Grrl Power #230 – To the rescue!
Maxima is a dirty fighter, no two ways about it. She employs sort of a super version of Krav Maga, basically with the intent to cripple in a single hit. I know there are some continuities which say that Superman knows some crazy Krytonian martial art, but most of what I’ve seen of him comes from Superman:TAS, the Justice League cartoons, and the DC animated movies, and in those it would be generous to even call him a pugilist. He just hits things, and not even very skillfully. It always bugged me that his job is basically just to hit stuff, yet he never seemed to study even basic martial arts. It’s probably a different story depending on what comic you’re reading, but all the animated Superman really made me want to make sure that my top tier super fought very differently. Besides it being sensible to want to take out opponents with brutal efficiency, Max is also wanting to build a reputation, which is if you get into a fight with her, the best possible outcome is an extended hospitalization.
You can see the two in the last panel of this page under the Hump the Barrett word bubble of the parking lot shot on this page.
I think… with this page, all the major players have been introduced, or at least show doing something during the fight. There might be a few more minions left to blow away, but from this point on it’s mostly attrition. Arc-SWAT has done very well so far thanks to a number of factors, training, teamwork, coordination, actually watching each other’s backs, etc. We’ll see if it holds up, especially now that it seems that the remaining antagonists are trying some coordination of their own.
#MakeComics: Speaking of watching each other’s backs, it’s funny how pages and story details can change while creating a page. Basically Jiggawatt is reaaaaly lucky I didn’t have room on this page to draw her barely deflecting the second parking bumper that gets chucked at her in panel 6. I had planned on having half of it catch her in the ribs, not quite taking her out of the fight but effectively immobilizing her. Basically it would have turned her in to a wheezing lightning turret. But I couldn’t get everything I wanted on the page, so I rewrote a few key postcedent (it’s a word) events and I think it’s much better for the change. Since I couldn’t fit the bumper hitting her, I could have either had Breakpoint conveniently forget to throw it (not ideal since I showed her picking it up last page) or I get to show Sydney being a huge boon to the team, not only providing cover as we saw on previous pages, but now actively stuffing enemy attacks.
Oh and props to Charlie Abbott for being the first person to spot that Jiggawatt is wearing Major Kira’s shirt. (Or my close approximation of it – I think there were multiple version of it in wardrobe and the criss-cross changed slightly with each one.) Charlie has already been awarded his No-prize.
Edit: I’ve removed the ads from the page temporarily since some people were getting warnings about bad links appearing on the site. Please let me know if you see any warnings about the page at grrlpowercomic[at]gmail.com, and if you can, send me details or a screenshot of the warning as it might help diagnose the issue. Hopefully it’s just the ads.
<– If you enjoy the comic, consider supporting it via Patreon. Or buy something via the Amazon referral link. It’s all good.
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.
I’m waiting for ARC-Light to put over the Coms that a Judge has signed the paperwork to lift the reasonable force requirement, then Max sais “Ok people gloves come off”
you know half the time why SRT, SWAT or Tactical are standing around doing nothing is because the bad guys haven’t escalated to a point that on sight C&C will take the culpability or a judge hasn’t singed a court order or waver granting immunity for law enforcement to use required (instead of reasonable) force.
I wonder if ARCON has their own stable of Federal Judges locked in an office somewhere ready to sign paper work as soon as ARC-Law is done drafting them, or is one of Harems duties to port in on selected judges at what could be inopportune moments to collect John Handcocks.
“The use of unnecessary force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers… has been approved.”
I doubt military forces have to wait for something like that
I doubt they either requested or expect anything like that. Assuming it’s real. And I want to see chapter and verse in a law code before I believe it.
You are correct…there is no “Waiver of force” type law, though there really should be after Waco and similar “Shoot first, ask questions later” situations like that poor kid in Santa Rosa, CA who was carrying a toy gun and got gunned down by police who came up behind him and shouted for him to drop the gun…he turned around without dropping the toy, and they shot him dead.
Ya. Not to come across anti-american but ya do have some politcal groups that lobby for dangerous shit to stay legal and barely regulated over there…
Gun Laws and Regulations stricter than your own have worked out quite well in the clear majority of countries that have implemented them. A Beautiful example is Australia, their situation was quite similar to the USA of today until they changed it…
True, I be comming to this as a non-american but… yeah…
What I forgot to write was that I meant ya needed to not only rein in tha law enforcement but also the private folks goin’ around with guns… with out this my previous comment seem completely unrelated except that it had to do with gun violence.
Lawenforcement missusing their power is truly horrible and scandalous, but in the case with the kid in Santa Rosa, would they have shot the kid if the fear had not been there in the first place? I find it more unlikely they would have in a country where it would not be an automatic reaction that a real-looking toy gun would actually be the real deal. Over here they might have stopped the kid to check the gun out, but I dont think they would have opened fire…
Now, accidents happen and it could just as easy have happened here. I don’t know what went through their heads at the time. I’m just thinking the underlying fear of a population with easy access to a wide variety o’ guns made it a far more likely outcome to come to pass (as it did) in Santa Rosa…
In the UK it would be very unlikely to ever be an issue now. In particular due to the fact that both replica guns and realistic-looking toy guns have been illegal for some while. If it can reasonably be mistaken for a real firearm it should not be in the hands of kids.
Of course there will always be instances where a cop mistakes an innocuous object as a weapon. Or where the body language makes them think one is being used. But at least the risk of that happening can be drastically reduced, if a toy looks clearly like a toy.
But you know what we do have?
OUR VOICES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8nyH9zgVC8
You mean like getting shot for holding a wii remote? Our police simply need better training. Panicking cops is BAD. VERY BAD. And is a sign that we don’t really train them to handle the circumstances that they have been put in. Obviously since we are talking about humans there would still be things slipping through cracks, but better training and education, on both sides, would do a lot more than restrictive laws.
More than being shot for having a object in hand is being, say grenade blasted or the ilk simply because the police didn’t bother to verify their intel. Botched raids are a very serious issue here.
actually given the popularity of certain sports over there i’m surprised the VCRA still exists. then again that would require either a democracy or a constitutional state that emphasizes the rights of the individual. granted everything in the US Bill of Rights was copied directly from the Magna Carta which clearly no longer applies in England. that said if the English ever tire of living like serfs just give us a call we’re good at helping governments out, and helping governmentsout
Having seen the mind-numbingly large number of civilian casualties when you (and we) go into ‘help out’, against governments that do not want it, I think I will give that a miss thanks.
Although you do open an interesting line of debate, if you genuinely think that you have more personal freedom than in the U.K. Other than the right to shoot fellow citizens, that is.
I feel that we are fairly much on a par, personal freedoms wise. Both societies have probably been too apathetic in opposing anti-terror laws, so our liberties have been somewhat encroached. But, in day to day life, I do not see that there is a huge difference.
We both allow ourselves to be voluntarily enslaved to the idea of working to enrich some company’s shareholders, and our mortgage company, for most of our lives. And just hope that we do so well enough that we can relax a bit, in retirement, before we die. Except, of course, the younger generations know that there is less of the relaxing and more of the working to be expected, for us.
But, if there was something shiny and sparkly about present day life, in America, that is not present in the U.K. too, please tell? Especially that bit about how you think you are not a serf.
Problem is the constitution allows it as a way of checking the power of the government. We wouldn’t give the president a way to fight a veto override and we shouldn’t give the government the right to override the 2nd amendment.
That’s literally the goverments job, to make laws, and change them if it becomes necessary
When a law is allowing for mass shootings, that law should be changed
Yes, “Gun Free Zone” laws do, in fact, enable mass shootings, and should be eliminated. If a lunatic is planning a mass shooting, they invariably go to a “Gun Free Zone” to do so, since they know their victims will be unarmed.
What is more likely to stop a mass shooting in its tracks? A law disarming law abiding citizens, or an armed law abiding citizen to stop the shooter?
The former. Compare mass shooting rates in the UK to the US for the unequivocal truth on that matter. A society which has very few guns, has very few mass shootings. A society where there are almost as many guns as there are citizens has a lot of mass shootings. This is unequivocal.
It does not stop you from having the right to have as many mass shootings as you want, in order to celebrate the right to bear arms. But do not try to avoid the facts.
And just to point out one irony of your argument, note that one in four of us (in the U.K. or U.S.A.) will suffer from mental illness during the course of a year. Not all of whom will be violent. 90%, of those who are, will only seek to kill themselves. Of course having a gun will help tremendously in that regard.
But, amongst the remainder, is a pool of individuals who could pose a threat to society. Easy access to guns will, and does, radically increase the odds of a mass shooting.* Be it a sane person, who simply has had enough. Or an insane person. But until they start shooting, they are law abiding citizens. And you want to ensure they have guns!
I agree with your comments about a ‘gun free zone’. It does not sound workable, in the middle of a gun-crazed country.
* Very simple proof: no gun = no shooting.
Fun fact.
Back before public healt was such a big topic, they used to have ovens that were filled with carbon monoxide when they were on.
They used to be a very popular way of comitting suicide (CO poisoning is painless and easy).
When they eventually banned those ovens in favor of safe alternatives, the number of suicides droped dramaticly. Because there was no longer an easy way to do it, people stoped to think about it a little longer, and than deceided not to kill themselves.
Exactly the same with guns. Guns are an easy way to kill yourself. Take away the easy way, and people will stop to think about it a little longer, and just not do it
The UK is working on banning pairing knives, aren’t they?
Have you read this?
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/children-murdered-by-mad-axeman-in-china/story-fnd134gw-1226479175491?nk=9e15fb55e8baa99722ee2566848edf99
Regardless, the bottom line is American gun control advocates don’t have the votes to keep bans restricting scary AR’s on the books, much less change the constitution. And if they did the enforcement of that law would likely result in more police killings than prohibition.
It’s not something we want.
The UN can’t do anything about it
Neither can anyone else.
I’m hopefully going to be able to stay out of the political discussion from here on out.
Fun fact: the CO Theatre shooter lived near one theatre, but attacked the more distant theatre that sported a gun free policy. Turns out his home theatre had no gun policy.
Fun Fact: We had someone a few years back attack a church. Shot a few people on their way in… Only, an officer was attending church and shot the attacker. The attacker then took their own life. Any bets the attacker expected guns in a church? Any bets on how many would have died if there were no guns inside?
Fun fact: Great Britton has noticed that a lot of the murders going on involve sharp implements, so they are looking to ban them in the nation. (Well… Knives, but yeesh.. They are dead easy to make, and thousands of acceptable substitutes exist).
An armed society is a polite society.
Yup, you are confirming that gun-free zones are not a particularly workable option, in a society that has an out-of-control gun problem. Perhaps you might consider the option of making the zone bigger? Say continent-sized?
It is not a suggestion of banning knives, that would be impractical and impossible. They are necessary in all sorts of professions and domestic uses. Of course carrying them in situations where they are not justified is already an offence. A butcher taking his tools of the trade to his shop is fine. A fan, trying to get into a football match, with one tucked into his clothing, will be facing jail time.
But what we do in the UK is take note of the figures about what deaths are actually caused by. The majority of murders are spur of the moment events. Especially in a domestic environment. Clearly, in the USA that just means picking up one of the family guns.
However, in the UK, knives are indeed the improvised weapon of choice. Study of wound patterns showing that the vast majority of fatal attacks involve stabbing with them, rather than slashing or cutting. As a result of which various companies have developed safety knives, which have blunt protrusions on the end. Rather than being a simple point.
Recent studies have concluded that these do indeed actually significantly cut down on the number of fatalities from stabbing incidents. The slight point snags the knife on clothing, reducing the impact. And the blunt fronting does not do much damage.
These have been broadly welcomed by police, emergency room doctors and even the food industry. Chefs have no need for pointed knives, so are perfectly happy to switch. And it will even help reduce the seriousness of some accidental injuries.
In fact it is one of the few policies where (to the best of my knowledge) there are no interest groups lobbying against it. Such a change is win win. The only people who speak out against it are simply ignorant as to the facts. Such as thinking it is a total ban on knives.
So legislation is being shaped, not to ban knives, but to ensure that only the safer versions go on sale. How they handle all the current ones, in households, is really down to what suggestions get implemented in the parliamentary debate on the issue. Probably some kind of subsidised exchange scheme will be made.
How successfully the swap-over is handled will affect how many of the deaths are prevented. The policy would help somewhat in the USA too, but far fewer attacks are made with knives, as guns have been statistically shown to be the first weapon of choice. So there would be little point (so to speak) in trying to implement the same life-saving legislation there.
Neat little difference between Great Britton and the United States. In Great Britton, only the sharks and wolves try to eat you. Where I live, it’s the wolves, the Bears and the Mountain lions that eat you, and some bears have given clear evidence that even having a gun isn’t going to ensure you keep off the menu… One bear killed in an attack was found to have bullets in it from three different guns, none matching the weapon that actually killed it. The local anti gun community here has had recent problems with the Mountain Lions targeting hikers. I do my hiking someplace else, where I can defend myself from the local fauna.
Lastly, Yorp: the US is not great Britton. We were founded on different principles and face different problems. Don’t ask us to do what works for you when it violates our founding principles. When it violates common sense for our situation. Please don’t lend credence to those who do insist we do without guns, they either don’t live where I do (a major city with bear/lion/wolf problems), or they fail to understand the role that predators have, and in either event, they fail to understand the role weapons were intended to have in our nation.
Actually that theatre he bypassed was a small spanish language theatre, and that probably had more to do with his target selection. He went to the theatre he usually went to, when he wanted to see a movie.
So far, since the turn of the millennium, there have been ten fatal bear attacks, three mountain lion and two wolf-caused deaths. That is hardly an excuse worth mentioning, to justify the killing of 30,000 humans every year!
I am very used to wild animals, living in a country where there are wolves, bears and jackals. Some of which come into my garden, every year. And I grew up in Africa, with far worse. But you do not need to arm 360 million people, in order to defend against such a trivial threat (in national terms).
People who’s job it is to control dangerous animals clearly do need access to weapons. Likewise people living in remote rural locations, where there is a credible threat. Even in the UK, such is recognised as a legitimate need for a firearm.
That I do not. I recognise the cultural associations as being profoundly important and the only argument raised that is worth a damn. What I do fight is when people raise other weak arguments.
Crime is only an issue if you have an out-of control gun culture. Comparison to other countries clearly show that gun ownership neither reduces crime, nor risk of death. In fact it markedly increases the latter.
The ‘protecting yourself against your own government’ angle is simply laughable, to the rest of the world. In most civilised countries the concept itself is bizarre. Plus, in practical terms, if things do turn bad, it is very simple to import weapons. We can see a dozen, recent, civil wars going on, around the world, and none of them have any problem with getting arms.
Frankly the gap between the populace being unarmed civilians, before they become armed rebels, is the single best opportunity to avoid a bloody civil war. The arming period gives the opportunity to come to some kind of peaceable settlement. Once wide-scale killing is taking place, it is far harder to return to normality.
Bear in mind I have lived through such conflicts in three countries. Including in the U.K.. The Irish Troubles were ultimately not resolved by guns, but by negotiation. Anybody who thinks that killing is the best route to peace, should reflect on that.
Unless you aim to commit genocide, you will ultimately need to come to a negotiated peace. What is the point of killing a bunch of your own citizens, including friends and relatives, who do not share your politics, before sitting down to peace negotiations?
Especially when you are killing more during peace time (30,000 per year) than you did during the Revolutionary war (7,000 per year). If a second American Civil War did break out, with the country as heavily armed as it is now, the casualties would be vastly more than has ever been seen before.
On a personal level, if faced with the fear of going outside without a gun, I can understand the urge to arm yourself. But, having lived in various countries, I can assure you that living without that fear is far better. Likewise when you can be confident that your children will not be massacred, when you are not there to protect them.
But once I have eliminated the other arguments, and you still feel that all the deaths are worth the cultural status that carrying a gun, then that is fine. History, culture, self and national identity are strong, and powerful drives that are very important. It is your judgement call to make on that. And I totally respect such.
Just do not try to pretend that it is any of the other issues. They are smoke and mirrors arguments, and easily disproved. Stand proud and say “It is worth killing 30,000 Americans a year, to feel American!” Do not hide behind other excuses.
My entire country is a gun free zone, and there has never been a mass shooting.
I wonder if Americans screaming about how mass shootings are unavoidable realize that the USA is the ONLY first world country where they happen
It is best not to overstate the issue. That weakens an otherwise sound argument. Such shootings do happen in most countries, regardless of development. The issue is the frequency or likelihood of that happening. Which is directly proportionate to the number of weapons in civilian hands. Zero guns = zero shootings.
But, contrary to your statement, most developed, industrialised nations do have some guns and therefore have some shootings. I can remember recent news articles about shootings in both France and Germany.
However most of the time, if you see headlines about a mass-shooting * you expect it to be the U.S.A., rather than any other country. And that expectation is very often fulfilled. Compare the U.S.A. to the E.U. countries on this list, to see the marked difference in deaths due to firearms per capita.
Check out the difference in league table positions, when you sort that by ‘total deaths’. And the actual deaths per 100,000 population, used to calculate that. The USA is double the worst case country you can pick.
Culturally the US and the UK are very closely linked, so make a good comparison, in particular. And help highlight the gun vs no gun laws.
* Excluding places that are in a war or civil war.
Gun massacre this, gun shootings that….
Guns, guns guns.
The biggest massacre of native origin in the US, if everyone has forgotten, did not use guns (well… Technically some of the explosives were triggered with a gun, but the gun played the role of a detonator only). Killed 45 people.
The biggest shooting massacre would be Virginia tech, killed 32.
The biggest massacre in the US however involved no explosives, the most advanced proper weapon, if I recall correctly, was a box cutter. It however differs from the others as it was a deliberate act of terrorism by foreigners. Yes, the September 11 attacks.
Long story short: disarming people doesn’t defang them, and it doesn’t make them any less angry or mentally disturbed. If someone seriously wants someone else dead, it will happen, regardless of gun control, knife control, and any similar laws. If box cutters can be used to kill thousands, so can improvised weapons. If you want to stop mass killings, you need to address the societal problems that spawn them, not disarm the public.
The former is an enlightened stance, which I wholeheartedly applaud. It does not however logically lead to the latter statement. Guns are designed to, and work very successfully at, killing people. Improvised weapons, by definition, are not and are demonstrably less effective.
Terrorist incidents take much planning, gathering of resources, co-ordination and the like, in order to be effective. Easy access to weaponry simply makes that process simpler.
There will always be people trying to kill each other. Society needs to firstly reduce the pressures which lead to those incidents, as you say. But also to limit the ease and effectiveness they have, when they do so.
…the government HAS that right, and has had that right since before the amendments known as the Bill of Rights were ratified in Dec. 1791. It has exercised that right (with a different target) once before, with the repeal of Prohibition. Or more technically, it has exercised that right 27 times (and failed 6 times), as the process of repealing an amendment is the same as ratifying one.
In short, the government can tek er gunz, if a) both houses vote 2/3, b) 3/4 of state legislatures ratify, and therefore c) hell freezes over.
Heh. And if the first one submitted had been ratified, we’d have 6,000 members of the House of Representatives. (assuming I read it correctly and it wasn’t later changed by other amendments, which obviously would have happened, as we currently have a stable number of representatives).
There are many who misunderstand the second amendment. It is not there to ensure that criminals can obtain dangerous weapons, but so that law-abiding citizens can have the means to defend themselves, both against criminals with weapons and tyrannical governments.
https://founderswisdom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/to-enslave-disarm-the-people/
Crap, presidents can fight a veto override with a line item veto.
Well, they Shouldn’t be allowed to.
Anyway, I’m done puking politics all over Dave’s wonderful comic.
Just who do you know that misunderstands the Second Amendment in such a way? “It is not there…” would indicate purpose, yet I have yet to hear anyone argue that that’s the purpose of the Second Amendment. If one is talking about its result has been, however, that’s a different issue.
Galactic basically just SAID that…so yeah, at least one person here seems to think that’s what the second amendment is all about, “Keeping dangerous stuff legal”
When it comes down to perceptions, how I view it is “the right to cull Americans”. Which it does, very successfully. And it is a great benefit to the rest of the world. Americans are the most conspicuous consumers of resources on the planet. By a ratio of at least 10:1 compared to the planetary average.
Every one American that y’all kill, in the Second Amendment Culling Program, benefits the world environment, by an amount equal to ten non-Americans dying. So it is very laudable of the NRA, to fight so hard to keep doing that, on such a massive scale!
My only problem is I have a lot of American friends. And I really do not want to see any one of them being killed off. Hence why I am so vocal. If they die, at least I want it known that they died bravely, doing their bit to slow global warming, as part of the American Euthanasia Program.
Trying to disguise it as ‘to prevent crime’ or to ‘save lives’ is to demean their noble sacrifice, as it is blatantly untrue.
Finally, have you ever considered the following irony. Taking the upper estimates, the average American deaths, during the Revolutionary War, was 7,000 per annum. Remember, this is the archetypal act of tyranny, which the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect you from.
Yet your deaths per annum, from guns, is now 30,000 per annum. In peace time! Is the cure worse than the disease?
You’re losing your moral high ground, Yorp- I’d just let it drop if I were you.
Speaking as an American who is very ambivalent regarding the way our bill of rights has been used to justify some of the most senseless legal and moral arguments ever posited, I still don’t see that suggesting that there is a net benefit to the slaughter of any people- whether pro-gun or anti-gun- is anything but tasteless.
Consider that while many of the people who die due to gun violence are, in fact, pro-gun, there are also many, many anti-gun victims of gun violence every year.
I’d omit the suicides, Yorp. Take away guns, and those people will still die. Perhaps by knives, or driving off of cliffs, or eating rat poison, or wielding a letter opener and charging police. Those will die regardless of the tools available.
That leaves you 11,000 of your 30,000 figure. Out of a total population of~300,000,000
Odds of dying violently from a gunshot wound in any given year? 1 in 27,000
Yes, 30,000 a year sounds scary, but give it perspective. Most of those wanted to die. I chalk those up to societal failures, not gun problems. Of the rest? In perspective, we’ve got other far more serious problems. you see, its them cars. they are far more lethal than any guns, and should be banned. 32,000 killed in any single year. Another 3,500 a year killed by Hydroxyl Acid, we should ban that stuff too. And who could forget the deaths caused by left shoes?
//Torrenal
Radithor – Eternal Sunshine. Drink some today!
Messed up the closing blockquote tag:
While I agree with most of what you said (at least in tone, if not in actual words), a per annum death toll is a bit skewed since the population is far larger today than it was during the Revolutionary War. Now if it was “x” vs “y” number of deaths per 100,000 people per year, that would make a bit more sense.
Yea, it was only because I knew that I was facing some very jaded debaters, that I resorted to such an extreme tactic. I figured anything lesser had already been tried to death. An unusual, and extremely shocking, angle might just cause someone to rethink the issues, if only for a moment.
If it did cause some undecided readers to realise that patriotic arguments can work against gun ownership (if only by negative association), then there could be a long term gain. Encouraging some young voters and future policy-makers to think outside of the current political ruts.
However, if all it did was cause offence, then I apologise unreservedly.
I like America and love Americans (some, in particular, quite literally) and would not want my words to cause more harm than good.
Since the closest comments I can find that say anything remotely close to that are Norse_Borne‘s “Not to come across anti-american but ya do have some politcal groups that lobby for dangerous shit to stay legal and barely regulated over there”, Galactic‘s “Problem is the constitution allows it as a way of checking the power of the government” and RobK‘s “When a law is allowing for mass shootings, that law should be changed”, I stand by my original assessment that your claim is nothing more than a straw man unless and until you can provide better evidence that someone actually believes what you wrote.
…many people disagree about what the 2nd amendment means or what its true purpose is, but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s there to provide easy access to weapons for criminals (they wouldn’t need it, for one thing).
That’s exactly my point. I doubt anyone believes the founding fathers sat around and said, “Gentlemen, how can we possibly ensure that present and future criminals have easy access to guns? I know, let’s write an amendment to the Constitution that specifically grants them that right.” While I have heard some bizarre interpretations of the purpose for the Second Amendment, that one has completely escaped my notice.
The law is a blunt instrument. However good the intentions, the results are not what was envisaged by the writers. It has created a society where individual freedom has been eroded. As has been argued by the pro-gun camp above, gun-free zones are impractical, when surrounded by a gun-crazed society.
Even if you want to live without a gun, fear forces you to carry one. Or run the risks associated with not having it. Because all of the criminals do choose to go armed, thanks to the rights allowed by that blunt instrument, and the laxity with which it is enforced, it means that every-day citizens have to live in fear.
For themselves and their children.
I can walk through a destitute slum in a Bulgarian city, where people have to get their water out of the drains, without fear. Do realise that I am talking about the most deprived areas, in the very poorest country in Europe!
Likewise I worked in London for many years. And quite happily went in all areas, rich and poor, black, Caucasian or Asian, day or night. Without feeling the need to carry a gun.
Was I naive, no. I took sensible precautions, to avoid standing out as a victim. And I carried a dummy wallet (with expired credit cards etc), with enough cash in it, that a mugger would feel satisfied, if I did get robbed. Would I feel less of a man to hand that over, rather than to kill the guy? No.
If he is desperate enough to have to resort to that, he is welcome to the money. I do not want to take his life, to prevent me loosing it. Any more than I would want to die fighting for it. Plus he is psyched up and ready for it, has the drop on me. So would probably win anyhow.
Would I behave the same in modern-day South Africa, or when I am in America? No. There are simply no-go areas. Your laws have created an environment where you are afraid to safely walk around, where you like, in your own country. And where many people are too frightened to step outside their front door, unless they are carrying a gun.
If the founding fathers could have peeked at modern society, comparing the differences between a gun-heavy culture and a gun-free society, do you think they would still have made the laws the way they did?
Especially when you consider that it was Britain which is the bogeyman which scared them into that policy in the first place. Yet we, the British people, have quite happily lived under that same line of monarchs and parliamentary system, without such an odd insistence that the only way to keep them in check is to be armed.
Rather we have gradually, and quite happily, reduced the prevalence of guns, to no ill effect. We do not find ourselves imprisoned and subjugated, by our own government. And who would they use to do such tyranny? The armed forces are comprised of our fellow citizens, us, our friends and our family.
There are other checks and balances, that a civilised society can use, to keep the government in line. Killing our own populace, in day-to-day life, does not help in that regard.
Rubber bullets are nice and nonlethal, why not just use those?
Making lead bullets illegal would drop the number of firearm related deaths to a fraction of what they are, while still allowing people to “feel safe in their own homes” (because a house with a gun is definitely a safer house, right?)
The number of injuries would not decrease, because people are idiots, but at least this way they aren’t accidentally killing themselves/others.
At ranges measured in feet rubber bullets are just as lethal as lead. That’s all ranges indoors. The police are supposed to be trained to ricochet them off the pavement to strike the legs. To date all attempts to create a non-lethal weapon have failed. And frankly neither the police or the open carry crazies care.
This is incredibly naive. I wouldn’t feel safer knowing that my local police had their ammo swapped out with rubber bullets. I hate to be “that guy,” but the police should be allowed to decide when lethal force should be an option.
As for the youth in Santa Rosa, I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the details of the case. But sometimes kids do get their hands on lethal weapons and they do sometimes hurt or kill other people. If the police had hesitated, and if the gun had been real, then we could have lost the life of a cop as well as a child.
No, I’m not saying it’s not tragic, and I really don’t want to say what happened was right. Maybe there was a better way to approach the situation, but maybe there wasn’t. But the police didn’t want to risk someone becoming a victim of a violent crime. If the kid turned on the cops with a perceived weapon, well…
Huh, my comment got cut off :-(
What I was going to follow up with is that relying on rubber bullets to incapacitate a perpetrator is an unrealistic expectation. Forcing the police to do so would put everyone at risk.
I agree with everything you said. The fact that I prefer a society without guns, if in one where there is a proliferation, then all your points are valid. And most of them, even without that caveat.
One point worth mentioning, as an aside, is that you picked up only one aspect of Prototype Cyborg‘s suggestion. Although eddi did go on to focus on the police. But the original idea was that everybody should only have rubber bullets.
Tongue-in-cheek, or not, on reflection, it is an interesting idea. As a hypothetical exercise, obviously. But I do see a parallel to drug addiction. If * you can get a heroin addict to agree to treatment, you can then get methadone prescribed, to help with the transition.
Not that I think gun lovers would feel comforted by being able to fire rubber bullets, if they felt that lead would be coming back. But if a serious drive could get the majority of live ammo exchanged, it would gradually reduce the fear levels.
And the lower that fell, the more comfortable the hold-out’s would be in parting with their stash. Or, more likely, be willing to hide it in a place harder for the police to find in a search.
Overall that would be fine though. They would feel safe that they could still revolt against their tyrannical government, should the need arise. But they would not have easy day-to-day access to the more deadly bullets.
Eventually even that placebo could be dispensed with, if the gun addiction is fully cured.
* And that is the biggest problem. First you have to convince the addict that they have a problem. Which they rarely recognise themselves, without an intervention. Secondly it will not work until they choose to do something about it.
The dream of a “gunless world” is just that, a dream. Even if you had a magic wand that could make every firearm on the planet disappear, governments and private corporations would just make more. I understand your wish for a less violent society, but remember this, people were hacking each other to bits long before the invention of guns. And bashing each other to death long before that. It’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the people.
And something I’ve often wondered about you UK’ers, did you even notice that when you made the majority of firearms illegal in the UK that violent crime immediately jumped over 400% per year? That really made y’all safer, didn’t it? Oh, and if/when the next World War starts up, all America. We’ll be happy to send you more guns, just like we did in WW I and WW II. Third times the charm, after all.
@ anifreik
I’m pritty sure there are still less violent crimes in Europe (guns illigal) than there are in the US (guns legal)
How often do they have mass shootings over there? That’s not even a thing here
@RobK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
@mrtt
There are under two dozen entries for Europe.
The US has its own article, with too many entries to count, but I’d guess it’s about 10 times as many.
It might happen less often, but “That’s not even a thing here” is clearly false.
also, please note its only school SHOOTINGS.
there is plenty of violent crime in europe that doesn’t involve guns. stabbing people works just as well as shooting them.
Somebody has been feeding you bogus figures I am afraid. That claim is an utter fabrication. Check out the figures linked below. Plus the more pertinent information are the long term trends. Which are all down. Significantly.
The majority of firearms were banned in the 1997 Firearms Act. The Violent Crime Trends, between 1997 and 2012/13 were as follows:
Acquaintance…1, 642 down to 668
Stranger…………784 down to 633
Domestic………..785 down to 398
Mugging…………..417 down to 274
Homicides……….608 down to 551
Yes, it really did. Significantly.
Happy to chat about war, any time. But it really is not pertinent to a debate about use of guns, by civilians, to kill civilians. Suffice it to say that I have always voted for a high defence budget.
I just like the guns to stay in the possession of the people who’s job it is to protect us from hostile nations. Not in the hands of random strangers, in my vicinity. The former keeps me alive and free. The latter only puts me at risk of death.
@ mrtt
Alright, so I was hyperboling.
Thank you for providing me with the data that proves that there are WAY MORE shootings in the country where guns are legal (31 this year alone, killing 19), than in the country(s) where guns are illigal. (7 in the past decade, killing a total of 5 people)
So the point still stands
I am reminded here of two incidents, one involving rubber bullets used by the police.
Loaded their guns with rubber bullets, killed the perp with same, and then had to explain how armor piercing rounds could be confused for rubber rounds… (Yes, this actually happened)
And then paint ball…. You take a paint ball gun, load it with pepper charged rounds, now fire it into a crowd for crowd control. Sounds great, right? Harmless, convinces the crowd they aren’t wanted there, and in a non-lethal way….
Till you find the body of a woman who took a round in the eye, killing her. (Yes, this happened too). To be effective, you almost have to hit someone in the face with pepper rounds. Tagging their arm or chest with pepper rounds is no more bothersome than with ordinary paint rounds – the pepper has to make it into the eyes, mouth, or nose to be effective. If we continue using pepper rounds, more of these deaths will happen, simply because you’ve gotta aim as close to the kill spot as you can, without actually hitting it.
Always treat any gun as lethal. I trust people with paint guns less than I do those with real guns. Why? One of the two groups expect their guns to be lethal, and will handle them accordingly.
That’s only partly true. It’s people with guns who generally are more of a problem than people without guns.
It’s not the guns. It’s the people who see guns as outlets for strong emotions like hatred and anger. It’s the people who use guns to get attention (which I believe was entirely the idea of the Aurora CO shooter).
Make it a cultural taboo to reach for guns with those emotions or goals. Give them other outlets to go to.
Again, bannin tools doesn’t solve problems. People are smart and will find other tools.
To say that guns have nothing to do with the problem is just as blind as saying they are entirely at fault.
There is quite a bit of area between outright banning guns and allowing them to be as easily as accessible as they currently are.
True, but the question is whether restricting or banning one such tool would lower violent deaths. As an analogy, if a country wanted to limit its citizenry’s ability to pound nails into wood, it might consider banning hammers. Now someone could argue that there are other tools that allow people to do that. However, most of those other tools aren’t are suited for the task as a hammer is and, as a result, people wouldn’t be able to pound as many nails as quickly as they could if they used a hammer.
They do. Especially in areas with civilians. There’s all kinds of rules for combat in civilian areas to prevent accidental deaths.
In the US they sure as hell do. The Fifth Amendment applies to all state actors, not just police.
A signed write of immunity isn’t worth the paper its printed on, if it even gets signed
And since these attackers are trying to kill police officers, the law already allows them to use lethal force. In fact, police officers are TRAINED to respond to someone trying to kill them with lethal force. If this was realistic they would have killed all the preps already
Are you sure you don’t mean “Hancock” because otherwise thats just creepy
Well, he did mention signings at “inopportune moments”… plus, who is to say that judges cannot use novelty pens?
It can be easy to bog down in the detail of all the action taking place in an unity-way brawl. Oh, for a TV show that’s fine (DBZ excepted), but in a bi-weekly comic, one fight might last months… Berevity in action can be fleshed out with a few proper comments after the fight, and a little imagination from the reader.
“Achilles, must you roast marshmallows on every single death ray you find?”
Heyho, first I really like your comic. ;).
Keep up the good work. :).
Second I think you have Malware in some of your commercials or banners. Everytime I visit your Site my antivirus program tells me that it blocked some malware. ( my antivirus program is avast).
Everyone who detects something is using Avast. No other bug hunter is picking up anything. General consensus is a false alarm. Don’t click on any ads (like anyone does that anymore) and you should stay clean.
I’ve heard reports from Kapersky as well. I’ve removed the ads for now to see if that fixes it. Let me know if you’re still getting warnings. Email me at grrlpowercomic[at]gmail.com to be sure I see it.
Just got a warning myself, I will still keep coming to this site until my state of the art rig is the ball of viral matter depicted here https://what-if.xkcd.com/80/
Avast says:
“S:Includer-BEV [Trj]”
Since you disabled the ads, my Avast Pro has given me zero warnings. Before, it was every time I refreshed the page, the same one that has been previously reported to you. Now if you can isolate which ad in particular, you’ll be back in business. Good luck!
No warnings anymore. Thankfully.
Nice action as per the usual high quality.
With AdBlock Plus running, I don’t see any ads anyway, except for the links to other comics and related sites.
More or less this is what I do. Ad of this nature don’t work on me so, they don’t usually direct me to anything I want and anything I do want it either available in some other form on the site (say the partners links and suck) or findable on some search engine.
Ad block? poor Dave.
You really hate this comic so much you won’t even support it by looking at adds?
I prefer to donate directly. Dave gets more from a PayPal deposit.
In that case, I love you :P
Ditto for me. But no tongues. Will buy you a pint though, if we meet someday.
Thanks guys. I know sites like this need ad revenue, but I wish the ad designers would have a little taste. Plus some consideration for courtesy. Flashy ads take up room and distract from the main reason this place is here, to read Dave’s comic.
There’s always the Patreon and Amazon Referral link at the bottom of Dave comments.
At work I get it when using Trend Micro too.
Love the last panel with Dislocated shoulder man blasting off again.
Calvin, “Huston. We have a negative on that orbital trajectory.” Ker-PLANT!
“Boilerplate is blasting off AGAAAAIIINNNNNnnnnn! *twinkle*
I do love how even the bad guys can tell that they can just “distract Halo with something shiny”.. It made me laugh is all.
For some reason that is completely beyond me I really like seing Hiro struggle in a fight so even it almost look like he’s getting his ass kicked if it weren’t for the other guy being bashed up as well…
Does that make me a bad person? It certainly makes me a not-fan of Hiro I guess…
BACKHAND OF DOOM!!! or JUSTICE!!! Whichever fits the context better XD
There’s a difference in her case?
I guess not XD
Oh and he suffers from the curse of being a boy scout character with Superman-like powers. He’s only interesting when he’s have issues (even if it’s only sexual harassment).
Are those the guys in the shadows from Nr. 186’s center panel? The hairstyles match, but not the colours.
I wonder if the woman has escape powers.
I would say wrong nose, wrong teeth and the hairstyle is only similar.
I also liked seeing Hiro struggle, but that was mainly because it meant that the heroes were getting a bit of challenge.
And strangely enough it also kinda annoyes me how far above everyone else Max’s power level is.
It feels like it removes a vital bit of tension, like if you had comic book superman hanging out with the x-men, casually slapping down Sentiels whenever they might have theoretical chance of getting the upper hand.
(and now i really hope i dont spawn a marvel vs dc debate with that comment…)
i know this is a bit of a cop out but maxima pretty much says that she is strong on a level where she has only met 2 supers that have gotten fought her to a standstill and that she is ranked as one of the most powerful supers in the world
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/989
I agree. Having Maxima around pretty much erases any sense of tension or drama from any of the fights. The knowledge that Maxima could simply swoop in and one-shot any of the bad guys so far introduced makes the entire exercise kind of pointless.
She can’t be everywhere which is why she takes overwatch. She couldn’t have save Sydney if Shadow Back-stabber had connected. Or Dabbler if she hadn’t blinked.
The point is: Maxi could have taken down them down while they were still outdoors (except maybe Shadow No-Nuts)
I think one issue is that Max can supercharge one of her powers at one time, but only one. So she can be the irresistable force or the immovable object, but not both at once. (So to do what she did in these panels, she’d likely have had to let her defences down a bit).
Another is that the rest of the party need some XP :P
Yup. Although she is not quite as extreme as you are thinking. First off she has a reasonable base level, even with no extra power in one of her abilities. I doubt a .22 bullet would ever be capable of killing her, for instance. And she can always fly, if not necessarily very fast.
Secondly her pool is limited, but we do not know if it is so bad, that she can only maximise a single ability at a time. Possibly that is the case, but as you say yourself, scenes like the above tend to imply that she can boost at least a couple up to very high level. Maybe capping both simultaneously.
Plus one of her powers, which she therefore also has a reasonable minimum capability in, is super reflexes/speed. Which means that she will be pretty fast at switching, when she needs to shift power from one ability to another.
Maxima is extremely adept at covering up this major weakness, using that technique and careful planning. She takes care to avoid situations that are likely to push her too far, in too many areas, at any one moment.
And, as you say, there is no need for her to do so, when she has minions who are keen to get their next level-up. Quite literally, in Sydney’s case!
“…if you had comic book superman hanging out with the x-men, casually slapping down Sentiels…”
Well, the X-Men *did* have the Phoenix for a while, but since Jean Grey wasn’t virtually born with the power as Superman was, it didn’t turn out very well…The key point is that Clark Kent grew up & learned restraint from an early age, whereas Jean Grey didn’t. Historically speaking, human beings who acquire power (of whatever type) *suddenly* at some point in their lives have trouble with *handling* that power. Those to watch out for are those who *wanted* to obtain power…
But you don’t HAVE something shiny, DO YOU?!
He could throw Hex at Sydney. The BBs are pretty shiny.
I would think they would have to catch Hex first. She seems jumpy enough (at least now) that that might pose a bit of a challenge.
I’m kind of hoping for a “friendly fire” situation. Though I doubt Hex would consider them as in charge, let alone allies.
If they want to try that tactic, they just might end up the victim rather than the culprit.
When you refer to Hex’s Buster Buddies, you seem to have mistaken “shiny” for “glowing,” haven’t you?
Don’t worry about it; People have done the same thing with Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer’s nose for generations…
;)
LQ, i know how strong Max is, she just gave a clear demonstration of how far above everyone else she is when she casually oneshottet another super on the Paragon level.
And the problem with that is that the only reason all these fools are still alive is that Max want to take them alive, and allows them to fight with her team instead of blasting them to kingdom come.
I dont know if there is anything limiting Max, or holding her back from just pounding any random threat into submission with an awesome display of excessive force.. that we dont know about.
But i kinda think the story does need something like that.
In that case, any and all casualties (specially ArcSWAT) is entirely to be laid at Maxi’s golden elf feet
Cannot be long now, Mysterious Hanging Back Armored Caped Guy should make his introductions, soon.
Or, was he already explained/dealt with and I missed it?
Still waiting. Tune in next week.
Same
BatHalo time, sameBatHalochannelweb site?Warning: Long post coming up!
Well, ‘mysterious caped guy’ could chose to do absolutely nothing and just walk away scot-free. And if he is the high ranking mega black hat that most of us suspect, that’s just what he should be doing.
So far the only move he’s made was to swat a mook (Concretia?) out of the air in order to defend himself. If ArcSWAT tries to apprehend him he could release a bushel of layers on them. Just the threat of this should cause Arianna to back down as the last thing she’d want is having the first official ArcSWAT operation being associated with a lawsuit for unlawful arrest or some thing like that.
Remember that this is a military organization that is operation inside the US. That alone is enough that the teabaggers, the extreme left, the extreme right, the government paranoids and anyone leery of federal control and consolidation of power will be on the barricades as soon as they’ve realized that the ArcSWAT demonstration the saw on TV wasn’t the marketing gig for a new Michael Bay movie. Give them some ammunition in the form of a few lawsuits and ARC initiative will be doomed.
If anyone questions what reason ‘mysterious caped guy’ may have for being there all he has to do is say that it’s none of their business. If pressured he can state that they have nothing on him, he’s just there to be a witness. Someone has to watch the watch men, and as he’s got a few abilities that raises his survival chances he chose to accept the risk to his life so that those who has not been similarly blessed will have to. It’s all very heroic, and the anti federal movements will be jumping to come to his aid. An argument could be made that ArcSWAT, or the individual that sent the mook flying, has imperiled a civilian bystander. Expect this to unleash disgusting amounts of salivating layers and the ARC could be forced to be restructured and put under political leadership.
At best this would be inefficient, at worst they’d end up with a fox in charge of the roost.
Unlawfull arrest?
He’s hanging around in the middle of a super powered battleground. That alone is supsicious enough to bring him in with the rest of the crooks he’s standing in the middle off. Arrest everyone now, figure out who you let go later. Better than let him go because he MIGHT not be guilty and than never find him again after you get the proof that he is
They might not be able to stick any real crimes to him, but he’s still a suspect
“He who holds the bag is as guilty a he who fills it” This is an old axiom which applies to anyone who is associating with criminals, in the act of perpetrating a crime. There are legal remedies for holding suspects, until a case can either be proven or disproved, because of this.
His very presence at a crime scene is sufficient grounds to be suspicious, that he may be guilty of collusion. Which gives the cops all they need to hold him, until the other villains have been interrogated. Likewise background checks into his character, past behaviour and current circumstances are wholly within order.
He can indeed choose to invoke his right to silence. If no associations can be found between him and the others, then you are right, he has done nothing except defend himself. At which point it would be correct to release him without charge.
If links can be found though, then it all depends on what happened between him and the other individuals. If evidence can be shown that he claimed that he was strong enough to defeat Maxima (as an example), and that they should all go attack Archon, then he is immediately guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, incitement to attempt murder, and a host of other like charges.
The fact that he never joined in, on the battlefield would not reduce those other charges. His crimes would have already been committed, before even setting foot in the car-park.
However, I grant that politics might interfere in the charging process, as you argue that point well. If Archon are too scared to enforce the law, and bow into political pressure.
Except… this isn’t a military operation. One can’t compare it to something like Ruby Ridge or the Branch Dravidians since the criminals attacked them while they were doing nothing more than gathering to eat at a local restaurant. Other than that, I defer to Yorp’s explanation of what would happen if they can find a link between him and the known attackers, but the above factors make me doubt politics would present a problem in arresting him and making it stick.
Someone probably already pointed this out, but I just went through the Archive and realized Max is wearing a “with great power comes great responsibility” shirt under that jacket of hers – only the text is in latin. THAT IS SO AWESOME!
That is actually pretty cool
Maybe it is Archon’s or ArcSWAT’s official motto?
Way to “defang the snake”. Max. Solid martial arts philosophy.
Sorry DaveB, your wrong.
“There is no such thing as dirty fighting. You do what you have to to defend yourself and the people you are entrusted, to defend.” -Master Corporal Heisler- His speach at my first day in boot camp. After 30 plus years with the PPCLI it’s a lesson I’ve learned well. If Max were a real combat vet, she would know this well.
I think DaveB‘s talking about the difference between reality and perception. In reality, a fighter who wants to give himself or herself the best possible chance of winning will do whatever is necessary. The perception of many people, however, is that there are just some things that are out of bounds during a fight.
You’re using the wrong ‘your’
Just a thought. If Halo is open and available to actively block breakpoint’s attack, why isn’t she able to take out breakpoint herself? I’m sure the lighthook would be a good option for smacking lighthook a good one or two and interrupt the attack. Optionally, if she’s closer and sees what’s happening, she should have been there to intercept before Hiro… and even if the shield doesn’t block sonic attacks, at least Halo and Jiggawatt could try to tag-team breakpoint.
That’s… actually a good question. I’m sure it’s one of those anime things where she’s in the process of intervening, but things are happening very quickly.
Yea, I would agree with that. Halo is some distance away. Possibly Breakpoint is just out of range, but the tentacle could reach the projectile. But it is more likely that the swiftly moving, bright yellow, object simply caught her attention.
Mind you, once it was moving, Halo would be right to prioritise deflecting it. No point grabbing Breakpoint if Jiggawatt is killed in the meanwhile. Halo can then turn her attention to the cause of the problem, rather than treating the symptom.
What she does next though may give us clues as to Halo’s limitation. Or lack though. For instance she may switch to the Fly Ball, and move closer, before swapping back to the Tentacle Orb. Then we can infer she had reached her tentacle range limit. Plus we would know that having the shield intersect the ground causes her mobility issues.
Sydney and Max discussed the orb’s powers while dinner was cooking. Basically Max suggested, strongly, that Sydney not get aggressive with the PPo or the Lighthook unless there was no other choice. Sydney was very agreeable to that. Slapping that one flaming guy to the ground was as rough as she’s gotten. Not counting Shadow Boxer aka Squeeky.
This strip https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1223 and the next one.
That is a reasonable point too. Pounding super-brawlers into the ground is one thing, but Breakpoint is a blaster. Halo might break her. It would be awful if page one of the comic was her first day back on the job, after having to undergo months of intensive therapy and counselling, for having killed somebody!
I’m going to suspect the timeframe was a matter of seconds… I.E. Breakpoint lets off sonic attack immediately followed by the wind up and pitch. Might have had to choose between blocking and smacking down Breakpoint if it happened rapidly enough.
Chestplate was still airbourne, showing not a lot of time had passed…
Actually, there is no “wind up and pitch” for the second parking curb. If you look closely, Breakpoint drops it into the “sonic stream” and allows that to carry it towards Jiggawatt. Which tells me this must be a bit more than merely sound, since sound isn’t particularly well known for it’s propulsion ability.
Look up “acoustic levitation”. The concrete is riding a wave of sound.
I like the look of the villainess, in the final panel. The blue tattoo (or war-paint or super birth-mark) serves to offset the disadvantages of her beach-babe appearance. A bit like rhubarb needs to be served with something sweet, like custard, to offset the bitter taste.*
And she has a bit of a Mona Lisa thing going in that picture. Her eyes follow you around the room.** And she has the enigmatic smile.
* Of course whether you choose to liken her looks, or her tattoo, to the rhubarb all depends on whether you find glossy magazine looks to be your ideal and/or how you view tattoos.
** Yes, even when you went away from keyboard, she was watching you! And what did she see, to keep her smiling like that?
O_o
Yorp, I need to stop reading your comments when I’m on the toilet D:
I hate it when people don’t expect heroes to injure an opponent in the process of subduing them. Reminds me of watching a cartoon with my mother.
“So he’s a bad guy?”
“No, Mom, he’s the hero.”
“But he just broke that other man’s jaw!”
“He had a gun and was holding children hostage.”
“But heroes don’t hurt people! Why don’t we watch Bugs Bunny? He only ever defeated opponents with his mind.”
Yeah, never mind all the violence that occurred in Looney Tunes -_-;
Agreed. Part of what marks a good superhero is knowing when you HAVE to use force, and why.
Damn… Breakpoint appears to have quite serious super-strength.
She is using concrete parking curbs as throwing weapons, and they look like the standard 5″x9″x6’/245 lbs models. She does not appear to be having super-speed, so the maximum release velocity would be 30 m/s (based on human biomechanics).
That is, she is throwing 111 kg concrete curb at 30 m/s.
The impact energy at short-range throw is almost 50 kJ.
To put this in RPG terms (old GDW system with energy-based damage calculation)
Assault rifle: 3d6 damage (5.56×45 mm)
Battle rifle: 4d6 damage (7.62×51 mm)
Sniper rifle: 5d6 damage (8.6×70 mm)
Heavy machine gun: 9d6 damage (12.7×99 mm)
Thrown parking curb: 15d6 damage
If the curb hits un-armored normal human, it can crush or tear off any body-part it hits. There is no way to survive torso or head hit.
Dave may have changed this aspect of her from the original character design, so what I’m about to type may not hold true for this version of the character, but…
Breakpoint does have superhuman strength, yes, but it’s far from what would be considered high-end in the Grrl Power universe. Breakpoint’s maximum weight allowance is roughly 1 ton, making one of the parking curbs roughly an eighth of her maximum carrying capacity. Given that, she probably cannot get close to maximum release velocity with just the strength of her body.
A second point is something I pointed out on the other page, although it looks like Dave has altered this aspect: while Breakpoint is a villain (and has always been- it’s right there in her bio), she’s not crazy enough to deliberately attack police officers with lethal force, especially when she has highly effective non-lethal options at her disposal.
The third point I would like to bring up is how notoriously bad role-playing games are at approximating the effects of damage on a human being. This is not necessarily the fault of game designers, either- it’s simply the reality of how many variables there are that cannot reasonably be anticipated. Example case in point: would the thrown parking curb do the same amount of damage at a lower velocity? What if the target human is anchored in some way vs if the target is not secured to the ground- much of the energy of the impact would likely be transferred by sending the victim flying (large surface area hit means greater dispersal of force across the body). What if the victim ragdolls with the hit (essentially the same as rolling with it- people have successfully survived impacts with cars by this method; my brother was one, and the worst he suffered was a pretty massive bruise in the shape of the Netherlands on his back).
Finally, fourth point: a little suspension of disbelief is necessary given the flavor of the world. If all the villains (and all the heroes) were to be as lethal as their powers could potentially allow them to be, this story would be much, much darker.
> … Breakpoint’s maximum weight allowance is roughly 1 ton…
Ok. Re-scaling the model. Maximum release velocity for straight throw 13 m/s, maximum range is 22 m. Damage is 6d6 at low range, and falls to 3d6 at maximum range. Divide damage to 1d3 hit locations. That is enough to break bones, and head-hit can still be instantly lethal.
A spinning “hammer throw” would still give her 25 m/s release velocity and 45 m maximum range. There is one curb flying at Max in p204, so this is still within the limits of Breakpoint’s abilities.
> how notoriously bad role-playing games are at approximating the effects of damage on a human being.
Most of the RPG’s are bad in damage modeling, due to problems game system design. However, there are exceptions, and some game systems are good enough to be used in military engineering for modelling features which can’t be modelled in any other way.
BTW… at p230 (when Halo uses lighthook to block the curb), it looks like Breakpoint was using the sonic blast to accelerate the curb. This kind of smart uses of power can make Breakpoint quite complex and versatile opponent.
Looks more to me like she’s throwing the curb at someone inside sonic blast – using the blast as a distraction from the physical attack.
Evidently, she’s mixing her metaphors. It’s supposed to be “kick someone to the curb” or “throw the book at someone”, not “throw the curb at someone”.
Oh no! They know Halo’s one weakness! I wonder how they could have figured it out?
❶ Bullets (any time the shield is not up)
❷ Guys with pert butts (infatuation)
❸ Mittens (deadly)
❹ Spicy foods (addiction)
eerr…. oh and yea…
❺ Shiny objects
What about …
6. Customers ( aggravating occupational hazard )
7. Sunlight ( figments of the mind, possibly an allergy to vitamin D )
8. Doorknobs
9. “Cute” music ?
10. Certain types of meat, since she’s a semi-vegetarian.
Make that an aversion of eating “the originally cute looking kind of meat” ! :-)
Which is what I meant by “semi-vegetarian”.
Does that mean her arch-nemesis would be Soap Man? =OP
Since Max is (ostensibly) an agent of Law Enforcement, you’re saying that her (villainous) arch-nemesis would be someone who has the ability “to clean up?”
:/
Just saying that Soap Man would make her a clean fighter, which DaveB says that she’s not.
They call him Soapy Sam. He’s so slick nobody can hold him. And his lawyer is even worse.
Why did Maxima need to take Hiro’s opponent while Hiro intervened versus Breakpoint?
Hiro is blocking or absorbing Breakpoint’s attack somehow. Maybe Max would not be affected, but the sound waves might diffract around her, leaving Jiggawatt in danger. Hiro can just rush Breakpoint from there and take her down.
That guy saying ‘distract halo with something shiny’ I’m looking forward to seeing him get pulverized in the face.
Superman sometime does not get the credit he deserves. He does not exactly have the martial training that Batman or Wonder Woman do, but he has such ridiculously strong powers he does not need such training. Would it help? Probably.
Oh, check out Superman Vs. The Elite. It is (or at least was) on Netflix. The final, titular fight is my favorite.
After a quick buff… Hmmm, I wonder what polishing compound Maxima uses.
Guess it takes an old comic book fan……Superman was trained to fight by a billionaire by the name of Bruce Wayne while on a trip to the bottled city of Kandor. Bruce was wearing equipment to prevent him from being turned to a thin paste on the pavement. Unfortunately, this has since been forgotten by subsequent writers and artists.
Why is Jiggawatt’s hair white in this page and then blond in all of the following up to the end of the next fight?
Because various readers, including myself, had been commenting that the power set and white hair did make her very similar to Marvel’s Storm. DaveB agreed, and changed her hair. Currently to blonde, but she may well change it, as and when the mood takes her.
But not mid-battle, she does have to use the normal dying techniques, so the previous white will need to be re-coloured to blonde. Dave will have added this to his list of retroactive corrections, which need to be done, as and when he frees up his time.
Wow… Green-hair there really has Halo’s number.
Yeah, I just noticed that! XD
Yep! That put a big smile on my face :D
maxiam used Bitch Slap. It was super effective!
i love how the bad guy says distract halo with something shiny.
i would argue that superman doesn’t bother with martial arts because why would he?
he doesn’t need to defend himself, blade and bullet alike ain’t doing shit, so why learn to guard. or bother holding one even if he does know it.
and he could, at his leisure, just place his hand upon a mans head and force him to his knees, never mind punting him through a concrete wall. why waste his time with attacking ‘properly’? he doesn’t need to maximise his effectiveness.
even with kryptonite, it doesn’t just turn off his OP, it puts him on his arse. so martial arts wouldn’t help much there either.
against anyone that he can actually fight, they are just as conceited as him. why would they have learned it?
they say power corrupts, this is how. if you have the power to get away with not doing something tiring, tedious, or time consuming, then eventually you will stop doing it. no matter what kind of power it is, the longer you hold it, the dumber you will become.