being a traitor working for Machina
Looking back it’s possibly her vegetarian lifestyle and aversion to the sun comes from the same reason. Whatever it is
Quite possible. As mentioned in an earlier post, I have difficulties in absorbing B vitamins, which come primarily from meat. When I’m short on them I get increasingly light sensitive. They also affect memory and focus/concentration. For MOST people, it takes a couple of years on a vegetarian diet for the symptoms to start showing up – so if Sydney was unaware of the problem (as most people aren’t), it’s perfectly possible that she didn’t realize the hatred-of-the-sun (Just another quirk!) and an increasing lack of control over her ADHD was the result of her diet.
*as most people aren’t aware. Sorry, just realized a grammatical error made that needlessly confusing…