Grrl Power #394 – Philosonomics
In fact it’s only due to people hoarding wealth that charity is even necessary, so you’re welcome, poor people.
I actually had a lot more written for Deus’s pitch about greed, but a few examples is really all you need to get his point. It’s actually pretty easy to spin almost any attribute as an aspect of greed. Rage, love, hope, they mostly have to do with either wanting something or having something taken away. Sloth is a bit harder as is Vanity and Humility, but Deus can get there. It just takes a little more twisting. You can play along at home!
I really wanted to make this page and the next one a double, but I have to be a little more disciplined about my time if there’s any chance of getting the book ready for A-kon, so the next page is the final part of the interview, then we’re back to Sydney and her usual antics.
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.
The website for Church of SubGenius provides a useful link by which you can give them money for nothing!
And chicks for free?
And all the 80s CGI you can eat.
Dave,
You need to upload the full chart, and then update the main commentary to have a link for it.
Also, submit it to xkcd :)
wealth is not zero sum. web comics that earn money are spectacular examples of that.
Indeed.
Also, Deus is an arsehat. To put it kindly.
Deus is a factually correct asshat. Being impoverished is only possible when those in power deny others their wealth. Otherwise we would all be fairly compensated for our time and effort. Raking in millions every year from a stock portfolio benefits nobody, not even the portfolio owner.
Sorry, but that’s bullocks. Most shareholding is by pension funds, which are rather useful. Issuing shares is just a way of gaining investment, dividends are the interest payments and the secondary market in them a guide to how well you’re doing.
But more importantly, poverty is the default state. Hunter-gatherer man, or those Amazonian tribes, are dirt poor because they can only consume what they make by hand. We have containerised shipping, access to cheap energy and tools with which to be productive. A couple of guys can run a car factory or near enough.
You can get rich from exploitation, like Indinge, or you can create goods or services that people want to pay for, like pretty much everyone else. If you (can) do neither, you revert to poverty (or welfare, if you’re lucky)
https://eic.cfainstitute.org/2014/10/23/shareholder-value-maximization-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
https://www.businessinsider.com/gmos-montier-maximizing-shareholder-value-is-the-worlds-worst-idea-2014-12
https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/business/davos-shareholder-value-is-dumbest-idea/index.html
https://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090316_630496.htm
Keep in mind Deus isn’t espousing short term quarter by quarter gains. He doesn’t care if the excel sheet points slightly up at the end of each quarter, as he said on a previous page, he plans in decades. In fact he readily agrees with these articles. His primary use for the stock market is shorting other companies and hostile takeovers, especially when a big short pays out. He uses other people’s greed to his advantage. When a companies stock is plummeting, he gathers up panicky stockholders and helps them out (of their stock).
Okay. I won’t get into fractional reserve, monetary velocity, arbitrage, or collateralized debt obligations. I’ll just say it simply: studies show that economic growth slows down as the finance industry becomes more developed.
Why do you think that is? Hmm?
Or will you be using more terms like “bollocks” which have no application in real economics?
Oops, I just realized. You didn’t even spell “bollocks” correctly.
Never mind, you clearly won’t understand money even if I did explain.
What?
Okay, 1: Poverty is caused by a lack of money. Wealth is the cure for poverty. Poverty can happen for a variety of reasons beyond “those in power deny others their wealth”, as there’s also poor decision making, theft, alterations in a market making assets/products worthless, etc.
2: A stock portfolio provides money for the companies in that stock portfolio, which those companies use for labor, materials, etc, with the guarantee that they will pay dividends each year on the stock. The company gets capital to keep the company running, the stockholder gets paid dividends.
Truly there is nothing more insipid than a smug reductionist.
Yeah, this guy likes to hear himself talk a lot more than I can be bothered to read him talking. Didn’t this comic have superheroes at one point?
I think this is the second to last Deus flashback, they’ve been a bit of a slog (for a webcomic anyway, in book format it wouldn’t be so bad) and I’ll be quite upset if he’s not our main villain or at least an absolutely central character.
No kidding.
Reading this guy is giving me flashbacks to the tedious nonsense blathered by a certain sort of philosophy undergrad while I was in college.
Praise be to our lady of perpetual exemption !
Blessed are the accountants, for they hide my funds from federal inquiry.
Blessed are the off-shore companies, for they shield us from taxes.
Blessed are the children, for they are deductible.
Greed is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He maketh me play golf on green pastures,
He floateth my yacht on quiet waters,
He restoreth my bank account: he leadeth me in the paths of covetousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of taxes, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy loopholes and thy accounting staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me to rub in the face of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with Saudi oil; my vault runneth over.
Surely avarice and money shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the penthouse of the Hilton for ever.
This is a thing of glory.
That’ll be $5.99, please. (All verses from the Grease-My-Psalms chapter of the Book of Greed come with a reading fee attached.)
Deus there is not actually addressing core motive forces- people have exactly four.
Desire to live
Desire to propagate
Desire to do what feels good
Desire to avoid what feels bad
Greed is a function of Desire to Live and Desire to Propagate- it’s primarily the intersection of the hoarding instinct combined with the advantage in social position that wealth entails. I.e. you want to have wealth to survive, and wealth to be able to have the sexual partners you desire.
A. Super simplification dude. Anything that tries to define people as points is arrogance waiting to happen.
Also, I doubt you could defend the meshing of propagation with feeling good. Little subjective tweaks like that are what make stuff like this so sketchy.
B. All four points could easily be linked to greed. He covers 2 and 3 in the comic, just without using your buzzwords.
Actually, the reason it “feels good” is because entities for whom reproduction “feels good” tend to reproduce more, and therefore tend to be more successful. The Desires to do what feels good and avoid what feels bad respectively are things only found in more complex organisms that have evolved a brain, and generally align with positive and negative behavior in regards to continued existence. So feeling good and bad and the desires to cause and avoid those states respectively can be considered secondary to the two primary motivators- living and procreating. That is, they primarily exist to serve those two goals.
That is, burning yourself hurts, because you are damaging yourself and risking your existence. Sex feels good because it enables procreation. Being socially outcast feels bad because without social support your life is at risk. Having high social status feels good because you have procreative choice.
But despite the fact that feeling good and bad was evolved to serve the two primary goals of existence and reproduction, you have to consider them independent motivators themselves, since individual calibration as to what feels good and bad can vary widely based on genetic peculiarities and personal experience. For most people, sex “feels good”; but for some it does not. So in those people, one might see abstinence, even though that is overriding the motivator to reproduce- sex may just feel that bad to them for any number of reasons. Or perhaps life itself feels bad for somebody, and therefore they wish to take their own life DESPITE having an instinct to survive- the desire to avoid the pain of life overrides the desire to exist.
strong desire= greed. Since all those basic desires are strong…
Deus wins!!!!
Ah yes, the core reason why such ideas are bunk. They’re polymorphs, changing shape to suit whatever argument is used against it. They’re unfalsifiable…which is why they’re bullshit.
If you can’t conceive of a universe in which your idea is false, then it’s likely your idea isn’t worth the neuronal power used to devise it.
Philosophy: it’s a toolset. Learn it, use it, and become less deluded.
Can you conceive of a universe in which that idea is false? =D
If the falsification principle can’t be falsified, does it refute itself?
A universe where no one has a decent imagination, maybe?
That wouldn’t make the idea false, it would just mean that it’s unlikely that anyone would think of it..
Not true. Who would define a desire to simply live as being “greedy”? Greed is better defined as behavior that is intended to benefit the self but which occurs at the expense of others, or perhaps when the behavior exceeds the need to benefit the self.
A thief stealing bread to live is not “greedy”, a banker stealing even though he’s already wealthy is. But, if two people are starving and one hoards food, they are “greedy”, even though both are starving.
Greed is not a desire- it is a descriptor for a desire in action, specifically when it has filled the conditions specified above.
No, greed is just wanty-ness. You’re instilling a sense of inherent badness in the word that isn’t actually there.
No. If people would just look up definitions of words online if would save them a lot of embarrassment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed
I prefer https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/greed but even your own linked definition defines greed as a desire.
By the Oxford definition, your thief and both starving people are greedy, they have “an intense and selfish desire for something” = greed. The greed is for food for themselves, unless they have no desire for food. The desire to live (at the potential expense of others that could be supported by the same resources) can indeed be defined as greedy, but it is a very natural greed.
Specifically, your thief might be stealing to live, but (s) he is potentially taking food from the mouths of others (the baker’s family, perhaps), so the action, like most theft, is a selfish one.
It is the addition of “excessive” , or more than its needed, that varies in different dictionaries and different definitions, and is the basis of the disagreement between you and JimmyJoe III. Neither of you is incorrect, you are just working from different contexts.
You forgot desire to belong. Fear of social rejection and tribal identity are strong motivators in people’s lives.
Also, what role does the human conscience play? It’s inborn, as evidenced by the morality plays put on for infants, who invariably choose to play with the toy that exhibits good moral behaviour as opposed to the one that acts like a dick.
Social needs are primarily based on a combination of those 4 bases. Ask yourself why humans congregate in society in the first place? The answer is that A.) Societies help people survive, via shared goods and services, B.) Societies provide increased opportunities for procreation (and usually increased support for children), and C.) Societies provide entertainment, which would fall under the “feels good” motivator.
Were it not for those three major things, people would find no value in society. While the social instincts of humans do exist, they exist to satisfy those four main goals.
As for the “conscience”, that’s just an evolved instinctual set of “feels good” or “feels bad” stimuli aligned around societal integration, since societal integration helps people survive and reproduce. Remember though, not everybody has a “conscience”, and not all “conscience”s are the same. Some people have a socially aligned inherent moral compass- some do not. See: Psychopaths/Sociopaths.
Conscience is not inborn.
It’s learned from parents and other moral guides throughout a person’s life.
Just look at the people who have no guidance, and how destructive and amoral they become.
Except that even infants are able to make moral judgements.
They did a study where they performed morality plays in front of infants. Three puppets: one has a ball, and passes it to two other puppets. The first passes the ball back. The second steals the ball away.
Invariably, the infants prefer to play with the first puppet. They recognize the more moral puppet.
What the hell happened to “Dame not appearing?” Is she dead?
Who? o_O
That tyrade soinds like something kougami from kamen rider ooo would say
I honestly find this interview entertaining.
Same here: it is giving us, the readers, an insight into one of the protagonists (whether he turns out to be evil or simply a smug villain is yet to be determined)
People hoarding wealth is not the causal factor for the need for charity. Sorry sir, that is not a proper logical argument. The vast majority of wealthy people do not hoard their wealth, they use it to make more money, and in so doing provide jobs and incentive for the creation of goods and services. Scrooge MacDuck rolls around in his gold, wealthy people invest. That money then goes back into the economy and other peoples pockets, and of course grows as was pointed out above by aie, wealth is not a zero sum game, just because someone has it does not mean someone else does not.
They use their money to make more money for them to hoard, certainly sounds like greed to me
You can’t just physically print out money or it starts to lose all value, forcing you to print more and more of it until a simple loaf of bread costs a couple thousand dollars
You are equating money with wealth. I am not. Money is not the sole measure of wealth, not even the major measure for that matter.
Wealth is not finite over time, since it is defined as what people value it grows continuously. A picasso is just a bunch of paint on canvas total intrinsic value of materials in money,maybe 25 dollars. Value as something people want and will spend money and wealth on millions.
Picasso printed money, well painted it actually. My labor is wealth, the more skilled I am the more wealthy I can become. If I can run fast and not overthrow my receivers I can make even more. Things that people think are of value one day can go down the next, think tulips. The netherlands had a huge tulip market in the 1600’s where people paid ridiculous prices for tulip bulbs. Then it collapsed.
Picasso could go the same way.
Wealth and money are two different things.
archimedes
the vast majority is basically hoarded, most of it moves around already wealthy people.
how many poor people get a cut of that investment cycle?
and typically successful people don’t create redundant jobs, having more money does not translate into more employees. if they use it to expand businesses, it can. but even then, most of it stays in their pocket.
money is indeed zero sum, thats where its value comes form. an economic system that is not zero sum is either, crashing rapidly or its already been replaced.
Money flows through an economy. It does not stay in a rich man’s pocket if he pays a worker who buys shoes made at a company he has stock in. It also goes to pay the people who made those shoes, and those who sell those shoes.
Your argument contradicts itself by stating that money stays in someone’s pocket even when it doesn’t.
The greater factor is how easy is it for someone who has little to gain more money and become rich. IE: Economic Mobility.
If people are stratified into classes, either by tyrannical rule or by heavy regulation and taxes, money slows and economic mobility slows too. If people are free to rise and fall in an economy based on their merits, with less regulations and less taxes, economic mobility rises, and money moves faster through the economy.
The easier it is to make a new business from nothing, the more jobs and money there are available.
my argument only contradicts itself if u are implying that business owners never see profit, that they can’t possibly pay their staff and keep anything for themselves.
u have heard of profit, yes?
and if u really believe that regulations and taxes impede economic mobility then u need to;
1) brush up on ur history, we have tried the alternative. can u guess why that changed?.
2) stop voting. u don’t have to guess, ill tell u; it don’t fuckin work. people still keep trying it and it keeps failing… has anyone ever told u the definition of insanity? (couldn’t help it, too fitting)
lets pick a regulation at random…say, minimum wage. do u think if we get rid of that then employers will pay people a livable wage, just because they should?
did u miss the part where even with that law, we need protests demanding the government raise minimum wage specifically because employers won’t pay a living wage unless forced?
do u not see the conflict here? i’ll double ur money for u, just put it on the table, turn around and count to 5000. trust me.
Employers don’t pay people a livable wage WITH a minimum wage in place.
Which is honestly the best argument I’ve ever heard for a maximum wage.
Old 06-30-2013, 10:07 AM
Daikaiju’s Avatar
Daikaiju Daikaiju is online now
King Of Space-Time
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 10,855
Default
“You’re saying humans need … fantasies to make life bearable.”
REALLY? AS IF IT WERE SOME PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
“Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-?”
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
“So we can believe the big ones?”
YES. JUSTICE. DUTY. MERCY. THAT SORT OF THING.
“They’re not the same at all!”
REALLY? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME… SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point-”
MY POINT EXACTLY.
YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN’T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?
Exactly. Sir Terry was an atheist who wished he could believe because he saw the absolute human value in it. I suspect in the end he found himself pleasantly surprised.
It’s quite clear from his writing that he had passed the practice stage and did believe in the big lies that contain absolute human value. Justice. Duty. Mercy. That sort of thing.
Sadly, in the later of Terry Pratchett’s writing, there was a LOT of open bitterness at the state of the world. Unseen Academicals is almost unreadable due to that, despite me agreeing with what’s pointed out there being a problem.
Somewhere The Avatar from Ultima is frothing at the mouth and sharpening his sword.
I always wound up with Compassion on top.
Quinoa. The root of all evil.
What else are you going to use money for?
I always thought quinoa was a grain, not a root. As an Irishman, I have to disagree; potatoes are the root of all evil!
The potato plant produces tubers, which are botanically defined as enlarged underground stems or rhizomes containing a food reserve. Although, I will admit ‘the tuber of all evil’ does not sound as dramatic.
Sweet potatoes on the other hand ARE roots, so you can malign them all you want.
FYI, quinoa is not a grain, but is related to amaranth and along with plants like buckwheat (which is not actually wheat) are classified as pseudocereals, plants that produce seeds that are used like grain.
The starch of all evil!
Oh great. He philosophises on human nature too.
Methinks there are a few holes to Deus’ “philosophy”. To wit:
Panel 1: Equivocation of the word “greatest”. Does he mean “most powerful” or “most ethical”?
Panel 3: Assumes that most marriages are indeed based on real love rather than economic reasons or lust.
Panel 4: Having an abundance of resources is not in itself greedy. Rather, it is what does with such an abundance and why that determines whether it’s an act of greed or charity.
Panel 5: Envy and lust: why are these considered types of greed rather than the other way around? What he fails to notice that they simply contain a common trait in that they treat people as objects rather than people.
Diligence: while monetary reward may be the most common reason for diligence, it is possible to be diligent without it.
Panel 3: Which just reinforces his point: marriage is a financial institute, rather than one of love
Panel 4: Acquiring that abundance (implying beyond basic needs) is greed; why would you continue collecting if you needs have already been met?
Regarding panel 3: That is valid only if he means “greatest” as “most powerful”.
Regarding panel 4: If someone collects more than he or she needs for the purpose of sharing the excess with someone who needs it or for fair exchange of an excess of goods that someone else has, where is the greed?
Panel 4: who said anything about sharing or distributing?
His Religion sounds a wee bit like Hedonism, in which the desires of the self surpass the desires of the many. (Needs and Desire = Wealth and Hospitality (Financial Health^Communal Wealth)
Incorrect. The maxim held by hedonists isn’t the desires of the self about all else, but rather a desire to maximize the amount of net pleasure/happiness in the world which is an entirely different matter. In fact, most of the time, they believe that means maximizing the pleasure/happiness of other people, while minimizing their pain.
Basically, what Deus believes in entirely different from hedonism.
Is it just me, or is his scar getting larger?
I assume the scar is the fastener for his man suit.
Speculation: his scar is a magic mark sort of thing, like Vehemence’s, but us powered up by greed.
Ayn Rand patron saint of the greedy, psychopaths and all the ships with sea. Boys and Girls go for it, if you do it who cares if someone dies? Someone becomes poor? No need, they are wimps, weaklings who care for others at the expense of the One. You. If you wish to indulge in charity, go ahead. Not important either way….and so on. The inverse of the 7 Deadly Sins ans Virtues. Where the “superior” man “is missing that organ for empathy that binds him…” and so on. Well our economic system looks like it has been written by psychopaths. To all of our detriment. This guy is a shining example. Well done writing that character.
Everybody criticizes Ayn Rand. I wonder how many know that Objectivism STARTS with a strong morality.
I wonder how many people ignore that fact because the bigger critics of Ayn Rand ignore that, and cherry pick the most easily twisted quotes.
People also ignore that going the same distance in the opposite direction gets communism and socialism, which are even more dehumanizing than the accusations leveled at Objectivism.
I understand Deus’ thinking and I do tend to think that Greed is a powerful motivator and perhaps even the most productive of sins, however I disagree with his argument that all other sins and virtue are merely aspects of greed. A Greedy and an Evious person don’t really see other’s possession the same way. A greedy person merely want what the possession of his neighbor, an Envious on the other hand also want his neighbor not to have them anymore, the Evious could burn a nice house because someone else own it, the Greedy would never do that because he can’t own something if it’s destroyed.
I believe there is actually a parabole about that in fact, some saint appeared in front of two mens, and tell them “I can grant a wish to one of you, and it will happen, however the other one will get double what you wished.” But both mens are sinful, one is greedy, the other is envious. The Greedy one doesn’t want to wish first because he can get more that way, but the Evious one doesn’t want the other to get more so the Envious wish to become blind in one eye so that the other will become completely blind.
But even ignoring that, how does Wrath fit in Deus’ theory? How does Sloth? Sloth is almost the opposite of Greed. Yes rich people can afford to be slothful, but if you start out slothful you’re not going to get rich, too much effort even if it would be easier in the long run.
Also actually I believe the sins have been reduced from their original definition. Wrath isn’t limited to anger, it’s the sin of letting your emotions take control. Lust is the sin of seeking pleasure only for the sake of it it doesn’t have to be sexual. Gluttony is the sin of excess not only in feed but in anything…
And I went on a rant, sorry, I’ve been thinking about this stuff for a possible story so it’s been turning in my head for a while.
If Time is a commodity, then Sloth can be defined as “The aggregation of Time for the purpose of Self.” Sloth is about keeping as much of your Time for yourself as you can, and letting other people spend their time dealing with things you don’t want to.
Sloth is Easy.
It’s possible Deus believes this only enough to create some interesting sound bytes. Well, no, he believes it, but acknowledges you have to be a little twisty to make some of those connections, like I mentioned in the comment.
That 1
cupwish 2 guys thing is interesting. I’m positive there’s a way to game it. Actually, it seems pretty simple; “I wish for him to get $1 million in gold.” That way, guy 2 gets $2 million and is immediately given to guy 1.There’s probably a better solution. There’s got to be some amazing math trick that would blow that problem away.
Mr Deus: high priest of Mammon, god of money.
This is pretty much exactly what the Ferengi from Star Trek believe. I would like to see Sydney point that out to Deus.
Only if Sydney ever watches this episode of “Money Talks” (or what ever her show is called)
I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe someone mentioned this already; Deus’s theory is effectively a re-wording of St. Augustine’s “incurvatus in sei.” The idea being that even when we’re being “selfless,” we’re actually being selfish in some way. We act virtuously not simply for the sake of virtue, but because we think we will achieve some sort of tangible benefit from our actions. It’s part of the argument (in Christian orthodoxy) for original sin. Whether you believe that or not, trying to follow the string of motivation back to yourself as a mental exercise can certainly be enlightening.
Sounds like a way for nobody to win, ever. That incurvatus is just encouraging everyone to micromanage themselves until they freeze in inaction. And then that’s a sin too! Leave it to the orthodoxy to come up with a way to make charity sinful.
That was, in some sense, the point. “Incurvatus in sei” is basically saying the same thing as the prophet Isaiah: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away” (Isaiah 64:6). This is expounded by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” St. Augustine was making a case that we, as sinful human beings, are completely incapable of righteousness, and that the only way to salvation was through faith in Jesus Christ. So yes, the entire point is that nobody can win, ever. Unless it’s a person for whom selfishness is inherently not sinful. i.e., God.
TL;DR, Yes, you are correct in your statement.
So, Deus for Orange Lantern. Gotcha.
When DC created the orange lantern corp they showed a stunningly huge lack of imagination and named the head of the order ‘Agent Orange’.
Umm, what? Larfleeze is the Orange Corps, there are no other members
I admit to not reading the relevant comics themselves. I was basing my comments on review articles posted online. Apparently, not everything on the internet is true. Who would have thought?
I think Agent Orange was an arc title. I read the comics, but sold them a couple years ago.
I do recall Agent Orange being used/referenced a few times. *Checks.* Yep. Agent Orange was the title of the Green Lantern comic arc that introduced Larfleeze.
Oh god he’s gonna go all Greed-power, isn’t he? First Wrath, now this.
On the seven sins, https://www.novelupdates.com/?s=Lazy+king is excellent at showing the comparison between some of them in the extreme.
The main character is so lazy it gives him sloth powers
How very… Ferengi.
Wow. Love the characterization of this guy. Very demented. Hope the greed pitch isn’t something you agree to also. However, I think there are two loopholes to the greed that can’t be reduced into a factor of greed. Trust being one, because people trust long before they know better, and way before they know anything to want or need to be greedy for. (Newborns.). The other loophole is possibly just as demented outlook on the most powerful modivation, but it also is hard to pair with greed. Fear. There we go. Love the story so far, keep it going. :)
Deus reminds me of my college english teacher! For like an hour in class he tried to convince us that money is the most important thing in the world.
What tax would he be able to avoid though? Is he planning to set up some sort of temple? Somesort of asset transfer ruse? Not familiar with the American system, but here, big companies manage to get around plenty of tax without having to exploit charity exemptions, so doesn’t seem like it would be worth the work.
Anyway, the comments does make him seem more of an amoral bastard which makes sense.
Though I do disagree with him, everything he says can be taken one step further and derived from selfishness. But that wouldn’t suit the wall Street thing he’s got going on.
See, I would have said they were all facets of gluttony. As gluttony is the overindulgence to the point of harming yourself, along with no concern for harming others. Greed being the selfish accumulation of wealth, lust the accumulation of sexual pleasure, envy the desire for accumulation of anything anyone else has at all without the desire for others. Most of the other sins are designed to be entirely self gratifying and not cause the indulger harm (quite the opposite). Meaning that Deus showing a bit of the opposite of Gluttony, Temperance.
Likewise each Virtue is a facet of Temperance, as they are controlling yourself in a certain aspect at your own detriment and to other’s benefit, rather than mindlessly indulging without care for yourself or others. That and the one thing Deus got wrong is that charity can come from giving your time, or what little you have, rather than accumulated wealths. Though since he is obscenely rich, I can’t exactly blame him for going straight to money as a base unit.
…Shit, I wonder if I can make this a religion.
All this Philosophical Bullshit over a webcomic…
I am sad, or glad none of you have positions of political power.
What a glorious war it would be.
3 PPCLI “First in the field.”
Wow, I’m either seriously twisted or shockingly honest, because try as I might to refute Deus’ theory, it ain’t working. The man is right. People err in their basic concept that greed always involves money. Money is just a way of keeping score that we’re comfortable with. Of course, as someone mentioned above, greed is really just an extension of fear, our prime motivator.
Yes, fear even trumps pleasure…by a long margin. Guys, if you will…imagine you are guaranteed the opportunity to have the wildest craziest sexual escapade of your life with the partner of your dreams. However, as soon as you have finished, she is guaranteed to nail your testicles to a chair. (Sorry, not a female, so can’t reasonably conceive an equal choice for the ladies)
*Anything* you do, you get something from it. Not necessarily money, of course. Answer me this, anyone: *why* is contributing to charity a good thing? Pretty sure the `main’ reason or rationale is “it’s the decent thing to do” or similar sentiments. Warm fuzzies from being decent is your payoff.
Marriage? Marriage is a social contract aimed at assuring *your* superlative genes are passed down. (Yeah, it’s not a guarantee and that’s why, personally, I think the time for marriage as an institution is past). Marrying for `love’ is a fairly recent addition to the old contract.
And seriously? “In fact it’s only due to people hoarding wealth that charity is even necessary”? I’m hoping that was sarcasm. In absolute terms, charity is *never* necessary; it’s a social construct aimed at broadening our genetic pool once society developed beyond hunter-gatherer. No one is *owed* charity; charity is an investment predicated on the ideal the recipient is/will/does contribute to the society. Hoarding wealth is not the problem; the problem is our current worldwide society’s concept of entitlement…that simply because you exist, you `deserve’ certain things. If you don’t have it, someone who does should give it to you because otherwise it “isn’t *fair*!!!” Me, I’m fond of the desert island/mountain-top school of thought: drop you on a deserted island or a mountain-top, and whatever you have or get…there you go. That’s what you `deserve’. I’m as far from rich as it’s possible to get, and you know what? Nobody owes me a damn thing. It’s all on me; no excuses, no shame. I hoard my pitiful amount of wealth, sure…because I am no better and no worse than any other person out there. Rich people, poor people…they’re all just people. Nothing inherently noble or blessed or special about any of them. We can’t see the forest called `humanity’ because we’re all so fixated on the individual trees. We want *our* tree to be the biggest/tallest/bestest ever.
Now tell me that isn’t greed.
Aaaaand yeah…if I were a Super in this universe(or even a normal human with skills he needed), I would definitely be working for Deus. Can’t help but agree with his logic, I know he’d pay well, and he’s got a sense of humor I like…rare in bosses :)
I think it would be interesting to see Deus’s take on Buddhism after hear this, since large chunks of the philosophy can be summed up as “desire is the cause of evil in the world, and the solution is to WANT LESS rather than GET MORE.” … That’s a gross oversimplification obviously, but I’d still be interesting to know the character’s thoughts in that regard.
It would be argued that a Buddhist’s ultimate goal is to reach true enlightenment and become the next Buddha.
I see Deus is thinking with portals! XD Aperture would approve! (Glados not so much though…. ;-) )
Because it feels like a challenge…
Sloth is Easy.
If Time is a commodity, then Sloth can be defined as “The aggregation of Time for the purpose of Self.” Sloth is about keeping as much of your Time for yourself as you can, and letting other people spend their time dealing with things you don’t want to.
Vanity, likewise, is collection of the commodity of Self. It’s all about having better “me” than anyone else. All things can be sacrificed or sold to improve the quality of “me”. And what’s Greed if not having more and better stuff than anyone else.
Humility is one of those interesting Greeds which is about collecting a Null set. As opposed to Fame, which is the collection of attention and recognition, Humility is the collection of Anonymity. Humility is all about having as much unrecognized value as you can possibly get, and being Humble means that if you ever are recognized for something, you quickly try to downplay the worth of what you did, so as not to squander your ‘clean slate’. The more recognition a Humble man gets, the less Humility he will have.
Actually, I’d disagree with your perspective of humility. It fits with the idea of valuing humility, so in a sense it can be twisted that way if humility is strived for as a prize. But from what I can tell humility is something completely different. It’s thinking of others or their contributions as better then your, or at the very least equal to the best that you can offer. Not taking credit for charity or kindness because the person thinks anyone else would do the same is humbleness in view of everyone being equal to your best qualities. Not approaching a talent of yours in from of others because your emberresed, ashamed, or think everyone else is better then you can also be considered humble. That kind of humbleness is more about being ashamed of yourself, or being in the presence of others you see as greater then yourself. No one wants that kind of humbleness. Or. Wants to be treated sourly and contend that they deserve it. The flipside of humbleness isn’t just n attitude. It’s being humbled and humiliated and accepting it. I don’t wish that hardship on anyone, though I think there are times when we all need to be taken down a notch for our benifit and those around us.
I feel that his holy book would be “The Rules of Acquisition”.
Deus is the first Ferengi, or at least, they ‘acquired’ his teachings sometime in the future :P
Gods don’t fare well around Ferengi, especially once they realize they can sell one…
We’re into the “negative rights” vs “positive rights” debate here.
Some rights are best framed as things that others cannot do to you, or take from you, or demand from you. Other rights can only be upheld through imposing an obligation on others around you to actively provide something.
I’m a much bigger proponent of the former than the latter.
(That was supposed to be a reply to an earlier sequence of posts about whether people have a “basic right” to be supported by others if they can’t support themselves…)
i bet he knows all the rules of acquisition.
How about the square root of all evil? I think this song is kind of on point … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3uwk_WTCaE