Grrl Power #290 – After action action
This page should help wrap up some unanswered (and possibly unasked) questions. Harem’s the obvious choice for this since she can interview 5 people at once. Well, 4 at the moment. “Vanilla” Harem got her wrist broken and is currently un-teleported.
After I drew the panel of Sydney smacking that fire guy into the ground, I thought it was a bit much, I mean people can break bones just from tripping. Even if I’m conservative and say what Sydney did to him was the equivalent of a 1 story fall, he’d still be really hurt.
Seneca’s never been formally introduced in the comic, but she’s shown up a few times, most notably demonstrating her sweet tooth. A page I was going to include involved her walking up to the defeated Vehemence, asking Dabbler if he absorbed violence when he was unconscious. Dabbler responds “Eh, like 10%” so Seneca kicks him and yells “That was attacking before dessert was served!” Sydney immediately admonishes her and tells her not to assault unconscious perps, and gives a thumbs up to Anvil, calling back to this page. Obviously I wound up cutting that stuff, but pretend it happened anyway.
While looking up Q words to finish out the Arc-SPARQ acronym, I came across “quaff” I always thought it meant to drink a quarter of something. I recall reading it a lot in fantasy novels. People quaff potions all the time in them, but nope! It means to slam back your drink. It’s weird when you learn a word that you thought you knew your whole life means basically the opposite of what you thought it meant. :/ Of course after trying to do actual work, I wound up just going for a funny word instead of trying to come up with a serious acronym.
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.
Arc-SPARQ’s Q could be quorum (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quorum, first definition)
Could just go with a C and call it a typo: Super Powered Advanced Research Clinicians.
Just wanted to point out- Maxima says “He may actually a big reason” in panel three, if you wanted to fix that :)
Yup, it’s fixed. CTRL+F5 if you’re not seeing it.
Also misspelled ’til (short for until) in panel 5
In #210 Math kicks a knife into a Cyclops-a-like’s face, not on the injury report.
While I don’t think it helps Adrianna, it would be reasonable to assume that the fight started at the antagonists’ own volition. Only after the fight had been going on did V have the juice to put up the Battle Royal Aura ™.
All things considered that’s a fairly minor (however horrifying) injury. Harem’s counting that among “the usual bumps and bruises.”
Am I to understand that Math does tricks like that more often?
Sweeeet
I mean, how else is he gonna fight off the boredom?
I can hardly wait.
Well it did go in the mouth . May not be immediately noticeable
I think anyone looking at him would notice there being something horribly wrong in his mouth. Probably by the guy clutching his face in desperation and silently crying
Unless he had the guts to pull the knife out by himself, seeing it sticking out of his mouth that far would also be a good clue…
Math extracted the knife as he KOed the mook. All anyone can see is that he is bleeding from the mouth from a gash in his gums.
Sydney, not have a violent bone in her body?
…
o_0;
…
How quickly we forget, Maxima. Sydney has a police record and you saw her go to town on what she thought was a bank robber. Rather than just have a chat with her, I’d recommend checking whether her medication has worn off…
Don’t get me wrong, I like Sydney a whole lot, but she has a hair trigger! ^^;
Violent, yes. Killer, no.
Ahh… My bad, I misread that.
I’d actually consider “violent” to be worse than killing. It could also be outright sadism. After all, if you kill your victim, you can’t enjoy their suffering anymore…
O.o
Halo’s actually another vistric power user. She liked Vehemence okay, but as Bun-Bun put it, “One man’s ‘birds of a feather’ is another man’s ‘muscling in on my territory.'”
Due to the ridiculousness of the slapstick, nobody catches on to how ridiculously violent she is until it’s too late.
Tooooo Laaaaate!
*BANG!*
Oops, how did this shotgun get into my paws? Sorry dude, you sounded just like you were being propelled from a clay pigeon launcher!
sorry Karishi, yorp when I laugh hard my tail twitches and you were to close Karishi. as to the fire arm talk to gwen about burning exes energy of on less dangerous summons maybe not that you show signs of magic beyond any other ……. don’t actually know other talking dogs so you may be normal or a mage but I can’t tell.
Karishi’s got a point there…Sydney pulling a slapstick-style trip maneuver on Vehemence is one thing…Literally slamming an Anvil down on his head is another.
Maxima said KILLER bone. She can be very violent and chaotic, but she’d never actually kill anyone on purpose
And from this fight we have also found out that Max has killer abs.
Yeah, but what a way to go, right?
;)
It says killer bone. Not violent. She can be violnent as hell and not have a killer bone as long as she never kills someone.
funny thing is sydney could very well turn out to be a homicidal killer if she actually snapped no one can break thru her shield her PPO would and could turned anyone to ash with exception to max, sydney is very well powerful enough to ash the entire team, i would hate to think if she found out if one those unknown orbs could in fact be used to combine 2 powers like say PPO and psi whip and combine those or ppo and sheild into a firesphere that could burn off the oxygen in the shield if she ever learns to use on something else and or able to shield her self separately she could very well become quite deadly
Using one orb to combine two other orbs would make it seem as if she is using three orbs at once, which doesn’t match with the ‘needs to hold the orb in a hand to use’ rule we have seen so far.
However, if you look back to the page with the ability grid on it there appear to be lines connecting the individual orbs, it is possible that putting a glowy point in those allows for a combination skill of those two orbs.
and the slices-of-pizza group in the very middle looks to me like she’ll ultimately get to combine ALL powers together somehow, someday…
I bet she is preying for it to be a ‘summon pizza’ power, with customisable toppings. That would be so cool.
Ok, you can do something similar with a phone, but try doing that when on a mission in the international space station! They can’t even get their Christmas presents delivered on time.
Of course, you can’t leave out the power to hose down the pizza with Unmaker…
I’m thinking that if she ever finishes the “pizza slice” part of her skill tree, then her powers become internalized and h\she doesn’t need the orbs any more. Or, it generates a new power orb.
exactly she hasn’t leveled up enough to access the other 2 and or they have to be activated thru another point on the grid, bust case point is she could if she discovered that she could link them together since she can telepathically control them as well, but need a physical touch her hands this may just how t has to start till she levels up and access the grid more times with points placements
There were already points put into the two unknown orbs. It stands to reason that if points are needed to use an orb, and they don’t already have a default power even with zero points, then one point is enough to make an orb do something, so the two orbs are activated. She just hasn’t figured out what they do yet.
Its possible the center spots are for general boosts like, “+5% to orb effectiveness”
“…with exception to max…”
And Achilles. Don’t forget Achilles. If you forget Achilles, then he’ll still be buried under that rubble for a loooonng time.
Like Captain Jack? He got buried by his bro for 2k years under what would become Cardiff.
well doesn’t they take actual damage i.e fire damage can burn them?
but there immune to physical damage but dont mean energy damage from the fire and asphyxiation if she Shields them and puts fire in it and or use the tentical and applies fire and burns them from inside out
Most supers are vulnerable to such things, to some degree or another. But Achilles is simply invulnerable to all damage. Acid, fire, lack of air, everything.
last panel – priceless
Dude! i’m still laughing at that final panel!
one of the best jokes in the comic.
Evil Sydney from the Nega-Grrlverse.
That’s the Sydney that came through the barrier between us & Star Trek’s “Mirror, Mirror” universe.
I was thinking of Alice, from Warehouse 13. Likewise through a mirror. The mirror.
Can’t be, no mustache.
That’s just wrong.
Could you imagine the “Mirror Sydney” with pointed ears & a beard?
“I think they gave him more character.”
~Dr. Leonard McCoy
Not just different pants, but that wasn’t the same attack she used against fireboy. Wasn’t it a leg wrap and Hulk slam into the ground? Also, her shield was up so pew pew orb wouldn’t be used?
that is an imagined panel (didn’t actually happen). it was a possible outcome if Sydney was the type to kill her opponents. i think that last panel should be in a cloud bubble so people quit thinking it actually happened.
I pretty sure that panel is actually Maxima imagining a “worse outcome”, not what actually happened.
Gotcha.
I think the point was that Sydney COULD have done much worse than a Hulk ground-pound; she has the ability to skeet-shoot villains, leaving nothing but a pile of ash and scattered body parts, if she were so inclined. Thankfully… Sydney is not a killer.
That said, AWESOME avatar pic!
Thanks. :)
That’s not a memory of what happened, it’s a “picturing worse” – if the shield was down and she was actually caught up in the effect, what would she be doing? Even knowing what it was, she still almost used the PPO on V.
Well of course Death Toll was unaffected by Vehemence’s aggression aura. DT has the nemesis power. Vehemence couldn’t affect him, not would he probably be able to take him one on one.
…
Which means he probably somehow managed to get Death Tool (lol, that was a typo at first, but I’m leaving it because it fits) he somehow managed to persuade Death Tool to show up on his own.
Considering how insufferably arrogant that guy is, I don’t think that would be too difficult. He’d probably come just to show off his awesome power. It is pretty cool.
Yeah… stupid sexy Death Tool.
(sarcasm)Oh yeah, those little googly-eyes are a real lady-catcher…(/sarcasm)
My brother and I have taken to calling him ‘Death Troll’
Because of how he tried and tries to ‘troll’ the heroes to attack him.
DT has attracted more names, mostly rude, than any other character so far. Leon is going to have a hard time picking just one for the files.
If he has any say in it, it will be “Periwinkle-butt sniffer”. Leon is smart enough to know that Sydney will appreciate him doing that. And the nerd is strong enough, in him, to realise that she is the ultimate nerd catch.
I still prefer the code name “Angry Muppet”.
I know I mentioned it earlier, but this makes me think of it more. V only tried to kill one person and he was trying to kill Maxima from a purely logical standpoint. Everything he did was quite well thought and reasonable. While he may be dangerous, he can be reasoned with and would make a great member of the team if he could be convinced to join.
Yup, every police station would love to have a cop-killer on their team. Especially one who likes to cause mass destruction and grievous injury, just for the fun of it. Not.
Yeah, we really do need to find a “universally acceptable” font for sarcasm…
Not that yours was hard to notice, by any stretch.
Nuts. I need to proofread my font editors better before posting.
Maybe. But the switch was perfectly placed
We do have a universal sarcasm font – Comic Sans
Nah. My personal favorite is to bracket it with tildes. ~because that’s the obvious thing to do, duh~.
“Tildes are already in widespread use to denote the speaker of a quotation.”
~Me
Wait, are you being sarcastic about that being a quote from you? CAN you be sarcastic about that? Is that even possible?
WHAT’S GOING ON?
Well yeah…It IS my quote. If you’re willing to troll through the thousands of comments for hundreds of comic pages, you’ll see that this is my second time using it.
;)
I think I might have misquoted myself on that: The first time, I may have used “designate” instead of “denote.”
I remember seeing it before! Not that I would quibble if there was a slightly different word. So long as the core message remained the same.
Although, sometimes a subtle difference can change interpretations. “Strongest”, “fittest” or “most adaptable” being examples.
It’s wonderful that we live in a world that anyone can post, no matter how high they currently are.
Seriously though…. Vehemence is a psycho who was responsible for all this damage, violence, and basically mind-raping people into almost killing other people. The only reason, if he was responsible for people injuring instead of killing, would be because dead people can’t inflict any MORE violence. And he was trying to get so powerful that he’d be able to kill Maxima. Then go off to cause all sorts of other violence and death elsewhere.
Yeaaaaah that sounds like a great candidate for Archon.
Btw, where do you get your drugs?
Bad idea. Bad bad idea. For all the reasons already stated.
….. And for the very simple fact that Vehemence CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
…cannot be trusted to do anything else but commit mayhem.
Not even that! He can only really be trusted to show up where mayhem is occurring, when it’s convenient for him.
I mean, as they pointed out this comic, dude managed to keep a low profile for what, thirty years? Forty? Hard to tell how old a bald dude is, sometimes.
Love the word quaff. It’s more than just slamming back or chugging a drink. For it to truly be a quaff, there has to be enthusiasm and gusts in it. A good quaff gets at least as much drink on the person behind you as down your own throat. (Bonus points if you get the reference)
I think D’Artanian needs some more help with the ladies Porthos.
:-)
I suspect bonus points are in order.
One for K.Drakor and all for K.Drakor!
Actually, I was assuming the reference was Terry Pratchett, although I suppose Dumas might have beaten him to it… I don’t recall for certain.
goes to show you what the state of learning is now days… “I” thought it was about DAFFY DUCK taking a swig of something and getting it all over him and whatever was behind him…
Both possibilities. Although Dumas has a century head start on either. And I can think of several similar incidents, in truck stops, cafes, pubs and bars, in various movies. Many of which may be an homage to the original.
But have another look at porthos9438‘s avatar, to see which one is the most likely to have inspired his comment. Plus the dialogue would match,* not just the act.
* Thematically, if not literally.
Actually, the word quaff is much older than Dumas; however, the specific line “a good quaff gets more drink on the person behind you than down your throat”- yes, I’ve misquoted both Porthos and the original source material- sounds like a line from Terry Pratchett’s discworld novels… probably something said by Corporal Cheery Littlebottom, although, as I say, it’s been some time since I read either, so I’m probably misremembering.
“I hate beer! I can’t even drink dwarfishly! When I try to quaff I drown the dwarf behind me!”
Feet of clay.
Similar lines have been referenced a few times.
Ooh, that does indeed sound suspiciously accurate. Does Porthos actually have Feet of clay?
“Doesn’t have a killer bone in her body,” my ass! With all those broken bones and dislocations to the poor guy they ought to lock up that nut job before she does any more damage!
Over my dead body!
*stands guard defensively*
“Brings orbital bombardment cannons online. Gets target lock on IR”
*grabs Sydney, and whisks her through wormhole, to a safe planet*
Ok, go ahead and shoot him now! We are safely clear of any splash damage.
You, err, were locking onto the aggressor, I trust?
Yes I am targeting troll boy.
And I have multiple firing modes starting at :What city” to “Which fly do I want to swat”
You mean that you don’t swat the fly by leveling the city?
There is no overkill. Only open fire and time to reload. ~Captain Tagon
You relize that be more of a incentive, than a deterrent.
Just keep repeating that and maybe just someday you’ll make it true.
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Thomas Jefferson
Points out where the Big Lie is, every time.
“A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.” ― Terry Pratchett
warp engines and the speed of light was a big step up in exploration and miscommunication but I will truly be impressed when we harness the speed of rumor
star trek wise guy
The reason for that is that people loooove to lie. Even in spite of that pesky little Commandment that says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
“I hate it when people on the internet attribute random quotes to me.”
Abraham Lincoln
It must have really ticked him off, after a hard night’s vampire hunting.
Doing another re-read and going through the comments and just wanted to observe that this commandment, if you read the wording literally, doesn’t actually prohibit LYING – only “bearing false witness against thy neighbor.”
So, as long as you’re not involved in legal proceedings relating to your “neighbor,” you’re free to bend the truth any way you want to, without violating any Commandments from On High.
She got caught up in the chaos. It’s easy to see all those brawlers around you shrugging off hits that would punch through a wall and expect everyone to take hits like that
True, but punches and being slammed are two different things.
It may not even be that, she is only just now starting to use her orbs for real, and the lighthook is pretty much the only nuanced orb she has. The shield is either on or not, the ppo either fires or doesnt. The lighthook however, is a super strong “limb” sydney controls with her will. She can toss cars with it, so controlling it enough to knock out but not cripple a super without durability feats is a lot harder to do. Thankfully, tomorrow morning she will likely start training in how to precisely apply how much force she wants and no more.
He was on fire so she stubbed him out like a cig.
There is a reason that Maxima said that a lot of them are glass cannons. And a problem in super-fights is how much strength you use so accidents like this happen.
If she hat tried to kill him he would totally crushed, after all she can easily lift a car with her lighthook.
On the off chance that you’re serious, Iron Rogue, I’ll remind you that this is Sydney’s first fight, she hasn’t been trained yet, and likely has never used the lighthook on a live target or as a weapon before and so would have no way to intuit just how much force she is using.
Ignorance is no def-fence, especially for the right legal team. And Arch-light, also has a good amount of blame to take as well.
Show me where she killed anyone? She didn’t even kill that shadow Douche that tried to kill her when she was feigning complete helplessness (and she would have been in her rights if she had)
you have to remember sydney still doesn’t know how strong her light hook is, she also might have thought that the super was stronger than he actually was. I mean most of the supers on her team have some sort of defensive ability
Trigger happy sniper is no surprise. Wouldn’t be shocked if she over tranquilized some of those people that here zombie fighting before she used live ammo. The shot in the hand is a little odd though given the hits to the legs and below. But shocking as that situation is I can’t really be surprised. Besides snipers are no heroes to begin with.
Said by someone who has no clue.
if by “hero” you mean somebody that throws themselves into the gap, risking life and limb, whilst standing up to the enemy, then you’re right. Just as medieval archers and attack pilots and police dog handlers etc etc etc… are not heroes. I would still hold each of them on a high level, respect their abilities, and thank them if they were protecting me.
Not to mention that snipers are missioned to set themselves in a position where they have to deal with enemy soldiers in great numbers…WITHOUT FAST BACKUP AVAILABLE. If they weren’t sneaky about it, they’d be dead before they could take out any more than 1 or 2 enemies.
Not saying snipers aren’t important. But calling them “heroes,” seems a little too much praise.
Especially for a recently made white washed movie about one.
Poor defenseless, heavily armed terrorists that he killed before they could take out American soldiers, huh? *sarcasm*
Grow up, dude. If any sniper can be called a hero, that guy definitely is one to a few thousand soldiers that are alive because of him (and a even more families that have their sons and husbands and fathers coming back home alive – again because of that one guy who goes back into service four times, putting himself in danger for other people).
What have -you- done with your life?
Tell that to the troops whose lives are saved by them.
They have a job in a professional combat force, as a part of the combined arms team, and doing it well shortens wars that politicians prolong.
The Cheiroballista shooters were not sword waving berserkers, either, but they saved the lives of more Roman Legion troops than anyone else in that professional force. Those outside of combat seldom appreciate that “hero” can be a bad term as much as a good one. The idea of the single combat hero is so far from professional combined arms combat that combined arms combat has seldom actually been put in comics beyond “Me and my super-powered sidekick”.
Perhaps Dave can do that as the team integrates. In fact, seeing Maxima start insisting on it after Sydney’s little demonstration would be an excellent source of realism for the comic.
A close friend of mine who has done significant study into both fields (combined arms and individual martial arts) has a theory that cultures that are deeply invested in one may do so at the cost of the other. Individual Roman Legionnaires, U.S. Soldiers, or Mongol Horde-ians would probably not faire well against Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fighters, Thai Muay Thaido, or Pinoy Escrimadors, but change it to mass warfare, and the odds are turned heavily in the other direction. There do seem to be some exceptions, like the Japanese and Israeli martial cultures, but those may well be the exceptions that prove the rule.
I agree. Despite what Hollywood may want us to think, you should never bring a sword to a gun fight. But, rather like sticking a bayonet on the end of a gun is a good idea, for use in the right circumstances, so is having a martial art which is designed to complement modern warfare.
Somebody who has had years of training and practice with martial arts can easily be taken down by a gun armed opponent, who has nothing more than basic training. And that would remain true in most circumstances of mass warfare.
The exceptions being where the combat can be forced into close quarters. Say in tunnels or confined city areas. But, even then, you would want troops who are trained to use their guns first, if more appropriate. Whilst being able to switch to their martial arts, on demand. And then the better they are at that, the more likely they are to win.
This analysis brought to you compliments of my supreme qualifications in the subject.
Blackbelt armchair warrior.
There is nothing wrong with being an armchair strategist as long as you think things through. Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar was won using tactics thought up by someone who had not only never been on a ship, but had never even seen the ocean. At least that is what I have read.
The hallmark of a great man is the ability to listen to the advice of others, and filter out the chaff, while keeping the good advice.
The truly great men are the ones who will admit later it wasn’t their idea in the first place.
The word hero has been utterly devalued by the modern news organisations/public commentators and without meaning to be lumping the entire 310 million in with my observation, it isn’t possible to avoid stressing it is the American tranche of them mainly to blame for the trend.
Just belonging to a military group equals hero, it seems, when listening to Americans. Or being a fireman, etc.
People can do a job and be personally brave, and not be “heroic”. Many people in the military, of all countries, are actually individuals who are just pragmatic, like a farmer, basically not too deliberative or contemplative. Many people in the military are not even compassionate, again, like farmers can be, start out basically brutish individuals and become habituated to the brutal, regimented and ordered life. The life where the ENTIRE ORGANISATION acts to restrict any compassionate feelings they may have, every moment of the day, as a matter of policy.
And of course, a significant proportion of any soldiery are, and always have been, not heroes, not brave, and not noble IN THE EXTREME. That is why the life of state sanctioned murder and regimented contention appeals to them in the first place, because they like being a bully and fighting and do not fit into civil life.
And anyone saying anything different, ” oh no, OUR soldiers are all “Thin Red Heroes”, and brush their teeth and say their prayers”, is just proving they don’t have a clue about being a soldier.
While I don’t disagree that the term “hero” has been significantly changed, I think you’ve missed a couple points.
First: you stressing that it is Americans is patently false. I grant you that American media may have a larger than justified share of the blame, but…
I spent a year and a half in South Korea being informed that the Korean Army was the most valiant and well-trained army in the world.
I spent a year in Great Britain being told that all British soldiers were bastions of morality and indefatigable warriors of justice.
I spent several weeks in Germany… wanna guess what the Deutchlanders had to say?
So, yeah, blaming it on Americans is gullible and more than a little racist.
Second:
Hero, as defined by the ancient Greeks who defined the word, means exactly three things:
1) A man who is exceptional above and beyond the capabilities of other men.
2) A man who has the favor and/or antipathy of a god
3) A man whose deeds are sung after his death.
That’s basically it. You will note that there is no mention of justice, honor, or a love of puppy dogs and kittens.
Whilst I appreciated AntMac‘s core intent, which is to avoid devaluing the term, for those who are decorated or otherwise specifically merit worthy in their gallantry, your rebuttal is well said.
Mind you, I do not see a harm in respecting and offering praise all those who risk their lives for others, as a routine part of their job. Of course there are those who are not worthy of that assumption. But it is hardly fair to withhold such plaudits from the majority, because of the failings of a minority.
So I do not see the various nations (or the media in general) as being at fault for doing so. Rather I see it as society handling this in much the same way as we treat an accused. Namely ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Except here the assumption is ‘heroic unless proven unworthy’.
I appreciate the core intent; I don’t appreciate the holier-than-thou tone, though, and I could do without his obvious sense that, because he’s managed to look a few words up in a thesaurus, he’s at the top of the intellectual food chain.
“Innocent until proven guilty,” doesn’t even seem to work now a days. If you’re suspected of something by authority it’s “guilty until proven innocent,” and even then you’re still stigmatized by the public.
Actually an interesting point, regarding proof of guilt: apparently, one of the factors that is making prosecution more difficult is the prevalence of modern crime procedurals and forensics-based crime procedurals. Apparently, juries are, more and more, demanding forensics that are simply not needed or practical to get, and refusing to find guilt unless they get it.
That said, you are still correct that, at least last I checked (last week), the advantages in a criminal trial are heavily stacked in favor of the prosecution, and it’s very rare for an accused defendant to be unambiguously acquitted.
But what did you do to establish that is down to an unfair system, versus prosecutors not wasting court time with cases that have poor evidence to support a prosecution?
Surely your first paragraph is actually something that would support the latter supposition, rather than the former?
I don’t believe I did establish that, nor did I intend to; I was simply relaying the current model for criminal trials.
Both sides have valid arguments: On the one hand, the standard is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutors, however, and attorneys in general, are saying that the standard for proof of guilt has gone beyond reason to absolute certainty.
On the other hand, Prosecutors, now, as always, seek to be as close to absolutely certain that they will secure a guilty verdict on at least some charges before they even consider proffering them. This, incidentally, is a problem because (a) it allows a number of people to escape justice absolutely, (b) it places unreasonable pressure on the defense to accept plea bargains, even when they are unnecessary, and (c) the people who are in effect deciding the cases are not a jury of peers, but rather considerably biased (meaning motivated by professional standards rather than a desire to see justice done) legal professionals.
Fair enough.
As an aside, I have always viewed plea bargains as being a suspect mechanism. Especially the way it is conducted in US courts. To me it feels like justice being determined by who is the better haggler. As opposed to uncovering the truth, or as much of it as you can, and then making a fair judgement, based on that.
But, that is just a personal view. And not a particularly strong one, as I just find it distasteful, rather than unjust. Plus clearly it must work reasonably well, present problems aside, or the institution would not have carried on as long as it has.
plea bargaining is a way to supposedly minimalise wasted court time on cases that either will drag on and allow contrition to be rewarded in the guilty. sadly the habit developed of piling offences on to a defendant so at least some stick, grossly inflating potential penalties, to the point defendants agree to some charges even when innocent to avoid worse ones.
I did not, in fact, stress that it was “Americans”. I went to some trouble to say THE OPPOSITE, “without meaning to be lumping the entire 310 million in” i.e. I am not saying that ALL Americans do this. How more explicit would a person have to be to ensure even someone like yourself doesn’t misunderstand?. Of course, that is me being hopeful, because I suspect you WILLFULLY misunderstood me, so you could take offence at something I didn’t say. You do understand the meaning of the word tranche?. The sentence contains the nominal clause “modern news organisations/public commentators” then the subsequent modifier “the American tranche of them”. I also said “mainly” because of course other countries do it too. Go back to school, maybe?.
Of course, you then prove perfectly well that you did understand my point, by saying ” I grant you that American media . . .” so , I think you were deliberately picking a false fight with me, and your own words prove it.
I am not to question your own experience, of course, and if you say you got told these things, well, I give you the benefit of the doubt . . . to the degree at least that you have already shown your comprehension is faulty.
But you are perfectly wrong, when you say that the attitude of the other communities around the world to their military, is even remotely similar to what has developed in the USA, where we see this slavish default respect and public hagiography. You. Are. Utterly. Wrong.
Germans on the whole dislike having a military. So does more than half the French population. ALL European communities are ambivalent towards soldiers. All Africans FEAR their own military. All South Americans are distrustful of their own military. And in Great Britain, they are in fact held to far higher standards of behaviour, and stricter rules of engagement than in the USA, and are still viewed with suspicion by half the public.
Only in the male-ego dominated countries like the middle east, Russia, possibly Italy, does the mere fact of belonging to one of the services act as it does in the USA.
Yorp. Heroic unless proven unworthy is tantamount to claiming merely being a serviceman equals heroism. This is my entire point, it DOES NOT, and it is only recently that the idea even exists, and it is self defeating. It is also dangerous for a people to go down this path. The men and women who served the USA in WW2 would have laughed the idea out of court. It actually is an insult to genuine heroes, devaluing the very term we give them as accolade.
I am a Brit, and living in another European country, I am well positioned to refute your claims. The overwhelming majority of people who I have ever spoken to are very favourably inclined to the military.
To the extent that it can lead to hilarious situations, at times. I remember one time having dinner with my next-door neighbours, and having a long conversation about one of their relatives who had been enlisted in the army (conscripted, as I understood from my basic translation). But the entire family were proud of their military, conscription or not.
Then they were telling me about how their parents had been decorated, in the war. At which point they looked at each other a bit worriedly. On account of the fact that they had just realised that their parents had been at war with my grandparents! Them being Bulgarian, and as allies of Germany, being part of the Axis.
Which did not bother me in the least. Everybody is entitled to be proud of their armed forces, if they are honourable.
I am also a South African, but my experiences are limited to those of a child, in that country, and talking to ex-pats and friends left behind. But, bearing in mind those limitations, they too are all fiercely proud of their military.*
As to your main point though, yes, you are making a fair argument that it is better to use the word ‘brave’, rather than ‘heroic’ when referring to the bulk of the forces. But, none the less, there are situations where it is appropriate.
For instance, if there is a parade, it is reasonable for a journalist to say ‘we salute our returning heroes’. There are indeed heroes present on the parade, and if there is some reflected glory given to those who are merely brave, then I do not see that there is harm done.
But, using it too liberally, can devalue the term, I will grant you. If I note the BBC doing so inappropriately, I may even mention it to them, when they ask my opinion.
* Clearly anybody oppressed by the military would not be favourable to them. So, if talking Apartheid era, it is fair to assume that most blacks would say as you claim. whether I spoke to them or not. However, we are no longer in that era. And those black South Africans, who I have spoken to since, have only expressed pride for their country and their military. South Africans, rather like Americans, tending to be highly patriotic.
Whereas Brits will grumble about everything and anything. Any failings in the military included. But, if you push them for their feelings about them, then you find that they are actually just as proud. They just do not go around shouting it from the rooftops as much.
“But, if you push them for their feelings about them, then you find that they are actually just as proud. They just do not go around shouting it from the rooftops as much.”
Heh! I sense some more reinforcement about British as like Pink Floyd said it: Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.”
Well, I don’t think the statistics bear out the assumption that the UK population is pro war. Maybe if asked, in a patriotic way they would support the troops themselves, and probably most would support them not because “they will kill our enemies” but more because “they have made a commitment to service”. But during the second gulf war the majority, as a fact, opposed the use of war as a political tool, opposed troops being sent along for dubbyas revenge war.
There are members of Parliament who are ( among their other attributes, ) strongly suspicious and un-supportive of every member of, and opinion expressed by, the UK military. These people were elected by their constituents, who amount to millions of people, EXPRESSLY to represent them in parliament and keep the militaristic urges of the more simple minded citizens from being rushed through Parliament.
And finally, I also have lived in the UK, am a member of the Commonwealth ( Kiwi ) , and am from a family that has 6 current service-people, have had a VC winner, a Military Cross winner, a DFM and DFC winner, and in only three generations, has had 13 family members give their lives fighting for our country and our beliefs. . .
And it hasn’t made me, or any member of my family that I know of, think all service people are heroes, by default. And as far as I know, all of us remain skeptical that the military represents a good thing, I certainly never hear anyone express unqualified support for them.
Right at present, the most popular PM we have had in a century, a right winger mind you, having been asked by our allies (AND by Iraqs government, who we have supported before,) to supply training troops to help them fight their terrorists . . . well he is very reluctant to send them, because? because the vast majority of Kiwis don’t think the military is a proper tool of statesmanship.
No, it’s because the vast majority of kiwis think they are ostriches and believe if they stick their heads up the greenies arses the terrorists won’t see us
Wait a minute, did you seriously say that Key is the most popular PM we have had in a century? You did! You seriously said that! You. Are. A. MORON!!!
What the heck has being pro-war, or not, got to do with respecting our troops? The armed forces were given orders by their commander in chief, backed up by government and supported by ‘evidence’ which showed a credible threat. Which they did not revolt against, but instead carried out their duties in a disciplined fashion.
What members of the British public were demonstrating about was the decision to send them to war, not against the troops or their actions! Which only intensified when further action was decided upon in Afghanistan. Neither of which is to say that the entirety of the British public was anti-war. But the sentiment was certainly being expressed.
However it was not turned against the troops!
To the contrary, the public felt that the troops being lost in battle were not being honoured sufficiently. Feeling that the government were keeping such, low-key, to avoid drawing attention, because of anti-war sentiment. So they staged privately organised ways of honouring the returning troops, and their dead. Which drew massive public support, recognition and sympathy. And encouraged the government to do more themselves.
British sentiment about our armed forces is the polar opposite to what you portray.
As for individual MP’s, they are entitled to express their own viewpoints. However I doubt very much whether being pro, or anti, war made much of a difference to any of their election chances, as other issues tend to dominate in political campaigns.
Notably though, any who did speak out of tune with their constituents would be able to do so for their entire term in office. It is only at the next election that the voters could kick him, or her, out.
There have been a few shameful incidents. Such as mis-treatment of prisoners. So your points are not without basis. However they are not universal. Where such incidents have had implications beyond the individual soldiers involved, it has found a lax culture, and oversight, within a particular command. As opposed to being endemic throughout the services.
Where such incidents occur, we condemn the individuals involved (including their superiors, where appropriate), but we do not tar and feather the whole institution, because of their failings!
I won’t bother replying to your entire post; I’ll just point out that saying “without meaning to be lumping the entire 310 million in” yada yada comes off an awful lot like “no offence, but…” The clear intention is, in fact, to lend offense while still covering your ass. Try taking a less confrontational tone if you’d like to avoid confrontation.
All you are doing is explaining HOW you justified to yourself, misinterpreting my post.
yada yada is a Passive-aggressive Americanism. Why not be honest, and just be Aggressive-aggressive?.
Yada-yada is not passive aggressive, but I can understand how you failed to understand the difference. That last, for instance, was passive-aggressive.
Since you requested aggressive-aggressive, I feel absolutely no need for restraint. You troll, you are a dick.
Do you now comprehend the difference? Take your head out of your ass.
Wow…. sanctimonious a bit?
Most countries actually do want a military unless they have some other country to rely on for their protection. Why? Because not having a military is the surest sign for an aggressor to attack. I only have all of human history to confirm this fact.
“Germans on the whole dislike having a military.”
Untrue. Though maybe you mean because they’re ashamed of the antisemitic, genocidal bent that happened under the nazis – which seems to be returning under a fair bit of Europe unfortunately, from what i see in the news.
“So does more than half the French population.”
Again untrue. But also.. .it is the french.
“ALL European communities are ambivalent towards soldiers.”
Have you even ever been to a European country? They are not ambivalent towards their soldiers at all. I think you’re confusing ‘all European communities’ with the little bubble societies that you probably live in with the hippie dippy ‘lets stop war with flowers’ mentality :)
“All Africans FEAR their own military”
Well… a significant number of African countries actually have military leaders in charge who have, in the past, inflicted violence on their own people. So yeah… if a military was killing its own population, chances are the population will hate the military. That doesnt happen in European and American countries. Countries where the military doesnt kill their own people under a dictatorship don’t hate their own military.
“All South Americans are distrustful of their own military.”
See my response to African military regimes.
“And in Great Britain, they are in fact held to far higher standards of behaviour, and stricter rules of engagement than in the USA, and are still viewed with suspicion by half the public.”
There’s a study that says that 95 percent of your statistics, such as ‘half the public views the British military with suspicion’ is derived right out of the flotsam and jetsam of your fevered imagination.
This made me feel all warm and fuzzy. So nice to not have to say anything to see a prick get pricked. :)
As a side note, I also have some difficulty believing that Mr. Knows-all-Sees-all-Tells-all actually went to the trouble of surveying ALL Africans, ALL South Americans, or even a significant number of them. But then, maybe I just failed to comprehend the meaning of the word “ALL”, ’cause, apparently, I do that.
With internet trolls like him, ‘all’ gets exaggerated greatly (his immediate social circle of groupthink people who have a lock-step same opinion).
“80% of all statistics are made up on the spot” – Me.
Statistics and “studies show x% of the population says y” statements should all be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Most of those public opinion polls only ask a fraction of a percent of the population in a given area. Usually only a couple thousand responses compared to say the population of New York City. And they may ask 20,000 people, but throw out most of the responses that don’t jive with whatever agenda the poll may be trying to push. That’s why I don’t like most public opinion polls or statements like “well half the people in (insert name of favorite country here) say this”. Usually they are said by people who are just going by what they and their friends agree with. Typically, people associate with others who share a similar world view, so of course you’re going to think most of the people in a given area think a certain way. You often don’t know what you don’t know.
You’re right about those ancient Greek heroes. If you were to view those myths & legends from the perspective of the common ordinary people, they would’ve been hard-pressed to distinguish the difference between those “heroes” & band of bandits. Look at those legends: looting, plundering, pillaging, murdering…
“To the hills! The Heroes are coming! Anything you leave behind is at risk!”
Too true. The word “Hero,” is too overused these days, especially if you belong to certain organizations. As soon as you’re in the military or police for example, you’re a hero. Doesn’t matter if the reason why you joined the military in the first place was to legally kill, torture, bully, and brutalize people. Then there is the other end of the spectrum, were the people don’t see themselves as hero’s at all and there just doing a job. Throwing the word “Hero,” around too much would ultimately cause the word to loose it’s value.
that’s because it really doesn’t matter. the term hero means one above the rest. when you voluntary take a job that less than 1% of the population is willing/able to do you put yourself into that category. so if some barely literate journalist calls me that so be it, of some other barely literate journalist calls me a monster well its not like i’m paying them for their opinion.
Even killing, bullying & brutalizing have a purpose…At least the military directs it at enemies of their fellow citizens. If some people have such “qualities,” wouldn’t you think it would be best directed against those who would harm your friends/neighbors/family/friends?
Granted, there are likely to be some problems should that kind of soldier gets back into the civilian population back home, but they’re also deprived of official backing & no longer have military equipment/personnel for support or back up either…
Please, people (and pups)… consider the source and then ask yourself if it’s really worth responding to that person.
I do, and I did, but so long as it results in an interesting thread, I see no harm in somebody ‘getting off‘ on it.
What, you’d want a little girl with no Super powers to just try to punch Supers under the influence of an Aggro Aura? Not to mention that SHE was also under the Aggro aura that made friends try to kill eachother.
Even attempting tranqualizers would take a suprising amount of restraint
Sorry but snipers are no more or less “heroic” than any other combatant. It’s a skill set not a philosophy. Is an artillery gunner any different? How about bomber pilot or a tank commander? War has a lot of different jobs that involve killing the enemy. None of them are morally better or worse. Killing is killing. Anything else is lying.
Funny thing. most people do tend to use words like hero to describe the military, fireman etc…
EXCEPT the military, fireman etc…
Most people in service, if not all, recognized the importance of team work and each doing its job… sure, most assault like troops will diss Air Force guys, but they will be most grateful for the air support….
If you go into a fray, you want brave man with you and at your back (like snipers) and you want professionals, for most military that I’ve known hero is just someone that did something incredibly stupid and got lucky, normally losing their life and saving a bunch of other guys.
Otherwise, many things that make people gawk, is just business as usual.
+1
You are mixing up two separate issues, in an attempt to use one to justify the other. The argument over whether war, and thereby being a soldier, is moral, is a wholly different issue as to whether or not an individual is brave. Even though you state it as being morally neutral, it has no bearing on the matter.
Anybody, in life, may face a situation where they can be heroic. And we now have civilian awards for gallantry to recognise that fact. But, worthy of mentioning is that anybody in the military (or fire brigade or police) is more likely, than any given civilian, to be placed in a position where heroism could be called for.
Even somebody in a clerical, or quartermaster role, in their mother country, could find themselves re-assigned to somewhere where there are daily suicide bombings, roadside bombs and other hazards. Where just wearing the uniform increases the risk of death.
But, within the military, there are certain positions which are intrinsically more dangerous. Look at the submariners, during World War II. They had by far the greatest mortality risk of any of the services. Axis and allies both. Signing up to be a submariner, in war time, is therefore an act of bravery by itself!
The various positions you cite are indeed high risk ones. So every member is demonstrating bravery in taking the role, and every day should they come under fire, they have to overcome the natural fear which comes with that. Just to do their job.
Could I see myself doing any of those jobs myself, given training? Yes, if it was necessary. But I would feel happier being surrounded by tons of armour to protect me. Or being way up in the sky, with a bunch of sophisticated counter-measures to try and foil attacks. Whilst usually having the support of other units, close at hand, to minimise the risks.
A sniper though is a squishy who (with his spotter) operates without any of those advantages. They will often have to operate on their own, facing the risk of being cut off by enemy forces. If anything goes wrong, they have far less options available to them.
So it is my personal opinion that it does take a particularly high level of bravery to operate as a sniper. Not that they are alone, as there are other extreme risk roles too. However, the fact that military personnel (et al) take such risks in their stride is merely tribute to that, it does not negate it.
Even if they survive, physically unscathed, I have seen how they pay for it, in the long run. Suffering emotionally and from post traumatic stress disorder.
In addition to what you’ve posted:
High levels of bravery are not restricted to the military either. It takes guts to run into a burning building to rescue someone…And then go BACK IN to rescue the pet dog! Sure, they got training & equipment to help them, but there’s always the high risk of dying in a roasting hell or being buried (alive or dead) in a collapse. And Fire fighters take it in stride, just like you said.
Or a cop that pulls over a speeder…Approaching that car on foot could very well be the last act his performs. Until a cop gets close enough for a better look (& trying to look inside a car before getting close is pretty much impossible), that person could just pull up a gun & blow his head off.
It takes courage to be able to set yourself in positions of extreme risk, just so that others don’t have to. If it weren’t for police, fire fighters, soldiers & many others like them, YOU’D HAVE TO DO THAT FOR YOURSELF.
I’m pretty sure he just doesn’t like snipers because of one too many deaths in Call of Duty.
That or he’s a wanker who likes hatin’ on the military.
And also sucks at Call of Duty.
You got some hearty LOLing from that.
I’m here every Tuesday and Friday. Try the veal.
I prefer long pork
Easy now, Hannibal Lechter.
If you know the source of his avatar, you’d know that he’s NOT Hannibal…But much better at it.
I’m pretty sure that Richard is still a fan of Mr. Lechter.
The only one lying to themselves would be the one that thinks that way. It is morally harder to kill someone face to face than by shooting them with a tank or artillery, or dropping a bomb on them, or any other ways were you are over a thousand miles away and never see or or know the damage you do. Were as it is different when you’re actually there in the thick of it.
Your logic is flawed. It is true that it is psychologically harder to do the former, because you are having to face the consequences of your act first hand. But the primary moral issue is why you are killing them, not how. Do you have just cause? Are you acting to protect someone? Is your act within legal and social norms?
That has nothing to do with how remotely you are able to be in performing the act. The only point where morality does come into play, in that context, is the degree of error that may be involved. Killing from a remote vantage point can be argued to hold a greater risk of picking the wrong target or their being collateral damage.
But, clearly you are not talking to that point. As a sniper is just as likely, as a commando, with a dagger, to identify the correct target.
The one point where I would accept your line of argument, is that it is harder to kill someone, when you are up close. And can hear, and feel, them dying at your hand. So it shows a great deal of fortitude and strength of character to do that, for a normal, sane person. Or a moment of indifference, or even pleasure, for those of a sociopathic or sadistic bent.
But it does not equate to making the act any more, or less, moral. If it is found that the wrong target has been killed, the commando and sniper will both have the victim’s face haunt their dreams. No matter that one saw it through a scope, and the other felt the breath on their face, and smelt the blood.
Can’t help but wonder why Harem gave the punk body so many freckles though.
Because they all do
True, but I would expect ‘Goth’ to have fewer freckles. Gotta keep the skin pale…
Cause I keep changing how I do the freckles. That and Electronbod is right, Goth tries to cover up her freckles a bit.
In a battle royale such as this, it’s understandable that some of her “cover” wore off…
Would imagine it would be difficult to put in freckles for so many bodies. So much small detail work.
Oh yeah, all that “freckle work” is problematic…But I still appreciate Dave’s “freckle work” on Harem when she “shoulder-boobed” Leon back at Archon HQ.
Woooo!
Yes…. yes, I’m sure it was the freckles that were being appreciated :)
Hey, I’d give quite a lot for a closer look at Dave’s work there…Preferably as close as Math’s “Kung Fu Motorboat.”
:P
All differences between Harem’s bodies are stylistic choices. Different hair styles, hair dye, clothing, tattoos, relatively superficial stuff. She is not able to actually transform her body at will. She didn’t ‘give’ one body freckles, but her base form has lots of freckles and so all do. At most she can cover it up more or less with make-up.
I’m wondering which one is the closest to Harem’s ‘natural’ look – I’m assuming the blonde. Though in Dabbler’s corner, they showed a picture of Harem as a ‘single’ person sparring with Anvil and it was the one with the short purple/pink hair. So..
Maybe the short purple/pink hair one is the ‘original’ Harem, but the blonde is the version which is closes to how she looked normally before all the stylistic changes?
Just my guess.
If I remember correctly, the starting look isn’t too far off ‘Thing 1’.
I was wondering about that Harem, but I figured it was the blonde since pink isnt a natural hair color, and I thought I remembered DaveB saying that she made her copies get different hairstyles, hair color, clothing styles, etc. No idea personally. Maybe it’ll be explained in the future.
Any one of them can be the ‘single’ one
Not beyond the ‘transformations’ open to baseline humans, at least. (Tanning, dyeing, piercing, etc. Trying not to sound like stages of leather-goods manufacture!)
“…she can cover it up more or less with make-up.”
Maybe she could sponsor some commercials with Cover Grrl makeup for some extra income…
Personally, I would’ve picked ARC-Tech for the Q Division(?) of Archon. Sounds better than SPARQ
Agrecian: while “ARC-SPARQ” rhymes, “Arc-Tech” flows better (and sounds like Artic :) )
That single manly tear on fire guy. Priceless, right there.
It’s easier to draw than a flooding river…
:D
Plus he’s effectively immobilized so frustration and nose itching are likely side-effects.
Dave: how about ‘Super Powered Advanced Research Querents’ for the backronym (yeah, that’s a word)? Querents are seekers of knowledge. Scientists and sophonts and the like. Why no, my family will not play Scrabble or Trivial Pursuit with me. :D
And those things you left out? They would be awesome additions to a book version. Whatever you do, make sure your book version has the title pages and the bottom captions too.
I like it. Research querents are allowed to use super fancy words
Maybe I’d better keep my dictionary & thesaurus close to hand…
Dinosaurs won’t help you. Maybe if you have a tricky fridge door, that needs opening. But not in a battle of words!
That depends. I don’t think dinosaurs can talk
Sure they can talk…It’s just a different language.
In dinosaur, “Rawwwr!” means “I love you.” This is so widely known already that you may see T-Shirts printed with it.
;)
Can we play Words with Friends please?
dear iron rogue: you’re an idiot. snipers have saved my ass plenty of times in the middle east. they are heroes, your passive aggressive shot to Chris Kyle be damned.
He might be referring to that “Washington Sniper” from a few years back, the same pair of shits that had a TV Movie made about them
Happy that someone else said what you said, Logan.
+1
Thank you DaveB. You use your moderation powers sparingly but wisely. Giving charitable benefit of the doubt, I can only hope that the, now deleted, post was simply a very badly phrased one, that was meant to refer to hostiles. But, as it stood, it was highly provocative and an insult to brave members of the armed forces.
It was deleted? I read it just now, hence why I know why this response.
He has more than one post. However, if you are seeing one at the top of this chain, I imagine hitting Ctrl-F5 will remove it.* Anyone who does not have the old version, stuck in their memory cache, will not get to see it. And there is no loss from that.
* Which you may want to do just to see the typo corrections in the above comic.
As the first person to reply to Logan, don’t recall there being a post by IR Doofus in this thread-chain (just took it that Logan either tried to reply to IRD but, like other people have experienced, it made a new thread rather than a reply, or that he intentionally made a stand-alone post)
That is probably because you refreshed your cache, before you read it. DaveB‘s suggestion, to do that, is above this point in the page. And it is likely that he did his moderation at around the same time that he was making his other comments. Your own reply, to Logan, was three hours after Dave’s. So the time lines would hold true.
I distinctly remember it however, because it was so offensive. My initial thought was ‘do not feed the troll’. So ignored it. But when I saw that somebody with a greater right than me, felt aggrieved too, it became more important to support that stance.
Later, after it had vanished, I double-checked that I had not misremembered it’s position, by looking for it on the rest of the page. Plus the first page of comments, for good measure. It is no longer anywhere. Yet, as you can see from wilder125‘s comment above, he could still see it, after I did that, and a day and a half after your initial reply.
There must be a time glitch somewhere, as the reply to Logan was 11 minutes after his
Not necessarily. If he had not cleared his cache then the comment would have still been there, for him.
Didn’t mean Logan’s reply to Iron Drogue
I understood you were talking about your reply to Logan. But that time gap is irrelevant, when working out if Logan had started the chain. You could have replied one second or one day after and the situation would work the same.
The only thing that is necessary is for Logan to have logged on, even for a moment, after the original message was posted.
He may have then gone afk. Or logged off and gone to lunch (or whatever else he may have been up to in his time zone).
Meanwhile Dave comes in and does his moderating duties. At this stage nobody has responded to the comment. So deleting it would not cause a gap in the chain. As there was no chain, at that point.
Some time in the next three hours Logan logs on, probably a bit before you do. At this stage, the original post is still visible to Logan. His PC had stored the comment in his cache, whereas Dave can only delete it on the server.* However it would not be visible to you, unless you had been logged on to this page within that time period yourself.
And, even if you had, the instant you refreshed your cache (if my logic is right), that post would vanish. As that is the only place it could be stored, no longer being on the server. So you may have even been reading through posts faster than Logan, and still not have seen it.
Logan makes his reply. Then eleven minutes after he does that, you spot it and respond to him in turn. With it looking like he had an orphaned comment, and it being the start of a chain.
However he would keep on seeing the original comment until he too cleared his cache, by one means or another.
* Ideally you would hope that when the server is passing on added comments to the PC, it would also give an instruction to remove the deleted one. However, clearly it did not, or else we would not have ended up with the observable facts. Or, to re-phrase, I would be at a loss as to how to explain it, if that were not the case.
That will teach me for assuming someone deliberately posted a stand-alone comment (have to remember “just because it happens to me, does not mean it happens to anyone else”)
There are some webic comment sections that will not let me reply, even if it looked like was replying (putting the reply box nestled beneath the post replying to) it would always post it as a stand-alone, so eventually just started putting their name at the start so people would know who the reply was directed at
Just figured that that was the case here, seeing how he started off with “dear iron rogue”
Your last point may actually be true. I know that the original comment was plainly visible (to some of us), just above the one you are quoting. And I think it was attached. But it is possible that it was replied to as a new comment. Not that it makes a huge difference, either way.
Time to loot the bodies, detect for magic, and roll for pick order.
Noone’s dead though.
Shh, don’t tempt Sydney! We already know she was disappointed that her first take-down did not result in loot dropping.
They still have bodies…
They don’t need to be dead to be looted, just cooperative. I found a large hammer did the job on the mouthier ones.
Dabbler doesn’t need a hammer…
Well she does bang and nail people a lot.
But she also screws people, so she probably also needs a screwdriver.
Have you seen what Dabbler has in her lab? Granted, we haven’t seen her use much of what’s in there, but it’s safe to say she’s got a lot more tools available…
Some of which you probably could not name or guess the function of. “Wanna hand me that monopole magnet? No the the other thing there. No! Don’t touch that! Alright just wait in the hall.”
Sydney in Xuriel’s lab. There is no safe distance to retire to. We just have to hope that four arms can stay fore warned.
If she has foresight, she will ensure that never happens. For you have foretold the fate that could befall, forsooth.
God forbid that it happen.
Any good lab has all dangerous things locked away though
And Dabbler has plenty of four-hand handcuffs to prove you right.
Except the ones in use. Which can be ‘interesting’ enough on their own…
Be sure not to quaff your quiff. That would be a hair-raising problem. Which would lead to hair-balls. And would be hair-brained.
SPARQ – Super Powered Advanced Research Quartermaster
Special Provisions, Advanced Research, Quartermaster. Basically Q branch from the James Bond novels. Major Boothroyd was a Quartermaster and referred to as “Q”
All military Quartermasters are nicknamed “Q” – it’s a fun nod toward James Bond that incorporates the existing title
A nice bit of trivia that.
Mmm, what obsolete stuff shall I dump to make room for that? Meh, a bit of geometry. I can always bullshit any likely use I have for that.
As long as they aren’t like Q from ST: TNG series, I have no problem with that: Even an omnipotent jerk is still a jerk.
Only thing worse than Q, are the mini-Q’s
And speaking of Q-bert: were they not able to get the original actor to come in and do some lines? Heck, they couldn’t even get him to look like the actor
While Maxima’s commitment to restraint is admirable, the line between hitting someone hard enough to get them to stop fighting and hitting them hard enough to seriously injure or kill them is very blurry. If avoiding permanent injury to their opponents is a major goal of the ARC team, they’re going to have to do some intensive training and accept some fights being much more difficult then they would otherwise be. Especially against opponents with enhanced durability. You pretty much have to start with hits that you know won’t hurt them and gradually work your way up.
That is the difference between being trained as police versus as military. The former’s primary duty is to protect the public. Even the lawbreakers, where possible. Whereas the latter’s job is to defeat the enemy, in the most expedient fashion. Once hostilities have kicked off, the lethal options are the ones most likely to achieve that.
It’s even more difficult to judge when you’re surrounded by people that can shrug off hits that would break a tank. AND people that are squishy as normal
I’m actually rather pitying that last guy. he looks rather beat up, and also really unhappy as well. I’d hate to be him in that situation.
Whereas Achilles would be “Whee! Bring it on!”
Meanwhile, under a pile of rubble…
“Hey, guys! Are we winning!? I’d kinda like to be not under this pile of rubble if we are… guys?”
Maybe he got bored and fell asleep. If he can’t be harmed in anyway he probably doesn’t even get uncomfortable so maybe its nice, warm and snuggy under there.
When a bulldozer plows through to clear the rubble, he’ll get free. He’ll definitely be in need of a new wardrobe, but that’s it.
Speaking of, is that Achilles in the last panel over Halo’s shoulder?
Nope…That’s the fire guy that Sydney slammed during the battle. That last panel is just Max’s imagination while considering that “it could have been worse.”
But now that you’ve brought it up, Achilles would be the best one to train Sydney in the use of her powers. You know…to help Sydney properly gauge how much power or force she’s using.
“Yep, that would have killed a normal human Sydney…”
“No, you didn’t hit hard enough to stop someone like Hiro.”
And getting more job satisfaction than just being used as a big warhammer…
mmm, ok, equal satisfaction.
Yea. Especially now that we learned that most of them are actually not that bad guys (I’m not going to call them nice just yet), that were manipulated into attacking
So far, we only have the words of some punk trying to get out of being arrested
She almost made it sound like Z had some control over himself. Watching the non-super Indiana Jones type guy fight would have been fun.
I like that their guesses as to what is happening but don’t think they are correct but this early after the action that just makes it more realistic. (time will tell)
Maxima still has some strange ideas about Sydney lurking around from her first impression but at least she acknowledges they are probably off.
I like how they keep letting Sydney move the unconscious prisoners about. Didn’t she move that one guy she knocked out with a blow to the head across that battle field to the impromptu “holding area” by hanging him upside down by a leg the whole way. XD That will probably be another thing covered by her classes.
If you read his bio, you will see he is a retired adventurer (sans arrow to the knee).
With a large collection of “artifacts” and who knows what he is carrying for personal protection .
Just because he knows that the fecal matter impacting the ocsolating rotator can happen at any time.
OK, a sticky fingered Indiana Jones type then?
I’d guess he’s very much like Indiana Jones…It’s just that when Indy says “It belongs in a museum,” Zephan would be referring to his home or office instead of a museum.
The best dialogue out of Indiana Jones:
Indiana Jones: Come on, dad. Help me get us out of here. We have to get to Marcus before the Nazis do.
Professor Henry Jones: But you said he had a two day head start. That he would blend in, disappear.
Indiana Jones: Are you kidding? I made all that up. You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum!
Bad as Vehemence was, the thought of a beserk/mind controlled Sydney is Far, FAR worse.
Perhaps that is the underlying reason behind Vehemence clicking with Sydney? Sure, she is cute and has an incredibly powerful hug-me aura. But she adorifying because of her potential for becoming devastation incarnate!
Horrifically cute is the worst kind of cute…It’s subtle…It disables your instinctual alarm bells that tell you when “something is NOT right”…It’s the kind of cute that makes you smile (maybe even cry) in joy, even as your intestines have been freed form their confines & are twisting around your neck. The kind of cute that inspires warm, fuzzy dreams even as you lose conscious, but before your brain ceases to function at all. It’s the kind of cute that…
Ah well, I think you get the point by now.
Were Sydney berserk, her danger quotient would actually go way DOWN, as it would if she were being mind-controlled (directly, rather than through persuasion), since the mind-controller wouldn’t know how to effectively use her orbs, since it appears that there are control icons on each orb. A berserker state does NOT lend itself well to sophisticated control.
Sydney under mental influence of somebody, but still able to use her own knowledge of the orbs and any tricks she’s thought of? That’s where things start getting scary.
The other super-powered combatants didn’t have any trouble using their abilities & skills while under V’s aggro-aura…
What is Maxima’s voice supposed to sound like here btw?
Like a sore throat. Gravally. Halfway towards losing her voice from shouting, but refusing to quit (so just before you start to lose volume).
That’s what I make off it atleast
Sounds really, really good to me. :-)
Agreed, she has that husky tone which stays enough on the sexy side, to avoid implying ‘check to see if this chocker is hiding an Adam’s apple’.
Last frame is the possible future (now past) where Halo was affected by the aggro aura. The end results of the battle were… not as favorable.
+1
+2
Not even Arianna could PR their way out of THAT one.
How come no mention of poor Math who had his face squashed because he was distracted by the Double D’s? :( Anyone think Steve Blum’s normal/Spike voice would work really well for Math btw?
While certainly painful, a knee to the face is relatively tame for what else went on during the fight, it is probably counted among the other bumps and bruises..
because that’s par-for-the-course when it comes to Math and whether or not he got to see something he shouldn’t be seeing?… he gets distracted enough that the female in question can basically WHOMP on his ass without putting up a good defense until he’s out cold? if it were a MALE, then the fight would still be going on, over his offense at being subjected to seeing whatever it was that he shouldn’t have seen and he just couldn’t take the guy out SLOWLY enough, he has to make the suffering last as long as he can…
either that, or Dave is just doing the highlights of the report, and his stuff is covered under the “general bumps and bruises” thing. so that those individuals that have been jones-ing for the fight to be over since two pages after it started don’t try and lynch him for making it last that much longer?
For Math that is the standard bumps and bruises. Especially when a pretty lady is in the fight.
The pre-hit memory will keep him happy
IF, it wasn’t deleted by the temporary amnesia that some concussion victims get :D
Some how PULL!!!! Tentacles, and Sydney, does bring up some rather scary ideas…. Hell hath no scorn like a nerd physically damaged. Or is it there’s no level of hell like a Nerds Scorn? I forget, musta hit my head during the fight.
The only thing I wanted to mention was in regard to the China Shop Post Bull comment.
Does Haram mean that Vekters ribcage was generally untouched and in nearly the same condition it began in?
Mythbusters: Bull In A China Shop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_zpMory-0
Presumably, Harem has not seen that particular episode.
You do realise that was a flawed test, don’t you?
They talked about aggro bulls at the start, but they used placid bulls, and the bulls for the most part ran around the edge of the pen
I suspect that the folks from PETA would have been a bit miffed if Jamie and Adam had started poking the bulls with swords, or squeezing their balls. Especially combining that with introducing them to a potentially harmful environment, if being in an agitated state.
But, that aside, they are cunning enough that I am sure they could come up with some humane and safe way of doing it. And you make a valid point that I do not recall thinking of myself, when I have seen excerpts from that show.
Next on Mythbusters, we put a pack of enraged PETA members in a china shop.
But why would you want works of Shakespeare written in a ceramic mosaic?
Sneaky! I like it.
Maybe we can put PETA members in a china shop with an enraged bull? Mix it up a bit.
I’d bet those PETA members wouldn’t be thinking so much about “animal rights”…Assuming they live long enough to think about it.
I think she is going for the traditional interpretation, where the bull panicked. The bulls in Mythbusters were calm and in fairly familiar surroundings, well except for all those things that are in the middle of the run. These guys are used to straight lines being part of hard, strong things, like steel pipes that make up fences or big thick wooden boards. Particle board shelving units would be assumed by the bull to be about the same as the other straight wood pieces, so to be avoided.
A bull in a china shop becomes a problem when it finds itself in a confined space, he can’t figure out where he is going or how to get out and he starts to panic. That is when disaster strikes.
Gotta say, I know a couple of pretty dangerous pasty nerds! :D
Humans have the most highly-developed brains of anything Nature has come up with so far on this planet, so it would almost be criminal to let it’s potential go to waste.
…Besides, they taste too good to merely throw them out…
Try discussing philosophy with the cetaceans, and see if you would win. Oh, can’t understand their language? Well their brains are way bigger than your fur-less apes ones, so it is hardly surprising that you cannot think on their level.
Or pit yourself against an elephant, in the context of remembering faces and social situations. Ahh, turns out they exceed human capabilities several times over. Bah, arrogant chimps!
And stop eating sentient beings! BAD, VERY BAD!
As it goes with cetaceans, yes their brains are bigger than ours…but I never compared brain SIZE, only brain development. In turn, they can’t think on our level either, simply because they had no need to develop tool making skills to survive & couldn’t manipulate tools even if they could make them.
Elephants may exceed us in remembering faces & social situations, but let’s see you try to teach one how to do calculus. Our ability to think in terms of emotion, intellect AND social heirarchies makes us far more adaptable & versatile.
And I never eat sentient beings…by the time I eat anything, it’s dead & therefore is no longer sentient.
;)
Humans are forever trying to come up with justifications for treating other sentients as animals. Only fit for eating or otherwise exploiting. If they turn out to exceed one criteria (note that birds brains are more complex than ours, for any given volume, and they can use tools), then they turn to another criteria to excuse their barbarity.
What determines sentience is self awareness, the ability to conduct higher thought and being able to function beyond mere conditioned reflex and instinct. Whales sing, elephants mourn their dead and chimps can make art. The more we investigate animals the more we find that many can do these things. There are lots that pass the mirror test for self awareness, for instance.
A paralysed person can no longer use tools. Nor do they have a functional way of doing mathematics. Do they cease to be human? Or will you say, ‘aha, but they have the capability of doing it, if we can give them a way of interacting with us’?
Well, if you are going to extend paralysed humans that courtesy, why not cetaceans and elephants?
Mind you, why should they have to do these things, in order to be recognised as intelligent, thinking beings? If they do not find mathematics, and using chopsticks, to be of use to living a fulfilling life, but prefer opera and philosophy, why should we impose our values on them?
I confess, I’ve never eaten either elephant of whale meat. What’s it taste like?
Why should I justify eating another species? Last I checked, none of them did, either, and I’m fairly certain there are many, many omnivores and carnivores that eat other species that could conceivably be labelled sentient.
MMMM meat
Note that you are proposing eating endangered species, given that we have driven most whale and elephant species to that point. And some to being critically endangered or on the brink of extinction. Making eating them both immoral and probably illegal (other than the loophole in respect of those whales which are slaughtered for “scientific research”).
However, I did not make an argument saying that ‘killing animals is wrong’. Unlike Sydney, I am not a vegetarian and am comfortable that both animals, and humans, hunt and kill animals. I am just saying that we should not do so for those which are likely to be sentient.
Other than orcas, none of the potentially sentient species prey on others in the same category.* Mind you, killer whales will quite happily prey on humans, on occasion. And some have been observed, at times, playing with their food, whilst it is still alive. A game of ‘bat the seal around like a beach ball’.
So you are in good company, if you want to carry on eating sentients. Plus Hanibal Lector sees nothing wrong with what he does either.
Just remember the suffering you will be inflicting. Their parents will come to the spot, where you butchered their child, to mourn them, every time that they pass that way. The loss will be remembered. And, if you go there without your elephant gun or harpoon, you might find justice being served, for the murder you have committed!
* Not that I am proposing that they do this for moral reasons. They probably have no reason to suspect that any given animal may be sentient. We, however, have studied them, for that purpose, and do have those suspicions.
Not just Killer Whales who play with their food: have you seen what dolphins do to porpoises (or is it the other way around? the big ones picking on the little ones)? They play volleyball with them! o_O
And remember what whale and dolphin did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Thought that was “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” (or whatever “Enola Gay” dropped)
“The Enola Gay is a Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber, named for Enola Gay Tibbets, the mother of the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets, who selected the aircraft while it was still on the assembly line. On 6 August 1945, during the final stages of World War II, it became the first aircraft to drop an atomic bomb. The bomb, code-named “Little Boy”, was targeted at the city of Hiroshima, Japan.”
“Bockscar, sometimes called Bock’s Car, is the name of the United States Army Air Forces B-29 bomber that dropped the Fat Man nuclear weapon over the Japanese city of Nagasaki.”
from Wiki
Clearly Pander feels that was just a cover-up, and that cetaceans were at the controls. However, I can certify that the lack of opposable thumbs, or indeed even fingers, would make handling (/pawing/flippering) aircraft controls, in that era, very implausible. Let alone the modifications required for cockpit size, and life-support.
Whilst I respect the imagination involved, I must consign this theory to the realm of the crack-pot conspiracists.
;-)
It was Dolphin and Whale!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUbZJcdlcSc
Incontrovertible proof!
https://i.imgur.com/VwsVexb.png
He he. Conceded.
So do kittens. It is a characteristic of many predatory mammals. Part of the process of learning to hunt. And can extend into adulthood for playful individuals or species.
However humans find that kind of behaviour distasteful, so I was using it to indicate that orcas, sentient or not, can still give in to their baser carnivore instincts. Being sentient does not necessarily equate to being nice. Furless apes being a prime example.
But it is also something to bear in mind when considering how aliens might treat us. Let us hope that they do not consider our lack of some mental acuity, that they are particularly good at, as a proof that humans are non-sentient animals.
What you’re referring to is similar to Spider Robinson’s story in the Callahan’s Place series, called Unnatural Causes. In the story, there’s Broodseven-Sub 2-Raksha, who was feeling some ambiguity over his race culturing humanity as a food source.
But still, remaining here on Earth in reality, would any other animal species be capable of expressing regret or guilt for killing what could be another sentient species? Probably not…If they can, we have no way of knowing if they do.
But humanity IS capable of feeling in such a way & many DO feel such a way. Doesn’t that indicate that humanity represents a more highly-developed balance between reasoning/calculating thought patterns with emotional impulses?
Yet.
Presently I am a nobody, and my voice is barely heard, around the word. But there is a reasonable chance that, someday, I will get my fifteen minutes of fame * In which case, I would put my reply to the above statement:
Let us give them the benefit of the doubt. They do their part, in singing their song out throughout the oceans of the world. We have recognised a few elements as being identifiable terms. So we should assume that the entirety is a language, and not just musical noises.
Let us not just seek to preserve the DNA of the species. Let us try to keep their, various, species numerous enough that their culture is preserved too. We know their song has regional differences. Let us keep each of their dialects alive. Plus the songs within those. Until we can definitively translate the entirety of their languages, however long it may take .
If it turns out that most of it is just musical humming, then fine, we will know, but still have preserved those songs. But if they are the aural histories of one (or several) sentient species that we share the planet with, then our races will be vastly enriched from the cultural sharing that will follow.
* I would rather avoid it completely but, given some of the stuff I am doing, I may not be able to dodge the bullet. In which case, I would like to make good use of it.
I pledge to only use my harpoon to hunt elephants, and my elephant gun to hunt whales.
Making it more sporting that way. Mixing things up.
Tastes like chicken, I’m sure.
“…treating other sentients as animals…”
I never said that humans aren’t animals. We’re merely highly-advanced animals. We’re still subject to the same Laws of Nature that affect everything else that exists in our universe.
“…another criteria to excuse their barbarity…”
We are still animals. I never implied that we aren’t. As I just stated, we’re just more highly advanced than other species, but we can’t break out of Natural Laws without suffering the consequences, just like any other species.
Our ability to conceive of a specific type of tool to perform a task & the ability to make that tool is still within the Laws of Nature…Humanity can’t truly create anything; The best we can do is shuffle around the form/structure from the ingredients that Nature already provides. We can only do that by really understanding & figuring out what Nature is doing & what it allows to exist. You know, it’s the Scientific Method of Inquiry…Observe comes first. The other species only understand what’s in their immediate environment…Human curiosity has driven us to learning about the fundamental levels of what makes anything exist & to peer out among the furthest reaches of the stars inour quest to know things. Granted, we have really only begun to learn anything from “all that can be learned,” but we’ve still learned more than any other species on this planet.
“…and they can use tools…”
I never said that only humans use tools, only that only humans make tools; Of the other species that use tools, they have to find them first. Indeed, without developing the skills of tool-making, I’d think humanity would have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Nature didn’t give use the physical advantages that many other species possess, so we had to make our own advantages.
“…Well, if you are going to extend paralysed humans that courtesy, why not cetaceans and elephants?”
I’d be willing to bet that some people try to do just that. However, whales & elephants adapted & evolved to their respective environments through evolution over great spans of time. As a species, they lived long enough for their very bodies to adjust to the constantly-changing conditions in the environment. Whales can outswim humans because that’s their environment. By developing the skills of tool making humans can adapt far more quickly to varied environments, even with just a matter of hours or days, a human can make tools to make survival easier. Indeed, out skill at making tools has even allowed us to expand our senses so that we can learn more.
Does a whale have any desire to have the abiltiy to walk on land? Does an elephant have any use for mathematics? Does any other animal what to be anything more than what they are? What seperates us most from any other species is that humans strive to become more than they are & adapt to a universe that’s constantly in motion. We are still animals, but only humans actively strive to become something more than “merely human.”
“Mind you, why should they have to do these things, in order to be recognised as intelligent, thinking beings?”
Where did I imply that they aren’tintelligent & thinking? Anything that has any kind of brain at all has thoughts, even if only basic thoughts like “I’m hungry. Find food.” Speaking of food, nothing that lives can survive without consuming something else that lives (or at least lived at one time). We humans are no different. We are still From Nature & Of Nature. We are not the “Finished Project” of anything…We are still nothing more than “works in progress.” But we have developed ways to help us fit in better with Nature because tool-making allows us to adapt more readily & give us more “wiggle room” to continue advancing.
It’s other animals’ own fault for being so darned delicious.
Carry on evolving. Let us hope that social and ethical evolution progresses faster than we can eat our way through the whales.
“Ethics” is a human invention
A concept, rather than an invention. I used ‘ethics’ interchangeably with ‘morality’, despite the fact that they do have slightly different meanings. I would have been better using the latter, as the former often is used to deal with professional standards. Whereas the latter is used more broadly.
But did we come up with the concept? Bearing in mind here I am talking about ‘this is right’ as opposed to just the word. I will switch to using the more appropriate term. When we talk about something being ‘moral’, we are comparing it to our ‘moral code’.
A moral code is mostly subjective, as what is considered acceptable behaviour in one culture may not be in another. Here, in rural Bulgaria, the age most couples get married is 14. However, if I were to marry a 14 year old, I would likely be extradited to England and charged with paedophilia. It is against the morals of my culture.
But a few things are common to most cultures (albeit that there are some very famous exceptions in human history). One of which is the taboo against incest. Another of which is that against cannibalism. These have been shown to be strongly affected by genetics.
Many species have such moral behaviours programmed into them, including humans. Bear in mind that we know culture can override such instincts, which is how tribes of cannibals can develop.
It has been shown that many animal have strong instincts to avoid incest or cannibalism. Which shows that morality, at it’s most fundamental level, is an invention of DNA, rather than homo sapiens.
If you doubt that, note that chimps are one of our closest relatives. And share the same taboos in those regards. They do not need to be taught not to have sex with close relatives.
But bonobo chimps have slightly different dna to common chimps, and have no such inhibitions. They have unrestricted sex with all their troop. Consistently, across the whole species.
How much emphasis you choose to place on genetics, versus environment or culture, in shaping such things, they also have other elements that in animals we call behaviour, but in humans we would say are part of a moral code:
“bonobos are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity”
If ethics/morality is a human ‘invention’, we are not the only ones who have invented it.
MidnightDStroyer please accept my apologies. I felt that Darwin quote encapsulated the essence of my argument, but that iterating it all would be verbose (even by my standards), especially starting with a big quote. So decided to go for the briefer, punchy version.
Which was wrong. It is rude, as it makes it too personal, and comes across as highly dismissive. However, please let me assure you that it was not said in anger. It was purely ill-thought through.
My central intent was intended as a social commentary. That, if the moral element is lacking from an argument, then no matter how scientifically sound, some of the arguments are, nor how pervasive the attitudes are, even amongst learned folks, they can still be found to be built on shaky foundations, and, in the passage of time, come to be viewed with shame.
That is speaking to the attitudes held though, not the individuals. Darwin was a great man, as are you. However nobly intended, my comment was not worthy.
Incorrect. Such has been observed in several species. Here is one example. Other species tend to take a twig and break it at the right length. Or twist something to make a hook. This is turning an unusable object into a different one. Also known as making a tool.
There have even been observations of chimps making such and carrying them to a location where they are usable. But where no raw materials are found. Showing both memory (of finding a food source, that was inaccessible) and forward planning (in making a tool to bring to the source).
The linked article is particularly interesting though, because it shows more than simple modifications, but crafting a tool from scratch. Without having been taught. And being able to repeat it precisely on demand.
No, that is adapting or changing something into a more usable object, making a tool is taking a lump of rock and turning it into a spoon
Check out the clip. The bird carves out it’s tool from a larger lump of wood. It has created a device to help it eat. It is practically an identical process to the one you described. And humans usually use wood, in preference to stone, when making spoons. So the similarity is even greater.
Incidentally your quibble related to a process. Humans use many processes to create tools. Additive, subtractive, adaptive and so on. But they are all means of making tools. How you go about it is not as relevant. Previously they had something which was not a tool. After they worked it, it became a tool.
Out of interest, you described a subtractive means of creating a spoon (carving away bits of stone), and the bird has done the same (carving away bits of wood), to make a probe.
From the article you linked:
“The species is not known to use tools in the wild.
Researchers in Austria recorded the cockatoo – named Figaro – repeatedly breaking off splinters from a wooden beam and using them to reach nuts on the other side of his wire enclosure.”
The bird did not MAKE the splinter. The splinter was there because the wood was already shaped by human tools first. It’s no more “tool making” than a chimpanzee finding a twig & stripping off the leaves to fish for food in a termite mound.
Was referring to metal spoons
Heck, nature can carve out a spoon or a bowl without any input or guidance from a creature
So, by your argument, anthropologists and archaeologists are wrong about people (not just homo sapiens, but Homo erectus and Neanderthal) having used tools for hundreds of thousands of years? Because their stone axes and flint knives were found in their environment. Don’t be ridiculous.
An unmodified stick becomes a tool, at the moment an intelligent being uses it as a lever, to shift something they could not do so unaided. Likewise one used to assist in eating.
Modifying it’s form is simply optimising the tool. However, as soon as that happens we are ‘making a tool’. Using your definition then nothing we have ever made can be considered a tool. Because it is all something we have found in the environment and modified. And will remain the case until we can manufacture tools out of nothing!
Your argument only speaks as to the complexity of the process. Not the fundamental act. Note that complexity is a function of society, not the individuals within it. It takes a long time for tool using to evolve. Stone tool-making was independently discoed, flourished, and then lost again, a number of times, in the archaeological record.
For even basic tool using to survive, and be passed on, there has to be a minimum population density. Drop below that, and critical skills will fail to be passed on and knowledge will be gradually lost. We are seeing that with certain rural and craft skills today.
Conversely you need both that population density, and a number of other social factors, for simple tool-using to evolve into complex tool using. Until humans simple tools gave them enough of a competitive edge, that they had a food surplus, were able to gather into larger communities to specialise in roles, they could not do that.
What happens if any non-human populations become dense, in the present era?
“Yum yum.”
* “discoed” = “discovered”
What are you barking on about? Never said anything of the sort puppy
All said was, was that making tools is not the same as simply using tools: anything with even the basic intelligence can use a tool (some humans being the exception of the case) but it takes a higher intelligence to make a tool, even something as simple as combining a rock, a stick and some vines
What you are describing is something that humans did not do at one point in time. Several, in fact, as I pointed out. And incredibly long periods, at that. Yet they were still the same species. I could step through a wormhole, back in time, and take one of their babies, have it adopted in modern society* and you would not be able to distinguish it from the rest of you.
One generation starts using sticks. Maybe some bright spark realising that the ones that break off with a sharper point are more useful. Anyone trying to tie a rock to the end of that will find that it does not make a good weapon. It is not aerodynamic, it is blunt, and it will fall off.
It took many generations to develop flint-napping to the degree that rocks could be sharpened enough to use as spear or arrow points. Many many generations.
If you doubt that, try taking a bunch of toddlers** and dumping them in a virgin wilderness, where they have no more resources than early man. Then go back in a few years and see how many are actually living like Tarzan, with bow and arrows or a flint-headed spear.
If any are still alive, you will probably find that they are ones who turned out to be good at throwing rocks. Or bashing bunnies over the head with a club. What you will not see is 10,000 years of tool-making evolution having been spontaneously developed by one individual.
They certainly will not have carved that club out of the trunk of the tree however. They lack the sharp beak to do that with.
* Assuming that the act of removing it from our timeline did not change our society beyond recognition.
** Do not try this at home, we are professionals… err… who would only do such things under strict ethical guide lines, and in the interests of science.
It could as readily use a splinter from a fallen tree, or a branch broken off by some other passing animal. Or a twig from a smaller tree. It was making use of what it could in the environment it was in.
If it was cheating and using a hacksaw, that a human had left in it’s cage, then I would agree with you that human intervention had influenced it’s capabilities. I would be bloody impressed mind, but would concede the point. Your counter, however, does not impress me in the least.
And just to clarify, it was clearly attacking a weak point, in the larger beam, to make it’s probe. Turning the rough exposed edge into a splinter of the right size for it to use. Which it could do with the alternative sources I listed too.
I was not suggesting that it had to find something of the right size. It had not. It was turning a flaw in a larger object, into a smaller tool, suitable to fit through the hole.
Many species of crow are tool users, and the can be observed on many occasions mourning their dead: Get together in a tree over-looking a dead crow that was a part of that mod and sit silently for several minutes, sometimes up to half an hour, observing the dead, then without uttering a sound, they will fly away in ones and twos. Under most other circumstances, when one crow leaves a tree, they will all leave, very noisily.
An elephant in a South Korean zoo has figured out that by putting his trunk in his mouth and performing certain manipulations (we don’t know what they are), he can say the same words that his keepers use with him; this was something he choose to do, not something the keepers trained him to do. Elephants have definitely passed the mirror test of self-awareness.
Coleoids (squid, octopus and cuttlefish) are very smart and are generally incredibly versatile tool users. They tend to have very complex visual communication by rapidly changing the colour patterns on their skin, as well as using that feature for camouflage. Many species show mammal-like curiosity when divers and machines investigate their watery realm. i do not how they do with a mirror test.
When we choose to look, we will see intelligent and self-aware behaviour in many animals, not just primates, cetaceans, and a few other choice individuals.
+1
0.o The last panel is SCARY, is that Sydney actually tossing people around, or just Maxima and Daphnie’s thoughts? I hope latter, not former; as if so, Sydney needs ALOT of talking too!! LOL
It’s the latter. You can relax your sphincter now…
:D
This is perhaps the same alt-Sydney (a “Dark Halo” if you will) who keeps…THE LIST!
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/684
As opposed to, y’know, The List.
Math geeks required. Search for the comment with today’s date, on that page. Or by name: TheCrimsonF*cker
P.S. DaveB, or any whiz, who can supply an easy solution, for the following. We no longer have a way to learn the identifier for a particular reply, within a chain. It would be nice if we had something like the “#” option, that appears on the first comment. By clicking on that we can, at least, link folks to the top of the comment thread.
But, given how long many of those are in this comic, that is rarely of much use. Most of the posts are buried as replies to replies, in long chains. We used to be able to click on the ‘reply’ button, and pick up the reply number (of the comment you were responding to), from the details in the browser address. But that work-around can no longer be used, as it does not appear there any more.
Ignoring the fact that the denominator of the right-hand side is zero, it becomes MATH=awesome [there must be an error on the left-hand side, 16^-2 should have been 16^(1/2) or else it doesn’t work].
And let’s try a deeeeeep link: linky.
Yorp, the link work-around still works for me. However, it’s always fiddly, so your recommendation is a good one.
Thanks for the solution. I assumed it must come to that, from the context, but was having difficulty getting it to there.
Regarding the link, maybe it is some default/browser update on my system that has changed then, if it works for you. I have some other weird stuff that happens to me, as regards links, nowadays. For instance, when I am on the archives page, the browser address changes to the appropriate page, but it does not actually take me there. I have to cut and paste it, to do that.
Some of the other, similar seeming issues, are probably due to extreme lag. But that one happens consistently, good connection, or not. Mind you I have always had problems with linking those, even before these latest glitches! :-D
The mind boggles… hyperlinks are the most basic feature of HTML, and there’s no Javascript stuff getting in the way, they are just normal links.
Perhaps there is some kind of browser plug-in that’s insisting on checking all links, causing problems as a result. It might be worth checking your browser add-ons.
raising an exponent to a negative number is to take it and divide it by itself, while raising an exponent to a fraction is the same as taking a root of it. that being said all things in the brackets end up being 0 which would mean 0=awesome. when the person writing the formula should have made everything in the brackets equal 1 instead so it would actually spell MATH=awesome. when you multiply anything by 0 it becomes 0, letters are not excluded. when you have a letter standing on its own there is an implied 1 standing in front of it.
The real formula should have been 4*M((16^(1/2))-3)A=4*awesome/((((2^2)-3)T)(((4^3)-63)H))
this would make MATH=awesome when worked out properly with no issues.
4*M{[16^(1/2)]-3}A=4*awesome/({[(2^2)-3]T}{[(4^3)-63]H})
this is much less confusing than all those parentheses that could get mixed up or missed. just do everything in the correct order (exception is the 1/2 exponent…its just like taking the square root of 16 but sometimes needs to be put into a calculator like this so it doesn’t give you a weird answer)
+1
Also, there’s another ‘ambiguity’ in the equation given: you have to assume the positive value for the square root! If you take the negative one you get MATH=(-1/7)awesome. Wouldn’t fit his self-image.
8-)
I’d be really pleased if Sydney were to visit the bonebroken fire guy in hospital, because she feels sorry for him.
What? You want him to see that gal walking into the hospital room? It might be enough to trigger PTSD & maybe induce a heart attack, thinking that she’s come to finish him off!
Better she sends him some flowers with an apology card first, asking if he’d be okay if she visited to tender her apologizes in person.
I now have visions of him spotting Sydney coming, and, terrifiably, trying to climb out of the hospital window, using a hastily-knotted bed sheet. Broken limbs notwithstanding!
Did Harem develop a lot of freckles or is that supposed to be dirt?
She has always been freckled. Sometimes they stand out more than others. Having dated a freckled girl, I can testify that this is true to life. Any distance and they fade to unnoticeable. Ambient lighting, and even things like being flushed, or shocked, can all make them vary in how much they stand out.
Hey DaveB spotted you mentioned a couple of book series I liked, the new release for d-list. Have you read Sensation?
I just love how Raid Boss Fight this was once Sydney started thinking things over. Her meeting and fighting alongside The Gamer, Han Jee-Han, for some reason would be hilarious. Also she kind of has an alibi for misplaced tentacles given the lack of air, psycho aura, and even she said she thinks her meds wore off.
the lack of air was after helping take down death toll and the meds were wearing off during the fight with V. however this is her first super fight and she has yet to undergo proper combat training. she was basically recalling maxima’s cliff notes for combat which said to throw them into the ground instead of through a building. she doesn’t know fully how strong the tentacle is and therefore doesn’t know how much force she needs to use to only incapacitate an opponent instead of hospitalizing them.
Oooooh. I was just listing things that could contribute to a defense of altered mental state but that works so much better for not making her sound high! I can just see Maxima’s face when Sydney tells her it was HER idea. After all the explanation didn’t really take into account that her villain of the week was just as breakable. Neither do comics, her(or really anyone’s) main baseline here. You rarely see someone like Green Arrow get splattered all over the road when he gets punched by someone who can duke it out with Superman.
Would pay to see Arrow get splatted though
So if Harem joins forms momentarily, does she have a wrist that’s only 1/5 broken? A hairline fracture or so should have a much shorter recovery time, shouldn’t it? There was a guy in my unit who got a hairline fracture and was only out for two weeks, where the “normal” recovery time for a clean break was about nine.
Of course, wrists and ankles are notoriously complicated, and breaks are unlikely to be what they call ‘clean’ in those areas….
Harem does not join her bodies, to form a composite average, like that. Rather, when she ‘unteleports’ a body, back into herself, she puts it into storage. When she, later, teleports it out again, that body is completely unchanged. No time has passed for it. If it was bleeding, it still is. Likewise if hungry or thirsty. Even if her other bodies have all eaten in the meantime.
This does have medical disadvantages, in that a stored body does not heal up. But there is a compensation for that. If one of her bodies is in a critical condition, on “death’s door”, Harem can simply put it into storage. And keep it there, until she is at a suitably equipped emergency room, and the staff are ready to treat those injuries.
In this instance, she is avoiding the need to take any painkillers, or the risks associated with any break,* by keeping the body in storage. And she will keep it there, until the Archon doctor has treated all the urgent cases, and can give her the best care possible.
I bet she is not looking forward to it though. Currently she is pain free (other than bruises). But she knows, the instant she re-forms that body, she will be flooded with the pain of a ‘just’ broken bone.
* Any broken bone can cause thrombosis (a blood clot), for example, possibly leading to an embolism. I had a friend die that way, a couple of days after breaking his leg.
Yeah, I can attest to first-hand experience of how painful a broken bone is, especially in a leg. Harem is lucky in that respect, at least.
I’m pritty sure a leg heals easier than a hand though
I’m pretty sure of that too. One time, my wife broke a bone in her hand (not a finger bone, but one of the bones in the hand that leads to a finger). Even one-handed, she could still do quite a lot…When my leg was broken, it was a struggle just to get to any place where I could do something.
Yeah, a hand bone is more difficult to heal than a leg bone, primarily because hand bones are smaller, thinner & more fragile than leg bones are. The difference is mostly how badly a person is limited until the bone heals.
“And of course, a significant proportion of any soldiery are, and always have been, not heroes, not brave, and not noble IN THE EXTREME. That is why the life of state sanctioned murder and regimented contention appeals to them in the first place, because they like being a bully and fighting and do not fit into civil life.
And anyone saying anything different, ” oh no, OUR soldiers are all “Thin Red Heroes”, and brush their teeth and say their prayers”, is just proving they don’t have a clue about being a soldier.”
Sorry, AntMac. I know soldiers. I know some of the best there ever were. Your description is what I would expect from an academic with *no* experience of competent military. Your statement is bigoted in the extreme when speaking of military professionals who serve the Republic.
Those who are drafted into mass armies can include sociopaths and similar problem children, true. That does not mean *any*competent* military seeks them out. They are a danger to their comrades far more than to any enemy. Today’s military in the US does its best to pitch such people while they are still in basic training.
If you wish to blather ignorance, you are free to do so. Just don’t expect it to be accepted.
+1
The prior argument only has merit when talking about ancient armies, which would happily conscript the scum of the earth, and offered plunder as standard rights. But, even so, your comment is wholly biassed, by singling out the military. All of human society has such elements in it. As Tom Billings says, modern armies strive to keep such elements from their ranks. And impose strict discipline, to keep those who slip through the net, under control.
If I were trapped, between a riot and armed troops, I would make my way to the latter.* I am more trusting of our armies, than I am of an out-of-control crowd of the general population.
Would I be so trusting in countries with oppressive dictatorships, corrupt military-run regimes and/or those who routinely torture or kidnap their citizens? No. I appreciate that it is our disciplined, professional, armies and police, that allow us to remain in a free society. Protecting us from just those elements that you describe. But in our population and the world around us.
* In a non-threatening manner, with hands up, if they looked agitated. I do not expect them to be mind-readers. Likewise, if I found myself caught up in such a crowd, and they were kettled by police and/or troops, I would be more concerned about agitators present in the crowd beside me, than the authorities.
In Panel #2 – “…. She wound up putting bullets in two knees, one foot and one hand. Thankfully with her sidearm though and not the .50.”
One also hopes, not all for the same person either.
Well, I don’t think that saying Peggy used her sidearm instead of the .50 cal was necessary…After all, “putting bullets in two knees, one foot and one hand” would pretty much result in questions like “what knees/what foot/what hand?” body parts that are hit with a .50 cal pretty much just…disappear…Ya’ know?
:/
I use a .50 cal mod in my ‘Fallout3’ game. Range is considerable, and anything human-sized that I hit with it tends to ….. vapourize.
Have a guess where the best facilities in the world are located, for the first injuries listed?
Think about it, and if you know your modern history, you will realise why.
Bother. That was meant to be hidden by spoiler, not as a blockquote. :-(
Bad Puppy! You are now banned from typing, after an evening out, on the vodka and coke.
Sadly, not a surprise, that.
Looking at panel 3, I concur with Maxima. * But, I also read more into it. I find it unlikely that a hero would have multiple complimentary powers, without a basis, for that. Maxima only really has two,** and they are not closely related. Namely her energy blast and her force field. The latter actually being manipulated subtly to provide all her other powers.
Whereas Halos orbs are likely manufactured in some way. So their range of complimentary powers is down to intelligent design, in one way or another. Beyond that there are the mandatory combinations. Somebody who can ‘flame on’, but who does not also have fire immunity, is not actually a super hero. The technical term for them is a “spontaneous combustion corpse” a.k.a. “the pile of ash”.
Vehemence though has a lot of powers. Most of which, as Halo has pointed out, are highly complimentary. Suspiciously so, to my mind. We have seen that, when he is fully charged up, he can create just about any power, on a whim. Which I think is the root of his diverse powers.
Whilst he clearly draws his power from vehemic energy, I think he has channelled that into creating, or developing, his other powers, in complimentary ways. I.e. this guy is a real-life min-maxer. He has chosen a theme of anger, but then picked his other powers, through his wish-like, ability to make up powers, to optimise them for gaining power through anger.
So, finally coming to my point, I doubt that the aggro aura is just that. That is how he has manifested it at the moment, and he is clearly specialised with that, but he may well have a wider variety of effects he can pull off with it.
To incite a blind rage is one thing. But to do so, with the constraint of ‘but do not kill’ shows a sophisticated degree of control. Far more than simple emotion control. † I would say that (as others have argued, but for different reasons) that it does amount to full mind control.
If Vehemence does find himself contained in an environment where his ability to cause violence is neutralised, he may well re-purpose the aggro-aura, to a different end.
* A bit like episodes of the A-Team, you can wonder with this genre, just how come no one dies, with so many lethal effects going off. Cars with trunks of grenades exploding, buildings being collapsed, limbs being shot, lightning, fireballs and chunks of the road being thrown around. Let alone limb-removing, eye-shooting and body destroying attacks!
Usually you just turn a blind eye, if either the genre, or the tone of the story, suits such. But it is nice to know that DaveB has thought this through. It is running with the genre trope, but with a logical rationale, and one that allows a bit of tragedy, or red shirt scripting, later.
** Excluding the complimentary stuff that all natural heroes get in this setting
† Supporting this is an observation. Compare Dabbler’s sleep spell, with it’s simple appearance, ‡ versus the far larger, and more complex, ‘You can’t see me-aura’ that Arc-Light use. Then compare that to the vast, hugely intricate, visual for the ‘aggro-aura‘.
‡ To us, the readers, and to Halo, when she has the special option activated on the True Sight Orb.
Dave, I gotta say this (partially since it seems like nobody else got it, mostly because it’s awesome). I love what you did with Sydney’s Annie Oakley moment there in the last panel! It had me laughing for a good two minutes.
Likewise, even if I omitted to say so before.
Thanks!