Grrl Power #390 – Project overkill
Kivuli is Swahili for ghost or shadow. In case you have cause to casually slip that in to a conversation.
Deus may have been slightly overprepared for this meeting. But hey, if you’ve got the resources, why not bring a half dozen super powered guns to a knife fight? Sure some people might call you a dirty cheater. If they survive to tell the tale that is. You know, history, winners, etc.
I like how they’re all wearing reasonably effective looking tactical armor, but Vale is still rocking the V to the navel evil henchwoman look.
Our chatty Geatish friend is actually a cameo character from Grrl Power super pal Patreon Sean Mnoholitny. Don’t worry about him too much yet, he’ll be more of a slow burn reveal.
Lots of good comments about the good and evil and ethics on the last page. Some people pointed out that Deus might be calling out Indinge as a real piece of crap in order to justify his actions, actions which he might have taken regardless. Or maybe he did what he did only because of Indinge’s character. There seemed to be general agreement in the comments that motivation plays a factor in determining the ethics of actions, and at this point only Deus knows what his real reasons are.
I thought it was interesting that no one I saw (apologies if I missed it) brought up the fact that we consider Maxima a good guy, even though during the press conference she admitted to killing an indeterminate number of supers. Yes, she was a soldier under orders, which definitely speaks to motivation. Some people accept that as justification for killing, some people don’t. A sterile discussion about ethics may still suggest a life lost is a life lost, but can be myopic to global and long term concerns. Again, I think it comes down to the most good done via the least harm.
Some of the supers Maxima killed were definitely protecting an evil regime ruled by an evil man, some might have been forced to fight by the regime, and some may have had nothing do to with the army, but were just defending their country against an invading force. For the (classified) record, Maxima didn’t commit wholesale slaughter. She killed the ones that absolutely were there to kill her or other American soldiers, and whenever possible she tried the shock and awe approach, that is, she whooped their asses hard and publicly so word got around that fighting her was hopeless. I.E. quickly demoralize into surrender to minimize the total harm done. That’s not to say she didn’t enjoy cutting lose a little, but she wasn’t flying around snapping necks and incinerating infantry either.
I updated the vote incentive. I mean, it’s just the inks but it’s progress. The good news is I’m pretty sure I’ll have a piece for the Valentines Day Sex Drive thing I do each year, since it’s the only chance I have lately to flex my perv muscle. Not like that you pervs!
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.
Reminds me of the time the KGB took over a country.
Deus little room to judge. Yes, he will make a better leader than Indinge, but he wasn’t accepting no for an answer either way. He’s literally taking over the country by force.
It’s no surprise he admires Maxima so much. They use very similar tactics, just different methods.
…
That made more sense in my head.
Also: TURN AROUND YOU ASSHOLE! YOU’RE TALKING TO EMPTY SPACE!!!
Similar tactics and methods to Maxima, very different ends.
An outside power installing a government amiable to its goals by force in a country that hasn’t been overtly aggressive towards that outside power? How is Deux doing that for himself different than Maxima doing it on behalf of the ole US of A?
… I’m not always good at subtly sarcasm or irony. I am really uncertain if it was intended here? My thoughts are, admittedly, heavily coloured by real-world events. Could you please clarify?
Maxima and Deus both use “shock and awe” heavily when able. We haven’t yet seen Deus intact the implied threat, but I don’t think he would pull the punches any more than Max. He -probably- has less restrictions on himself for using lethal force, but seams the type to hold back on killing because it is SMARTER. It’s just bad for business to have a pile of bodies in your wake. (Assassination attempts on him don’t count?)
In that, he is effectively doing similar to Max; taking out or reducing the corrupt leadership. Max isn’t directly choosing the new management of the country, but until leadership is more cooperative, or at least less hostile, the war efforts from America continue.
It’s less direct than Deus, and definitely less directed to personal gain, but the inherintaly, the only major differance I see is in the initiation of conflict; Deus sought out this meeting and conflict with a plan, before there was hostility from this king (ok, that’s a big assumption). Max, meanwhile, is a soldier, (mostly) following orders, and serving a governing body.
It ‘is’ largely an apples to oranges comparison we are locked in.
Deux initiates actions. Maxima implements the actions initiated by others. The better comparison is probably to be found between Vektor and Max, as they both do the bidding of authority figures.
Again, I don’t see what Deus has done as being evil at all.
I don’t see Deus as being a hero, and he probably is a villain, but in this specific action, he’s basically just taking out a Hitler-type despot who uses terror squad on his people and is unmistakably corrupt. When Captain America does something like that (Cap did not have a ‘no kill’ policy- he killed loads of nazis and Hydra agents), we cheer. Justifiably so.
He’s an ambiguous character doing a good action right now.
There’s good to come of this action, and the people of the country will also benefit. However, Deus obviously has something more that he wants, and that want for more power/control is likely going to push him into crossing the line into villainy.
Plus he’s still an arrogant jerk, and that won’t help in the long run.
Yes, he is a villain, we all know that, the sticking point for some of us is this ‘evil’ label he has been branded with, with zero evidence to back it up
There are no good villains. There are good people who do bad things for the right reasons. There are good people who sometimes do bad things without meaning to. And sometimes there’s good people who just have a bad day. But if he’s a villain, which he is, then he’s evil. Just because we see him doing something that, in the short-term, is good, doesn’t mean he’s any less evil. Let’s not forget about all the crooked politicians and such who donate to charities.
A villain might even share certain morals or ways of thinking with objectively good people. They might even build a utopia, but that doesn’t change who or what they are. That takes something more.
You should read Worm. It will change your mind
I’m onto you, Hebert.
Trying to get more mind slaves are you….
“All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.”
“Very few see themselves as truly evil, it is left to their victims to decide.”
A person may be completely ignorant of the impression they leave on others. Of the impact they leave in the world. I agree with Khepri, reading Worm would be good.
So, you are saying that Victor von DOOOMMM!!!! is evil?
Pretty certain that, to Doom’s mind at l;east, he is way beyond such petty considerations.
If you look at the material on Doom, you will see why he is doing what he is.
Doom has used his time machine many time to see what the future will be.
And all of it has been bad.
This has convinced Doom that he “must” take control of humanity to save it.
So that reasks the question is Dr. Doom good or evil.
And the answer depends on the writer, since Doom switches from “noble guy who’s trying to improve humanity even if he has to crush it under his boot to do so” to “idiot who’s still trying desperately to prove that he’s better than Richards and is busy selling the souls of children to demons” every other story or so.
Doctor Doom is actually the darkest antihero in all comic universes. You can’t go darker than him and be even slightly a hero. He wants to destroy all superheroes because they are in his way and he knows they will never willingly get out of his way. He also has foreknowledge of the future THAT HAS BEEN CORROBORATED by a higher being that the only future where humanity survives is the one where he rules the world.
When Cap did it it was during a declared war. Deus is doing it for personal gain.
For argument’s sake, they did mention civil wars currently waging (which is an unfortunate but constant state of affairs in central Africa, partially due to colonialism drawing arbitrary lines between and among indigenous groups and such; a still-enduring legacy of European interference).. but, yes, America itself is not officially involved in the conflict, but also Deus and his security forces are, of course, not part of our armed forces like Cap was. It’s also arguable whether they count as US citizens or simply ‘world’ citizens, being owners or employees of an international entity. Megacorps start to blur the lines on national identity (oh, Syndicate… many hours of tactical immersion in the dystopian future of corporate rule and enforcement). One could argue Deus just declared war on Indengi the individual as leader of Machina Industries, instantly and quietly, especially if you decide to take the idea that individuals can be sovereigns of themselves (ooh, sounds like Snowcrash… which I should totally read at some point).
Anyway, you ultimately have a point that he is doing it for personal gain.. just pointing out the ways the ‘declared war’ point could be moot.
Also considering that the US was at war with the Nazis in a declared war…. they were not in a declared war against Hydra. Cap’s killed Hydra agents though as well. With machine guns and whatnot. He’s a soldier. Soldiers kill. That’s what they’re trained to do.
My point being yeah – Deus is doing it for personal gain, but he could probably make just as much money doing something which did not involve killing a warlord. He does have some ‘good’ outcomes of what he’s doing as well, despite him doing it for, at least partially, a greedy intent. He’s also doing it as a power base and as a social experiment possibly on creating a positive society in the middle of a wartorn region full of dictators and despots. Which would, incidentally, be making him tens of billions in the decades, instead of hundreds of millions in the short term.
The US wasn’t in a declared war with Hydra because Hydra wasn’t recognized as a separate government from Nazi Germany. The US also didn’t bother making individual declarations of war against the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, or the SS, either, because they were considered part of the same political entity.
I’m sure Indinge got the land he controls in ways that have nothing to do whatsoever with killing innocents and terrorizing the population, despite being called a warlord
A Hitler reference? Godwin’s Law rears its head once again.
Comparing a character who literally does act like Hitler (a totalitarian regime operating on fear, intimidation, and genocide in order to maintain power sounds pretty damn Hitler-ish) is not ‘Godwin’s Law’ – it’s just obvious similarities.
Honestly, I think you claiming ‘Godwin’s Law’ incorrectly is worse than someone claiming a Hitler similarity where there actually is a Hitler similarity. It’s an attempt to ignore obviousness by saying ‘If you mention Hitler or nazis, you lose the argument.’ Would you prefer I say that Indinge runs a fascist, totalitarian regime which rules the area by force, intimidation, fear and terror squads, and (assuming its the Congo) genocidal mass killings)? Let me know what other historical famously ‘evil’ regimes that sound like.
Would you prefer I compared Indinge to Stalin instead? I was using a person who no reasonable individual could not describe as ‘evil’ – don’t just rely on a meme and yell ‘Godwin’s Law’ if you don’t like it.
Whoah now, I’m not actually criticizing you for a Hitler reference. I on!y observed that Godwin’s prediction held true: the longer the discussion continues, the probability of his name coming up approaches certainty. It was supposed to be a completely neutral, dispassionate statement, not an attempt to actually invoke Godwin’s Law and end discussion.
In this case the comparison was actually far more appropriate than in some other discussions I’ve seen.
That said, I think we (as a society) could stand to broaden our pool of go-to evil guys. There’s quite a number of them throughout human history, some of which were even worse. No sense in giving mustache-boy more attention than he deserves.
Wait, you want to increase the numbers of murdering psychopathic non-American dictators and despots just so there are a few extra names to bandy about in discussing fictional evil bastards? o_O
The numbers are there, he’s not asking to increase them. What he thinks wouldn’t hurt is an increase in awareness. That there were more bad guys of that or similar scale around than just Hitler. And all around the world, not just in Central Europe.
You’ve got any idea how often I’ve run across the ‘argument’ that “We don’t have to listen to the German guy about this! They were a nazi country lead by Hitler!” in some kind of way? (I’m actually Swiss. But you probably can’t expect someone as ignorant as that to differentiate.)
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. For about 70 odd years now Hitler has been the go to example of an evil psychopath. Which he was, of course, but after several decades it’s almost cliche. Think about–you upset someone on line,you get compared to Hitler. Need a time travel story? Send your heroes to WWII, and have them fail to kill Hitler. Need a ready example of a psychopathic tyrant? Hitler.
It’d be a refreshing change to hear somebody reference Stalin or Mao, both of whom likely killed many more of their citizens than der Stinkenfuhrer. Or Pol Pot, who’s probably responsible for fewer deaths total but wiped out more of his country’s population. And that’s just off the top of my head.
At the end of the day there’s nothing special about Hitler. He was just one more in a long line of tinpots who rose to power, fell, and died. Thus always to tyrants.
It’s a small thing, but it recently started bugging me. So here we are.
Okay :) But I just used him as a reference of comparison because there are historically very few people in modern times that almost EVERYONE will agree to describe as ‘evil’ – which is why the nazi/Hitler is such a regular ‘go-to’ reference to evil and villainy.
Stalin? Yeah he was evil, but he was also a member of the Allies against Hitler, so there’s some sort of ‘ambiguity’ when dealing with ‘absolutes’ in evil (although Stalin was definitely evil as well by any objective standard).
Pol Pot? Evil – but he’s a LOT less well known by the masses than Hitler.
Napoleon? Some people don’t find him evil, and also he was long enough ago that he, like Genghis Khan, can be seen a lot less emotionally and dispassionately than a reference to Hitler as being evil. The thing is, a lot of dictators could be described as evil, but Hitler has that whole hate-based reason for his power because of the Holocaust and attempted extermination of the Jews. You kill off half the world’s population of a given people, and that pretty easily cements you as synonymous with evil a lot more than just conquering a few countries a few times.
Genghis Khan – see Napoleon
Osama Bin Laden – probably the closest modern comparison that could be used, and then you still get a bunch of ignorant people making excuses about him, or calling the person using him as an example of evil as an islamophobe. There are no such things as naziphobes, though, so even the most ignorant people can’t say ‘stop using Hitler as an example of evil, you naziphobe!’ – it would just sound dumb :)
So yeah, that’s why Hitler isnt just considered ‘one in a long line of tinpots’ – a lot of despots came to power, killed a lot of people, then died or were killed. Most of them didnt exterminate half the population in the millions by a systematic pogrom of genocide. Especially in relatively recent history. In that respect, Hitler is a special type of evil which can easily be referenced by most people alive today. If a person says ‘Well Hitler miiiiight have been evil, but…’ or ‘Hitler was just this or that, but not necessarily evil’ – generally that person is probably either a white supremecist, antisemitic, or ignorant. Not that I’m calling you that. I understand that your focus is more on the meme focus on Hitler instead of other rather evil people, like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, than on any sort of apology to Hitler, but I’m just explaining why the Hitler comparisons are an easy way to describe evil, and why sometimes the call of ‘Godwin’s Law’ is wrong. :)
That’s something I always figured with Napoleon, I never thought he was evil. He was an expansionist sure, but that was relatively common with leaders at the time. If the difference between insanity is deviating from the norm, we could kind of say the same thing about evil and Napoleon just doesn’t deviate from the norm of political leaders at the time.
Plus, while he didn’t invent it, he’s responsible for canned food. Not too many people I know realize this. He commissioned a contest for someone to come up with an easy way to preserve food and make transportation easier. So he is directly responsible for the existence of canned food. He feeds people generations after his death. If we hold Stalin’s responsible for all the deaths that happened in the wake of his death (And we should) then we need to give Napoleon credit to this day for single mothers being able to feed their kids easier.
Yeah, I get why he’s used that way, but still–you can’t deny that after 70 years he’s getting old and cliche.
Stalin being a member of the Allies doesn’t really change anything, especially since he only joined up because Hitler rather stupidly decided to invade the USSR. That was more a case of two real-life supervillains fighting amongst themselves, with one of them temporarily siding with the heroes to gain an advantage. Even evil people can do good things from time to time. Notably, Stalin also had his share of pograms (life for the Jews was no picnic in Commie Land), and what he lacked in racist genocide he more than made up for with his political purges. Most things that apply to Stalin also apply to Mao, except Mao was probably crazier.
Pol Pot is a good counter to those atheist who like to smugly assert that religion is the cause of conflict and misery, since he was an unambiguous atheist who killed a quarter of his population. But even beyond that, if you don’t recognize the name, odds are Wikipedia is right at your fingertips.
Napoleon was evil, but more in a greedy, power hungry, “my country is right and yours is waste of space” kind of way. As pointed out above, he wasn’t much worse than any other world leader of his time, but perhaps more ambitious. Far as I know he didn’t cart political dissidents to the Guillotine by the truckload, which actually puts him ahead of his predecessors. He still works for those despots who get a little to big for their breeched and invade their neighbors–Hitler himself could be considered the Napoleon of his time by that metric–but he’s small fry as far ar tyrants go.
Genhis Khan actually does get some usage today, just not as often.
Anybody who apologizes for Bin Laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar, or Al-Baghdadi, is undoubtably a moron or an a**hole, or both. Likewise Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or that Syrian guy, Basher or whatever his name is. Could throw a whole lot of names under that heading, the Kim’s being at the top of the list, but best to stop there for the sake of brevity.
Anyway, point is the world is full of tinpots. Treating Hitler as something special just elevates him to a level of importance he doesn’t really deserve. But he is damn convenient.
“Yeah, I get why he’s used that way, but still–you can’t deny that after 70 years he’s getting old and cliche.”
I don’t really consider it cliche, even if it’s a little old. Hitler IS a very good example of ‘absolute evil.’ You kill off half the population of a religion on the entire planet? Hard to not call that evil – he didnt do it because they were his political enemies (as Stalin did with an even larger amount of people). He did it out of pure hate of the jews (and gypsies, who did have 1 million of them killed as well – 1/3rd of their population at the time on the planet)
That’s sort of my point. Mass killing for reasons purely derived from hate is a MUCH easier ‘go to’ call of ‘evil’ or ‘villain’ than ‘mass killings to get rid of your political enemies’ – and the fact that it’s within still recent history (there ARE people still alive today who were at Auschwitz or the other camps, and many of the children of those people still are alive today. It resonates a LOT better as ‘evil’ than saying ‘Stalin’ or ‘Pol Pot’ or ‘Mussolini’ – they were mass murderers as well, but not because they just wanted to kill off certain races or religions (although admittedly Stalin was an atheist who did have ANY religious people killed – but again, it was largely because he wanted loyalty to the state rather than to a religion.
“Pol Pot is a good counter to those atheist who like to smugly assert that religion is the cause of conflict and misery, since he was an unambiguous atheist who killed a quarter of his population. But even beyond that, if you don’t recognize the name, odds are Wikipedia is right at your fingertips.”
I actually totally agree with you on both counts (plus would mention that both Hitler and Stalin were atheists as well, but that’s a moot point). But the fact that he is NOT well known to most of the public does make him a poor choice to use as ‘the go to guy for all things evil.’ Most people wouldnt even know which country he was from, or what he did. Everyone knows what Hitler did.
“Napoleon was evil, but more in a greedy, power hungry, “my country is right and yours is waste of space” kind of way.”
He was evil enough to have been considered the first of the three antichrists by people who study stuff like Nostradamus. And he did have a pogrom of extermination of catholics which is largely glossed over, mainly because he relaxed the executions once he was in power. But like you said, most people just view him as greedy and power hungry, not ‘evil.’
“Genhis Khan actually does get some usage today, just not as often.”
The problem with using Genghis Khan, like I said, is how long ago it was. It doesnt have the same immediacy as Hitler. Not to mention the argument that the 12th century was a far less ‘civilized’ period of time than one would normally consider the 20th century to be… so his barbarity and evil-ness is further glossed over. Hitler still winds up being a better example of evil as a result.
“Anybody who apologizes for Bin Laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar, or Al-Baghdadi, is undoubtably a moron or an a**hole, or both. Likewise Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or that Syrian guy, Basher or whatever his name is. Could throw a whole lot of names under that heading, the Kim’s being at the top of the list, but best to stop there for the sake of brevity.”
Again I totally agree with you that those people are pure evil. But it does wind up getting sidetracked with a-holes who start making defenses of those evil SOBs or attacking you by calling you an islamophobe (regardless of how justified it is to describe those monsters as evil), while the concept of a ‘naziphobe’ is patently ridiculous as an insult.
Yes, the world is full of tinpots, but yes, Hitler WAS a special type of evil because of the bodycount and the REASON for the bodycount, as well as the freshness in people’s mind of his atrocities and the widespread knowledge of what he was responsible for.
So … yeah, not cliche comparison…. It’s a justified comparison. Plus… yeah, convenient too – that’s true. But convenience doesnt make it any less true.
Hm, no. Captain America is the ultimate defender. He’s the shield and savior America needs, but not the one it deserves. He opposes tyranny in service, but…
He doesn’t fear monger. He doesn’t use fear. Yes, he will kill, but only if it’s justified. Only if the cause is righteous.
Remember what he said in the movie. He didn’t try to join the military because he wanted to kill Nazis. He joined because he wanted to serve his country, and stand up to bullies.
Now let’s look at Maxima and Deus. They delight in murder. Heck, Iwas going to add destruction, but destruction is more Maxima’s thing. At least Deus is trying to build something.
I can see and understand what Deus is trying to accomplish, but he has no right to. He’s playing God simply because he can…
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Indinge’s country was sitting on a massive pile of unobtainium, and restructuring the nation’s infrastructure coincidently also provides Machina Industries a massive revenue boost.
I wouldnt exactly say Maxima (or Deus) ‘delight’ in murder. Maxima will do it if necessary because she is a soldier. And soldiers do have to kill as part of what they do, to protect their country and its citizens and fellow soldiers… as well as themselves. Deus seems to be a pragmatist about it – there doesnt seem to be any glee in doing so, and in fact if Indinge simply agreed to his terms, he would have been an exceedingly wealthy person now, instead of a corpse. Also the fact that Indinge is a murderous tyrant doesnt help things.
Of course Deus has a right to. At least as much of a right to what he’s doing as Indinge had a right when he took over the land the were on – do you think Indinge, a warlord, got the land by the people putting him in power? Nope. As Deus mentioned, he got there by murder, terror squads, intimidation, torture, and corruption. Notice, Deus didn’t pick some democratically elected leader to overthrow, or someone who was beloved by his people and NOT corrupt – he picked an awful person to give the choice of ‘be rich or be dead.’
Agreed. The only real difference between what Deus is doing and what Captain America has done is the ‘color’ of their rhetoric. Captain America would come in to the royal throne room after taking out the palace guard and would make a speech about justice and punishment and goodness. Deus just calmly states that he tried the easy way but was expecting to have to do things the hard way either immediately (as has become the case) or in the fullness of time. Because Indogo-girl was not capable, now or in the future, of looking around himself and saying “Hey, I’ve got it great, and my people are also prosperous now. This is wonderful!”
Oh, and Captain America doesn’t spend a few billion dollars repairing the infrastructure of a country after he deposes its despotic leader. This begs the question of which warlord is going to replace the last warlord and keep on doing the same things, but perhaps investing in a super of his own to slow Cap down the next time. Or maybe all the warlords will devolve into a bloody civil war which will only further harm the common people of the nation. Damn that meddling, flag wearing, so-called ‘hero’ anyway! ;-p
His good intentions and willingness to invest heavily from his own pockets for the common welfare of the citizens of his new nation kinda gives Deus the moral high ground, for now.
Do you mean the Ukraine, about 2 years ago? ’cause that was totally KGB.
Or do you mean all of Putin’s rule in Russia/ U.S.S.R. v2.0 ?
Believe he was talking about Afghanistan, before the Good Ole Us of A helped create the Taliban and Al Qaida
Or Iraq.
Except the Taliban came from Afghanistan, with direct American funding and training (remember Rambo 3? those guys he helped against the Russians? and everyone in the ‘West’ cheered for? they became the Taliban
actually those guys in Rambo 3 were the northern alliance(the guys who helped us oust the Tali’s), who actually ruled Afghanistan for a few months before the Saudi funded Taliban took over.
Careful, keep that up and of Putin’s paid shills will show up and turn this site into a circus. Because somehow it’s all our fault, Putin had nothing to do with it, and those Russian soldiers in Ukraine are only there on vacation.
One wonders how they can say these things with a straight face.
I really can’t say their method are really even similar. Let’s compare Maxima vs Veheminance with Deus vs Indinge Sr.
Max started of with giving a simple V a simple option Surrender or we do things the har way. She attempted to take him down without maiming and killing him at until it became obvious that wasn’t going to work. She was prepared to go further if necessary, but her actions were those of someone trying to limit casualties..Even in the end, she with the help of others was willing to have Vehemence surrender if it was still an option. While ruthlessly efficient, she was trying to protect people.
Deus went into the situation with the intention of eventually killing Indinge Sr. He would have preferred to have done so without it being obvious that was what happened but there was no way Indinge was going to live long enough to be an issue.His flattery attempts at bribery, and his threats all said a sing.e message… “Cooperate and you get to live a little longer.” Why? To get more money and power.
One major difference: Deus had done his homework and knew exactly who and what Indinge was ad had done
Deus didn’t need to do all this, Indinge was a blood-soaked (figuratively, hopefully) Warlord, and you don’t become a Warlord through humanitarian methods and being nice to the people you are bossing around
Also… pretty sure that if Indinge had accepted the deal, and just became a wealthy man who did not want to continue to terrorize his populace…. Deus would probably not have even bothered to have him killed, and instead kept him in power as a figurehead. It’s easier than killing him, and probably why Indinge Jr doesnt meet his father’s fate. The ‘killing the warlord’ thing was only necessary if Indinge made it necessary. He made it necessary fairly quickly though :)
Close, but not quite.
Deus is coming into this with an investor’s approach, which he is. And so he did his homework and knows all about the various character failings of Indigo-girl.
And so we have Deus’s actual words: I would have had to remove you eventually anyway.
Remove does not have to equal kill, and so far Indigo-girl is still alive.
But in either case, Deus is simply being a pragmatist. He knew coming into this that Indigo-girl was a petty tyrant with delusions of grandeur, but he tried to appeal to his greed anyway, while also laying out a plan for prosperity for his entire country. Roads, schools, hospitals, etc. But prtty tyrants don’t give a rat’s ass about their citizens, so only the money was an incentive for him, and then only if he got to spend it how he wanted to spend it. i.e. on a larger army or a summer palace before anything at all went to the people’s welfare.
So, Deus did not necessarily go into the situation with the “intention of killing Indigo-girl”, rather he went into the situation with the expectation that it would probably be necessary despite his best efforts to arrive at a different solution.
You’re confusing method with aim.
I’m just amused that there’s a bullet bouncing onto Vekter’s head, indicating that someone was carrying one in the chamber. He clearly cycled all the guns, just to be sure, and somebody’s over-eagerness added a moment of comedy to the scene.
considering that particular looks like the one that seems to be flying from Indinge Jr. in panel 4, he might just prefer to be ready to shoot someone instead of reducing the risk of it going off in the holster. so yeah, over-eagerness.
bluh, wish I could edit my post, it’s supposed to be “that particular gun”
There are five pistols in that panel, the only difference between them is the lighting on them
Indeed- they all look like M1911s, so how can you be sure it’s the same gun?
didn’t think of that, it did look the same though
Yeah, that single bullet bouncing off his head is pretty much the best thing in all of a very good page in my opinion. It’s little details like that making the difference between good and awesome, really. :D
Yet again I have to fully agree with Deus. On literally all counts. Perhaps the difference would be I’d have killed the warlord first and asked his son to sign treaties later.
Really Vekter? But any way… from all of this Deus is still a chaotic neutral in this. He does good and evil for his own gain. From what I can tell he is still taking a country from a ruler and assassinating him. Sure the world would be better off with out him with the info we know but Deus is doing this because of profit and to rule a country presumably.
I would agree. He certainly isn’t doing it to free the people from a evil despot ruler. He’s in it for the eventual profits he’ll gain in the long term.
Since Deus is acting only towards his own benefit, regards of what he does to achieve his goals, that would make him True Neutral. He overtly follows prevailing law when & where he must, but will instigate chaos when it suits his goals. Also doesn’t care if he does acts of good or evil in the process.
True Neutral is not “Does lawful/chaotic good/evil acts as I will it”. It’s abstaining from any of these things. So many players get it wrong and just see Neutral as a means to do anything they want without alignment penalties.
I’d argue there’s room in the alignment scale for both True Neutral people who actively seek to strike some kind of balance, and those who just don’t care enough to hold to any philosophy, doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time.
That said, I’d argue that Deus fits more into Neutral Evil than TN or CN. He went in there from the start planning to push Indinge’s buttons, knowing that Indinge would either be cowed and humiliated in front of his men, and soon overthrown by them (less likely), or would make some very predictable threats that Deus’ security team was already in place to prevent (more likely). That latter case serves as a pretext for Deus to demonstrate his power to everyone in the room, seizing control of the situation and, effectively, the country. I guarantee that everyone who walked out of that room alive did so with the same story: “President Indinge and Mr. Deus came to a full and amicable understanding.”
That Deus is improving people’s lives is incidental. He’s not doing good for the sake of doing good, here, he’s doing things that enrich and empower his company that happen to be good-ish. That’s not a reflection of his moral character, merely a sign that he is capable of taking actions which will benefit him in the long run, even if they also benefit other people.
So that’s my call: he’ll keep his word or betray you, whichever is convenient, but everything he does is ultimately for his own gain. Neutral Evil.
It must be nice to be able to read minds like that.
Me, I just have to judge a person by their words and actions. I don’t have the luxury of being able to know their unspoken, off-screen motivations.
Motivations and strategies can be inferred based on words and actions.
Not quite right, seeing as the definition of “neutral” on the law axis (rightful to chaotic) is summarised as “Usually follows the law, but is willing to bend or even break it if he believes it to be necessary.”
It’s the middle ground between “follow the law, no matter what” and “only ever follow your own personal codex and/or desires”.
And neutral on the good-evil axis can mean avoiding both outright good and evil acts if ever possible. But also that you try to always balance the two. And also, and here we’re going into the different philosophies of what makes up good alignment and what bad (mind you I’m paraphrasing from the rulebook, not making this up), that a chara will tend to look after himself first. But not hesitate (or not long) to put his life on the line for his friends on most occasions. And sometimes for other people in need as well. Even if there’s no obvious profit in it.
Now as for the good to evil question: By that definition, someone acting only to his own benefit is evil. He does not have to be a senseless murderer, a devil worshipper and a puppy kicker to be evil. Him only ever being motivated by his own benefit in everything he does fully fulfills the criteria. In other words: Alignment evil does not necessarily mean real life evil. Being utterly selfish is not what we would call evil in real life. But it is in classic d&d alignment.
In short: I’m with Burke. Neutral Evil.
That’s supposed to be “Righteous” not “Rightful”, obviously.
Or lawful. That’s the actual term.
Sorry guys. That’s what I get for buying most rulebooks in German. I sometimes forget the exact terminology of the English version. ;)
Anyone who abstains from any actions off of some moral direction or another is literally someone who does nothing at all. True Neutral in the context you describe would be absolutely apathetic & lethargic for all practical purposes.
Even in the context of AD&D Plane of Concordant Opposition, there’s the Spire at the center, but there’s also a “ring” of communities surrounding it, each with a limited slant towards one alignment or another. True Neutral, being the “center-point” of all moralities, is that center-point of defined moralities would, by definition, mean “self-centered.”
Except D&D’s evil-to-good axis of alignment is also spelled out in the books as a prioritization of self vs. others. Evil focuses on its own desires, seeking to accomplish them without regard to the cost to others, while good focuses on promoting the well-being of others, even to the extent of self-sacrifice if necessary. By that metric, being self-centered is a sign of evil.
Neutrality would be more a matter of doing for others when it seems beneficial, or according to whim, and doing for oneself likewise.
I’m still seeing him as True Neutral. He’s not very Chaotic. He’s very measured and plans things well in advance. If anything he might be slightly Lawful.
True neutral would require him to STRIKE a balance even if he didn’t benefit, Deus is clearing doing hwatever he wants for his own benefit. He’s not going to “take a loss” if a good or even act would sway him from the “neutral” point. The alignment system is not a running tally of their actions, it measures intent and motivation.
Normally I would stay out of alignment arguments because the system means different things to different people. However, I very much disagree with you comment that to be True Neutral someone must (“would require him to” in your words) strike a balance of good/law/evil/chaotic acts even if they don’t benefit.
Being neutral does not mean that you do one evil act for every good act regardless of how it affects you personally, it means that you have a neutral philosophy and you respond to each situation as you feel appropriate.
I wouldn’t classify Deus as True Neutral. Whatever he does, whatever he is striving for, it is all about him, no more, no less.
I wouldn’t say chaotic neutral, more true neutral bordering on neutral evil. He has too much planning and structure for chaotic neutral, not enough impulse in his actions for chaotic.
Indeed- as others have pointed out, Chaotic doesn’t describe someone as ordered and structured as Deus. In fact, Lawful can arguably be used to describe individual honor codes or orderliness, which can easily include him (again, he’s very ordered… but if we went the honor code route he’s arguably honor-bound to do what makes him money and makes him look good on the world stage).
Just as Evil can arguably describe someone exceedingly self-serving, not just people who kill for the hell of it or for some archfiend’s favor. The alignments can be fairly flexible, to my understanding.
… in fact, there’s the idea that Lawful Evil is basically an ‘Evil Overlord’ … or a CEO. Boom.
He is, in fact, Lawful Evil.
One thing I dislike strongly is when people play Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to be Chaotic Evil when the GM won’t let them. And as a player of CN a lot, I hate it. Chaotic Neutral still has standards damn it! They might make goofy faces and tell dirty jokes to the kids at the orphanage but they won’t just light it on fire for no good reason. (If they do, then you have more problems with your campaign than people playing CN badly.)
I tell people that to play CN, you ironically have to prepare more than any other alignment. You have to decide what the values of that character are. And it’s probably even more important than a LG character. Because there has to be a line that the CN character will never cross. A line that makes them stop and say no, I can rip old ladies off of their bingo fund, I can make it rain stuffed animals and fried chicken on starving children, but I will. Not. Do. This.
I applaud your comment.
Also, WHY does no-one else peg Deus as NN?!
To me, a CN character is closer to ‘True Neutral’ than True Neutral: you do things when where how and why you want. Yes, we have our own morals and lines we won’t cross, but they are our morals and lines, lighting an orphanage of fluffy puppies and kittens on fire may be a reason in it self, but only the one setting the fire knows that reason, and they dam as well don’t need to justify it!
so… deadpool? ’cause in any discussion about good old CN, i find his name comes up sooner or later. kind of a more amusing version of Godwin’s Law. and that’s not even taking into account the relevance to the subject matter we’re still peripherally discussing.
but i digress. deux hasn’t struck me as particularly CN. TN, maybe NE. too much planning, not enough improv. this smacks of extreme long game, clear paths, and brick by brick build-up. i have always thought that the line between good and evil (mortals), in D&D and related materials anyway, was not any desire to see the world(s) burn or be saved. that was the stuff for creatures literally incapable of thinking any other way, devils, demons, slaadi and archons. but rather the lengths one was willing to go to to achieve one’s desires. the willingness to sacrifice others, instead of oneself, for your goals. the delighter in misery and pain is a sophomoric idiot, or a deranged person closer to TN than any druid, since they’re a slave to impulses they cannot control. no, the smart and reasonably competent evil mastermind has an order of paladins guarding his palace, because of the amount of good works he’s done since quietly slaughtering the sadistic royal family. kinda like the man with the X up there.
So I was right he’s not dead and my next prediction he’ll be a hostage to the son’s cooperation.
“Vale is still rocking the V to the navel evil henchwoman look” technically Vekter is too, he just has a shirt underneath.
Damn, Deus has a rather sizeable force of supers. Makes me wonder where they are now and if archon knows anything about their existence or not.
They are aware of Vekter at least. He was called out almost immediately in the steakhouse fight. Although at this point in the time line they might not.
Ya know, This is the first time you really see how relatively petite Vale is.
Or how massive Deus is. Notice how he’s dwarfing Vekter, too.
True, but Opal was about Vekter’s height during the fight, so either Opal’s a fairly tall woman, Vekter’s just a short dude, or Vale’s about Peggy’s height
Men may tend to be taller than women, but the height difference is typically measured in inches. Deus’s height difference with Vale looks more like feet, whereas Vekter being a couple inches short and/or Opal being a couple inches tall (or wearing heels? do we ever get a good look at her feet during that fight?) isn’t so odd. Plus, there’s Indinge, who appears to only come up to Deus’s shoulder, same as Vekter. It seems more likely that Dave made a villain impressively tall, than everyone Deus has appeared on-panel with being abnormally short.
Vale could stand in front of Deus, and people in the room would still not see her :D
If she’s sporting that cleavage I can say that it’s highly likely it would take me a long time to discover Deus.
By sporting that kind of cleavage, it’s pointless for her to wear any body armor at all. I mean, just consider where her heart would be…That whole area is exposed to taking a/many bullet(s)! Not to mention that she’s not wearing a helmet to protect her brain either, fercrissake!
Of course, DaveB is deliberately playing around with the tropes here, but pretty much everywhere else in fiction, women tend towards being suicidal.
https://madartlab.com/fantasy-armor-and-lady-bits/
Does Vale have any powers?
Was simply stating, that she is so… petitie, that she could position herself around Deus in such a way that no-one could even see her (reason said ‘stand in front of Deus’ is because she is currently standing behind him)
Yeah I know but I just mean, she’s in front of him like she’d take a bullet for Deus or stop someone if not for Vekter having already disarmed everyone (ie, is Vale maybe bulletproof or superfast or can make force fields). I was just wondering if maybe she had any sort of powers, or is just a ‘highly skilled soldier’ type, like Peggy is. Just was curious to know.
Aside from the most common one you mean? ;)
Yes. Aside from the ‘Most Common Superpower’ for women in comics. :)
Which is defying the law of gravity . . . in a way.
Want to comment on the incentive. Max low-key cosplaying C3PO? Noice. Harem as Leia leading Slave Leia? And is Anvil going as Zoe from Firefly?
No, current consensus is that Anvil is wearing a modified Han outfit (that gun belt is fairly distinctive, and there is no way Sydney nor Maxi would have let her wear an outfit from another franchise)
Did the king loose his beard between pages?
Everybody knows that a super-induced heart attack causes a spontaneous shaving of the victim’s face. :D
Actually, the king WAS the beard, a parasitic organism that was controlling the host body and who abandoned it and ran away when it sensed the host was dying.
BTW, also love the fact that the one guard with his son is actually moving in front of him in a brave, but somewhat futile, attempt to keep him safe. “Sire, I will..um, buy you like 2 milliseconds of life before the weird one makes you have a heart attack!!!”
That’s the minion you promote afterward to henchman.
No, that’s the Minion you promote to TRAINING your other minions.
That works too. You want henchmen training your minions anyway.
Maybe even a coveted ‘somewhat trusted lieutenant’ spot!
If they survive
Of course people agree motivation place a factor in morality… it’s the ultimate cop out. No matter how foreseeable the consequences of your actions or how terrible those consequences are you can always say “I didn’t mean to.” But in the end only consequences matter, not intentions. Even Hitler had good intentions… and he is the poster child for evil.
Hitler’s intentions were far from good. Unless you were ethnically German, you were human garbage only fit to be worked to death to benefit the ones who were. You’re right about the poster child for evil part though.
The argument could be made that Hitler’s intentions were to rebuild Germany after the disaster of WW1 and return it to being the serious world power that it used to be. If that’s an evil intention, then pretty much every nation and national leader is a pretty nasty character also. Was the systematic murder of 12 million people really his intention, or was it his method? Either way, Hitler was certainly an evil pile of shit.
Every nation and national leader whose first and foremost goal is for its country to become a serious world power (over things like rule of law, personal safety of any and all its citizens, etcetera) has at least half a foot in the evil section. So… kind of yes.
If you are judging by consequences you need to keep the “foreseeable” part, or else you end up with an absurd situation where killing someone with your car because your brake lines suddenly broke is more evil than trying to murder someone but failing. And counting just the consequences that someone foresaw gets pretty close to being counting intent (though with the added factor of whether or not someone was negligent in checking for unforeseen but potentially foreseeable harm).
*OTHER GUN NOISES*
Yes, of the many interesting Sound Effects on that page, that is easily the best.
*Chuckles in Cybertronian*
So aside from Vector and Vale, who we know already, I’m actually gonna guess that the chummy guy in panel 7 is *sigh* ‘For Whom the Death Tolls’.
Think about it. He’s in the least defensive position out of anybody, as Beowulf (headcannon name) disarmed the outlying guard, Vale and Vector took up a defensive position in front of Deus, the illusionist guy is covering the upper floor, and snake-eyes is taking out the commander, so he’s the only one not in a position of strength. Being him, he doesn’t need to be in one, as his powers would protect him. That, and it would mean we’re still not seeing his face because of the mask, and he’s actually wearing a cape and cowl, and who else wears one? Seriously? Dork alert!
FWtDT doesn’t strike me as the type to work with anyone though
but what if he’s not FWtDT? and I mean that in the sense that FWtDT was just a persona he made for the superbrawl, and this is him being serious.
You missed the sword and big-ass gun he was holding against their heads? o_O
He’s not really using them though. In fact, look at what he’s saying. “Keep your cool. Keep your heads.” AKA: “Don’t attack me and I won’t counter attack your faces to pieces.”
I got the impression FWtDT wasn’t really putting out his A game at the steakhouse. At least not until Max dropped in. But Sydney broke that up before it could end badly.
You don’t need powers of Countering to say that, Vektor could say the same thing: “Keep calm, and stay alive!”
Also, his Nemesis power is probably not as useful against unpowered individuals (was there anything saying he could stop a gunshot during the steakhouse fight? I just assumed he had to be attacked by powers to react in kind. Unpowered attacks might require him to use technological defenses- the electric shock at Anvil trying a choke hold seems more like a personal defense device thing to prevent exactly that, than part of the Nemesis thing… but I could be wrong). The assertion that he could be Death Toll still falls flat. As I already pointed out, he has a more Deadpool feel to him. I mean, he has swords, he has guns, he’s completely covered… and that short comment feels like the kind of thing Deadpoll might say if he got the drop on guys he was told to just keep from attacking, not outright kill.
That mask on said character is totally not Death Toll’s skull mask. And he has a more Deadpool feel, whoever he is (without the color theme).
In this one Vale looks like the Tech from here: https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1902
Oooo, maybe they are related…
I guess really it depends on his end game wether or not he’s evil.
He might be evil, but hasnt done anything I can call evil here. He gave the evil warlord a chance to make a profit, and all he had to do would be actually use Deus’s money to create infrastructure and let Deus handle all that, which he was incapable of doing anyway :)
Well, he’s pretty clearly evil. The question then is to what degree, and whether or not he’s smart enough to only direct his evil at people who deserve it (like corrupt dictators). The impression so far is that he’s intelligent enough and good enough to not screw with Archon, though he’ll gladly take the opportunity to recruit Harem as a spy. He’s definitely got a flair for drama, but given that Archon is working with him, his history should be really, really clean. And unless he’s got absolutely insane PR skills, I’d be surprised if Archon’s background check didn’t uncover the truth of the meeting going on in this flashback.
Here’s a little scenario for you.
I am Deus and I know that in 2050 something will happen to wipe out humanity.
So I put together a plan and start it in motion to save humanity.
1 part is the flashback we are seeing now.
Is Deus good or evil.
That can be simplified even further.
Result if Deus does nothing: Humanity perishes.
Result if Deus acts: Humanity survives.
Based strictly on that plan and nothing else? He’s good.
Of course, even a villain can see the sense in preventing an apocalpyse, so that doesn’t really mean anything. If a plan like that is the ONLY thing Deus ever does, then he’s good for the story he’s in.
‘The end justifies the means’, you are saying?
I disagree. That approach tends to get very slippery extremely quickly. As I see it, the means have to be their own justification.
Even the means don’t seem to be that bad, to be honest.
Deus’s team isnt killing EVERYONE in the room. Or they could have done that already. Deus is actually doing the minimal amount of killing necessary, and apparently only doing that because Indinge did not play along with the plan to be rich and let his country become prosperous.
I agree. I’ve long been aware that the end does not justify the means, but rather the means defines the end.
I notice that for the most part, his crew is using non lethal tactics on the guards, who admittedly are only following standing orders and training. After the shock and terror wears off, most will probably come to realize that there is a new man in charge and its just best to go with the new flow. With his crew, probably won’t be to hard to figure out which ones are the fanatical soldiers loyal to their despot leader, and who are probably despots themselves, and will only see revenge. Idiotic as the idea of revenge would be, but that’s fanatics for you.
Deus isn’t going to take actual charge though. At least not officially. Based on the naration, Indinge Jr is going to take over, with Deus standing behind him pulling the strings
I don’t get the feeling Deus is going to micromanage, though. He has larger goals than getting bogged down in the day to day management of a tiny nation. Indinge Jr is going to be given goals to meet, and as long as they are met he will have decent autonomy.
Agrecian
He might hire some managers
Sensible really. The survivors help spread the word of what has happened, and that resisting their new overlord is a BAD idea.
Plus, from Deus’s point of view, it means much less carnage to clean up afterwards.
Yeah…he’s evil. I mean, not ‘Darth Vadar’ evil, but the way he acts is clearly unilateral, in a way that only HE knows right from wrong. He’s, essentially, considering himself an Ubermensch. Those kind of people, almost always, are evil. Or, rather, they are evil by present standards, and wish to make a NEW moral standard that will make them ‘good’.
Maxima, meanwhile, has a set moral code that at least matches human norms, and is relatively selfless. She fights to protect, and has a set standard. Is she perfect? No. But she’s not evil. She doesn’t take over countries because “I can do a better job”. She does it because of a clear, immediate thing. She follows orders, and, presumably, were she to be given an ‘illegal order’ she would balk. And, considering the inability of people to ENFORCE that…yeah, anyone who gave her an order she balked at would not be around long.
Well, Deus freely admits he’s got a big ego. But he also insists it’s not megalomania because he’s actually proven right.
We KNOW that he’s proven right in this case, too. So when Deus takes over the country because he can do a better job, and he actually DOES do a better job…
As for Maxima refusing an illegal order: of what variety? If someone ordered her to torture civilians, obviously not. But what if she was asked to covertly assassinate someone like Indinge, because the second-in-command was promising to work with the US and stop the abuse of citizens? I really don’t think Max would balk at an order like that – not for moral reasons, anyway. She might refuse the order because of what it could do if her actions were discovered when there’s supposed to be an international treaty in the works to prevent superpowered assassinations/war, or what the world might think of the Americans interfering in yet another country, but from a purely moral standpoint? Max seems very willing to kill if it’s necessary. (Though that could partly be an act, meant to intimidate.)
Dr. Doom took over his home country and turned out to be a better leader. Still a text book Megalomaniac though, so duces actions prove nothing.
And I never accepted Max as a hero because I still believe real heroes should not be under the government.
Which is funny considering heroes have almost always been government employees in the real world- either they are soldiers or they are public servants like police or firemen. Sometimes you get the odd civilian sticking their neck out, though, I suppose, but the classical definition is usually an exemplary soldier in a war, and soldiers serve their country (like Ajax or Achilles).
Doing things for the right reasons shouldn’t be diminished just because you’re also on Uncle Sam’s payroll. Captain America was still a hero of World War II in the Marvel Universe while being a soldier, and every soldier in that and every conflict who went above and beyond to save his comrades is still a hero, no matter how short-lived their heroism.
I always find the “Anti-Government, Pro-Military” stance hilarious myself. Who do those people thing trains and funds the military?
“real heroes should not be under the government.”
Is this some kind of anarchist thing? “Government” doesn’t necessarily mean “evil”. And people who think the US government is inherently evil are laughable. Flawed? Somewhat corrupt in places? Bigoted, even? Sure. But the baseline for a truly evil government is VERY far below the bar the US is at.
Not exactly sure why Darth Vader is a metric for Evil, to be honest. He’s the Dragon, the Enforcer, not the Mastermind. He mostly just does what he’s told, and kills anyone he wasn’t told to kill only because they screwed up so bad the Imperial Navy was better off without them (and they’re the only people he’s killed on-screen that the Emperor didn’t tell him to kill… okay, so there’s the rebel officer at the start of the original movie, but he’s an enemy combatant being interrogated in the process of him fulfilling his duty of finding the Death Star plans at any cost). He almost killed a Navy officer in the original movie just because he insulted his religion, which seems petulant more than evil, and in-line with his angsty Anakin persona of the prequels.
Also on Anakin’s scorecard is the slaughter of a buttload of children at the Jedi temple (Part of the endgame in Ep 3). Suppose one could claim he was “following orders” but, in comparable situations elsewhere/elsewhen, that excuse never gets much respect.
And, fictional speculations aside, we really have no idea what he was doing (or to whom) between Episodes 3 and 4. I concur that he spends a lot of his time being the Enforcer / Emperor’s Hand / etc. but, yeah, he’s undoubtedly done “questionable” things – and not solely at the Emperor’s behest.
I’m not saying he’s not responsible for his actions, I’m just saying most of them weren’t really his idea in the first place. He’s Evil, sure, but he’s more or less Evil at the behest of a bigger Evil, so it just seems silly to use him as a measure of ‘this is what Evil looks like’, that’s all.
Yay! More Vekter! I don’t know what it is about him, but I’ve always liked the cut of his jib. I hope to see more of him.
It’s not cause he’s got that 16 ton rock floating over your head, is it…?
…I hear it can be a persuasive method of convincing people…
I thought only people with speakiing lines got on the Who’s Who list.
In fairness, both Vekter and Vale have spoken – just not on this particular page. Maybe they were included because they were already established characters.
The fact that they are here is probably important for the overall narrative. Especially Vekter. The fact that he (used to?) work for Deus fleshes out his character a lot.
And it’s more a guideline anyway. People without lines that still play an important role also get a who’s who
All of this pertains to DaveB‘s under-the-comic blog:
“Maxima a good guy, even though during the press conference she admitted to killing an indeterminate number of supers.”
Actually, Max didn’t admit to killing other supers…all she said was that there’s “not as many as there used to be.” Strong implication, yes, but not actually admitted it; at least some of them might have died by other means (not at Max’s hands). The distinction is slight & it’s a very fine line in there, but it is there.
;)
“…but she wasn’t flying around snapping necks and incinerating infantry either.”
I would tend to agree that she showed restraint when possible, but in a military conflict, that’s not always possible. At least, during the super-brawl royale at the steak house, Max could have easily killed almost all of the villains there…But even in the case of Vehemence, she worked to disable first without killing. Let’s face it, she could have done a lot worse than dislocating the one guy’s shoulder…
“…since it’s the only chance I have lately to flex my perv muscle. Not like that you pervs!”
Well, you have to exercise it once in a while, otherwise it’ll atrophy. And then, where would you be? SOL, most likely…And think of your poor wife being left deprived!
O.o
“My introduction is insulting one of the greatest rifles ever made.”
Well I know who I want to die first.
It wasn’t the greatest of rifles, just prolific and works well even when abused.
Depends on the definition of “greatest” you are using. Perhaps “iconic” would be better though.
-gasp- The Hipster Rifle!
No, no…Keneth said “iconic,” not “ironic.” If it was an ironically-hipster rifle, it would be made of iron, not tempered steel.
;)
And the gun-sight would be a monocle.
Agreed. I remember reading the comments of a gunsmith (sadly, I can no longer find the link) in regards to the AK-47 versus the M16A1. Paraphrased:
“Bury an AK-47 in mud for a year. Dig it up, wash it off by dunking it in the river a few times. It will fire. Do the same to an M16A1. At best it will jam, at worst you’ll blow your own face off.”
Note that he specifically excluded the original M16. Due to a number of causes, it would jam at the drop of a hat. Any hat. The barrel and chamber weren’t chrome-plated. It had no forward assist. The powder that the M16 was originally tested with was replaced by an inferior powder because DuPont couldn’t provide enough of the superior product. An inadequate number of cleaning kits were issued, and without instructions, because Colt had claimed it was “self-cleaning” (there is no such thing as a self-cleaning gun. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.) The end result was an average of 1 bullet out of every 500 that jammed or failed to fire.
Two years later, the XM16E1 was issued as the M16A1. A forward assist was added. The barrel and chamber were plated. New cleaning kits were issued, with instructions. In 1970, the powder was upgraded to a new formulation (still not the original DuPont formulation, though). The result? The failure rate dropped by a factor of ten (1 per 5,000 rounds fired).
The AK-47 is still more reliable, but far less accurate. In fact, the USSR created the AK-74 as a direct response to the accuracy issue… they felt the need to have a gun that had at least similar accuracy to the M16A1.
If you really want to see an AK47 vs. AR15 have a look at “InRangeTV” on Youtube.
bit.ly/1lE7WFF
The AK fails to cycle (jams) after being submerged in goopy mud, an AR15 (with the dust cover open) get the same treatment and works perfectly.
The “AR platform is rubbish / AK is amazing” was probably started by a bunch of grizzled old soldiers who thought it looked like a dinky toy compared to an M1 Garand or M14, while the AK47 looked more like a “real” rifle.
Incidently, the M14 fails in the same way as an AK47 and jams full of mud in all of those exposed openings.
You will note that the gunsmith who I paraphrased specifically said to rinse it off before firing. :)
If you want a gun that has a horrible failure rate, go to the WW1 French-made Chauchat LMG. The magazines were made of thin metal and open on one side, so mud and dust could easily get in and jam up the works. (The open-sided magazines were responsible for about two-thirds of all stoppages.)
On top of that, to make matters worse, it was mass-produced in two reconverted civilian plants. While the recoiling barrel sleeve, as well as all the bolt moving parts, were precision milled from solid steel, the barrels were standard Lebel rifle barrels that had been shortened from the muzzle end, and the barrel radiators were made of ribbed cast aluminum, but those were the only parts guaranteed to be interchangeable. In other words, most of the parts from the guns made in one plant, simply would not fit on guns made in the other plant!
A few American troops had the opportunity to use the Chauchat in combat. More specifically, the .30-06 version of the Chauchat, which was considered flawed from the beginning, due to incomplete chamber reaming and other dimensional defects acquired during the manufacturing process. Also, the larger caliber caused the gun to overheat more often. The few that reached the front lines were very quickly discarded in favor of M1903 Springfield rifles and/or captured German LMG’s, until enough M1918 Brownings were available. I remember one story (which may or may not be true) in which an American soldier said “The best thing I can say about the Chauchat is that you could turn it into a still.”
When the best thing you can say about a gun is that you can turn it into a crude still for making booze…
Doesn’t help that from what I’ve read, the US troops actually obtained two versions of the Chauchat. One was only used for training purposes, the other in actual combat. The training version was absolutely useless. The combat version actually worked very decently as long as you managed to keep the magazine unbent and mostly clean. Since especially the latter proofed problematic in trench warfare, the reasons for its quick replacement are obvious. Still, it was better than its reputation these days. And certainly better than not having any LMG at all.
Well aren’t you just great a reading?
“One of” =/= “The”
More surprised tat everyone instantly thinks the one warlord in the room is evil just on the word of the megalomaniac trying to take over his country. I mean does he really have that trusting a face?
Interesting seeing vector and death toll there. Is this before there interactions in the steakhouse fight?
I hardly call Max’s actions good guy/girl behavior as I object to her constant over excessive use of shock and awe. I swear it’s like she has no other tactic than that, leaving her diplomatic skills a complete joke. You can’t really call yourself a hero if all you’re doing is killing people, bullying others, and enforcing you’re will threw fear and intimidation. Which is villain territory.
aye i would assume that this happened long before the press conference even.
Yes, this is 10 ish years before the events of the comic
Death Toll House Cookies? Where? Don’t see him on this page, and seeing how Vector and Vale were both added to the “Who’s Who”, if DTHC was here (and spoke) he would have been added as well. Chummy is just someone wearing a mask
It’s unknown if it is him, but it could be the guy in the mask
Yeah, it could be him…After all, there’s been 10 years he could have changed his costume.
What I find even more surprising is how many people seem to think that if Indinge really was evil, it somehow means that Deus’ actions are *necessarily* not evil. Sure, Deus is basically invading his nation and capital, condescendingly threatening him, then assaulting (maybe even murdering) him when he wasn’t persuaded, but that’s OK because Indinge was a scum-sucking pile of shit.
Except that doesn’t change anything. Assault and murder are still assault and murder, no matter who your victim is.
I don’t think Deus is particularly good just because Indinge is evil. Evil can fight evil after all. What I and many people here things is that his actions can lead to good. If he genuinely wants to do something like help the country even if he has ulterior motives, giving people hospital and schools without ripping the people off or using them is still the works that lead to positive change. And that’s what I care about.
Let him be evil. Let him be misunderstood and want to play villain. If he turns around and helps the people lead better lives, then all the better.
Just because his current intentions may seem good and helpful to the people doesn’t mean his ulterior motives can’t lead to something fare worse. Hitler managed to lead his people out of a depression after WW1 and made them a world power again. Still lead to mass genocide, and other unspeakable evils.
As a card carrying USA citizen I have to defend Deus here because he’s basically doing my countries national policy and if I condemn him I condemn everything we’ve done sense 9/11.
Also we know the man is a African warlord, at title that he got through violent revolution. So Deus is only playing the same game Indigenous was not to long ago.
It’s good to condem him, sinse the US hasn’t done much good sense 9/11 because of those policy’s.
Nope, not saying Deus is a good guy, just we haven’t seen any signs of ‘Evil’ yet
He never invaded anywhere, he went into Gelatin because it was a new country with a leader he would be lauded for removing if he couldn’t strike a deal with the truly evil Warlord King
So going to a another country and killing someone isn’t evil?
okay so vekter and possibly “for whom the death tolls” is on deus’ payroll. thinking about it we dont know how they operate when not under the “vehemence aura” so they could be a little bit more competent and subtle normally and having supers with those powersets would be a great asset for “security.”
and while it is overkill, sometimes you got to make the exclamation point take up have the page to make people read the sentence. showing indinge jr. that the options are cake OR death and that he means it.
I’ll take the chicken.
or “were”. Vehemence did talk about rounding up the supers and Vekter didn’t SEEM under the influence of his aura. Vekter could be a merc.
Then again, it makes more sense for Kevin to be the merc given what we’ve seen.
okay so vekter and possibly “for whom the death tolls” is on deus’ payroll. thinking about it we dont know how they operate when not under the “vehemence aura” so they could be a little bit more competent and subtle normally and having supers with those powersets would be a great asset for “security.”
and while it is overkill, sometimes you got to make the exclamation point take up have the page to make people read the sentence. showing indinge jr. that the options are cake OR death and that he means it.
Actually, we still don’t know how FWtDT operates on Vehemence’s Aggro Aura even now. when Vehemence triggered his Aura, DT was already unconscious and he remained unconscious through the rest of the fight. His Nemesis Power countered the Aggro Aura even while he was out cold.
I doubt Maxima is the type to kill a surrendering supervillain without giving them a chance to surrender.
Hell, she repeatedly try to talk Vehemence into surrendering, even after she realized he would keep getting stronger the longer she fought him
Why doesn’t Indinge have any supers with him? He’s a warlord in a world with supers, he should have at least one otherwise how’d he get to be warlord?
He’s the ruler of a small and poor country, and this is 10 is years before the main comic. So supers aren’t a confirmed thing yet. Only the really rich and powerful know about it
Arianna also made the comment in the press conference that quality of life and incidence of superpowers are correlated. The DRC doesn’t generally rank high in that area.
The supers have either left for their particular Land of Opportunity or are suffering from dietary deficiencies and multiple illnesses so severe that merely being alive at 20 is a superpower.
If I was born in Africa and had all these neat super powers, watching how Africa works, knowing I could get a better offer elsewhere, I’d run the hell out for a land where the life expectancy is remarkably higher. That’d be interesting if Anvil came from Indinge’s country actually and made the same realization as I just stated.
And before anyone says anything about me being cliche, stereotypical, or whatever they want, people become immigrants all the time and it is not unfair to say she might be from a country in Africa. She’s still my favorite of the supers and the one I would most like say marry if we were playing Date, Marriage, Fuck. I like her.
There is of course the chance that you are a super in africa without any kind of education, and don’t know how the world looks outside of your own village.
Do people like that exist? I don’t actually know.
Actually that brings up an interesting point. What if there’s some undiscovered village in the amazon rain forest that has some freakishly high prevalence of super powers?
I think even the most uneducated super might risk the chance. After all, education doesn’t always mean intelligent. It can, but raw intelligence can still be quite high no matter where you live.
And I would laugh if the Amazon has a ton of supers that are undocumented given that we don’t fully know how many people live in there.
The son’s shirt makes me think he’s a Chef.
Okay, can we stop saying Chummy is “Death Toll”, just because he is wearing a mask and a cape? The mask isn’t even remotely similar!!
While I agree with someone else’s point that it is probably not death toll because he’s not on the “who’s who” list. I do believe wearing a different costume from the one he had while working for Deus would be the whole point of donning a guise that while familiar to him to wear, cannot be linked to the uniform used for his para-military spook job.
Well, it’s still possible…After all, he’s had 10 years since this incident to change his costume & even his “working name.”
This is a prime example of a properly pulled off Lawful Evil character, a person who’s obviously out for himself and his own bullheaded greed and will just kill/maim/threaten anyone he wants to to achieve his carefully laid out plans
Then turn around and give you a PowerPoint presentation of why he’s in the right and your dumb for disagreeing and that he’s TOTTALLY helping all the fluffy bunnies and adorable kittens in the world by throwing old farmer joe into a wheat thresher, and takes joes life savings as a reward for a job well done.
Someone else took a stab at the name of the guy on the balcony, here is my idea. “Bluescreen”, similar to the way you can change out a background or foreground item/char with something else. Blue instead of green because the team suits are all blue based. It may even be easier on him/her to do a single color, hence the color coordination effect.
Daniel the Human says “Bluescreen” as you called him looks like 1 of those “Kamen riders” some of his friends are into…
Maybe “Projector” could work too, they seem to be teleporting people in by shining their sparkly light where they want them…
Yes, I’m calling “Bluescreen/Projector” “their” & things like that cause I’ve gotten in a lot of trouble (& tested my Pretender Armour’s durability) for calling people the wrong things, and I haven’t seen anything to figure out which gender they are…
Prism? Phaser? Djin?
I don’t think Bluescreen is a bad name.
This gaming talk is making me laugh, as it has conjured up the idea of a super with meteorite dice who gets to roll whenever the dice glow to change his powers with of course a dice for alignment.
I approve!
We could call him High Roller. For the dice & also for the blunt he’s always got lit up…
Whelp, rolled lawful good with the ability to incinerate bones… at least it’s not evil this time
He’d be good in the food-processing industry. He can be in charge of bone meal production.
Deus is an outsider with his own motives for the area. As such, he’s an aggressor. Indinge, for all of his no doubt considerable faults, was the sovereign of the area. Other heads of state would see Deus’ actions here as not rightful, morality notwithstanding.
Through the lens of history, Deus is simply the latest colonial power, albeit with extraordinary means.
I’m wondering if Opal is still about, albeit cloaked. It’d make a lot of sense. She and Vekter clearly have a history together, and it’d make sense for Deus to have a plan for emergency evacuation. It’d also make sense to leave her cloaked if she was there, so as to not have potential enemies get wise to his resources.
They might write Deus a strongly worded letter, but any sovereign that bothered to even acknowledge it would just figure he’s the flavor of the week. Africa’s Warlords change all the time.
Considering Indinge only became ‘sovereign’ by killing and terrorizing the local population, Deus is wanting to improve the life of those same population: any other heads of states will either applaud Deus removing a murdering piece of filth, or simply go “Indinge didn’t deserve to be a head of state if he couldn’t hold on to it”
Colonial history will make Deus’ claims very difficult for anyone in power to accept, even if they end up being true. Indinge’s reaction to a European coming in with plans for his country is understandable given the countless times this exact thing has happened in Africa and Asia in the past few hundred years.
A European would never be accepted as a head of state in central Africa. Of course, Deus knows this, and so has plans for Indinge’s heir.
If other heads of nations knew what Deus was doing here, they would certainly take it badly. In fact, his actions may well be the reason that ARCHON eventually formed.
On a different topic, Goggle has just informed me this is the 151st birthday of Wilbur Scoville (creator of the Scoville scale for measuring the hotness of chilli peppers). Given Sydney’s predilection for spicy foods (and her not entirely unrelated surname) it seems appropriate to say “Happy 151st Birthday Wilbur!” here.
May his taste buds forever tingle with joyous burning.
Think Lex luthor and Deus might have quite a few things in-common.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbFAi4NYBJM&feature=youtu.be&t=459 )
I’ve always loved villains like Deus…definitely a bad guy, but close enough to the line that you can sympathize with them. It’s guys like him that sway the newer, younger supers who haven’t really decided what to do with their powers to his way of thinking, which of course only strengthens his power base and makes his goals easier.
That last panel even makes me think that if I were in the Grrl Power world and had powers of my own, I might even work for him willingly. He obviously values his employees enough to provide adequate gear(and by how that scene went, training as well). Yeah he’s taking over by force, but to the average citizen of that country, will they care once he starts making real investments into their infrastructure and raising the standard of living?
did someone just cock a loaded gun?
Vektor didn’t know that someone kept a loaded pistol in their holster until he chambered it himself (like he did with all the others)
What’s Deus is REALLY planning?
A safe haven for himself if shit hits the fan. His own private Latveria to borrow a phrase.
Simply what it looks like? Improving the wellbeing of a wartorn fledgling nation, make profit for himself, and remove a murdering warlord
Looks like Deus has FM Gordon Freeman in his squad. His dialogue feels like a freemans mind rant anyways.
Also Vektors pulling a R. Giyera from agents of sheild there. Neat.
Or, Magneto from the first X-Men movie (remember that scene just after he and Sabretooth snatched Rogue at the train station?)
I only watch the second one… I think. Giyera was also only described as a telekinetic so he has a closer power description.
It’s still better than hearing a Gilbert Gottfried rant…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko41U6oL9QQ
Apologies if someone already pointed this out, but that invisibility ray dude has eight beams coming out of his head and only six individuals have been de-cloaked.
Ooh! Nice pickup. I assumed it was a “burst” effect, but yeah, could be a specific number of beams.
… I only count five reveals?
Themselves, Lia, Irish McKivuli, Vale, Vektor and Not Death Toll, that’s six