Grrl Power #287 – All wrapped up
I have a few pages of house keeping to do before we move on to the next scene and chapter. This isn’t like Kung-Fu theater where the bad guy gasps his last and they roll credits literally 2 seconds after the hero slumps to the ground, exhausted but elated that he’s finally avenged his father and/or master. We won’t linger long though, just want to hit some important notes first. Notes like the girls making jokes about shirtless boys. I figure it was time to balance the scales a bit – not that there’s a direct male equivalent to “girl in corset jumping rope” of course, but it’s something.
There’s been a lot of speculation on how to incarcerate Vehemence. Obviously you couldn’t throw him in general pop or even some a moderately populated super prison since the first riot and he’d be off, and they already know he can start them. I’ll touch on it later, and also maybe cover the fact that Dabbler did stuff to make sure he hadn’t banked a ton of energy or anything, but I’ll leave it at “really really really tied up” for now.
Dabbler will eventually share the story of her arrival on Earth and such, but that’s for the next book.
Oh and I somehow forgot to use a scratchy font for Maxima on the last page, I’ll eventually fix that, but her voice won’t be all “unbelievably strong guy tried to crush my windpipe” forever.
Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.
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.
Bad Maxie objectifying that poor man like that. After the way men treat you. I would think you should know better. You deserve a spanking lol.
Seriously it seems a little OOC of her. Then again we haven’t seen her off the job have we.
Not So Above It All?
She’s quite capable of making jokes though
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/864
Just that she only does it when there is time to spare
Indeed she does, and how
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/323
I think her objections are less to objectification or sexualization at all than to the voicing of such, i.e. she has no problem with sex or attraction, but opposes unwanted advances made without regard to the wants or feelings of the one being hit on. Rephrased, anyone can look (discretely), but don’t whistle or catcall or otherwise assume that someone attractive is also attracted to you just because you are attracted to them. That’s more or less what I would assess Max’s stance to be, as it is consistent with all of her actions to this point. Respect all people’s agency and individuality, which hitting on someone does not. Unless the attraction is emphatically mutual. I think.
If you check out her cast details, you will see that her feminism stems from being irritated at the constant inappropriate advances she gets from men, due to her exotic good looks. But, yea, as you get to see more of her, you will realise that the rabid feminism she shows, in response to that, does not preclude her actually having the normal feelings of a woman. Nor from engaging in the usual private conversations, and exchanges of confidences, that women do.
The doctor definitely does have powers. Max confirmed it when Sydney mentioned it.
Has this been confirmed by DaveB? I read that as more of a snarky “of course she has healing powers, she’s a doctor!” rather than confirmation of super healing abilities.
Yes it has when he was talking about how fast Sydney’s eye injury healed.
Thanks for that, I’ve obviously missed that one. It’s good she’s does have super healing because lots of the supers need more than a little healing (Heatwave and Jiggawatt come to mind).
Kind of reassuring that Max has normal human faults, like hypocrisy, though. She already has shown that she has self doubts, etc.
Superman ( or at least “proper” superman, no doubt we can agree that “violent, egotistical, murderer Superman” from 2013s “Man of Steel” NEVER HAPPENED ) is the original and only superhero character that is shown as “faultless” in character. It was good for his heyday, because he stands for humanity living up to is highest ideals, an alien who brought totally into our accumulated cultural virtues. Must make him a drag at parties though.
Max is far from perfect, but so far has shown to at least hold to a particular code. She could have, off her own authority, blown a hole through Vs head, and been within her rights. She didn’t, because she holds to a particular moral code. And she probably wouldn’t have made her shirt comment about some male who was “vulnerable” or anything of the sort.
I can’t say I like her normal arrogant attitude, but I feel the same way about many professional sports people. None of whom lose sleep at night about my opinion, I bet. ;)
No, we cannot agree. The “never kills” Superman and Batman and any other superhero is only allowed to be that way due to plot armor. The writers and perhaps especially the editors simply won’t allow it to occur, and so it does not.
But no one as powerful as Superman who constantly goes around crime fighting and throwing punches and energy beams from his eyes could ever avoid the inevitable deaths which that sort of activity simply must bring about eventually.
And Man of Steel is a perfect example of this. In the comics there would have been a way to avoid killing Zod, because that is how they do things in comics. Some “third option” would have presented itself: Zod would have relented so that he could be the recurring villain that he was, some other hero would have rescued the civilians, a giant mirror would have fallen in between Zod and the civilians and reflected his beam back at himself conveniently knocking him out, whatever. In Man of Steel there was no third option. Superman only had two options: Allow three innocents to die, or kill Zod. He chose the option which killed the fewest amount of people and which inflicted that killing upon the person who was most responsible for the violence in the first place.
You might care for your White Knights to be pure hearted good guys who only strike with the flat of their blades, but the world does not operate that way.
I’m also not sure where you get “egotistical” from. About the worst thing he did in the movie was to crucify the rude truckers tractor, but that was after refusing to let the guy get any kind of a rise out of him. An action quite the opposite of ego, even if you choose to label him as violent for destroying the tractor. He also was quite meek with the authorities, allowing them to take him into custody, handcuff him, and turn him over to someone he wasn’t sure wouldn’t just kill him and go on to ravage Earth anyway. Also quite the opposite of ego.
I completely disagree their was atleast one option that could have been taken not by superman but by the three too get away. and other times in man of steel where he could have taken the fight away from the city to minimize danger to people
Actually he told me that he requested permission to do this, but the director turned him down. “No, no Supes, we need those city scape backdrops, they make the visuals in the scene!”
Well, you’re just wrong. I have to wonder if you actually watched the movie.
The enemy vessel was hovering over Metropolis. If Superman wanted to engage then running away to the countryside where only some crops and cows might be hurt wasn’t going to accomplish much. And after the ship was destroyed and Zod landed in the city, Superman did try to reason with Zod. But Zod was already in the city, swearing to kill all humans, and again running away to the countryside was not going to do much to prevent Zod from going on a killing spree.
no i am afraid you are wrong their were times he could have forcefully fought Zod out of the city but instead Superman actually hit him back into the city and others where Zod chases him so i am afraid you are wrong in this instance
Actually both Superman and Batman have killed in the comics since their creation. Back in the 1940s Superman was known to casually kill Nazi spies, Batman carried and used the gun that killed his parents, and so on. Moving forward, Superman killed Zod and his two henchpeople in a major story in the 1980s, Batman allowed Dr. Hugo Strange’s cult to tear him to shreds, Batman also allowed a group of children to rip apart the pedophile crime lord who had victimized them and was responsible for the deaths of Martha and Thomas Wayne (Batman: The Ultimate Evil), Superman killed Doomsday twice in the comics, and vaporized an entire army of Doomsday clones in the Superman/Batman comic series, both characters have killed on numerous other occasions as well. Batman has even killed Dick (Robin) Grayson (Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again) and his own son Damien in Injustice: Gods Among Us (granted that one is a video game).
The so called “never kills” version of either character doesn’t really exist.
In the very first Batman comic, back when he was Bat-man, some scientist genetically modified some guys (they “drank a serum”), and those guys turned into giant muscely bandits. Bat-man dropped a rope from his bat gyrocopter and strangled a guy, just like they did here, but Bat-man killed the guy, saying something about how if the bandit had still been in his right mind he wouldn’t have wanted to continue living like that.
Even in the comics, there HAVE been a couple of times that Superman has been forced to kill. Most notably when he first went up against Doomsday. He killed Doomsday and Doomsday killed him. Neither death stuck, but he did kill.
And Batman has killed as well. Heck, he’s used a gun before even. And I’m not even talking about in the beginning, before the ‘no guns’ mantra happened. He shot and mortally wounded Darkseid with the express intention to kill him, using a radion bullet (which is deadly to New Gods). And he died as well 2 seconds later from the Omega Sanction.
Again, neither death stuck. But it still counts! The Man of Steel thing where Superman kills Zod, I actually think was a good thing – it presented Superman with a ‘no way out’ choice. Either kill Zod, or innocents will die, and he had NO third option. He chose the lesser of two evils (one of which was not even an evil, technically speaking – killing an ersatz Kryptonian space-hitler is not ‘evil’ per se, even if it was killing). Even in the law, it would have been considered defense of others – a bona fide defense against any allegation of murder. Not to mention it could also have been considered war.
And of course there are other heroes who kill, and I’m not talking anti-heroes. Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord in order to free Superman of mind control – and she was televised around the world, and his death DID stick. Captain America killed TONS of nazis. Green Lantern killed Krona (and teamed up with Sinestro to do so). Neither Wonder Woman or Captain America or Green Lantern could be considered ‘antiheroes’ – they’re pure hero matierial.
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel only came about due to story contrivance, first of all.
Second, yeah, I’m gonna be that guy. *Superman should not kill.* And if you need him to kill, he shouldn’t do so in his first outing. Make him a paragon of heroism and virtue before bringing him down. Save that sort of neck-snap for movie 3, when it’s actually gonna be kind of a shock.
Third, let’s assume for the sake of argument that we NEED a dark and gritty Superman who kills his very first villain because there’s no other way to stop Zod, blah blah blah. If you wanted Supes to have this death haunt him, you need to establish that killing people is a big deal for him beforehand, and you need to have it stick. But he COMPLETELY forgets that he snapped Zod’s neck in the next scene. This is just something that they’re sweeping under the rug, because I guess you can do that with a broken neck in a Superman movie.
Fourth, Superman doesn’t live in the real world and we shouldn’t treat him like he does. He is a being who can destroy entire solar systems by *sneezing too hard*. The entire point of his character is that he has no limits.
It seems to me as though it had the intended shock effect on you, even if you don’t care to accept that fact. Despite the fact that you apparently managed to miss it, the movie did clearly establish Clark Kent as a genuinely good person who throughout his entire childhood and adolescence used violence only as a last resort and was willing to suffer greatly in order to avoid the use of violence. How many kids did you go to elementary school with who could have resisted for a single day before showing off their super strength? How many kids do you think could have meekly accepted the amount of picking on that the movie showed Clark suffering without lashing back, perhaps flying into a rage and snapping a few necks, even if it was accidental?
Don’t bother answering, the questions were rhetorical. The answer is “none” for both questions. You can’t even see that the exact things you’re faulting the movie for not doing were shown over and over again throughout the entire movie. That’s fairly sad.
Man of Steel is the first superman movie. Except for Superman, Superman 2, Superman 3, Superman 4: The Quest for Peace, and Superman Returns.
And if you want movie that NEVER HAPPENED, I direct your attention to the last 2. Maybe even the last three. By comparison, Man of Steel is an awesome movie.
NEVER HAPPENED movies… hMmmm
I’m sure i’ve heard of one… hmmm… somethin something menace?
The movie that would have come out after Highlander, but before Highlander 3, is one example.
I think you’re missing the point. Superman has a strong code against killing. Ignore anything related to Natzis. Killing Natzis in the WWII era was bread and butter for all comics. Besides, you can’t really compare Silver Age and Golden Age to modern Superman. It’s a completely different comic.
Back on point, Superman has always been willing to kill when the stakes are high enough, they just rarely rise to the level of something that will both kill him and then go on to kill others. Anything short of that and he’ll take the punishment until he can put it down.
There’s a great line from Superman Grounded where he’s talking to some aliens who’ve been hiding in America and try to attack him when he finds them. He says that he can be hurt. It’s not really that hard to hurt him. The trick isn’t building a weapon that can hurt him. It’s building a weapon that can survive him.
He is the energizer bunny of superheroes. He just keeps going. Hit him as hard as you can and he will get back up in moments and come back at you. With that kind of invulnerability and cellular regeneration he can afford to let the bad guys hit him until he can find a way to capture instead of kill 99% of the time.
Oh and since the Man of Steel movie is the first chapter of the DC Cinematic Universe, which will continue in “Superman v Batman: Dawn of Justice” before branching into various individual hero movies and two Justice League movies it did happen. If you don’t like the movie that is your right and your choice, but it did happen.
Batfleck doesn’t exist either, just so you can keep track of what does and does not exist :P
I can’t agree with you there, but like I said its your right not to like it if you so choose. Myself I am really looking forward to Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, just the meta fun of an actor who played a main character on Stargate Atlantis playing the King of Atlantis will be worth it.
Look, I love the Justice League. But after Man of Steel screwed up Superman’s character as badly as it did, and after Green Lantern screws up pretty much EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE SCREWED UP, how are you still excited for the justice league movie?
If they turned Parallax into a cloud-demon born of one of the Guardians consumed by terror, I shudder to think what they’re going to do to the greek gods in the Wonder Woman movie, or Professor Zoom in the flash movie (or whatever they end up doing for Flash’s first outing).
We have different views on Man of Steel, while I might have taken different routs with the story, I have seen similar versions of Superman within the comic books as part of the DC Multiverse. The previous Green Lantern film is not a part of the DC movie universe and the character is being rebooted for the Justice League films, and there are a large number of actors I enjoy in the casts of the upcoming DC films, such as Dwayne Johnson portraying Black Adam in the Shazam film, Will Smith as Deadshot for Suicide Squad, Jared Leto as Joker (probably won’t be my new favorite Joker but ah well) also in Suicide Squad, Jeremy Irons as Alfred in Batman v Superman, and more. I am willing to wait and see what comes.
Pretty much all of those casting choices seems to come down to: “How many big name stars can we get to into one of our movies before Marvel grabs them?” rather than picking the actor slash actress best suited for the role, even if they are relative new-comers
Smith is only there because his wife is on Gotham (but not for long, everyone knows Fish get gutted and fed to Penguins)
Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I must disagree. Maxima is not imposing standards on others that she is failing to keep herself.
Objecting to people sexually harassing others, does not mean that you are saying that people must not be sexual, nor stop them from talking about their feelings. They must simply not expose others to those comments, if it may harass them.
It is perfectly acceptable for me to like women’s breasts. And it is fine for me to say to folks here “I like women with pert breasts”.* But, if I walk up to a random woman and say that “I like your breasts”, I am taking a step over a line. She may appreciate the comment, in which case my step has caused no harm. Or she may be grievously offended.
As a result, this is considered rude. However, many men choose to ignore this and behave as if this is acceptable. However, note that when it happens in the workplace it is classed as sexual harassment.
As a feminist, Maxima speaks out against stepping over that line. In the workplace or otherwise. In this instance though, she has not, done that herself. Provided her conversation with Sydney is, and remains, private.** Whilst they are discreet, he cannot be offended, embarrassed, nor feel that he is being persecuted.
Ok, he may suspect that the girls are talking about him. But us hunks have to get used to that happening. It is a burden that we must bear with good grace. Provided they do not drool on us, too obviously, we can pretend not to notice, and everybody saves face.
And Maxima reciprocates when our eyes keep dropping below her face, when in conversation with her. Until we become too obvious in our distraction and it becomes hard for her to ignore.
* Because we are in a forum in a comic featuring pretty girls, and such comments are to be expected. It probably would be less appropriate to walk into a church, or mosque, and make a similar comment to the worshippers. ;-)
** Although she is taking a bit of a risk, because of the possibility of being overheard. Of course though, if she is saying it so close to him that she knows he will hear, then you are perfectly correct in your comment that she is being hypocritical. But I would disagree that it is reassuring. My good opinion of her would drop.
Yorp,
I like you train of thought here..although…it does make me wonder if an “accident” happened along those lines, which is why there is one less mosque in the world thanks to Maxima :P
Eh, I think the, “That was an ACCIDENT! Mostly…” takes that possibility out. While I’d love to know what the situation was, I wouldn’t be surprised if that essentially becomes a . Or stays one long enough to become a .
Note: Both links go to TV Tropes, you’ve been warned.
Crap, screwed up my formatting…Should have been:
essentially becomes a noodle incident. or stays one long enough to become a brick joke.
Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp.
Actually, I see this as Sydney influencing Max. She seems to be lightening up when she’s around her.
I think I’d agree with you. Plus Maxima has a fair amount to be happy about right now. First day of the team being unveiled, and they manage to overcome a large concentrated assault directed at them. Plus, collateral damage was minimal, considering the forces brought into play. On top of that, Sydney really showed her potential, and validated her recommendation to join the team. Plus, when was the last time she REALLY had a chance to go full tilt at someone. That was probably cathartic as hell for her. And on top of all that, she’s probably just a touch punchy from the fight still. It is nice to see a lighter side of her though.
Well, this IS the first day we’ve seen any of Max’s behavior…How do you know that Max is any more “lightened up” now than she was before?
In synch with your point of view however, I can see that Max’s initial frequent minor frustrations with Sydney’s behavior before (back at Archon HQ) is more than balancing out now by how Sydney’s behavior is a major advantage for the team as a whole. In short, Sydney is showing herself to be far more of an asset than a liability & Max recognizes it.
well there was the comic when she was doing upside down shots from a beer keg while stationed overseas.
True enough, but I daresay that this happened w-a-y back when Max was younger and NOT the commanding officer.
For Maxima to be the rank she is, at her age, it is likely that she started out as an officer*. And Peggy, who is not an officer, was present in that scene. Whilst Maxima may, or may not, have been the unit commander, she was still an officer fraternising with the ranks.
Which means that she is used to breaking down military traditions, from even before her time in Archon. Unrealistic? It may seem so, compared to a normal officer in the military. But I bet that Elvis did not have a typical time in the forces either. Even though he requested that.
The higher ups put him in as safe a spot as they could find for him. In Maxima’s case she is an asset more valuable than an extra aircraft carrier in the fleet. They are bound to cut her more slack than others.
And, at the time, she may well have just returned from wiping out an enemy army, complete with top end super support. So, uncomfortable though the lax attitudes may sit, for those of us who know it does not match with the normal military, it does not (for me) pass beyond the realm of credibility.
* She has seen active service though, which can accelerate things dramatically though, so my supposition is just posing the probable, rather than the certain.
i don’t think that it’s MUCH of a stretch to have the officers and enlisted “fraternizing” when in a safe area while “over there”… it’s not like you can just go out into town by yourself… yes, it would be frowned upon back here in the states, for officers to be doing the same stuff in the presence of enlisted, since here the “official” rules kick in, but over there… there was probably only the ONE “on base” bar/club (whatever they called it) for ALL personnel to go to, therefore there was no way to AVOID fraternization, especially since that scene showed them in a tent-like structure, implying a forward post/temp base of some kind that was clearly NOT a safe, secure permanent club building where the designers would have built separate sections/floors etc for enlisted/officers…
For the members of a combat unit out in the field, a lot of the “fratermization” rules may start to look pretty stupid, if not downright counter-productive.
Was just going to say that. Brings to mind Rick from Rogue Warrior. He encouraged the fraternization with the enlisted. Went out drinking with them and stuff.
Fraternizing with enlisted, or keeping them seperate…
I think thta during action (combat or patrol) rank and respectare paramount. After action, respect should still exist, but leave the rank on the sidelines, untill such time as respect has dropped to far…
Respect is one side of the equation. The other side is the officer herself. If she gets too emotionally attached to those under her, she looses her detachment. That is not a good position to be in, because it can lead to favouritism, which will have a negative impact on morale. Likewise it can mean that discipline suffers, as the officer treats the troops like friends, and lets transgressions slide, which she should not.
Then, of course, the life and death issues come into play. When a situation arises where she has to order one of her friends to undertake an action which is likely to result in their death, will she be able to do it? And officers do face such moments, when the survival of the unit, or the success or failure of the mission requires just such an action.
I don’t think it’s so much being objectified that bothers Maxima, but being objectified by people who are obnoxious about it, e.g., those who can’t take “Sorry, I’m not interested” for an answer and/or go into full gawk mode whenever someone they’re attractred to is around.
Try going to drive thru. As a semi fat man (I’m losing weight still thank goodness). In summer. And watching as the lady cashier gets a zoned out look that’s missing drool, as she stares at a couple of toned/muscled college students who took off their shirts while fixing their jeep.
It took me 40 seconds to get her attention so I could hand over money.
Anyone else wondering what the healer’s power manifestation looks like? She has her work cut out for her this time. Aside from various minor cuts, scrapes, black eyes, bruises, lost/broken teeth, broken noses, at last count she has to deal with:
Opal’s concussion
Vektor’s concave ribs
Jiggawatt’s perforated eardrums
Death Toll’s butt-artery stab wound
Hmmm, most of the serious injuries might be villains’, instead of ArcSWAT members’. Makes sense in hindsight.
My guess is accelerated natural healing
“my guess”
does another possibility even exist? i mean, aside from using magic
Psychic surgery, matter reconstitution, time reset unto undamaged state, etc. The various ways of healing without accellerate someones natural healing is legio.
Although the typical non-sped-up healing method is “just magic”. I use magic therefore it is fixed.
Of course there are other possibilities. I prefer using OTHER peoples guesses. Then they can get the blame when it’s wrong!
It’s pretty consistent in comic books that supers with “perfect physiques” also tend to recover & heal a bit faster than “average” humans. A general, overall higher level of health tends to have that effect in real life too, if not to the same extent as it appears in the comics.
Or bacta healing tanks.
Never say no to bacta
I do not think she has any. Otherwise Sydney would not have just suspected that she has superpowers, it would have been obvious.
Mind you, some of those power manifestations (like Arc-Dark’s concealment spell), look to me like they are only intended to be visible to us the reader. It is just a convenience for us, to know that Dabbler is casting her sleep spell, for instance. So you could be right to speculate about what it would look like – for us.
Yup she has powers. Its pretty obvious that this is what Maxima means by healing powers. Also its pretty obvious that Sydney means she thinks the Doctor has super powers and not just regular healing ability and Maxima knew that when she replied. Or at least it is when you are looking right at those panels.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/709
There you go!
The question was not “does the healer have powers?”, it was:”
(Emphasis added).
Which is to say, what visual effects will be observed, when she is using her power? Sydney’s telekinesis manifests as a purple tentacle. For the doctor, as it is just accelerating natural healing, so I do not think anything will be visible.
Unless Dave can thing of a manifestation that would be funny.
As for Max’s nose, if her natural toughness is still in effect the doctor may need someone like Hiro to help in setting the broken nasal bones back in place. Or Max may have the ability to dial her armor stats down enough to put her in the ‘normal’ range. This would be required for any medical procedure like a blood test that would need to penetrate her skin.
When she super-maxes one attribute (e.g. strength when she throat-punched V) then she sucks power out of her other attributes. DaveB has said that when she does this she can dial herself down to “basic superhuman” (I don’t remember the exact phrase he used, but that was the gist.)
So, yeah, if she super-maxes her strength then the doctor might be able to set her nose, or use a strong needle to get a blood sample. Just hope that she doesn’t lash out reflexively at the pain. Maybe speed or flight would be better choices to super-max.
Best option would be for Maxima to dial down her armor and set her nose herself. No lashing out, and it’s bad ass to set your own broken bones.
I figure it’s time to stop lurking here cuz I got a question. Vs aggro aura, was he using it initially to get everyone to fight? It seems like that’s being implied by some commenters, bu I thought he
used it mid way for extra power…
Also need to put my vote in for approval of beefcake.
No. The aura also got people from the same team fighting eachother, so it inhibited rational thinking. That clearly was not the case from the beginning
Don’t forget that Syd used the tele-orb to talk to V partway through.
She would have noticed the aura then if it was active.
Those are two different functions of the Comm Orb: Sydney had to activate two different runes on that orb to use the different powers (https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1564). It’s reasonable that when Sydney used Telepresence to talk to Vehemence early in the fight, she was NOT also using Truesight at the same time.
That and only the actual Sydney can use Truesight, her projections only allow her see normal visual ranges though them .
As I figure it, the Truesight power is potentially the single best power she could have. With that, Sydney can get real facts that can turn the tide of any battle.
At the start it was just a bunch of people V got together for a good old fashioned Street Brawl. When V used his Aura people went after the closest target, no matter who it was. (The Elder Scrolls games’ “Frenzy” spells, which makes everybody attack each other,would be the closest analogue I can think of.
No, as far as anyone knows, he wasn’t using the aura to make people fight until he had to power up to kill Maxima. Some have speculated the villains could claim they were mind controlled to avoid jail time, but thats about it. Given that V’s aura had a clear and unambiguous effect when he did turn it on, and that villains were able to distinguish friend and foe earlier in the fight, the evidence that the villains were being affected from the beginning of the fight is basically nil.
Don’t forget Budget Halo thinking “why am I here?” I suspect the aggro aura was already in play at the beginning, just not turned up to 11.
No, she is thinking that because she is seeing how overmatched she is.
People are capable of making poor judgments without an aura. Prism claw guy tried to jump Max at the beginning of the fight while Heavenly and the rest were gameplanning. Glowbug fried herself because she wasn’t paying attention. Meanwhile,Opal was capable of trying to teleport away and Hairdresser surrendered. When the aura was active it was clear and unambiguous. Trying to claim anything before that being due to anything other than plain old bad judgment is a steep climb.
Glowb didn’t fry herself, Heatwave was slowly turning up the heat when she got stabbed in the foot which caused her to seriously crank it up out of pain and shock
I think the meaning was when GB used lightning while under a water pipe
yep, a shocking bit of cheesecake that was.
Oh right, when her outfit started to turn transparent (how could possibly have forgotten that scene? :( )
He might have more than one type of aggro aura.
I agree with you that it is keeping the possibility open. Likewise why was a clearly peaceful hairdresser there? Being under the influence of the aggro field, at a lower power, would certainly explain that.
Not that I have any desire to see villains get away. Shadow Boxer in particular, needs to have his goolies dipped in acid. Or whatever the customary penalty is in Texas, for striking a girl.
But, until there is proof that the aggro field was not operational earlier (bearing in mind that Halo, and therefore us, could only detect it once she grasped the True Sight orb), then the courts can only view this in one of two ways:
There was no aggro aura, and all defendants claiming to have been under it’s influence are lying.
Or
There was an aggro aura. Which means that they were not acting under their own volition.
Whilst the two possibilities exist, and nobody can prove which is true, legal rules require that the defendants be acquitted.
Of course, that need not get anybody’s knickers in a twist. That will only happen if it is convenient to Dave’s plot for them to go free. If he wants them incarcerated, then the courts can simply be told that Arc-Light confirm that the aura was not operational in the early part of the battle. Of course, the only way they could do that is with magic. Which they might have a wee bit of a problem explaining, in an open court.
Or, if the visual effect that we, as readers, saw when the aggro aura was operational, is also visible to everybody present. Then it can easily be shown when it was operational by playing back the TV coverage.
Lacking that, analysing patterns of who was fighting whom, can provide circumstantial evidence, but not categoric proof. I think the court would set the bar pretty high in these circumstances. Given that there are no experts who can be called to reliably testify as to the powers and properties of super powers. The press conference already indicated that scientists are ignorant as to how they work or why they even exist.
Most scientists are. Dabbler has already been introduced as a civilian consultant and expert. The prosecution could easily call her as an expert witness to explain how vehemic auras do and do not function.
As far as the rest, I already went over my end of it in our previous discussion on the other page, so I’ll simply leave it that I disagree.
Indeed they could. Except for the fact that she was a participant in the events, where the crimes were alleged to have taken place. Which means that her impartiality would be called into question by the defence, and they would have good grounds to have her barred from being called as an expert witness.
Even if that hurdle is jumped, courts do background checks on expert witnesses. Plus, unless they have a proven track record in the legal system, they are extensively cross examined as to what credentials they have and why they claim to be an expert in the subject in question.
Doubtless Archon have arranged a false identity for Dabbler, but would it stand the intense scrutiny that the defence would apply? If they are able to ferret out that Dabbler is, quite literally, an illegal alien, her testimony would be immediately discredited.
And the government are clearly trying to keep the existence of magic, aliens and demons out of public knowledge. Will they even permit her to take to the stand in that way?
But, let us assume that a way is found around all those issues…
PROSECUTION: How are you qualified to say what a “Vehemic Aura” is?
DABBLER: Because it is similar to my “Tantric Aura”.
PROSECUTION: And what is that?
DABBLER: A lust aura emitted by Succubus demons, such as myself.
PROSECUTION: ….
She’s federal officer and thanks to the patriot act, all they have to do is tell the judge that they can’t reveal the source of her knowledge because it’s classified, and as long as the judge agrees it’s classified for a good reason, they don’t have to reveal anything to the public or the defense. As far as being an expert, they can show the judge the digest version of her history. Again, patriot act means that all they have to do is say it’s classified, and if the judge agrees, it’s permissible. (BTW, as a fun experiment, look up how often judges have declared classified classified material can’t be used. The answer will probably depress you)
Fair enough.
Has Dave yet established that any provisions of the Patriot Act are in effect in <i.his world yet? If not, then any defense or dodge around the Due Process of Law that’s based upon the Patriot Act would be ineffective.
He hasn’t yet, but given that Iraq and Afganistan happened pretty much the same way they did here in the real world (per Max and Peggy’s back stories), I’ve been assuming it’s just like modern USA unless specified otherwise.
“I must respectfully decline to answering that question as it is directly related to a matter of national security.”
In which case, if the end-result of the trial really depends upon that info, then the judge could order a sealed-room testimony with the jury subject to legally-binding Oaths of Silence concerning the evidence.
She would never be barred from testifying, it could never happen. Not in the USA, at least. Cops are called all the time to give their testimony, expert or otherwise, and this is not only allowed but the impartiality of the cop/federal agent/whatever is never able to be subjected to criticism. The best the defense can do is to cross examine the witness and perhaps call their own expert witness who could provide their own, contradictory testimony to call the expert nature of the prosecutions witness into question.
If impartiality was a valid defense then a cop would never be able to make a speeding ticket stick. It would look like this:
Defendant: “I was doing 55 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.”
Cop: “I tailed the defendant and observed them doing 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, matching their speed and noting my speedometer. I then used my radar speed detector which also clocked the defendant at 75 MPH. My radar detector was last calibrated on and was found to be accurate.”
Defense attorney: “Your Honor, the prosecution witness is clearly biased. If this case is dismissed it will be a mark against their record, and the fines for speeding are primarily used to fund the police force. They have every motivation to lie, and I recommend that you dismiss this case.”
Judge: “I find for the prosecution. Guilty.”
It will happen that way every single time unless there is some third party, not one who was in the defendant’s car, who can call the situation into question. The best you can hope for as the defendant is to make a sincere case and hope the judge lowers the fines and penalties.
Conceded. Not that I was intending to bar her from testifying completely. The ‘expert witness’ testimony is separate from the ‘eye witness’ evidence. And everything in your latter falls in the latter category.*
But, clearly I did not make the distinction plain enough. Let me rephrase.
Dabbler is in a nearly unique position because she is one of the very few possible expert witnesses. But the credibility of her testimony (as an expert witness, not as an associate member of a police force), is undermined because of her potential conflict of interest.*
As such, she could be (for example):
Covering up some aspect which would throw her (or her colleagues) actions in a poor light.
Predisposed to consider a suspect guilty and biassing her evidence in favour of that.
You are correct that police have been allowed to testify as expert witnesses, if their experience qualifies them. However, there are also instances where the judge has ordered them to restrict their testimony to their involvement only.
The latter, when it happens, is because the judge fears the possibility of an appeal being later granted, because of the evidence being given by someone with a conflicting interest.
Compounding the issue, there may not be anybody else, in the world, qualified to present a corroborating, or dissenting, opinion. As such, the courts would have to take the word of this one individual.
In instances where this has been done (and I assure you that has only been done when no clear conflict of interest has been proven, in advance), it has come back to haunt the courts in some very notorious cases.
So, having reconsidered, due to your reply, it is the kind of thing that I would wait and see how it turned out, rather than saying it will categorically go one way or the other.
* An example of something which might require an expert witness, using your scenario, is if the defendant had braked sharply, leaving skid marks. The officer could then be asked to calculate if the length of tyre marks left corroborates the other evidence.
His experience may well qualify him to answer this authoritatively. However, if it contradicted his other evidence, he might be inclined to ‘fudge’ his calculations. Unlike his earlier evidence, which nobody else can provide, this is something which need not be asked of him.
Any qualified crash investigator can be called to examine the photographs, or video footage, and perform the calculations. Assuming that they match the officer’s statement, then the there is more confidence that there will be a sound conviction. Rather than, unnecessarily, placing all the testimonial eggs in one basket.
** Not to mention the fact that she is known to have been affected by a mind-altering super power.
There’s a simpler reason why she can’t testify as an expert witness. She (and all the other Archons present) are victims of the attack. And no judge is going to allow a victim themselves to be called as an expert witness.
That doesn’t mean you can’t bring them up and have them talk about qualifications, what they do and don’t know, how it affected their decisions during the incident, etc. But you cannot call them expert witnesses, as the presumption of bias is considered too great.
That’s because an expert witness is not allowed to testify as to whether or not a victim OR a defendant is telling the truth. They can only offer an “expert” opinion about an evidence or fact issue. Dabbler could therefore not offer opinions on actions she herself took, because it inherently implies the truthfulness of those actions.
That is just so wrong. Neither cops nor soldiers are considered to be “victims” when they are conducting themselves in the course of their duties. Cops and soldiers are frequently called to provide not only eye witness but expert testimony.
@ Yorp: Their testimony, whether as an eye witness or an expert will not be considered to be prejudicial. As I already pointed out, the defense is able to call their own eye witnesses or experts who may provide a contradictory opinion, but that leaves things up to the judge or jury to decide. If a cop decides, as you suggest, to “fudge” their testimony in order to try to obtain a conviction they will soon find themselves out of a job. Being pointed out as being utterly wrong by a defense expert will destroy their credibility and may well result in the defendant being released for one of several possible reasons. And the cops colleagues will also know that their colleague is a hack, since at least several of them will have the same skill set and will know exactly what is happening. No, while your scenario might be played out in some backwater town, but it wouldn’t fly in any situation where there is a competent defense attorney and an impartial judiciary. And the setting for Grrl Power does not appear to be some hick town.
Zeph could serve as the expert witness and subject matter expert since as soon as the melee started, he moved to a safe zone.
@ Yorp: There is actually a clear indication that many of the supers were not even sure why they were there attacking ARCSwat. The Barberian and Hex (who I believe escaped anyway) both began questioning their reason for being there, and bowed out of the fight. So it is possible that many of the “bad” supers were actually under the influence of a personalized low-powered aggro aura to make them fight.
Barberian never questions why he’s there. He admits why- some of his friends were going and he went along. As pointed out earlier, while several villains made questionable decisions throughout the fight, that is not an indication of anything besides poor decision making skills, which is fairly common among criminals.
It is actually easier than that for V. Most people are very reluctant to back out once they have publicly committed to something. So all V has to do is get them together, pump the aggro aura for long enough to get people to commit to the idea, and then drop the aura. Crowd mentality takes over after that. Even if someone on scene can ID magic use, he actually might not have been using it at the start of the battle. That would explain the people walking away – the shock of the fight was enough to shake them out of any lingering control and the herd mentality. V can argue all day that he didn’t use the aura originally, because the one time he got caught was also the one time the effects were blatantly obvious, so he can argue the converse “you saw what the aura did – do you really think I had it going all the time?”
But really, the whole court implications are a legal nightmare that will be subject to debate and abuse for decades to come. Ariana has a job for the rest of her lifespan just based on the first battle.
Seriously, these attempts to justify claiming an agro aura was in effect are getting more and more strained. There is absolutely no reason to think that was the case, and every reason to think it was more or less like vehemence said, and he found every trouble maker anarchist rabble rouser out there and invited them to join into an overwhelming force. Most were really clearly into it, a few were along because it sounded like it would be fun, mainly through over estimating their own powers, and some tagged along because “everyone else did it” There is no justifiable reason to think that vehemence used any mind control or other influence. You could claim aliens made them do it and it would create just as much “reasonable doubt” as claiming he had a super secret mind control aura going the whole time that forced or tricked them into fighting.
Halo just told Maxima that the aggro aura exists. Both of them are members of a police force, and one of the duties of police officers is to provide all pertinent information to the courts, when there is a prosecution in the offing.
As such they the courts will be aware of both the existence and use of the aggro aura. So it certainly is not super secret. The only secret that the courts will be likely to co-operate in maintaining, is the existence of the true sight orb. So they will provide the facts, but class the source as a state secret.
And, in case you are suggesting that they withhold the information (which would open both of them up to charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice), do not forget that there are news crews present, which may well have recorded or even transmitted the entire exchange on air!
Therefore the trial will be conducted on the basis that it is known there was a person present who was altering the minds and behaviour of people present. That is not some crazy alien conspiracy theory. It will be known as an absolute fact.
By the way, there was an alien present, who was also controlling people’s behaviour with mind and emotion controlling powers. Just look at panel 4 above. So I kind of hope that you were saying part of your argument tongue-in-cheek.
His comment is about the existence of some other level of aggro aura other than the one we saw demonstrated–a “super secret” power that was never hinted at or suggested to be possessed by Vehemence, but which members of the community have assumed either must exist (mostly based on Hex), or have posited the super villains could claim existed.
As far as aliens existing, yes they do. And as he points out, any super villain could now claim “alien mind control” from an unknown source and have just as much evidence as the current group of criminals have that they were forced to attack the heroes. We saw evidence of exactly one form of mind-control from Vehemence. It worked in a predictable, specific way- attack nearest target, override friend/foe recognition for all parties within his burst, no teamwork possible, few tactical considerations possible. Claiming that he had another form of mind control that worked in an entirely different way- provoking limited hostility in one group of people toward another group, while still allowing for teamwork and tactical thought, as well as surrender and withdrawal -requires some form of evidence, which beyond (possibly) a single thought bubble by Hex, has not been provided.
So the first part of his post it seems you misunderstood, and the second part you missed the point of.
Wow, I stand corrected. I did not realise that there has been many examples of this power used, that it had been clinically studied, and found those same results every time.
Rather than having only been observed in use the once.
And here I was thinking that using it with less power could potentially provide lesser, more localised, or subtle results. But clearly the jury will accept your version, and the defence will not suspect that you are overstating your case, to suit your argument.
Wow, so hostile. Is limp sarcasm really your best response to someone pointing out you misread a post?
I pointed out what happened and when I said predictable, I meant it affected every single person the exact same way. I already know it was only used once- I said it in the sentence that proceeded your quote.
As far as “my case,” since in your head I am apparently now the prosecutor, I think thus far it blows the non-existent defense of “what if Vehemence had other power-settings?” out of the water. For people like Barberian, it wouldn’t even get to trial- they’d cop a plea, I’d get testimony that there was no mind control Next, I’d select juries with low opinions of people who act in defiance of the law, and then I’d run down my timeline where I show how A) The criminal’s had free will to attack or not attack, since some rushed in and others did not, B) that mindset did not change even in situations where we KNOW they were cut off from any possible aura, ie nega knuckes, C) that the claimed aura somehow allowed some criminals to run away or surrender, or even run away in a manner calculated to embarrass the heroes. D) Based on A) B) and C), we can conclude there was no aura, because E) once an aura did go up, its effect was obvious and immediate.
Then I sit back and watch as the “but what if…” flails helplessly against the testimony of federal officers and video taped confessions of criminals who took the plea deals.
I collect my convictions, and then run for governor on my record of putting supervillains behind bars, only to run affoul of having a gigantic hentai collection on my PC, which I ironically blame on invisible gnomes…
Wait. I think I lost control of that scenario somewhere. Oh well.
Then a few years later, some of those who struck deals with you, confess that they perjured themselves, because of the intimidation and inducements you offered. Investigation finds that the aggro field was actually used in a subtle manner earlier, and that a lot of innocent people went to jail unjustly.
Sweeping laws specifically allowing the “what if I was mind controlled” defense are passed as a result of these investigations. Western Civilization collapses within a few months as people realize the defense can be applied to any circumstance. Tribal anarchy becomes the rule of the land.
Ironically, the man who rises to lead mankind out of darkness is none other than a reformed Vehemence himself. After years of war, he looks over his newly forged empire from the heights of his skyscraper-castle, turns to the camera and smiles.
“Just as planned.”
Heh. Just as well that our legal systems are more robust than that. Thanks to the standard, in criminal trials, being that the defendants must be found guilty ‘beyond the shadow of a doubt’.
Whilst you offer plenty of opinion that there was no mind control going on earlier, it is just that. No matter how firmly you state it as fact, it is not. Whereas there is a clear smoking gun, to provide reasonable doubt.
There is a person present who can alter peoples minds. Who has the means, motive and opportunity to do so. And there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that he did just that.
Whilst you make much of contesting the means (the Aggro Aura), the evidence you offer never raises above circumstantial evidence, or opinion, to become an absolute and incontrovertible fact.
Whilst it is the prosecutors job to behave in the manner you indicated, that is balanced by the defence doing the same tasks for their client. But on top of this, there is the judge.
And judges give direction to the jury, before they retire for deliberation. Which guides them as to the things that they must consider, and restricts the verdicts that they are allowed to draw.
In all your arguments you have failed to convince me that you have proven ‘beyond the shadow of a doubt’ that there was no mind control going on earlier. As such the judge may well not even allow the option of a ‘guilty’ verdict, but direct that only some lesser charges are possible.
Alternatively, she may leave it to the jury to decide, but point out that they must be absolutely certain that the aggo aura was not used, as suggested by the defence.
Were I sitting on that jury, with the evidence we have seen in the comic to date, and taking into account the arguments you have presented, I would have to conclude that there remains the possibility that it was used. And I do not feel it to be a slim possibility either, but that is irrelevant.
So I would not render a guilty verdict. I would though, consider the various ‘diminished responsibility’ options, if they were offered by the judge.
You make a critical error in your rant that betrays a misunderstanding of the American legal system’s standard of evidence. One I’ve suspected was underlying your arguments from the beginning. I do not have to prove “beyond the shadow of a doubt” as you put in quotes. I have to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt. They are two very different things.
My failure to convince you does not bother me. Your misunderstanding of the standard of evidence combined with your willingness to believe in outlandish what if scenarios would have eliminated you from the pool during jury selection. You would be relegated to protesting outside the courthouse when the guilty convictions were returned.
As far as the judge telling the jury they have to be absolutely certain there was no mind control used. I presented the idea of this case to a lawyer friend of mine, and he thought that a defense of outside mind control, in a world where that exists and has to be considered as part of jurisprudence would have to be treated in a similar fashion as a duress criminal defense, an active defense where part of the burden of proof shifts to the defense. The defense couldn’t simply claim that the subject was mind controlled, they’d have to be able to point to a clear change in behavioral patterns, doing something they wouldn’t “normally” do. Because Vehemence specified that they were all anarchists and rabble-rousers, many of them likely have prior histories that would make such a claim problematic.
Speaking of prior history, that’s a key component of the whole thing that we’ve both been ignoring. A critical part of any investigation is going to be setting up a timeline prior to the attack. What were the villains doing in the hours prior, how were they contacted, how did they meet up? If they got contacted by telephone, it’s probable the conversations were recorded. For that matter, if they were contacted by phone, it would make it hard to claim that Vehemence’s hypothetical aura was what prompted them to agree. On the other hand, if they all gathered up while Vehemence made a big case of getting them to attack, that too would alter the probability of a guilty verdict.
I think I’m going to hang it up at this point. It’s been a fun argument, but your last couple posts have hinted that you’re starting to take this kind of personally. Ultimately, we both know Dave is going to do whatever he thinks makes a better story, and from our prior histories, we’re both going to be fine with whichever way it goes. That being said, I leave the last word on this to you.
Different in magnitude, but not direction. Our court systems remain compatible, despite the American one operating to a, slightly lower standard.
In day to day practice this just amounts to one system saying to juries “you must be sure” and the other saying “you must be very sure”. The juries are still doing much the same thing. But thank you for reminding me of this distinction. It can indeed make a difference in some close run situations.
Although it does make me more impressed with OJ Simpson’s lawyer, now that you point that out.
Thank you. I was completely unaware that such could happen. Please pass on my thanks to your friend too. He has made a British guy less ignorant. I would be fascinated if anybody knows if that is a uniquely American facet, or if it is shared under English law?
I should immediately apologise to one and all for insisting that the entirety of the proof lies with the prosecution. I was in ignorance as to this exception.
I do note that this is phrased as a sharing of the burden of proof. Not the shifting of it to solely lie with the defence. I simply say that to draw attention to it, as I missed that distinction, on my first read through.
None the less I am happy to incorporate this fact, and respond to the remainder of your comment, with that taken into account. In a separate post.
Long post. Too sleepy to edit down more. Sorry.
The hairdresser, turning up to a ‘lets kill cops’ party fills this criteria nicely. His politely surrendering when asked, further corroborating this. It is all symptomatic of a fundamental change in his basic behaviour.
Vehemence’s testimony is suspect because he is shown to lie just for laughs. And it was in his best interests to make the police more likely to fight anarchists.
But, I am happy to assume that most are anarchists, for the sake of argument. Except where we can see exceptions to the rule. The hairdresser being very obviously one. And one exception is all that is necessary to provide reasonable doubt.
I will add one strengthening argument to this though. One feature that cropped up a lot in the forums was people asking “why are so many villains spontaneously attacking the cops, so suddenly?”
This is because, even if you do pick a bunch of anti-establishment types, it is absurd to think that you could convince them from going from protesters and petty criminals,* into declaring all out war against the police. Not with one phone call!
One day they were living within America, quietly enough that they did not feature on any watch lists. The next day** they were willing to fight to the death? That too is a change in behaviour that can easily be explained by using the aggro aura. Whereas it is unreasonable to claim that a simple phone call could convince them to do the same.
This provides not one but two different proofs of changes in behaviour. Plus we, the readers know that Budget Halo had “what am I doing here” thoughts. Which if she is apprehended, she is likely to repeat under interrogation. And that may be symptomatic of others too.
Hopefully you will now agree that I have offered reasonable proof as to changes in behaviour? If you do, then the burden of proof returns to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that those changes came from mundane means, and not the proposed use of the aggo aura.
My justification isn’t strained – it is based on sound psychology. And I am saying that is what happened, but rather raising it as a possibility. Note that I never said “V did…” or “I think V did…” Please address what I said, not your preconceptions or what you think I said.
That isn’t even a valid legal defense, actually. The question is whether you were forced to do the crime. Peer pressure is not a valid defense. Example: an 18 year old man John is picked up by two friends, who say they are riding to the beach. The friends drive him to the bank instead. They pull out guns and put on masks and tell John they are robbing the bank. They hand him a mask and a gun and ask him to rob the bank with him. If John says okay, puts on the mask and takes the gun to go rob the bank because of peer pressure, he’s still guilty. Indeed, if an old lady at said bank dies of a heart attack brought on by the stress of the robbery, John is guilty of murder.
Who said it has to be the aggro field V showed at the end that influenced the crowd. I would assume that, given he’s powered by vehemic energy, one would assume he’d have several ways to foster that. Being able to persuasively convince a group of people to commit violence would seem to be well within the skillset of someone with his abilities.
Just like Dabbler’s ability was able to get a ‘rise’ out of everyone during the conference when examining Syd for the first time, or a more spot application to Jabberwokky that caused her to do Dabbler’s bidding and ‘defend’ her from Vektor, as opposed to just uncontrollably trying to hump Dabbler’s leg.
So not outside the realm of possibility to say that V could just as easily ‘push’ someone to violence by being a rabble-rouser (similar to causing a riot) or cause an all out melee affecting everyone in the area, with people fighting each other regardless of affiliation.
Great point. Vehemence’s powers are clearly highly versatile, Ka-pants being an obvious example, given that it was, self-evidently, something he made up on the spur of the moment. So it is much easier for the defence to argue for the adaptability of his agro aura. And conversely for the prosecution to deny the same.
If we are talking agro field supported persuation if not brain-washing, the field did not need to be on at that time, the same way brain washing drugs have to be present during the actual brain-washing only.
It only needs to open a door into a persons mind and make it susceptible to manipulation.
Except that’s demonstrably not how the power worked. The moment Sydney cut off the effect, all the heroes and reporters et all immediately regained their senses. There was no period of “susceptibility.” Everyone went crazy violent, and then they weren’t.
Both of you make good, solid arguments.
Note however that there is a known difference between active control and post-hypnotic suggestion. The latter is designed to happen after exiting the hypnotic state, and is triggered by a later cue. Which need not even have the hypnotist (or in this case the super villain) present.
Whereas active control is not established in that way, and can be interrupted, by snapping the person out of the hypnotic state (or, we can infer, by breaking the mind control).
Note that the same hypnotist can use different techniques to use either version. So there is the potential that a super power, like the Aggro Aura, could be equally adaptable.
True, but Sidney’s PPO could have a function which allows it to cure cancer, too. Proving a negative is impossible. Without evidence, it remains speculation.
That sounds like some pretty extreme radiation therapy. Maybe the PPO is only useful against super-cancer.
Yorp: Thanx for summing it up ! ;-)
Zu Long:
My hypothesis is derived from the possibility to push a persons decision one way or the other by using the agro aura to let their drive to action bottle up and then show them were to vent their aggressions. Which means, not turning them into hyper energized turbo bunnies but to rally them into action by using the same power but subtly.
I mean there was a flashback of him having a good time amidst an out-of control demonstration, was there not ? Maybe he wasn’t just the reason for things to go out of hand, but for the demonstration itself to take place ?
Basically, what you’re inferring is that Vehemence really doesn’t need any kind of aggro-aura in order to “incite a riot.”
Even though normal people in this real world of ours already do that (more frequently than comfortable, anyway), it still does not absolve the rioters of legal accountability for the crimes committed during the riot.
What I am inferring is that Vehemence might be able to use his power to make people decide upon an action they normally would not make. Once a person decides he / she usually sticks to it until there is a reason to question it, which means that no continued agro aura would be needed until then. This is an effect that can be increased by adding mass dynamic, because once rallied, it will take a lot to make a group of people snap out of it since it’s members keep each other going.
What I’m inferring is that it doesn’t take any kind of special “super power” to manipulate people & incite rioting…All it takes is some charisma & people willing to listen for a while. What that means, in context with this particular discussion, is that Vehemence (with or without Vekter’s input) was able to “incite THIS particular riot” & establishing whether or not V’s aggro-power was used is not necessary for any of the others to be found guilty of participating in the fight.
Actually that’s a flash forward to Vehemence leading marchers. We know because he’s still huge, which he siad he’s never done before. He does mention being present for the LA race riots, though he never claims to have instigated anything, only drawn power fromit. As far as a subtle, “make people more violent than they otherwise would be, but not so violent that they can’t make plans, or think tactically, also some of them will surrender or run, but some won’t, it’s kind of random” setting for his power… it all seems to stem from a single thought bubble by Hex where she questions her own reason for being there. She’s literally the only person who does any thing of the sort, and it could just as easily be her getting mad at herself for having made a dumb mistake, which every single person in the world has done at some point in their lives.
Could Dave theoretically use it as a plot twist? Sure, I guess. Is it actually supported or implied by the text as it stands right now? I honestly don’t think so.
You are right, of course; this is all but guesswork.
But the nice touch of DaveB’s comic is that there usually is logic behind everything, giving his story a real feeling. It also allows for some serious speculation. ;-)
I have an interesting (I hope) anecdote for this. I’m part of another fan-base that does a lot of theorizing, and I mean an enormous amount. I was browsing through various theory comments and chatting with a friend, when either he, or one of the comments I read, said that the creator threw us for a lot of loops. It was then that it hit me: he really hadn’t. The community had theorized themselves into those ‘loops’. I kinda feel like that’s what’s happening here. Vehemence already said that most of these guys were already criminals, anarchists, or crazy, and ARC-Light knew about 2 of them already. Seems to me Occam’s Razor should come in to play here. Which, given how vitriolic this seems to be getting between some of the people on here, might be something to keep close at hand. I may need to defend myself.
I think the best aspect is that the setting is real world + super powers. We, as the audience can provide a lot of authority on the former, and the fun then comes from speculating on the changes that happen from the admixture.
Plus DaveB is clever enough not to provide too many answers, confirmations or spoilers, which keeps the options wide open. Plus, as l3lue.7hunder says, Dave has put a lot of thought into what he does, so the story maintains continuity, as he unveils the next stage.
@Nixeu
Dude, if the discussion qualifies as “vitriolic,” then you have been a part of some really tame fanbases. :-P
Something to note: There were also a couple of non-super reporters duking it out, thanks to V’s aura. Don’t think that that won’t be all over the news once the reporters work out what really happened.
I think its a full brazilian followed by a lemon juice poison ivy poultice .
In reply to Yorp’s question on Shadow Boxers probable punnishmen.
We the audience could see the wave that caused it in the fight so I DOUBT (but won’t swear on a stack of Bibles) that it happened before that in the fight itself. But the supers don’t necessarily know that which leads to the legal questions you are seeing in the comments.
The question of whether V used a weaker version of this vehemic suggestion to get them more inclined to join up and head towards the fight in the first place is unknown at this time.
We haven’t seen any real proof that they were mind-controlled. However, several of them expressed doubt about their own motivations, so I’d bet that some form of power-assisted manipulation was used.
All a good lawyer would need to do is say something along the lines of, “so V was able to cause everyone one start fighting each other, correct?”
“Well, yes.. But–”
“So is it possible that my client was mind controlled to fight initially?”
“Well, based on what we saw of how the aura –”
“Answer the question, yes or no. Could he have been manipulated into the original altercation?”
“We don’t know…”
“So we have someone who has proven he can cause people to fight and the expert witness can’t refute that my client might have been coerced earlier by the same person to join the original altercation. I rest my case.”
+1
It’s not that I believe they really were mind controlled. It’s that I believe that all of this being a plot by a person with confirmed mind control powers would be sufficient to create reasonable doubt. And no, that wouldn’t mean that every person committing a crime could use the same out. You’d need to show some basis for thinking that a person with mind control powers was nearby and benefited from the crime.
I really must know who is in a relationship with who one day. Because damn, Hiro and Maxima blowing off steam after a battle together just is an amazing image. Or is Maxima so serious she isn’t currently in a relationship with anyone?
And well… I’m sure Dabbler is going to go play later. She’ll need a power recharge.
What would being serious have to do with not being in a relationship?
It might make you less inclined to get into a relationship with those under your command I suppose.
Actually, Military Regulations are a good reason to NOT get into a relationship with those under your command.
Yep, sadly the only female commander of a British Navy warship lost her position, last year, due to having been in a relationship with one of her crew. Apparently it is not strictly banned, but in that instance it was having an adverse effect on the operation of the vessel, so she had to be re-assigned.
Sounds simply like the Old Boys Club using any feeble excuse to get rid of a ‘skirt’
Possibly. The facts presented, in the reporting, were very sparse though, so we have nothing to base any speculation on. The other thing to consider though, is that she was the Navy’s top poster child to pacify a general public, which wants equal representation throughout the society.
So, especially for the old warhorses who want to keep the ‘skirts’ out, it would have been in their best interests to keep her in. As the token girl. To stop any future suggestions of enforcing positive discrimination. They are in a weaker position now, than before.
On the balance of probability I would say that this is likely just the case of somebody misjudging their partner’s suitability (be it their discretion or whatever) and paying the price for it.
My understavding is that what is sometimes known as “zipper failure” has been something of a problem in the US Navy.
Apparently, there has been a spate of (male) COs that have been severely disciplined for, to put it nicely, involvement with females under their command.
The Royal Australian Navy also had some ugly … incidents involving this sort of thing several years ago.
A Navy captain once told me:
“The Navy doesn’t make you gay, just sexually flexible”
Kind of the direction I was going.
That’s…actually a good point. Are those rules in use here? If my memory is correct, they don’t allow relationships between those in the same chain-of-command, right? So, are Brook and Amorphous in different chains-of-command? It’s entirely possible they aren’t in use in Archon, again, due to the whole ‘supers are rare and we want to keep them in our organization’ thing.
The exact rules vary between each branch of the military. In this case DaveB has been a genius though. The person who will have set the rules for America’s newest armed service is … Maxima. Albeit that it will have been signed off by General Faulk.
So it is unlikely that she is doing anything which breaks Archon code of conduct. Even if it pisses off the other members of the other armed forces.
That certainly explains why Max isn’t too worried about losing her job, if you’re right. Not saying you aren’t, mind.
Maxima is missing from the Who’s Who. She does have dialog, which I thought was the trigger for inclusion.
Easter must have come early. You found the egg.
Um, I hope nobody forgot about Achilles. Poor guy’s been stuck under the rubble all this time :(
He must be bored out of his mind
Maybe he’s giggling about the scare he’s going to give the construction guys who clean up the site later on that month? I wonder if his collar can be voice commanded to call out like a phone? Maybe he ordered a pizza during the fight to come to the site (since he has pretty high confidence in Maxima’s abilities): “Tell them, ‘Compliments of Achilles’. Yes, thank you.”
That would be awesome.
Hiro’s problem being that the pizza has already arived, and they don’t have his favorite
He is buried in the rubble of a restaurant. He is probably eating his way through the food store, to clear a route out.
If his jaw muscles happen to be strong enough to let his teeth break down rubble, he wouldn’t have to go through the pantry to escape…
Boy, I pity the poor Archon plumber. She has the worst job in the building and probably does not even get hazard pay!
Should be. Muscles generally have more strenght than most people have acces to, to prevent damage. Likewise, most people would never even try to chew through rocks because it hurts your teeth.
Achilles doesn’t have to worry about either, and can use the full strenght his body has
“Muscles generally have more strenght than most people have acces to, to prevent damage.”
No foolin’.
Anyone who has suffered from a muscle cramp can confirm that, because it’s an involuntary muscle contraction that causes some pretty hefty damage.
:/
Seconded.
Must suck to be a super and then miss most of the action despite it going down right next to you.
Judging from the number of comments about Achilles during the course of this fight, I’d say none of the readers forgot about him…But I think having the rest of ARCSwat forget him is something Dave has planned on during the wrap-up stage here.
;)
Sydney: Do you guys feel like we’re forgetting something?
Max: I always do.
Dabbler: Funny, I always feel that way too.
2/3 panels later, clear, delapidated parking lot: Achilles voice under moving rubble:Guys? Guys? Sighhh … Not again.
I had that thought too. It would be a hilarious end to the scene.
Next panel shows the ruined restaurant with no visible activity anywhere nearby.
Next panel shows the same scene with a thought-bubble originating from one particular rubble pile: “It’s gotten quiet out there…Too quiet. Where is everybody?”
“Not again” is the perfect way to end this story!
Maybe that’s what Hiro’s statement of, “We have a problem,” refers to. They can’t find Achilles. Most military units, after a incident, normally as matter of course, do a roll call.
Just call on Yorp to sniff out which pole of rubble he’s buried under. Problem solved.
;)
Ugh! I meant PILE of rubble, not pole.
To express my frustration over not having an edit function here, I refer back to any one of Sydney’s earlier Curse Attacks.
Well, the local threat condition has gone back to standard levels and Sydney’s orbs have not spun up to turbo mode, so I guess she does not get another level up from this encounter.
Sydney’s use of her powers in this fight was actually quite minimal. The shield and the lighthook being almost it.
Yes, she used the truesight orb at one point.
Mostly, her contribution was from between her ears.
Had she waded in with PPO, and gone “More Dakka” on the attackers, she may have gotten a powerup. They probably would has lost…and lost a good chunk of Dallas in the process, though.
Sydney can power up at any time. Sparring against any of the other heroes at that test range should do it with far less risk or property damage.
True, but remember that while she did experiment a bit with the orbs, enough to discover what 5 of the 7 do, partially, she was hesitant to do a lot of experimentation due to the forest fire incident and her fears of government vivisection teams and just how whisk worthy the orbs are.
Her use of them in Archon HQ and at the press conference was probably the first time she had really pushed any limits, flying faster than she had ever done before, withstanding Maxima level punches and energy blasts, and letting loose with the PPO at the tank. And she did use both the shield and the lighthook in new and inventive ways all throughout this fight. Another level-up is not unwarranted.
A few thoughts on this…
I doubt that Sydney is the first owner/user of the orbs, and I think it’s most likely that the leveling system is a function of the orbs that’s not personalized. In other words some one else has used and unlocked the currently available powers that Sydney has identified so far.
This means that it’s possible that the previous user was just about to achieve a new level when he or she (or “it”) somehow lost the orbs. If that’s true Sydney might have to do a lot of work before she unlocks another level. As we know so little about their history we have no way to estimate what the progression rate might be, or what actions can influence it. Is it only repeated use that counts or does she have to use certain functions more? Will the leveling be faster if she uses the functions last upgraded?
There are many questions and currently very few answers. All in all I don’t think we can hope for a particularly rapid rate of leveling. Identifying the two unknowns might be helpful though…
Your line of thought sits well, if thinking of the level up system as being that provided by a game, and Sydney has carried on their saved game. Clearly Sydney’s first thoughts were along these lines.
Elsewhere in these comments though, another contributor has suggested (and is not the first) that it is simply a way for advanced tools to rate the capabilities of their user, and unlock features as and when they are properly experienced to use them safely and wisely.
I very much favour this field of thought. It is a direction that advanced societies may well take.
Whilst the previous owner unlocking suggestion has appeal from a story, and cosmic irony, point of view, it lacks the merit of making sense when looking at why a society (or god or wizard) would create a feature that worked in that way.
Unless it was something they did not consider as a possibility. So I do not rule it out, as the ability to make complex tools does not necessarily equate to also having wisdom. But the orbs are so far beyond anything that we can do, that I feel the safety features and planning would be more likely to be sophisticated than patchwork.
Look at one of the most advanced examples of humanity’s achievements. The aeroplane. Every generation has more and more levels of safety features built in. Getting more and more ‘smart’ features.
By the time we reach the point where we can compress all that capability into a little ball, we may have advanced our safeties to the point where the machines do what we want them to do. Rather than what we tell them to do. Plus other features which would distinguish them from our primitive techniques.
So I would expect unintended, pretty obvious, side effects like this to be less likely. In which case, what would be the point of retaining somebody else’s level up tree, for a new owner? That would require some other element, that has not been proposed yet, for it to sit comfortably in my mind.
“we may have advanced our safeties to the point where the machines do what we want them to do. Rather than what we tell them to do.”
A good example where the creators didn’t have the wisdom for sufficient safety measures was in the old SciFi movie, “Forbidden Planet.” The Krell created a machine that could physically manifest anything they could imagine…but it was their own subconscious imaginations that caused that same machine to destroy them.
The ‘saved game’ idea might not be that far-fetched. Think of it this way. If that is an exploration kit, they might have assumed that if the user was killed, they’d just collect the orbs and ‘reset’ them for the next user.
Since the orbs were lost, they were never reset.
Ok, the ‘saved game’, up until your comment, has been postulated using our usual gamer baggage of what we know as a skill tree. Namely that the character gains XP for actions taken in the game, and becomes more skilled, thereby learning more advanced ones.
If I am reading your ‘exploration kit’ implication right however, you are now changing that. And in a way that provides the ‘some other element’ that I said was missing. Because if it is not a skill tree for the user, but the unlockable tools of a Galactic Swiss army planetary exploration kit, then we are getting somewhere!
Especially if those trees do not lead to fixed tools. But are actually creating tools that will be of use on this planet.
So, yes, it could be viewed as a save game file. But not for the character’s skills, but for the technological tools she has manufactured with her kit. It may not even be possible to reset the ‘save game file’. If those new tools cannot be re-formed, once they have been built.
Sydney had the fly ball in one paw, the PPO, in the other, and the desire to cut through a tank. The PPO is only good for burning trees, but there is a combo tool slot free for the two orbs in hand. So Ka-LAZERCUTTER, a new tool is formed!
Once the adrenalin has cleared from her system, and the tool figures that it will not interrupt some important exploration or survival situation, it displays the amended schematics for itself.
Which would explain why some things were already filled in on the tree. Those items were created by the previous owner but, like any tool, can be used by the next person who picks it up.
Or maybe that is what the big button in the middle is for? It signifies ‘planet fully explored, reset tool to factory default’. Ready for the next planet or environment.
Of course, once you know that you can create any tool you want, but limited to the particular combinations offered by mixing the base powers of the orb, it would be easy, for an advanced user, to rapidly build a set of tools that gives a huge boost suitable for the new environment.
I like the way you think Chad! Genius. Apart from that stuff after the word “kit” *rolls eyes heavenward*, where did that come from? That makes no sense for a Galactic Swiss army planetary exploration kit! Keep it consistent.
One point that keeps popping into my head,concerning the “tool kit” theory…When Sydney got the new “pip” during the press demo, she had been using Lighthook, Shield, PPO & Flight most, yet she put that “pip” into her Comm Orb.
For the “tool kit” theory to be sound, wouldn’t the orbs have automatically put that pip into the Flight or PPO (or the interfacing between the two) orb(s)? That would be the logical way to configure for a “new tool function” that had just been unlocked.
As it went, Sydney put the pip into the Comm Orb, which wasn’t being used, so that would mean the Orbs didn’t actually “unlock” a new function, but instead gave a new pip to recognize that the Orbs were being used frequently & needed more versatility.
I took another look at the skill tree & noticed that the intersection between Flight & PPO was already filled. It’s possible that the Orbs only gave Sydney the choice because that particular Orb-combo was already unlocked. This would still suggest the concept of “leveling up” with experience with the Orbs, rather than “new tool configuration.”
The tree lit up after that tool was created so, of course, that point would be filled.
The glowy in her hand did not represent a pick available through xp. It is simply that she had enough spare energy*, built up in the tool kit, to fabricate the new tool. Which she then placed more or less at random, by accident.
As the tool examined her desires, when ‘fighting’ the tank, to design the Ka-LASER, it then does so again, when she places the glowy. Attempting to make a tool which meets her desires.
Of course, if she did not focus her expectations clearly, it might have to examine her subconscious desires (or expectations). Or, failing to sense the need for a particular tool, possibly it reverted to a factory default option.
* Be that from tidal, solar or vehemic sources, as might be appropriate.
If the system adds functions built on ‘subconscious desires’ and the previous user was an average male, then one of those dots under the true-sight orb has got to be a ‘see through women’s clothing’ setting.
Having the schematic open clearly allows for the user to design any tool they want,* without having to actually open that part of the kit. She is in ‘engineer mode’ at that point.
Whereas, if a user needs to improvise a tool ‘right now’ she is limited to the ones that are in her hand at that moment.
* Barring only those tools can only be made when you have the right tools. So ‘unlocking’ features is still required.
But just in the sense of “You can not make a knife until you have first developed a furnace to make the metal malleable enough to work”.
Another thing to keep in mind is that you’re viewing the orbs as a human would. What if it was a vulcan who created the orbs, for example. They wouldn’t see the need for as many safeties since they’re not ruled by emotions, so not likely to panic or act irrationally with the orbs.
There’s also the level of the technology. You’re almost assuming that it’s the pinnacle of their technology, but to use a somewhat bad example, look at how we can start a fire. What if we designed a way to use a laser as a fire starter. The only safety we might put on it is a mechanism to keep the ‘fire’ button from accidentally being pressed. It’s still a huge jump in technology from rubbing sticks together, but there’s still likely to be minimal safety measures incorporated.
Who’s to say these orbs are the equivalent of a Zippo lighter to the beings who created the orbs, beings who might have 5x the level of intelligence as a human, photographic memories, and perfect hand/eye coordination?
Take that back, you… bald ape… you! How dare you! Grrr!
*starts gnawing on Chad‘s leg*
Ouch!
Has anyone read the sci-fi ebook series “wearing a cape” that DaveB recommended a while back ? The one calling supers “break throughs”, those trying to force a break through “origin chasers” and who categorize supers by the nature of their power as “Atlas”, “Ajax”, “Merlin”, “Darwin”, … .
While it is described for supers to first have appeared after god stroke somewhat of a cosmic tuning fork, the powersets are almost entirely described based on quantum theorie.
And here is where it gets interesting:
A break-through would most likely appear due to a stressed or weirdly influenced mind, such as near death experiences or if something “really blows your mind”. The powers would usually manifest themselves as something linked or derived from that experience and the persons mental state, not bothering to follow the rules of physic but usually the rules perceived by its wielder. Powers are there simply because they are KNOWN to be there.
One of the weirdest forms is the Merlin type ( and is technological counterparts whose name I have forgotten ), because their powers tend to affect to whorld as a whole and not just themselves or their direct environment. If they believe to be, for instance, a character out of a fairy tale, they may end up with all the characteristics that go with it. First of all they ARE those characters because they KNOW they are, making them as real as anything. If they believe that they lost gismos of theirs over the last hundred of years all over the world, then people can actually end up finding them.
Back to Syndey / Halo:
It strikes me as odd that a nerdy roleplay loving comic fanatic would find power orbs that well fitting to her character in a well known divers paradise. And not one but seven of it to boot. Those orbs also appear to evolve in the same way ( or at least when ) her character does, once again in a way fitting to her personality.
This can’t possibly be were chance. Even if they let themselves be found by her because they noticed a compatible host, that still required way to much chance; there can’t possibly be many Syndey around.
Which leaves two options:
1. Those orbs were dropped there for her.
2. Orbs simply are how her power manifests.
I mean: The orbs defy any normal attempts to be understood. The same could be said about Sydneys mind. She eats spiced food aggressiv enough to dissolve any normal organic matter, so she can’t possibly be all normal and limited to her orbs either. And in this world, supers usually go through some kind of transformation which, together with their power, has yet to be understood.
It may sound far stretched, but it does fit does it not ? ;-)
As a bit of a tangent to what you’re saying, if my earlier theory that the Orbs are extra-dimensional in origin are correct, it’s possible that all 7 orbs are merely what we can perceive of a single device in some higher dimension (maybe a 4D, 5D or more plane of existence), with only those 7 aspects of that one device being perceivable in our 3D universe. This would explain why all 7 orbs were found in the same place, instead of potentially being scattered all over our world.
A suppose with “dimension” you meant (parallel) reality in this case ? As in a different plane / place of existence ?
A different reality, in terms of quantum mechanics, is but a different base setting of continuity; a shift in spin different enough to stand for its own without collapsing into ours.
Since quantum mechanics suggest an interaction between realities, for it to be 7 orbs could indeed be but our perception of reality and not how the very same thing manifests in other realities.
So yes, for the seven to actually be one at the same “time” would be possible.
There is, of course, the classic view that there are 12 “dimensions”:
It could also just be how our 3.5 dimensions wired mind perceives those orbs, that we just see as seven what is one since we can’t discern what unites them.
You favor the theory that the orbs were more or less intentionally given to Sydney I take it ? Some “higher” forms of life wanting themselves a nice reality show perhaps ?
Zephan Zoeng is the world’s leading authority on obscure artefacts. Shall we ask him, his opinion?
Oh, come now Zephan, surely after you have had time to examine them, and their holder, you will be able to reassure us?
Its not like it happened right away last time. There is still a chance.
While a new level-point may be possible, I’m of the opinion that it’s a set standard that for each new level-up a character gets, it’ll take longer to earn the next level. It’s possible that Sydney had been self-testing on her own (before the comic) that she came pretty close to a new level that got earned during the press demonstration. In essence, Sydney might have gotten enough early practice that she just capped a new level at press-time & there’s really no other precedent to judge how much longer it’ll take for her to earn the next level-point.
Maybe she only advances when she gains some new insight into the current powers of the orbs–like her “safety” thought when using the PPO at the demo. She has a startled look associated with an image suggestive of connections being made and/or barriers being broken, and when she describes it to Max later, it seems like an epiphanic moment.
+1
About that moment…Uh…I’m going to guess it’s been said before now, but looking at her ‘skill tree’, there’s a bunch of nodes at the center of lines connecting 2 different orbs. Only one of those is filled, and it’s between the PPO and the Flight Orb, and she was using both at once during the press demo. Might be why she felt that ‘touching a star’ thing when she used the PPO, since it seemed to surprise her, possibly meaning she didn’t feel that when she first used the PPO.
Yep. You have hit on what I think is currently the consensus opinion on what was responsible for Halo’s level up. I certainly run with it. Although there are other possibilities mooted, which have merit.
and conversely, the OTHER skill points that are already filled in on the tree were not things that required such an effort to learn, or even to control, therefore there was no power up and display of the skill tree, forcing her to pick them, especially since she had obviously never seen the tree before… those (relatively) minor power ups were just “given” to her silently/ in the background.
or possibly they are more like a checklist that the orbs use PRIOR to a “level up” like she got after the demo. something like: did the user use the shield? yes… did they try to make it stronger? yes… did they try to make it bigger/smaller? yes… did the user try to set it up NOT centered on herself? NO. Did the user try to make it semi-permeable to atmosphere? NO… status of upgrade? not available at this time, pending further experimentation from user, re-evaluate at a later date…
But you usually get more XP for missions that end in the defeat of real enemies instead of burnt innocent trees don’t you?
Do the orbs know the difference between practice & real combat? Who knows what they “think?”
;)
I’m thinking the XP quantity might have a lot to do with the intensity of usage. Noting that Sydney levelled up right after the demonstration at the firing range, where she used both her zap and her force field at “full-on” settings.
They have some ability to interact with her mind. Maybe they overwrote a small part of her mind as the AI interface to control them and so it knows she was fighting enemies because she knows.
Dabbler only riles Maxima up, but Sydney gets her to relax, eh?
Well Sydney doesnt constantly push her luck and try to grope maxima while turning everything she says into a sexual innuendo. That helps.
Yeah…Well,Sydney’s not really talking with sexual innuendo right now, just talking about eye-candy.
Dabbler turns everything into a reference to sex. This is not a complaint,just an observation.
;)
I’m assuming the problem is no one can pick up Death Tolls? Even overwhelming him with different attempts to pick him up would be tricky since his power would go down the list of them in order countering each one? If it works while unconscious which seems likely since he was not moved during the whole fight.
I don’t think his Nemesis power would activate for something that isn’t an attack that could cause harm…Specifically, what it does is to provide a perfect counter to an action that would cause harm. Simply getting picked up doesn’t require harming him to do so.
I guess he was just too heavy to move and start medical treatments on then?
But I bet his powers would resist the knock out bracelets.
I bet old fashioned hand cuffs will do the trick just fine though.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I mostly just started wondering about it when I noticed he hadn’t been moved and seemed like he wasn’t treated the whole fight when others around him were being moved or medically treated by those who couldn’t fight V like Harem. I started thinking maybe they couldn’t move him for some reason.
Death Toll will need no lawyer because his nemesis power will counter every legal attack
+1
Unless he gets served four different writs at exactly the same time 8-)
The problem there is that he can only read them one at a time…
well, by that token, he can kiss his Miranda rights goodbye… he will automagically waive them… and nothing has been said that they have to have HIM read the Writs, they can all be read OUT LOUD to him by the four different lawyers at the same time.
Even though it’s humanly impossible to actually understand or comprehend the context of 4 speakers at once, if anything, his power would just render him deaf…but then again, unless any of those 4 speeches would cause harm via sonics, his power wouldn’t kick in anyway.
i take that to mean that you can understand “lawyer speech” the FIRST time thru without help? i know that i can’t understand EULA’s and such unless i really really read them slowly and very thoroughly, with multiple re-reads of paragraphs… how is that different from what would happen here, the first time thru he gets gibberish… BUT, just like a EULA, once you’ve clicked on the button, you’re hooked whether or not you understand it the first time. ie, once they read it to him, whether or not he understands it IMMEDIATELY, his powers got him. ie he trys to defend against too many at once and therefore defends against NONE…
Does this “problem” have to do with possible ARC losses? Dave had hinted that members from both sides may be eliminated back near the start…
If it turns out that way, it would be a bit of a surprise. Everyone seemed to be knocked out or drugged (safely). There was a bit of speculation that Jabberwokky might not have survived Vekter’s asphalt sandwich, but here she is in rude health.
Perhaps Vekter himself is at death’s door after V’s “entrance”.
About the only Arc-tality would be Heatwave, but we haven’t heard from Peg in awhile…
Peg is much more squishy than most of the super-humans and knows it. I don’t think we’ve seen much of Sean or Goose recently, either. Or Harem, come to think of it. Also, Peg’s a markswoman. When she figured out that shooting V wouldn’t help, she likely made herself scarce so as not to remind him that she shot him in the eye, as he didn’t seem to have liked that.
Ah yes, Goose vs. Mach the Knife. That’s one fight that could have ended quickly. And badly.
But, Peggy… she’s the really scary one. A crack shot with a nice selection of guns close at hand. In a “target-rich environment”.
Unless she’s out of range, someone’s thrown their last punch.
That part is unlikely. Snipers maintain their distance, because they know that is one of the few things which will keep them alive. Whilst her earlier shooting (against the villain who absorbed bits of the car park), may have been at closer range, by the last time we saw her she would have been able to fall back to an optimal compromise between accuracy and safety.
We have several marksmen/snipers as readers who could put a number range on that, for her current weapons. However, your sentiment, as to the risk she faces, being a squishy in a super fight, I totally share. She deserves a medal for every engagement against super foes!
As I can’t recall, off the top of my head, what we last saw of the walking car park (the only bit I remember is Peggy knocking her back down again, temporarily), that is my greatest concern for her safety. That villain had a personal grudge against Peggy, and looked intent on carrying it through. Plus could phase through the ground unseen.
I like Peggy. It would be a tearful moment, if anything did happen to her!
I’m pretty sure Electronbod was referring Peggy having the guns close at hand, not being close to the fighting.
Ahem. Maybe my last comment was just a bit cryptic. So, once again, with clarity++ :
Peggy is safe. She was out of range of the aura. ‘Cos if not, people would have been shot with very large high-velocity rounds. Not likely, IMHO, in this particular comic.
And as for Concretia: last seen in pieces behind Peggy, due to a Claymore. Hmmm, come to think of it, you are right about the personal grudge…
Nah, she’ll be fine. Sydney needs a fellow ‘normal’ on the team.
Oops. Silly me.
But do not forget that Dave indicated that one of the team will be… *sniff*
No, I can’t carry on!
hey, don’t forget that “the team loses somebody” DOESN’T meant that they DIED… it could mean that they got cold feet and QUIT, especially if they had “just” come out of the black ops side of things, and into the public eye, and got jumped on by, what, 20+ bad guys almost within HOURS of the newscast… that could put the kibosh on any number of less-than-totally-commited persons, and this fight was the straw that broke the camels back over whether or not they STAYED in Archon or not.
heck, that could be “the problem” that Hiro is talking about… it could be the Seal that had his car get blown up, finally flipping off the team and he’s gonna go back to the civilian bar or wherever he came from in that supposedly hypothetical scene where he had told a uniformed officer that he couldn’t order him to do squat (since he was no longer IN the military) when Ariana was describing why Archon was organized under military command… that may NOT have been hypothetical as we had originally thought, it may have actually happened, but he still showed up for the kicks anyways, with the (maybe correct, maybe INcorrect) understanding that he could quit at any time.
Actually, the Officers’ Commission isn’t quite as “iron clad” as you seem to imply. Even in the real world, Officers have been known to resign their commissions. Although, it does have to be done in accordance with the specific terms & conditions expressed in the contract itself, the Officers’ Commission & actual “employment contract” are two different things altogether.
who said the person quitting was an officer? OR even military?…and while i agree that the resignation is usually a known-in-advance kind of thing, you try to have an enlisted person do that, and they laugh their ass off as they put you in the brig, that being the result of you trying to go AWOL or desertion, that’s what i meant by “maybe incorrect”… sure he could try to leave before his time is up, but like Ariana said to Sydney “you can get in trouble if you DON’T follow orders”
heck, maybe the “problem” is that Arianna and Suzie are STILL fighting… even though the Aggro-Aura has been turned off… (and the cameraman is still FILMING it) :D
Or maybe Ari and Suzie are making
outup after the fight? :DSo, my theory for a while now has been that the first few pages of the comic, with Sydney walking into ARC HQ like she’s a seasoned vet… is actually Day 2. Guess we’ll find out soon.
No, on that page Sydney is expressly telling the audience (us) that this flashback we’re reading now happened a “few months” earlier. Since this fight on Day 1, Sydney has completed her basic training & even advanced to Corporal rank.
Is it just me or does that parking lot suddenly look a lot less smashed up? I mean look at all the damage it takes on pages 283-285….
Depends on which parking lot they are currently in
It would make sense to move out of the crater for triage etc, and head to some other, more suitable spot, nearby. Car parks abound in those areas.
That was me. An aggro aura gives everyone at the scene Reasonable Doubt that they were under mind control, I’ll be very dissapointed if basically everyone besides V doesn’t get out on that technicality.
Mind you, Arc will probably want to run some kind of registration/surveillance dealie on them, and since they’re military they might bend the rules but legally speaking all those guys ought to walk.
There’s significant disagreement that a good prosecutor can’t take down a coercion defense based on the aggro aura. There was a pretty decent discussion of this on page four of the comments from the last page. Suffice to say, it definitely isn’t a slam-dunk defense, and indeed, my own view is that a good prosecutor could take it apart without much difficulty.
“Registration/surveillance,” say hello to another civil war.
It sounded at the press conference that that idea has already been dismissed. Just don’t break any laws and it doesn’t matter. As convicted (if and when) criminals there will be a different set of rules. Reporting to a parole officer and expecting the police to drop in unexpectedly is just part of doing the sentence. House arrest leg monitors are SOP these days.
There is a distinction to be made here. If somebody has done something specific, to give reasonable suspicion that they might be involved in illegal activities, then it is perfectly acceptable for the authorities to keep them under surveillance. Preferably requiring court permission and supervision, but that is a separate issue.
Provided, of course, that their suspicion can be shown to have a fair reasoning, and not just being based on not liking the look of them. In which case it does not matter whether they are black, white, Muslim, foreign or super.
Where the line is drawn is when any of those categories is used to justify the act. “He has super powers that could be used in the conduct of a crime” is no more justifiable an excuse than “He belongs to a religion which has extremist members within it”.
Of course, being acquitted of a crime is not fair justification for surveillance. Nor for registration. The latter is only appropriate for those who have been convicted of a crime. And then only if it is of a type where re-offence is likely.
But if the police have other, supportable, reasons to suspect a person, then the fact that they were acquitted, of one crime, should not give them protection from being kept under observation.
It’s certainly an interesting problem. I suspect that a likely measure would be that they would be released on probation- they did, in fact, participate directly in a crime, whether they were controlled or not- but might have the option to get the offense expunged from their records after a certain amount of clean living.
I wholeheartedly agree that is a possible approach that courts could take for the tricky grey area that would be faced if the verdict was that individuals lost some, but not all of their volition. The summation of the judge might be something like this:
“We have given you the benefit of the doubt, in setting you free, but as we have no previous experience with these super powers, you are not completely free of suspicion. So this court is placing you on probation, until you have shown that our trust in you is not misplaced.”
For those who may have been shown to have totally lost their volition (if any were), then I do not see it likely. They would be considered innocent people. Who could not, as such, be persecuted. They are victims, not criminals.
Uh…didn’t V say he CALLED most of these guys? Unless his Aggro Aura work via phone…They already signed up for the whole ‘attack Archon’ thing before getting there. He also said he called every, and I quote ‘…Anti-government, Anti-police, anarchist, criminal, and/or nutjob’ with powers he knew. So, I’m going to guess most of these guys, possibly with some exceptions, knew before hand what they were getting into, and there’s likely evidence of this. Not to mention the fact that we know some of these guys have priors, and most of them probably have a warrent out for them somewhere, given V’s dialog. With some exceptions, like Barberian, of course. So even if they get off on the charges stemming from this crime, they’re pretty likely to get hit for any of the other crimes they may have commited.
Your comments are reasonable, and would all be explored in court. Unless the whole group manage to get tried as one, they will each have their own circumstances examined individually. As regards the opening line
I would not, personally, put too much faith in anything he said. Which did not have corroboration from some other source, anyhow. Given that he lied, just for laughs, at the outset.
Certainly the courts will not rate him as a reliable witness, and will rely on other sources for their primary evidence. But, if contact was made my phone, records can be traced and conventional police work can fill in a lot of gaps.
Of course, we have yet to learn what was said to lure them here. If, as is plausible given his other lies, he brought them here under false pretences, of one sort or another. In which case, it does not go to show pre-meditated criminal intent, on their behalf.
He does have a personal connection to at least Chia-pet, and probably Op(ort)al
Lol, I didn’t even see this post when I was writing my other post up there. This has some great points. If V is telling the truth, and it would be easy to find out using the phone records, then that would pretty much kill the debate. I really think most of the supers are going to cut deals and plead guilty. Great post, Nixeu.
It was all kind of open and vague.
He also said he let Vekter think it was his idea. So I guess V then volunteered to call more people he knew after he got done snowing Vekter into deciding to lead this party. But I wonder if the things those people were told were kind of vague. Like they would hear the rest at the meeting/staging area and they could decide to join up or leave then? I mean anti government sorts must be inclined to understanding the need for secrecy in dealings?
It would be kind of funny if they are still basically guilty because they went to a meeting knowing it would be about something illegal and anti-authority/government but were also “pushed” a little by V into being inclined to this particular action and to do it right away. Then they are sort of both guilty and mentally influenced at the same time.
That is pretty much the way I have been thinking it may have gone down. Based on what we have seen, and talking it through with commentators. It explains anomalies better than the counter proposals others have been offering. To me, anyhow.
Of course, going to a meeting to talk about`doing something anti-authoritarian/government, which you suspected may involve something illegal* is not itself criminal. That entirely falls within the realm of freedom of speech. Up until an illegal act is proposed and people either consent, or fail to disassociate themselves, whilst others do.
At which case, the charges start to clock up. Starting with conspiracy to commit X. Whether any of those stick, of course, is a separate debate, thanks to that ‘pushing’.
* Provided it was never explicitly stated that it was. Or that enough details of a plan were revealed, that any reasonable person would conclude that it must be illegal.
That’s Dabbler for ya. It’s all about the Package…
In that case, Dabbler’s put one helluva jockstrap on him…
So I was rewatching Wakfu, and I have to ask if Vehemence was based off of Rubilax?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KveC7efnjoA Granted, Sir Sadlygrove managed to find a way to beat him with MORE VIOLENCE.
If Sydney hadn’t given Vehemence the choice of “surrender or die” with his full attention, Max would have defeated him with MORE VIOLENCE. Heck, Vehemence himself outright told Max that she’s too violent for him!
Especially after he powered down to yellow level
Has no one given a thought for poor Vehemence? Unless he can shrink, he’s going to have a very tough life ahead of him.
V: I’ll have a quadruple venti macchiato, and the key to the restroom please.
Starbucks employee: Ummm…. No.
V: Uh, no to which?
S: We’ve just had a … uh … emergency … come up and we’ve had to close the bathrooms.
S: … and … uh … the department of public health and safety has prohibited the sale of diuretics to supervillans over 10 feet tall.
Actually, if you look at the comic, it looks like he’s already rhoughly the same size as the rest of the people.
He’s just puffed up because the gigantic amount of asteroid grade rope they wrapped him in
Is Vehemence back to normal now? His markings are back to dull grey/white like they were at the start of the fight. And its hard to tell if he is still massive or if thats just an absurd amount of asteroid towing wrappers.
He looks to have shrunk down to start of the fight yes
And Spaze girl there says men are simple. Put a good looking shirtless guy in front of them and girls are the same. If there into guys to begin with mind you.
She didn’t make any claims saying woman are any better
She did by omission, back with that “Guys are so simple,” remark.
Only if you take ‘simple’ to mean ‘dumb’. If you read it as ‘easy to understand’, then the contrast to that would be ‘hard to understand’. Which is not necessarily better and can easily be taken as being worse.
Personally I take it as neither, but as a gloating, smug, statement of them being ‘easy to manipulate’, which does not do her credit, as an attitude. Albeit that her manipulation was for a positive purpose. Which very much mitigates the situation.
However, none of of the above have an intrinsic implication as to her assessment of her own gende. As there is no weight to indicate whether she finds girls the obverse or equally simple to manipulate. Just in their own way. Certainly she did just that when convincing Heatwave that the voices were coming from inside her phone.
For shame on Dabbler, messing with a young girls pure heart like that. Truly despicable behavior!
How do we know Jabbs is even still under the influence? Maybe she liked girls before this all started?
She said she wasn’t. Except at parties, implying only when she’s drunk.
What if she just use the drinking as an excuse, for if her ‘target’ rebuffs her or tries and contacts her the next day
Maybe Dabbles’ kiss removed her self inhibition, and now that she has kissed a girl she likes it :P
Would be fine it that didn’t happen, but it would be a nice reason for having her being a reoccurring (stalking) character :D
Well, there’s at least one police report we’ve been informed of that proves Sydney’s not exactly “pure of heart.” Does the phrase “Oh, the humanity” ring a bell?
;)
Wasn’t talking about Sydney :P
We can add her to the list along with the lot of them in the Arch team.
But IR is most likely to be referring to Sydney, as the “pure heart” that Dabbler’s messing with. That’s why I had to point out that Sydney’s not quite “pure” to start with.
;)
I would think that Jaberwokky was clearly the ‘young girl’ being referenced. Albeit that Sydney is probably younger.
Whereas we have only seen her behave as either a squabbling rival, or as more of a mentor, as regards Sydney.
The female equivalent to inappropriate skip rope is a guy in a females Adam strip club cloth thong on a jump rope
Why is Maxima’s speech font still different?
Because her throat has still been recently almost crushed by a super strong person. That leaves effects.
DaveB just forgot it last page, as he already explained in the blog post directly under the comic.
Woha ! You really figured her out !
You think she might hire you ?
+2
I was just doing an archive dive and I was wondering who the two guys on the right are:
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/672
Have we seen them after that strip?
No names yet. I suspect they are part of the regular troops like Goose. No power except the ability to make Sydney drool uncontrollably.
The blonde is apparently “someone special,” although not part of ARCSwat, and Dave has some plan for properly introducing him. Haven’t heard anything about the bald black guy.
The bald-guy looks kinda like the ‘space-marine’ on this page: https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/385
Strikingly similar looks plus:
Bald. Check.
Black. Check.
Little black beard. Checkmate.
Their beards are different sizes, the space marine has a more defined jaw, and shirtless dude has fuller lips.
Or it could just be that the art style has changed as the comic has progressed.
The art style back then is different for pretty much everyone, just look at Jiggy
I’m just imagining Max speaking with that voice Candace uses when she gets into, what is it, radishes? Parsnips? in Phineas and Ferb.
Wild parsnips, yes.
As opposed to tame parsnips? o_O
There really shouldn’t be that much of a difference between wild parsnips & tame ones: Humanity has been domesticating plants & animals at least since we’ve been breeding dogs from their wolf-ancestry & hybriding plants for agriculture. Wild game (ex: deer hunting) or domestic fare (ex: cows) is mostly a matter of personal choice.
:)
Technical Tim to the (possibly irritating) rescue!
@Zu Long:
It’s actually a common misconception that one cannot prove a negative; mathematicians, logicians, and to a lesser extent scientists, technicians, and detectives do it all the time! And I do mean prove with a capital “P” here, where the (dis)proof gives you complete logical certainty that the claim is false, not just reduces the plausibility of the claim as probabilistic disevidence would. So, let’s provide some examples:
Universal Positive Statement: All crows are black.
This claim is easily disproved by counterexample (and subsequently, the existential positive statement that a nonblack crow exists is proven true). Simply show an albino crow and it’s demonstrated false.
Existential positive statement: A largest prime number exists.
This type of statement can be proven false (and thus the obverse, or the negative, proven true) by a proof by contradiction. Show that a contradiction (a statement of the form “A & notA”, which is necessarily false) results from this, and then the claim must be false.
General inference: Modus Tollens.
This is probably the most common way that negatives are regularly proved. Say you have a fact of the form “If A, then B.” Then given the truth of notB, you know that notA is true (AKA that A is false).
An excellent example of this method was given in an episode of the show “Sherlock”, where Sherlock had just been shot. He needed to know if the bullet was still in him, or if it had passed all the way through. Now he had seen a mirror on the way in and knew it was directly behind him. Thus he knew that if the bullet had passed all the way through him, it would have impacted the mirror, shattering it, and he would have heard the noise. He did not hear the noise, thus he knew the bullet was still in him. The key thing to keep in mind here is that the absence of things (when they should be there) can be just as informative as their presence, a form of “negative evidence” if you will.
Nicely put.
Ah, absolutes, my old nemesis, you return to haunt me once again. You are, of course, correct, Tim. It is sometimes possible in mathematics, and even in real life, to prove the absence of something. I hearby amend my statement to read as follows: it is often impossible to prove a negative given limited information.
Now understandably, in practice and real life, things aren’t often this cut and dried and uncertainty can creep in. In the first example given, you reaaly only have certainty that not all crows are black if you know with certainty that what you hold in your hand is an albino crow; in otherwords, you must be infallible. This is similar for disproofs of the other claims too, in that there must be no uncertainty in the premises that arises from such things as human erro, experimental and observational error, etc.
However, even in those worst case scenarios, probability and statistics comes to the rescue, and the error and uncertainty can then be quantified and bounded, giving you degrees of justified certainty, if not complete certainty. For each of the (dis)proof methods given in my previous post, there is a probabilistic analog that works for when uncertainty creeps in.
There are some negatives which simply cannot be disproved.
Examples:
1) Prove that God (or Thor, or the Gigantic Spaghetti Monster, or whatever your mythological deity of choice might be) does not exist.
There is plenty of evidence that none of those ever existed and are in fact only mythological, but that evidence can never rise to the level of absolute proof. And there are plenty of people, numbering in the billions, who hold the absolute belief that one or more of those mythological figures is in fact an actual existent deity.
2) Prove that there isn’t a teacup orbiting Mars.
While mankind has no record of a teacup ever being launched into space with a Mars orbit as the final disposition of its travels, our current telescopes and other instruments are unable to provide absolute proof that such a teacup does not in fact exist. For example, Thor or Mars (the Roman god, not the planet) might have placed it in orbit around Mars, and there is no evidence that they did not.
When you are dealing with mathematics and other physical sciences then certain things may be proven to be unable to exist. For example if I claim to have 6 fingers on one hand that can be proven to be false by a physical examination of my hands. If I claim to have the ability to predict the future, as many charlatan mystics do, there is really no way to prove me wrong. I am under no compulsion to demonstrate my powers to you, and even if I did all mystics who do make predictions on record will always blame “negative energy” or “an interruption in the ether” or some other fanciful and farcical rationale for why a particular prediction of theirs did come true. And of course when they do manage to make a correct guess they will be quick to hold this up as absolute evidence of the validity of their claims.
The more skeptical of us will wonder why they are living in a small home with an old car and making $50 per prediction, instead of living in a mansion purchased from the winnings of their correct lottery number predictions. But that doesn’t keep the less skeptical of us from doling out their $50 to hear a bunch of vague language disguised as “visions of the future” or whatnot.
In all of your examples, it IS possible to prove the absence of something. In your example of God (or whatever deity), we can’t prove or disprove His existence because we can’t even perceive what or where He?She/It/They might be. We can’t obtain the real facts about something that’s not perceived or observed.
Humanity cannot directly perceive or detect a lot of things that already exist in this universe, but with accurate perception & observation, we CAN determine if something does not exist. A negative CAN be proven, if we have sufficient facts to prove it.
If you can’t prove that they exist, how can you prove that they don’t exist? Absence of proof does not prove absence of existance
It all depends on how closely we can perceive & observe something: If someone merely thinks/believes that something should exist in a certain place, but we can closely observe that place & that thing is NOT there, then we’ve proven the non-existence of it.
No, it only proves its non-existence of it in that time and slash or place
Huh. It’s not often that I see someone completely contradict themselves over the course of two sentences.
Not self-contradictory at all: In order to prove the existence or non-existence of anything, we must first know where to look & how to perceive & observe that area. To provide proof of either of these states, we have to depend on what facts we can gather.
You claim that “it is possible to prove the absence of something” in your first sentence and then roll right into “we can’t […] disprove [Gods] existence” in your second.
You don’t get to have it both ways, and it is indeed completely self-contradictory.
Things can both exist and not exist, simultaneously. Why do you see that as a problem?
Light can behave both as a wave and as a particle, at the same time.
Quantum objects can be in an uncertain state of existence, where they may be in one spot or another. Both existing and not existing in several places.
Just because you feel that things should only exist in one state does not make that the way the universe operates.
1) No argument, nor any desire to. I know she simultaneously exists and does not exist. Which is even corroborated theologically speaking. In Christian theology God is omnipresent. And non-existence is somewhere, so she must be there too.
2) That is only true at the present time. In due course (assuming we do not wipe ourselves out, in the meanwhile) we will progress to the point where we can observe the entirety of space, in that region, to the resolution where, if there were a teacup, we would see it.
I will then, simultaneously, pour tea into it, make a toast to you, saluting our debate. And chortle at the observation that there is no teacup.
The TEACUP is a LIE?!?… BUT!. But… i thought only the CAKE was a lie?… i mean, i know i can’t use the SPOON, because there IS no Spoon, but i had always assumed that there was, in fact, an ACTUAL Teacup for that hypothetical spoon to be used IN…. Whoa, this is some deep thinking here…
You make an entirely unsupported assumption, and so I am not surprised that you then arrive at an entirely unsupported conclusion.
I am taking our ever expanding technological base, and postulating that we will continue, in the future, to progress in a similarly impressive rate as to our current track record. I did put the caveat in that things might not go according plan, such as us all dying out. So clearly I am restricting the possible future scenarios to exclude the more pessimistic ones.
Thus I am implying that something similar to what happens with Moore’s Law will also happen in the field of teacup detection. As and when our optical, and other, detection capabilities approach a limit, which would seem (with our present knowledge) to be unsurpassable, we will find some clever technique to overcome it.
Of particular note there is no Universal Law which needs to be overcome to achieve this task. I am not suggesting that we need be able to travel faster than the speed of light, for instance. If that is something that you are suggesting is implicit?
Teacup detection is something that we are easily capable of doing. We simply need achieve it over a wider area than we presently can.
I can recall my physics teacher saying “we will never be able to observe a planet from Earth”. Yet, within his lifetime, we can. Or their silhouettes, anyhow. With enough accuracy to make out the composition of some, the presence of rings on another, and so on. And we are now moving towards building instruments perfectly suited to this task, which will give us even better images and more detail.
That ‘impossible’ task has been achieved. I am confident that your ‘impossible’ task will too. Maybe not in our lifetimes. But before the sun turns into a big red ball that engulfs the teacup and burns the evidence? Absolutely.
The task of teacup detection is too vital for us not to!
It may even prove the existence of God herself
Correction, the line above should read as modified here:
“we will never be able to observe a planet orbiting another star from Earth”
Of course, if we all die out, then we shall all have either met our maker, or not. And we will all know the answer to that question. Or have ceased to exist. Or be in hell. Or be reincarnated as a self-aware teapot, wondering if humans exist on Earth.
I actually know, and can prove the answer, to that particular conundrum, by the way.
*wags tail*
Shan’t though, ’cause it is way too much fun teasing you about it.! Even if you pretend like “I is all cool wid dis.” I know you are gnawing on your keyboard and snarling at the monitor! :-P
But, really, I have cracked a philosophically sound defensible answer to that. Honest. *holds paw up*
Not sure if anybody else has addressed this, but looking at panel 5… does Max seem a bit… bitter?
Could it be that the reason she reacted the way she did back in the conference room is that she fell under Dabbler’s sway before and was burned by it?
What say you, DaveB? Inquiring minds want to know!
For knowing a word that means “lingering bad feelings”?
Perhaps, perhaps.. I hadn’t read that much into it, and just took it as Max being irate because ‘the Dabs’ doesn’t seem to grasp that manipulating affection like play-doh could have any negative repercussions or fallout.
And am strongly inferring that part of Dabblers terms of employment include her not being allowed to ‘succubus rufie’ any ARC personnel.
suspecting, not inferring
But we can’t see Maxima in panel 5.
And her voice is the result of being choked by Vehemence
Font legibility?
Just wondering if I’m the only one having problems with the comic’s fonts at best being a bit fuzzy and hard to read (at least for those of us with old eyes), with the smaller fonts bordering on illegible?
Even Max’s bolded text (“Sydney that’s inappropriate”), which isn’t small, seems hard to read.
I’ve verified that the comic is being displayed at full resolution, so it’s not a result of the image being scaled up or down.
I doubt that it’s a factor since this is a graphic and not real text, but since I’m running Linux I’m wondering if I’m alone on this issue or if people running Windows and OS X are also seeing fuzzy/hard to read text.
If you are seeing the dialog text clearly, please let me know what system you are running!
To me the font used isn’t that bad, but I usually zoom the page to 150% to make it easier on the eyes. In fact I usually do this for a lot of comics and for some text heavy sites that default to smallish font sizes.
It basically breaks down to your eyes and the screens pixels per inch. To high a PPI and fixed size elements such as text in graphic format becomes to small to be easily readable. If the PPI is to low regular sized text will look pixelated. Using the page zoom function in your browser usually will help some.
Web browsers are not all the same when it comes to how well they scale graphics. Personally I use Opera V.12.17 which uses what I feel is an acceptable scaling algorithm. Results in other browsers may vary, and it’s been a long time since I did some testing so it’s possible they are all acceptable now.
As for the current comic I was unable to read Maxima’s “I’m not disagreeing mind you” without either looking very closely or zooming the page to 150%. That is on a 24″ monitor at 1920 x 1200 resolution, that translates to a PPI of about 94 (horizontal resolution of 1920 divided by horizontal width of the viewable area of 20,47 inches). This is a rather average PPI and close to what Windows is optimized for. Windows has had a hard time transitioning to higher PPI displays and it’s first with Windows 8 and the upcoming Windows 10 that Microsoft has tried to remedy this. Apple has already done a lot of work making sure that their OS is working well at different PPI levels, but I’m uncertain about how well other *nix variants fare.
Having said that, no matter what OS you are using bit mapped graphics such as most webcomics will have to be scaled up if you’ve got a high PPI display, and that’s if you’ve got normal sight. If your eyes are starting to act up, and it’s not easily correctable, there is nothing wrong with scaling things up slightly. At least It’s much more convenient than the way your grandparents had to use a magnifying glass when reading the news paper…
I have an atypical set up, so it probably is not useful data. But Windows 7, Chrome, 150% scaling and no problem reading. But will have zoomed in on the small print in the final box, as I can’t make that out cleanly even now.
The atypical bit being that I am sitting in an armchair 2 metres away from the monitor. Plus I wear off the shelf, cheap, glasses. Which average out the slight differences in prescription between my two eyes. Rather than matching each individually.
So I often use the windows magnifier, when reading text. But do not need it for this comic.
Normally Firefox on Windows 7, and a little netbook using Firefox on Linux Mint. They are both fine, even at 100% zoom.
Mind you, Maxima’s chokey font is less distinct, but I took that to be deliberate.
I’m not sure how much I’d be in to admiring hot shirtless guys 30 seconds after I’ve just been fighting for my life, had my nose smashed, and my throat crushed.
That is when you feel glad to be alive and realise your own mortality. And your libido spikes.
Think that is unrealistic? Look at birth rates, in peace and wartime. They peak in the latter, despite the deaths on the battlefield. Those who survive (on and off the battlefield) realise that tomorrow might not come.
Our imperative to reproduce then kicks in big time.
“Our imperative to reproduce then kicks in big time.”
Part of that may have to do with the instinct to propagate the species…After experiencing deadly combat, not everyone lives to tell of it. Those that DO live through it tend to “replace losses” when we can.
OK, i have a theory about one of the unknown orbs, I predict sydney at some point in the future will get killed, and one of the 2 orbs will activate and reverse time for ~10 seconds to give her 1 more try. I suppose it would need to be on a cooldown, so maybe the orb would stop glowing for the rest of the day. It could also be upgraded in both amount or time reversed and recharge rate, which would be consistent with the orange unkown ball which as 2 large upgrade paths and 1 singular offshoot, perhaps for deliberate activation.
Cool theory. Although it would kill the suspense in the comic. I have had one of my characters get their paws on time travel, and it kills a campaign. You become invincible. Unless it is fundamentally restricted, countered, taken away or destroyed, there is no point in following the story any more.
The protagonist can correct any mistake, optimise any situation, know what is about to be said, and done, by every opponent. You do well suggesting the 10 second limit, once a day. But even with that it would be an uber power (especially with a tree of upgrades).
See Groundhog day for the classic examples. Or the more recent film, with Tom Cruise, fighting an alien invasion. They have a more extreme version of what you are suggesting. But all your limitations do is make Halo pick and choose the most devastating moment to deploy it. Which can still ruin many, otherwise interesting, dilemmas she can be place in, with her current power sets.
Those are great films, by the way, but the interest is in the novelty. Those characters were gods who could make every scene follow whatever script they wanted. And was so boring, for them, that Bill Murray’s character became suicidal. As would anybody who had to actually live through such a boring life day to day!
Notably neither character had any fear of death. Currently nothing gets us more worked up than if our favourite character is put in a potentially deadly (or crippling) situation. Removing, or reducing, that tension is going to lessen the emotional connection with the characters. And Halo can save a friend just as easily as herself, with that power. So it does not matter who is your favourite character, provided Halo is in the area.
Yes, it would make an interesting one off. Such as in one of the best science fiction films ever made (as in it never leaves my top 10 list, and is usually near the top).* Which I will not name, to avoid spoilers for anybody who has not seen it. But anyone who has, will recognise the quotes from it, elsewhere in the comments for this very comic.
So, if that is the power of one of the mystery orbs, I hope that it has either some great limitation, beyond what you suggest. Or that it burns out, after getting the writer out of the dreadful dead end that he must have written himself into, to need such an overwhelmingly powerful get out of jail free orb. **
* Any other criteria for measuring this is not important, unless the results corroborate this measure.
** I must freely admit that I am being unduly harsh, to what is actually a good suggestion, for this genre. I just would hate to risk loosing interest in this comic, the same way I did that game. Your suggestion poked a raw nerve.
Mind you, Halo has such a strong power set, even at the moment, that any strong ability will have some folks chanting “Mary Sue”. So my hopes are for something either progresses the plot, rather than adding poser. Or gives something subtle or quirky. If it does weird stuff, then that increases the comedy, without endangering the story telling, or suffering the problems I mention above.
Mind you, Dave is capable of keeping the story interesting even with massively powerful characters. So I am probably worried over nothing. Keep the good suggestions coming!
“Unless it is fundamentally restricted, countered, taken away or destroyed, there is no point in following the story any more.”
Unless you’re watching Dr. Who…
:D
He he. Touche.
Mind you, reflecting on it, do you see Dr Who going ‘Oops, got that wrong, sorry I did not mean to blow up that city! Give me a moment, I will just pop back ten seconds and push the other button.’ Because that is the power that Sydney would gain.
Actually, there are viable things to do with it, depending on how the power works. I have a scenario on the back burner that involves a guy with a “rewind” power–he can go back to any point in his lifetime after his power awakened and replay from there. He can try anything over and over, as much as he wants, but he can only be in one place at a time. On a personal level, he’s pretty invincible, but there are at least two ways to mess with him. One is a resource crunch–give him N+1 simultaneous problems, and only enough resources to deal with N directly, forcing him to either make a hard choice or get really creative. The other is a no-win scenario, in which he just isn’t powerful enough to change the outcome, no matter how many times he tries. (The latter is not something you want to trot out often, because it’s frustrating. It’s the main story plot in my scenario.)
“rather than adding poser” should read “rather than adding power”. A pure typo, or mis-click on the spelling correction suggestion. But, that said, something which adds pose value, without inherent or significant power, would be good too.
Mmm.
Duex… Deus…Deaux…Deaus… that dude with the “X” scar on his face. * He had a good one, with his thunder generator. Not really up to orb standards. We would expect something more versatile than just that. But that is a poser power, anyhow.* Gah, we need the cast list to be updated with all the characters, even if it is just a list with a one line summary.
Back to the cloning chambers! We need DaveC and DaveD hatched sooner, rather than later! And somebody put DaveA back in his cell. We really do not want him replicating the sistine chapel in ice cream. Again.
I’m trying to find time to put it all in the Wiki, but I’m swamped :(
Not to worry. I haz not broken into that myself.
Meh, just a bit too “Omega 13” for my tastes.
Nah, not quite “Omega Thirteen.” That involves a bit more that 10 seconds.
;)
Vehemence is probably faking it…
Okay, since I’m a little sick of repeating myself, I’ma gather the points I’ve found or come up with against subtle Aggro-Aura use, in no particular order:
1. V states, and I quote, the he ‘…invited every Anti-government, Anti-police, anarchist, criminal, and slash or nutjob with super-powers he’d ever come across…’ So these were not people who would be likely to object to attacking Archon, with a few exceptions. Many of them likely have priors, if not active warrents out on them. So even if they aren’t charged for their actions today, they’re likely to get hit for any of the other criminal acts they’ve commited.
2. Did V have enough power to be putting them ALL under mild mind-control all this time? Or the range? We know the range of his vehemic energy absorption expands as he absorbs more energy. Seems likely his other powers are the same way. In the fight, the effects of his aura wore off instantly after his deactivation of the aura. I find it likely the same would apply to a lower power aura. I know, someone’s going to say he used the aura only during the beginning of the fight, and then deactivated it, and that it’d act like hypnotic suggestion. I personally think that leads into my next point.
3. You’d still need to convince the jury that he was using a subtle aura in that manner, and demonstrate that his aura can be used for hypnotic suggestion or subtle control. I know that technically, any reasonable doubt as to whether the villian’s action were their own is enough for an acquittal. But it has to be reasonable to the jury, and I’m pretty sure V himself wants the villians in jail. He could just have easily let them escape and still fought the heroes, and instead, he interrupted Opal’s ‘port out, and took out Vekter. That probably means he’s not going to admit to using the aura subtly. At which point, Occam’s Razor kicks in. Which is more reasonable: that a bunch of criminals with powers were being mind-controlled, or that they did it of their own will? Hell, they still went out here to meet V, and I doubt they did that for some guy they don’t know, or that V mind-controlled them over the phone. Or the internet, which ever. They knew exactly who V was, or they wouldn’t have come, with a few exceptions, who likely were brought along by those who V invited. Unless V got them to show up on false pretenses, I don’t see the jury buying it.
4. Nega-knuckles, a.k.a the moron who Sydney hit in the balls with her balls/orbs, while he was inside her force-field. Hypnotic suggestion aside, this would cut him off from any Aggro-aura V was projecting…and he still tried to kill her. He, at least, probably does not get a ride on the ‘I was mind-controlled’ train.
That’s about all I got, aside from minor details. My biggest issue with a lot of what’s been said is point 3, namely, you still need to convince a jury that the idea of V subtly pushing them to commit crimes is reasonable. Considering most of these people are from groups already inclined to do this, I find that hard to believe. And they still had the choice to meet up with V or not. And they chose to meet up with V. That should show pretty conclusively that they chose to commit the crimes they commited.
Note to self, check big post before posting for stupid mistakes. >_<
*'That he', not 'the he', on point number one
Oh, and anyone who says that Death-Toll gets off, that name is a crime in and of itself. Also, that whole ‘accessory to crimes’ thing. And ‘interferring with an officer’ thing.
Love point 4). It is solidly argued and anything which gets the guy locked up for life, or executed is fine by me. He tried to kill Sydney AND he put a bruise on her face. So I vote to execute him twice!
The other thing I must do is address a couple of points of law. Which I will do in separate posts.
No you would not. That is not how our legal system works. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, not the defence. The starting point that we have in criminal trials is that the defendant is innocent. No proof required.
Should we wish to find them guilty. the prosecution must prove their case. I have repeated this point incessantly on the above and previous comic. And I apologise for those who may be bored of it. But it is only in response to the many people, who post comments, where they fail to grasp this cornerstone of our law.
Your argument needs to be posed in the following manner, when in court:
Directing it towards the prosecution to prove, not the defence. The defence have offered a plausible explanation for the events and the state must discredit, if they wish to win the trial.
NixeuPlease accept my apologies. I have displayed my ignorance here. Zu Long has pointed out an exception, under American law, where the burden of proof is shared, in this kind of case. I am unable to link to the specific post, but please search for the phrase “I presented the idea of this case to a lawyer friend of mine” for the details. My replies and apologies follow that post.
Plus I see that he has kindly made a similar post below this one.
As such, there is one step missing from my prior post. Firstly it would be necessary for the defence to offer reasonable evidence that there was a change in behaviour, to indicate that there may be a mind-altering effect.
This I do as follows (from memory, so I am paraphrasing):
The hairdresser is a normal member of society*, who is not prone to behaving aggressively. When told it was not necessary for him to fight, he immediately surrendered. Somebody who had come to the site, with the intention of attacking police officers is not likely to come from this background, nor to behave in a confused manner like this, nor to meekly back down at nothing more than a conversation.
This is a clear sign of unusual behaviour that matches the proposition that he had been provoked into behaving aggressively by earlier influence, namely use of the aggo aura. Used in a more subtle fashion than shown later.
Similarly Budget Halo thinks “what am I doing here”. Ok this is a thought bubble, but this is where we, as readers, can assume that DaveB is providing us with the kinds of behaviours that they will exhibit under cross examination. If you run with that line of reasoning, then she (and maybe others), will make similar comments.
“When I had gotten away from the scene/woke up in jail/hospital, I suddenly thought to myself ‘why am I here?'”
But, even if you feel that extra example is not valid, I feel that the hairdresser alone is reasonable proof as to an unexplained change, that provides reasonable suspicion that a mind altering effect is in place.
At which point the normal court rules apply and the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution, as I stated above.
* Obviously background checks would need to be made, character witnesses called, any police record of him would have to be looked at, and so on. But it is only fair to assume, for the purposes of this debate, that what we see in comic will be corroborated, by those routes. Otherwise we will spend too much time second guessing ourselves.
No. It does not. You are mistaking Civil Law, for Criminal Law. If you are disputing who owns a lawnmower, you or your neighbour, it is fair to decide the issue simply, by a judge weighing the balance of probabilities, and coming to the more likely verdict.
You do not do that in a criminal court. In a criminal court. Especially one dealing with murder charges, as we have here, people’s lives hang in the balance. They may face execution, or the rest of their lives in jail. As such you do not say ‘he probably is guilty’. You must determine that ‘beyond the shadow of a doubt’. If you cannot do that, then he is found ‘not guilty’.
Civil Law operates to a lower standard than Criminal Law. If you mix one up for the other, you cripple your argument, to any but the ignorant. Sorry to place it in such stark terms, but the debate becomes worthless, if one side does not understand the basic rules that the system operates under.
If you try making chess moves in a drafts competition, you will just be disqualified and thrown out of the room. Make the same mistake, if defending yourself on death row, and you could end up frying!
Actually, from what I recall from my admittedly way, way outdated criminal law courses, the standard for criminal law is reasonable doubt. Civil law does have an even lower standard, that is true, but if you cannot establish reasonable doubt- meaning what a reasonable man would find acceptable- than you are in trouble.
It’s troubling, and likely why there are so many people on death row that have since been exonerated, but a court that operated on a standard of ‘no doubt whatsoever’ could not function.
Oh- and I will add this: you are correct in where the burden of proof lies; it is the prosecution’s job to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution cannot do that, then the accused must (legally, if not in reality) be acquitted.
As Whisakedjak points out (and I actually pointed out back at our earlier discussion) the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wikipedia does a decent job of pointing out the distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
As far as the burden of proof resting solely on the prosecution, it depends on the defense used. If, as I posited earlier based on conversations with a lawyer friend, a judge were to determine that mindcontrol is similar to a Duress Defense, part of the burden of proof shifts to the defense. They would likely have to provide some evidence that the villain was acting out of their usual habit, or forced to do something they would not otherwise have done. Given Nixeu’s point 1), that might be difficult for several of them.
Now it is true that “which is more reasonable” is not an acceptable level of proof in a criminal trial, so I disagree with Nixeu’s 3). However, I still maintain per my previous arguments that a competent prosecutor could achieve the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold via a combination of testimony from expert federal officers, guilty plea bargains with those villains who chose to take them, and a proper analysis of the villains’ behavior during the first half of the fight, vs the observed behavior of people who were under the effects of Vehemence’s aura later on. The difficulty of doing so would increase or decrease depending on what actions the villains took immediately before arriving to fight the heroes, but should still be possible regardless given previous behavior.
Random musings that may or may not have anything to do with this topic:
@Zu Long
Yeah, the keyword, for me anyway, is reasonable. Mind-control without proof to support it is not reasonable, in my eyes. Especially given point 1, as you said.
I spent the first 12+ years of my life (I turned 20 today, BTW) watching more Law & Order than someone my age probably should have. My dad liked it. Anyway, that might be coloring my perception. Seems to me, though, that if I was on that jury, I’d require some proof that those of the defendants who had either priors, standing warrents, and/or ties to possible terrorist groups were actually being mind-controlled.
Actually, now that I think about it…V did say some of them were nut-jobs…might see some insanity pleas.
One of the key factors in the success of the mind-control defense is: do they have records of the content of V’s calls to the various villians? If they do, and V lured them out on false pretenses, great, mind-control confirmed. If he asked them to help him with some other criminal activity…yeah, I’m not a legal expert, and have no idea what that would do to the defense. If V invited them to attack Archon outright, and he may have…then the mind-control defense becomes rather hard to see as anywhere near reasonable. And if he just spoke in code…again, not sure. Okay, maybe not that key. Still, it’s something I didn’t touch on.
Ok, what we have managed to eventually, hopefully come to a consensus on the following three points. After that follows my conclusion.
1) It is not legally necessary for the defence to prove the existence of mind control,* nor it’s use.
2) It is only required to show changes in behaviour that are uncharacteristic of normal behaviour, but which could reasonably be attributable to being altered by mind control. There are various examples which support this.
3) It then falls to the prosecution to prove that either the mind control does not exist or that it was not being used. In the absence of a magical, scientific or expert test having been used, at the appropriate time or able to determine so retroactively, and being introduced into evidence, there is no way of proving this as a fact.
Which means that the best the prosecution can do is offer opinions that it was not used. However, whilst they might feel that they are offering strong opinions as to that effect it is not sufficient to say that ‘there argument for it not being used is stronger’ Because the court does not permit the use of ‘in the balance of probabilities’ in these cases.
Personally I am willing to be swayed, as I am objective and accept evidence. So if a suitably qualified expert declares that ‘it was not used’, then I am happy to accept that as provable fact.
Anything short of that and we remain in the situation that there was a person present who had the means, motive and opportunity to influence the minds of the victims, to the extent that they were not acting under their own volition.
Which is extremely reasonable doubt. It is not a weak argument it is a very strong one. Sufficient that, if I were a juror, I would not render a ‘guilty’ verdict.
Of note though, for anybody doubting my impartiality, I do not think that they** are innocent. I think that, on the balance of probability, most of them knew what they were doing, and even if the aggro field was there, it was simply making things worse.
However, that is not the issue that a court would be deciding. It would be ‘is it reasonably possible that their judgement was either impaired, or subverted entirely, by external means’. And the answer to that is, most definitely, yes’.
* Although, frankly I find it incredulous that people would continue to ignore the fact that they can see somebody using mind control the aggro aura) and then think they can fool anybody by pretending that ‘mind control does not exist and you are an idiot to think that it does’. It blatantly obviously does exist, in that world, and in that specific location.
The only possible angles that remain are arguing whether it was either used or if the aggro aura could produce a more subtle effect than just ‘attack the person next to you’. Both of which are simply judgement calls.
One can only say, ‘I think it was used’, “I think it was not used’ or ‘I am not sure’. Likewise as regards it’s adaptability to the alternate purpose. It cannot be stated as an unequivocal certainty, either way, for either question.
** The majority of the villains.
I’m mostly talking from if I was on that jury, when I’m talking about reasonable doubt. The only form of reason I can use is my own. Unsupported or poorly supported claims mind-control would not be enough to convince me in the slightest. And the more subtle the manipulation, the more proof I’d want, in a lot of ways, to convince me it’s reasonable to assume V can do subtle manipulation. And, like a duress defense, if you fail to convince the jury you really were mind-controlled, you’ve basically admited to everything already.
I guess my point is, while, yes, law is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, the jury is human and thus, not perfect. In this case, with the amount of evidence against them, and most of their backgrounds, a mind-control defense would look like very weak to me. I’d say the smart ones will probably take plea bargains.
Sorry if either of the above make no sense. I’m tired, and it’s 10 pm where I live.
Let me pose one question.
Do you think it reasonable that, Vehemence can create a super powered effect, of his choice, on demand?
If the answer to that is ‘yes’ then he has got the capability to do that to make people attack, against their will.
Have you seen him use a super powered effect, spontaneously, as a result of an unexpected event?
May I remind you of him bursting out of his pants, and being embarrassed? Which he resolved by spontaneously creating pants!
Can you really say that he could not reasonably do that to make people aggressive? Especially when he has already shown that he can do that anyhow, just in a more overt fashion!
Note that the question is not ‘do you think that he did’, the question is ‘do you think that he could’. Because the latter is the critical point. Provided you think that it is reasonably possible that he could have done that, then there is sufficient legal doubt.
Hm. So Dabbler actually asks about the proper term for words that are not on the Make Maxima Say bingo. I figured she was totally faking and spoke English perfectly when she wanted to. Of course, that could still be the case.
nah, her grasp of English is still a bit .. Zhoashel… don’t ya know?!… we were *just* about to find out HOW she learns a new language until they were interrupted by Hiro…
personally i think its a frickin’ huge amount of pattern recognition software / A.I. in her cybernetics that are actually converting what we say to her native language, and the words that she wants to say in that language gets converted from what she WOULD say, into the actual muscle / diaphragm movements required to produce the translated words that we actually hear… with all this going on in the background of her cybernetics. they only kick it up to her conscious level of thought when a concept or word is sufficiently important enough to the conversation at hand, but the cybernetics has not yet learned enough to make the required leap linguistically yet, so it needs a higher authority (Dabbler) to make a judgement call, kind of like the auto spell-check function we have in most email programs today, it will gladly let you type in words, but if one is wrong, it will either auto-fix it or highlight it for YOU to decide if it is correct or not… now apply that to her cybernetics that are probably as much ahead of our best prosthesis’s, as her rail-gun is, versus our prototypes of one now…
Something that occurs to me.
Most of the supers that were battling ARCHON were previously unknowns (how, in some cases, I can’t imagine, but there you go).
Now they most definitely aren’t unknown.
Even if they somehow get to walk scot-free (which I ***really*** doubt, despite all the “legal arguments” to the contrary here), ARCHON has pics and video footage of them, probably fingerprints and so forth for some, and at least a general idea of what all of their individual capabilities and methodologies are.
Basically, these super-crooks are now well and truly ‘On The Grid’. Congratulations, boys’n’girls, because anonymity is no longer an option for you.
Very true in America. In Europe we have strict rules on retention of personal data. Which much of that is (fingerprints, mug shots, and individual capabilities are, video footage of the battle is not). And those rules preclude the police retaining such data for innocent people.
The police are required to destroy all copies of it within a specified time period. Of course there are contingencies to extend such limits, but there are strict guidelines, and court approval has to be sought beyond a particular point.
That may seem silly if looking at this battle. But the rule also applies if some cop takes a dislike to my face and takes me in, for a fishing expedition. I am an innocent person and he has no right to keep my data. Beyond the time allowed for reasonable enquires, that is.
If the hairdresser is only here due to the influence of the aggo aura, he is a victim, not a criminal. So it is sad that he will appear on every cop’s screen, whenever a search is made for him. Especially as he has a look that cops might be suspicious of. So he is likely to be harassed, from now until his dying day!
“Oh, you were one of those murderers, who got let off? Let’s see what is in the trunk of your car.”
W-el-l, whatever data ARCHON gathers and retains is not necessarily going to be distributed wholesale – quite conceivably because of the points you make.
This is a military-based organization, after all, and there are clearly things they very specfically don’t tell other people.in any case. Unless, of course, ‘Need To Know’ is invoked.
So, for the example you make, ARCHON may not consider it necessary (or productive, or even right) to tell the cops in the hairdresser’s hometown that he is a super. But if there is a spate of crimes in that area involving “someone” who fits the guy’s description and powerset, then politely checking up on him should be on the cards.
“…then politely checking up on him should be on the cards.”
One of the problems in this country however, is that it’s impossible to completely verify the attitude & actions of every single person in law enforcement (Perjury on the witness stand? Who would have thought it? :/ )…There will be some individual officers who would be all-too-happy to cross the threshold between “polite checking” & “illegal harassment.” Another problem is that it’s also apparent that some of those officers get away with that crossover, without repercussions.
I was not advocating that ARCHON should release info on known supers to all and sundry, INCLUDING local law enforcement. Why should they? Super-based crimes are ARCHON’s area of responsibility, so they would be the ones that do this kind of checking, presumably within certain limits.
But absolutely ARCHON would and should keep some kind of confidential file on all supers they encounter, or that other groups/agencies tell them about. It would be foolish for them not to.
Should also add that “checking up” doesn’t mean yanking the guy off the street and interrogating him. Could be as simple as having an ARCHON investigator walk past his place of work and see if he’s OK, or having one of the magicky members of ARCHON do some scrying.
If crimes were being committed by someone in a red 1987 Mercedes, it behooves investigators to check on (and.or keep a lookout for) any and all such cars in the area. If a string of crimes were being committed by an eight-foot-tall albino with six fingers on his left hand and a plaster cast on his right leg, then asking around for such an individual is the first logical step.
That would be just as much of a legal no-no as keeping files on all Muslims they came across. Or all members of a protest group such as Green Peace. The latter has been uncovered as going on, in the UK, and has been investigated and condemned.
Whilst it is proper to keep track of specific individuals who are known to have taken part in, or advocated, illegal activities, the same is not true for those who are not shown to have specific association with such. In the event that investigation of individuals shows signs that criminal conspiracy was pandemic within an organisation, then it is acceptable to broaden the enquiries. But not before.
Unwarranted surveillance, and files, on demonstrably innocent individuals is a gross infringement of civil liberties. Criminal charges against that activity may follow. I have not heard anything on that for some time, so may have missed the outcome, or it may be pending.
The best argument against allowing the state to keep records of minority groups is that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. If the previous administration had decided that tracking all Jews was a good idea, and such records were already compiled when the Nazis came into power, then there would have been very few who had a chance to escape the gas chambers!
If Sydney comes across such activities going on in Archon, I hope she takes immediate action to oppose that. As any just hero should!
…. And Yorp, very respectfully, I have yet to be sold in any way on this apparent notion that V’s ‘aggro aura’ somehow induced “every anti-government, anti-police, anarchist, criminal and slash or nutjob I ‘d ever come across” to all gather in the same place and attack ARCHON in the first place.
It seems onvious to me that they were gathered by more conventional means (word of mouth, six degrees of separation, etc.), and the aura was only activated as part of V’s endgame.
Noting too, if V’s power had the kind of reach and fine control alleged (noting BTW that he apparently used it to “gather” ONLY supers from various places), he probably wouldn’t have had to set up this particular fight in the first place. Because he’d be pretty much ruling the planet.
What about this:
V demonstrated that he can feel and taste vehemic energies, not just absorb them. Some raised the question why he did not simply go absorbing someplace but had to create a superpowered showdown, with the general consent being that super powered vehemic energies are special either in taste or strength or both.
If this is true, than he probably is a walking detector for superpowered beings, especially those currently aggravated or with a high aggression potential.
He also appeares to be used to fight supers, so maybe there are some underground fight clubs that feature supers, which would be a good place to exercise and to find himself a following.
Just walking into enough supers to train himself and then attack ARCHON with ? Unlikely.
Sounds like a hair-brained proposal to me. An aggro aura would not encourage folks to gather together! Clearly they must have gotten together for some other reason.
Such as a simple ruse like: “Anarchy X, the mega group, are playing tonight and your names have been picked out of the hat to win free tickets! Including a pre-concert meal. Our teleporter girl will come to pick you up, just phone back, on this number, when you are ready to get anarchic!”
Once they are all gathered, then he can turn up the juice. Perhaps he got some of the more violent ones there telling them there was a fight club? So he could get a bit of a pre-battle juice up, and start ramping up the aggro aura.
Then, when he sees that his aggro aura is doing it’s work, he can get his puppet leader to do a nice rabble rousing speech, about how they are going to tear down the establishment. Right here, right now. And, at this point, Nose Boop jumps off prematurely, on his own, cause he started pretty mad and the aggro field just turned him ape!
It ASSUMES, on absolutely zero evidence, that V’s aggro aura has capabilities way w-a-y beyond what was seen. I can state that fairies make flowers grow in my garden, but the fact that flowers are growing in my garden does not prove the existance of fairies. Similar thing here.
I might also add that V went into fullbore “Before I kill you, Mister Bond…” monologuing mode, yet says absolutely none of having done this. Which would have been a quite impressive achievment in itself and thus worthy of special mention. Maybe he chose to keep tit a close-kept secret but, compared to how he was rolling otherwise, doing so seems very much out of place.
Going by the comments V makes in the course of the battle, the comments other super-baddies make in the course of the battle, it is clear that they gathered by more conventional means (Portal was provably an important part of the logistics) and that V’s aura was only used as part of the endgame.
Hardly, it assumes the reverse. My assertion is that it is able to produce weaker effects. Which, given that he was weaker, and then got stronger, actually makes a lot of sense.
People were saying that it could not have been operational earlier, because the later effects were so powerful. My counter was that the earlier use of it would be less obvious because it was not so powerful.
And, as for evidence, this guy can create whatever powers he wants to, on demand! I cite Ka-Pants as a perfect example. You cannot have better circumstantial evidence than that! The three key things looked for by courts to support circumstantial evidence are all present. He had means, motive and opportunity.”I might also add that V went into fullbore
Oh my god, is it possible, is there finally a mastermind villain who does not, in earshot of his minions, say that he has been covertly manipulating them? Perhaps he might have been smart enough to figure out that, they would turn their heightened aggression on the person who confessed that!
Given that V has already VERY openly betrayed all of them, multiple times, his alleged concern about covering up this particular fact seems grossly misplaced.
Oh, I wouldn’t pat myself on the European ‘we respect our peoples privacy rights’ back -too- strongly. Stealth laws, and creative interpretations of existing laws by member governments and intelligence agencies have a lot more data on Europes citizens being gathered than they’ve voted to allow.
Yorp, looks like this piece of news might rain on your parade. Write to your local MEP in the strongest possible terms!
And the gaping flaw is that it only applies to flights into and out of the EU ‘bubble’. They have apparently forgotten that land routes exist.
The important thing is that we, in the EU, are making judgement calls as to who has access to our data, how securely it is held, if the detail that is being held is appropriate for it’s purpose, is the intended purpose sufficently justifiable to outweigh the potential abuse of retaining that information, nd so on.
Importantly we are not just having a debate about it, we are actually actively enforcing it. People are being sent to jail when they abuse these laws. Including law enforcement officials. Within this last week, I personally have rebuked Amazon, for their infringement of my rights in this regard. And received a written apology and a detailed action plan, with timetable for how they will resolve my complaint.
I am satisfied that I am protecting my own rights, and that work is being done to improve the data protection situation in my country, and all the allied countries around it.
Can you say the same?
Well, I do what I can. When I get an unsolicited commercial call there’s a good chance (time allowing) that they will be reported to the relevant agency: the Telephone Preference Service, for general ignorance of the data protection laws, or Action Fraud for the scams.
Does it do any good? There is usually no proper feedback, just the normal polite “Thank you for your input”.
If you’re having better luck, that’s all good. May it continue.
In a wider sense, I can’t say I’m satisfied. The UK seems to be moving away from privacy and towards ever greater surveillance, data retention and outright spying. After the recent trouble in Paris the government even started talking about banning encryption! The typical attitude in Europe seems much more balanced.
Thanks. I have had precisely one cold call in eight years. And only a handful of spam.
Your final paragraph is true, and of concern. Fortunately there is a very healthy debate, and strongly organised opposition to the more abusive attempts. But there are more things slipping through under the guise of anti-terror legislation than I would like.
There are actually some similar things going on elsewhere in Europe too. Just receiving less press in the UK and America.
Still, it will make keeping the populace under control that much easier, should I ever have to seize power. So no biggie.
Of an interesting note, although Britain has the most CCTV coverage in the world (by far), it is dropping off rapidly at the moment. Not through complaints over intrusion into privacy or the like. It really does not have that much affect on people day to day, so nobody is that bothered.
The reason it is falling is because it takes a lot of money to man the banks of monitors, and the benefit is not nowadays being seen as very much. About the only crimes that it is shown to notably deter is car theft. All the other statistics are either poor or inconclusive.
So many areas are deciding it is better to have more police on the streets instead.
DaveB, Mr. Obfuscated Javascript has put in another appearance.
@Oberon You are right when they are acting in the normal course of their duties, but they weren’t. They were (apparently) off duty, eating a meal, and were specifically attacked themselves. No different than if someone broke into a police officer’s home at night while they were sleeping to attack them.
Again, the big difference is that they were the victims of the attack, not responding to the attack in the normal course of their duties.
I wonder whats up?
fyi the picture of arianna on the title block up there makes me crack up like crazy lol
Is Sydney planning any trips down under? She’d make a bee-line for this guys ice-cream shop if she did: https://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/01/29/08/41/i-scream-for-ice-scream
That might actually be at her limit…
My god, that stuff is so hot it had my eyes watering on the other side of the world! Just splitting my sides at that.
“I can’t feel my lip”, says the man who clearly set himself out with the task of “don’t show any reaction, play it cool”.
Only to end up stuffing so much cucumber in his mouth, to cool down, that he looks like a giant hamster!
“The wrappings are from Dabbler’s gun that is designed to tow satellites in orbit. Which means they are phenomenally tough, and resistant to stretching.”
It occurs to me that while you have to tug pretty hard to get a one-ton non-wheeled object moving on the ground, have to KEEP tugging to keep it moving, and tug HARDER to get it moving faster…
In orbit, the least little tug will permanently change a satellite’s path. The same little tug repeated will change it again. So you don’t need a super-strong tow line. (That is, unless you’re in a hurry and want to be able to move the satellite to the desired orbit QUICKLY. Which could be useful if, for example, you have a limited air supply.) What you do want is a tow line that doesn’t deteriorate in vacuum and exposure to super-direct sunlight.
“you don’t need a super-strong tow line”, you do if you are deploying it from the Earth. ;-)
But, contextually, do you see a demonic alien tinkerer making a device, which can only be used to gently tug a satellite, using extensive planning and application of precise, but weak, force? This being a girl who likes to taunt daemon lords that she is stealing all their favourite toys?
Or do you think it more likely that she wants to lasso a comet and whack her enemy’s space ship with it?
Because that is the kind of usage I envisage her designing it for. And, moreover, she described it in terms along those lines. I cannot remember if it was implied or stated outright, off the top of my head, but it certainly did not conjure up ‘gently tweaking’ an orbit.
Basic physics:
Even wire / tape / strings / cord barely strong enough to carry a certain weight / mass will likely snap if you suddely stress it to its full extend. More so if you have to counter mass inertia or simply momentum. To compensate, using elastic material that can at least be stretched is a proven solution.
That said, she certainly is aware of quite different usages of her tow-tape. And she wouldn’t be Dabbler if those didn’t involve some fun. ;-)
Totally different subject: Dabbler is not the only succubus with hypnotic attributes.
Penalty! Atsali is half-Siren, not a Succubus