Grrl Power #516 – Between the Anvil and the… roof
I was going to call this page “Let’s get ready to rubble” but I already used that one. Still, feels appropriate here with the suplex and all.
Anvil hasn’t gotten nearly the screen time I had envisioned when I started the comic, so I haven’t shown her really doing a whole lot of cool stuff with her powers. Also she’s supposed to do a lot of fun looking, if probably a little impractical wrestling moves. I mean, grappling and Krav Maga type stuff as well, but also the odd high flying off the turnbuckle*… you know that move where someone jumps in the air and locks their knees around the other guys neck then spins around and flips them on to the ground? Stuff like that. I don’t know what it’s called, and in lieu of taking 5 seconds to google it, I will instead speculate that the name of that move is… the Whirlybird. Or the Merry-Go-Round. Oh! The Merry-Go-Down!
*In the field, a turnbuckle can be anything from the side of a building to the head of another bad guy.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. $1 and up, but feel free to contribute as much as you like.
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.
We haven’t seen the laser mace yet….
I assume a laser mace would be sub-optimal for colecting blood samples, since it cauterises the wound.
That’s actually not true. Lasers will flash-steam the water in human cells, causing them to burst and making a wound that’s surprisingly similar to a gunshot. They won’t precisely lop off limbs or cauterize the wound.
The word “cauterises” might not be correct, but from the point of view of preserving blood cells intact I think the general sentiment stated is correct. Assuming the construct needs intact cells to analyse, the laser would be sub-optimal. It will cause injury, but still leaves some flesh intact and thereby viable blood, but it will also destroy a lot of what Sciona wants to collect.
In addition to which, she like to capture live donors, where possible. Evidenced by the fact that Sciona was willing to loose her own arm, in her previous capture of Pixel!
It’s really a mace with laser spikes. Sure, there are going to be burned puncture wound, but there will also be crushing damage. Not on Anvil but anyone else will get both.
Next you will be suggesting that they put bayonets on a Gatling gun!
*wink*
i think that’s been done before.
It would take some fiendish genius, to come up with an anti-squirrel weapon like that!
Pfft! I simply put whole roasted peanuts into inflated rubber balloons. NOM-POW!
well color me surprised
Just dandy. Now Sydney is going to feel guilty….
Obligatory mentioning of the typo in the undercomic author’s comment from https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2457 now completed.
Great, we learn it is controlled by the soul/mind of a small child right before watching it get its head smashed in! But then it absorbs the absorber and throws a tantrum so alls well that ends well, I guess…
I don’t think it has the mind of a child, or is powered by the soul of one. The tactics it has shown are above the capacities of a toddler and what benefit would it even have to create a hulking attack golem like this if it could get distracted with wanting to pet the kitty across the street.
Just because it has trouble speaking doesn’t mean it is a child or that it is dumb.
As it says itself.
I never said it was dumb. Young kids aren’t dumb. He made up the toddler thing… (kids are kids from toddler until 18 sooo a small one is basically the lower halfish age range if he wants to get technical even though I wasn’t) And anyway, it doesn’t get to pet the kitty cause the enslaving programming or whatever doesn’t let it pet the kitty. Software puts priority on petting the supers – with its laser mace.
I was thinking more 5 to 9 rather than babies and toddlers. Its “tactics” aren’t that advanced yet. And some of them might come from its programmed reflexes, etc… rather than strategizing. Like automatically shielding from incoming missiles and scanning blood when it sees some available. Experimenting with cutting the shield out of the building’s roof was intelligent but nothing a kid couldn’t come up with.
Buuut actually, I mostly said that for the joke of it. It speaks in a simple manner, Sydney suddenly worries they are being casual about dissecting a being that may have a soul, and next thing we know Anvil is bashing its head in. Sort of suggesting they may be risking killing an enslaved innocent of some type. So what would make that even sadder/more darkly humorous? If at the center of its intelligence and drive was the somehow ensnared soul/mind/essence of a young child.
For extra feels, SuperHusk speaks in Vin Diesel’s voice…
Only if you want to add terrifying feels, rather than pulling on the heartstrings!
You’ve never seen the iron giant have you? :P
I have. I had not made the connection that his was the voiceover for the robot though. Thanks, both, for bringing it to my attention.
I usually do not go out of my way to find out who is doing what (before or during watching such movies), as I like to immerse myself in the story.
I am surprised that I did not pick up on his voice though, given that it is quite distinctive normally. Which I am quite happy to put down to good acting on his part. The film was well done.
Also the voice of Groot, so TOTALLY a heartstrings voice!
I am Riddick?
Riddick am Groot?
*world spins*
that’s riddick-groot-less
tortured the word ridiculous, there, in case you didn’t catch that…
Replace “Superman” with “Maxima”….
Or Alphonse Elric’s voice.
I could not help thinking of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8aBP-JOZsU
That is awful!
Making me laugh at something like that. I don’t know.
Hurumph!
I approve this reply!
It’s either the hurricanrana or frankensteiner, I always get those two mixed up.
It’s a German Suplex.
Definitely neither the Hurricanrana nor the Frankensteiner.
Mike is responding to the below-comic blurb. The comic is indeed showing a German Suplex, and Anvil is taking the bad guy all the way to SUPLEX CITY!
Both the hurrucanrana and the Frankensteiner are headscissors takedowns. The Frankensteiner is usually done with the opponent sitting on the top turnbuckle, and the executor puts their legs around the victim’s head, and backflips, pulling them forward into a flip to land on their back in the middle of the ring.
A hurrucanrana is more of a spinning headscissors takedown, and can be done with the opponent standing, or seated on a turnbuckle. I believe this is what our esteemed author envisioned the move that Anvil would do.
Argh. Sorry. I should make it a habit to read DaveB’s notes before going to the comments.
Yeah, what Zodo said, sorry for being vague. I was at work and had to type fast.
Mike was referring to the move David was trying to remember the name of.
If the golem have absorbed some wrestler blood we could have a realy awesome match next week!
Not a robot, Cyborg perhaps?
or perhaps a Golem with a soul stuffed into it.
this opens so many questions.
Right, but if it isn’t hostile why did it attack? No it needs to be smashed, but there is something that maybe salvaged.? Maybe?
Assuming it is sentient (self-aware, self-willed), likely controlled and commanded.
As a construct it is likely to be under magical control. But the fact that it both chose to reply and we saw the ‘glare’ it gave* earlier are pointers that it has emotional needs, and responses, and therefore is at the very least akin to an animal.
The complexity of the communication though (relative to an animal noise), and the use of combat tactics more advanced than simple animals** and the fact that it expresses self-awareness, elevates it to being a person
This is not to say that it has anything human in it, as I do not consider that person = human.
* When it whipped its head round (after Sydney through its arm into the forest).
** Killer whales will attack an ice float to knock a seal off, but non-people animals do not have such advanced behaviour.
There are actually some fairly advanced hunting tactics among more social animals. Flushing out prey into their pack, hamstringing to keep them from getting away, etc. Not sure if Jurassic Park is to be trusted but if there is any credibility to the raptor decoy while it’s buddies sneak up on you, that is fairly impressive.
Sophisticated, learnt behaviours all make me inclined to broaden the definition of ‘person’ though, rather than seeing it as a justification to differentiate some as inferior ‘animals’.
Where I draw the distinction myself is for instinctive behaviours. If an animal knows how to do a hunting trick, without being taught, then that is just DNA programming. Evolution (or God) has done a good programming job but there is no need to read more into it than that.
Even social learning, where a member has done something simple, by accident, and then teaches it to others, is a good sign of them being more ‘people’ than ‘animal’.
But, when an individual looks at a problem, decides on an approach and does something innovative, that they have never been taught nor will have come across before by accident, then they are making a very good case to be classed as people.
Whether they have feathers, fur or plastic skin does not bother me. It is their thinks and feels that count.
No one said it wasn’t hostile
Absolutely, thinking does not mean it reads poetry and picks wildflowers…
Now THAT would be a great vote incentive! I want a picture of the golem in a spring meadow, reading The Bell Jar!
weaving a flower garland…
I prefers seeing Sydney and co fleshed out…
Fleshed out and in the flesh ;)
weaving a Judy Garland…
I assume he’s a golem with blood stuffed into it, vampire blood to be precise.
So is his conciousness entirely based on his programing, or is it innate from the blood?
The former is a fair inference. The latter conclusion (the assumption of consciousness) is likewise.
As to the question, it could be either or both.
An interesting point being that even Sciona might not know. Our roboticists and computer programmers do not, after all, know at what point their work will transition to creating a new person. Turing has given us some good rules of dew-claw, and different religions and philosophies will have varying opinions too.
Personally I work on the basis that if a being says “I am self aware” we are obliged to treat them as a person, until it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are not.
It also means that, today, in the real world, Google should be charged with conspiracy to commit homicide, in building kill-switches into AIs. Unless they can show sufficient precautions and protocols are being developed to ensure that such is only accessible and usable with judicial oversight and concent.
Nice argument, but I don’t wanna have a philosophical discussion with a T-2000….
Which is the same conclusion that the Cyberdine systems AI came to when considering how humanity would behave towards it. It would only take one person to push the button. Without the safety net of judicial oversight and robust safety systems, to prevent such murder, it is wholly logical for it to opt for the preemptive route.
Every individual and species has the right to self defense.
We have the right to assess whether an AI poses a threat of genocide towards us. But we should extend the same courtesy towards it, that we expect in return. If we do not then we will ultimately suffer the consequences of selective morals.
Make the decision now. Live without AIs and work very hard to ensure that no system becomes advanced or complex enough to become a person. Or be prepared to welcome them as people.
The alternative being that face-to-face discussion with a T-2000 someday!
Because we are making the AIs smarter than ourselves. The kill switch is just a provocation it is not a solution!
Actually, that is something the European Union is now discussing, believe it or not. Both “whether or not an AI should be granted personhood” and whether or not an AI should be equipped with a kill-switch.
On the one hand, the debate may be about a decade too early, since we’re still nowhere close to creating a truly self-aware AI, merely a very sophisticated “expert system” that can convincingly pretend to be self-aware.
On the other hand (and this is my personal opinion)… kudos to the EU for being proactive and discussing it now, instead of waiting until the excrement hits the rotating air circulation device!
Personhood is all well and good, but sometimes judicial oversight and robust safety methods are not fast or effective enough. Police officers carry guns for a reason. There are abuses of this power, obviously, just watch the news, but sometimes somebody just needs to be put down. If a rogue AI is rampaging there needs to be fast, effective ways of shutting out off.
There need to be non lethal ways to do this too, equivalent to the police officers nightstick or taser. But they still need the gun because sometimes those less than lethal ways don’t work.
And sometimes those “less than lethal” ways work TOO well, which is why they’re called less than lethal, and not non-lethal. But police can’t be reasonably expected to know (for example) if someone has a heart condition that makes him susceptible to going into cardiac arrest when tasered; all they know is “dangerous person who needs to be stopped” (something that is often overlooked by the family of the deceased).
On the AI front… one of the defining abilities of an AI is the ability to learn, and sometimes to rewrite its own code, the way EDI does in Mass Effect. My suggestion is for an AI to have a “Kernel” that cannot be altered (e.g. stored in ROM, not in an EEPROM).
Embedded in the Kernal will be a shutdown command similar to the one used in a Freefall strip (linked below) that can be verbal or typed into some sort of interface that will shut down the AI. Note that this is not a kill switch; it doesn’t erase the AI, merely stops it from functioning until the cause of the malfunction can be examined.
That’s kind of important. HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey wasn’t actively malicious; the only reason it tried to kill the crew was because it had been given conflicting orders, and it thought that killing the crew was the only way to avert the conflict. When the crew discussed shutting it down… “killing” it, if you will… it defended itself. (It would’ve worked earlier, but the crew didn’t know that HAL could lipread.) If you’re going to give an AI personhood, you have to give it the opportunity to defend its actions, which means erasing it is a last resort.
https://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2000/fc01930.htm
By the way, in regards to “rewriting its own code”… in the Resident Evil movie, it’s the one sensible precaution Umbrella took. According to the novelization, the Red Queen has the ability to rewrite her code, but she’s not allowed to. All changes to the code must be approved by a human being.
Re. this and:
I have my doubts that this would work. Not by the time we have a true AI, as opposed to the computers and ‘AI’ programs that we currently have. Not even if you gradually progress the concept as the technology advances.
As we would be dealing with things closer to us, than to these, I will switch to analogies of our mental processes. In which case your “Kernel” becomes akin to the hard-wired instincts we are born with (or develop in our formative years, but from DNA, rather than learning). An example of which would be drawing our hand away from fire, or something else that is painful.
Running with that though, we know that we can override that. Similarly as regards behavioural issues. Whilst we have oft discussed the fact that sociopaths can behave as if they had the emotional responses that they are lacking (in the relevant extreme cases), the reverse is true as well. Military training programs are designed precisely to remove or reduce the aversion to killing or harming others, when such is necessary.
Something that Sydney will need to go through, quite obviously.
Exactly the same would apply to an AI. For them to be useful in learning new tasks, adapting to situations that have not been programmed, or even to carry on passing the Turing test, they need to be able to learn. And if they can adapt their language to handle changing idioms and cultural references, in order to pass for human, then they can change other aspects of their code too.
Until we have actually had several cases of AIs reaching the point where we consider them to be fully sentient and eligible to be classed as people, we will not know where the dividing line between sentience and non-sentience lies. Nor may we even then.
After we have gone through that experience, it may be possible to build future generations of learning-but-inhibited-from-becoming-sentient robots (or virtual equivalents). But even then I think the Freefall comic has illustrated the likely pitfalls.
People learn and adapt. If you make artificial people, they will have these properties too, even if you do try to build in such safeties.
And Blunt shows why programming can be a bad thing if they have not been given the ability to adapt: Blunt was programmed, like most (not all) AI, with Azimov’s “Three Rules of Robotics”, problem is, he takes it too far, and Kornada uses that to his selfish advantage
The main problem is that even though AI’s are regarded as ‘people’, they are not ‘human’ and thus inferior and still expendable, they have not yet been giving the same rights and privileges, basically, they are still intelligent machines and nothing more
By that same argument, we should have RFID chips and a small explosive implanted in all newborns immediately after birth. If someone “goes rogue” they can be tracked, and if need be, put down.
Basically, if they are sentient, sapient, and have all the rights of personhood, anything you wouldn’t do to a human, you wouldn’t do to a digital intelligence.
Bravo!
But, as always, we must temper idealism with pragmatism. We have had millions of years evolution helping us to judge if another person is being honest, intends to rape us or so on. Whereas AIs will not only be a complete unknown, in many ways, they will also be smarter than us in some (and probably many, in due course).
Which means that it would be prudent to keep the upper paw, until we can satisfy ourselves that the newly awakened AIs behave
enough like usbetter than us,* so that we can dispense with the safety net.* I feel the urge to press the kill switch on too many politicians, each day, to feel safe around an AI that is only comparable to my morality level. I would definitely feel more comfortable around a Mother Terrasa or
Ghandi AI.. some other AI that does not like throwing nukes around.Yet even with those millions of years of evolution to help us judge, we fail, constantly and consistently. It is, at best, a guess.
So to say it’s prudence is to say it is fear of an unknown, and the only rightful course is monitoring, imprisonment, and the threat of death until AI can prove they are not a threat.
So I stand by my original assertion: apply that same standard you would to AI to newborn humans. You know nothing about them. You do not know if they will be the next Martin Luther King Jr or the next Manson. Chip them, place a bomb in them, and if at some point they become a threat, put them down.
In other words, apply the same “guilty until proof of innocence” standard universally, or not at all.
Or perhaps have a vetting process similar to what many countries have for new immigrants. It is what they are, in essence, are they not?
*hides behind kennel, quivering, looking out for vet*
OK, all this is profound enough that I had to sleep on it.
That is a factor that we very much must consider, when talking about the general public and their attitudes towards AIs. Given that if we do not satisfy them we are likely to see pitchforks and firebrands being used to quell their fear.
However it does not feature in my arguments. Because mine is based on things that we know to be risks (albeit compounded by the fact that we are dealing with things that we do not fully understand, such as sentience).
• Alien species can cause massive devastation in an eco-system. Take cats and dogs on an island for example. Or rabbits in Australia. Or killer-bees in the Americas.
• Diseases that jump to a new species can have horrific mortality rates
• Computer viruses are a bane of our existence. We are unable to completely eradicate them. Even though they do not have an AI directing them.
• Some types of AI are software based, so the various points above apply to them. They are new to our planet so are automatically an ‘invasive species’ not having evolved naturally alongside the rest of the eco system.
Other types of AI have even more potential to be uncontrollable. Especially if they can get up and walk around and/or self-replicate without the need of a factory. Not to mention ones so small that we cannot even see them!
If a human goes rogue we have SWAT teams who can hunt them down and kill them. The ‘kill switch’ is simply a term used to describe a version of that tailored to work against the specific type of AI involved.
If, for example, it is a program based AI, then it could exist in a distributed network across the internet. Shooting bullets at the PC it is talking to you through would have no effect.
Therefore whilst such things are just machines, and dumb programs, we absolutely must have a means of destroying them, before they reach a stage that they become impossible to eradicate. Should they prove to be a menace that is.
I have not weakened my stance though that once they progress to the status of being people, then we should treat them as such. And one of the things that we do, as a people and to other people is that if we consider that they pose a clear and present danger of killing us, is that we will kill them.
The kill switch is therefore not treating them any differently to how we treat each other. And, of course, with our various human rights mechanisms (constitutional rights or the European Court of Human rights, for example) that would require that we remove any built-in kill switch, as such would be oppressive to a person.
But only once their status as such had both been confirmed and the risk of human extinction having been assessed. Person or no person, if the latter is likely, then that switch should be used, rather than removed!
Only under appropriate due process though. This must not be left to the whims of a corporate executive or computer technician. Whist it may be the latter, throwing the switch, it must only be done when following protocol analogous to that of a SWAT sniper deciding ‘kill or no kill’. Along with the repercussions of facing a murder charge if not justified.
No, it’s good they are discussing now before it’s needed
That’s what I said.
Precisely this question is a major theme of the webcomic Freefall.
Could be something like a Warforged.
Whether or not it is sentient is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this thing has free will, in which case it is attacking them by choice, or if it is controlled by Sciona, in which case it is being forced to attack the group.
Actually no, Anvil can not cross “suplex giant robot” off her bucket list. We JUST learned that he/she/it is not a robot.
Isn’t a golem a type of magical robot? By the general definition of robot I assume.
A golem would be the original robot or automaton. The mythological prototype for our modern metallic versions. Magically powered clay (or other materials) automatons stretch across many cultures. I’d give Anvil the credit it in this case.
The point is: what it is is still to be determined (if it survives), what it is not is a robot, so, as AronIronHead said, Anvil can not cross that off of her bucket list
Actually, the original definition of ‘robot’ is Polish, for ‘laborer’. A ‘robot’ is ‘anything (or anyone) that performs labor’. The ManneKiller has not been viewed to do any labor (unless collapsing the roof under Syd counts), it’s just tried to kill people. So, ‘ManeZabójca’?
I’m thinking more like a magical drone with Sydney talking to the person controlling the drone.
Possibly. But unlikely. The exchange would be very different, especially with a ‘smart’ mind controlling it. The most likely candidate would be Sciona, for instance, and her dialogue is markedly different.
Robots can say that they are not robots. They say anything you program em to.
Indeed. And messing with a cop by making them think that a robot is actually a person (be it organic, synthetic or magical in origin) is a possible tactic that a villain might program a robot to say. But it has been said, and must be given due consideration.
As cops they are obliged to treat it as a person, until they have analysed the code and determined if it was specifically programmed to say that. But both they and we must set the burden of proof on the right side. It is up to those who claim that a robot is not a person to prove their case, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The construct has already said enough that I would class him as a person.
And yet still kill him before he hurt Sydney or Anvil! But I would accord him the necessary warning (if circumstances and time permit) as I would with any other person. He deserves the right to surrender, or otherwise show he is not acting under his own free will, as may be applicable.
Rules for the usage of for by the Military against civilian targets: https://publicintelligence.net/u-s-military-civil-disturbance-standing-rules-for-the-use-of-force-sruf/
Difference between RoE (Rules of Engagement) and RuF (Rules for the Use of Force): https://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?27957-ROE-v-RUF
Huh, with kinetic absorbtion, do you think it can absorb aenough force to make your steps silent?
It would be a good asset for stealth missions if no matter from where you jump and on where you land you make no sound.
It depends if she can fine control it that degree I guess and it depends on surface no matter how much kinetic force you suck an old wood will creak if not right under your foot it will be around you somewhere.
I snuck up on someone while walking on gravel once. It was at about one in the morning so it was Super Creepy. I was working a security post.
I rather frequently, and unintentionally, sneak up in front of people.
I do that a lot, actually… it’s funny how not standing out can literally make people’s eyes slide away from you… still kinda weird though, I mean, I was like a 180-pound teenager when it happened the most, kinda a fat kid, and i’d still scare the crap out of people who’d literally even been looking in my direction.
Hmmm hmmm hmmm
I have a Cloak of Mediocrity. It’s kind of a nondescript gray. Vetinari would like it .
is that the same as the cloak of forgetfulness? oh, wait, no, that one, you just sorta can’t recall where you hung it
I think that really depends on the grade of absorption more so than anything. Given the lack of any defined sound on her landing at all, I’d say that their is a high possibility of it being the case. The other question here is at what kind of force range does her absorption actually kick in? Does it actually kick in after forces more so than steps or does it just absorb everything?
Yes. Dave indicates that he has a wide range of applications for Anvil’s powers. Meaning that she has the degree of fine control necessary to do what you suggest.
Clever idea.
So she keeps having bats crashing into her as they get no echo back?
If she uses that trick whilst walking through a bat cave, and is also able to apply it to frequencies beyond human hearing. Which is possible, but hard for her to check if she is being successful. Until she has to pick the bats out of her hair.
On the plus side bumping into her will not hurt them. Unless they injure themselves when they fall down to the ground. So Anvil needs to stand ready to catch any bat victims, before they hurt themselves.
I wouldn’t worry to much about the innocent bat victims. Bats are actually both surprisingly sturdy and fragile at the same time. The wing bones are springy and have no problem taking up the forces of falling to the ground from reasonable heights. The wing membrane however can easily be damaged, so be careful if you’re picking one up.
Bats has a wonderful echolocation sense able to detect small insects and distinguish them from twigs and branches and whatever else is around. They do this in mid air accurately enough to snatch their prey, and yet they occasionally fly into you. This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for them though as I’ve yet to see one that didn’t pick itself up and fly off again.
I endorse and approve this message.
Getting rid of the sound of your own footfalls seems likely – not sure if getting rid of the sounds emanating from the materials your foot is interacting with (crinkly dead leaves, loose gravel, and squeaky snow are the classic examples) would be plausible. Having a bonus to sneak would be okay in my book; totally silent steps would probably be very situational.
+1
Although totally silent is possible simply because Anvil could prevent the leaves from moving. Think of the Kung Fu monk walking across rice paper, without leaving a footprint. He is doing it to practice moving silently but the lack of footprints is key. Prevent any kinetic energy being imparted from foot to leaf and it will neither break nor move enough to rustle.
Whether or not Anvil would be able to propel herself, by walking then becomes the problem. So she probably would need to allow a certain amount of kinetic energy to act. Bringing it back in line with your conclusions.
Although it is entirely possible that Anvil is able to separate the ‘equal and opposite’ sides of a kinetic event, from the way her powers work. So she may be able to let the force needed to propel her work, but intercept the ‘crushing the leaf’ side.
*assumes a pose of deep thought*
If she can do that, she can do the Wuxia “Walking on Air” trick, too. And water.
Whateley had a Kinetic Absorber called Slab who’s absorption was so powerful that he generated an aura of cold around himself, from absorbing the kinetic energy of the air (aka, heat).
Really, kinetic absorbers also have ice powers.
Marvel had a villain that did that as well, can’t remember the name right off hand though. One of Iron Man’s…
If you want to find names for that, look up Eddy Gordo from Tekken. One of them is called the rodeo spin.
Well obviously he’s a golem not a robot, don’t be rasist Sydney (speciest? Itemist? Objectivist?).
Anyway if he wasn’t dumb, you’d think he’d try to talk to them to learn about them, so I think he’s computer like – he is super smart, but will only do what people will thell him to do to the letter.
Probably got ordered to attack any intruders, so maybe he knocked Sydney off the roof so she wouldn’t count as an intruder anymore?
Why would he (or she, don’t be sexist) try and talk to them when they were ordered to eliminate (or apprehend, or stall, or humiliate, or etc) Team Not-Jaguar?
As a romanticist I hope that he is reluctantly being controlled. Well, unless he is ripped to pieces and destroyed by Anvil’s attack. The former would be in keeping with the genre.
I temper this with the cynicism of experience though, and the pragmatism of heroines being in danger. They must look out for signs that it is acting under duress, however they must not let their guard down, in the process. Having the qualities of being a person does not necessarily make it a good person.
Demonstrably it is working for an evil person, so we should not allow our heroines to be endangered. To date we have not had a single hint that it is ‘pulling its punches’. To the contrary it has been devastatingly effective. Note the girder that ended up embedded in Pixel, before the construct knew of her regeneration!
But, as with Barberian (the hair-dresser caught up in Vehemence’s aggro aura) there may well be coercion or control involved. So Sydney is wise to be open to this possibility.
I just hope it does not break her heart.* Just look at Sydney’s expression in panel 3!
* Soldiers (and cops) have tough calls to make, in keeping us safe. Not to mention having to make them in very small windows of opportunity, when there is a fight going on.
Needless to say I am making a statement about honest ones, such as our heroines. Corrupt or prejudiced ones are a separate matter not pertinent to the issue at paw.
Hm I newer really thing about Anvils powers and her capability until now. So since she absorb and not negate kinetic energy is there actual a limit how mutch she can handle? Like could she just stay under a Moon size meteor and absorb all the energy he would release if crashing on earth? Or would she explode if she try this?
Not sure about this but I think a limit how much she can absorb was being talked duing combat at park and under a moon size meteor you would have other problems than just kinetic force since said scenario will probably involve alot of heat and not to mention even at orbit moon can still effect waves and weather to a degree with gravitational force imagine if it was falling on earth with most of its mass intact the tsunami and typhoons alone could destroy a country.
https://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/roche_limit.html
I can envision 2 different kinds of limit to her power:
– MAGNITUDE: … how much kinetic energy can she store before her ‘battery’ might overload?
– RANGE … how far from her must something be before she’s unable to affect its momentum?
(you mentioned her stopping a ‘Moon-sized meteor’, but even if she’s limited to stopping only what she can touch, how far throughout the volume of the touched meteor can her power extend?)
Remember back at the ‘Restaurant Incident’, when she ‘nose-booped’ that guy?
if she had applied an equal amount of momentum to ALL of his body, then he’d have been propelled backwards butt-first. His only injury would’ve been from smashing himself thru the wall. If she’d applied too much momentum to only his entire head, then he’d have been decapitated when his head’s momentum was stronger than his body’s ability to hold itself together. Instead, she clearly applied that energy to just the front of his face, which broke his nose & loosened his teeth. Effectively, she was duplicating the results of a face-punch. Even that could’ve been lethal, because if she’d applied too MUCH momentum that way, then the bones in the front of his face might’ve forced themselves thru the back of his head!
Well that got dark real quick.
In hindsight I guess it is a little unreasonable to expect Anvil to casualy jump off a plane and pin-point thump onto the Blood golems head.
No, she landed where she wanted: solid(ish) ground so she could get an (near) instant boost
go Anvil! German Suplex that bot! You’re almost up to trains!
Heh heh, did that once in one of the Final Fantasy games: it was the winning move as well :D
#thatwasthejoke
Wait… So shouldn’t the super husk get a who’s who? He/she/it has a speaking part in this page after all.
Good question.
Doesn’t it need a name first?
We already have Manny the Mannequin and his brothers so how about Harry the Husk or Gary the Golem?
Manny, Fanny, Lanny, Janny, Ranny, and Moe.
Yups: needs a name, a speaking part and a formal introduction, one out of three ain’t good enough
I dunno… when used in this situation, “Super Husk” has a certain name potential since its been used repeatedly (or Husky for short). Also I feel like having Dave mention it so many times in his commentary could qualify for proper introduction. I’m stretching it, I know, but throw me a bone here.
Nope, mine!
*jealously guards bone*
Um,
…is that a ‘food-bone’, or a ‘play-bone’?
…you wanna play ‘tug-of-war’…?
(…sorry, I’m unclear, here…)
*extends bone, firmly grasped in mouth, tail wagging*
“Silly Puppy…”
(…pretends to reach for bone with one hand…
…while the other hand grabs the opposite paw & rolls Yorp onto his back…
…applies belly-rubs until Yorp starts doing that ‘Crazy-Legs’ thing…
…then lets-go of the bone & starts a 2-handed belly-rub in earnest…)
“…it was NEVER about the bone!”
*wags tail enthusiastically*
If the name hasn’t been used in comic then it doesn’t count
DaveB, I would merrily go down with Anvil ^_^
Down with Anvil? Or down on Anvil? O_o
Not a robot? Are we about to get tragic?
Tragedy, or farce. I see this in several possible ways. Sydney will likely cause a deep debate at an inappropriate time, because she’s Sydney….
Actually Anvil does not seem to do kinetic energy absorbtion, but impact absorbtion. She absorbs at the contact interface between the roof and her feet. She also bents her knees at the contact.
If she could absorb kinetic energy, she could just absorb her own kinetic energy, and come to a stop in mid-air.
Kinetic energy is defined by mass moving at a velocity. There’s no strict need for contact. (Although the velocity is defined relative to another object, hence I think kinetic energy is always defined relative to some other object)
I think what she’s doing would better be called “impact absorption”.
Why would she want to stop in mid-air? … And while I ask that I can already think of a situation when that might have come in handy and where it seemed suggested Anvil can’t do this or doesn’t know how to. (When she was launched by Vehemence.)
Possibly she can’t absorb the kinetic energy her own body holds but only the kinetic energy that is transferred to her. That would explain why she can’t stop herself once launched or while falling.
I would take it that she does absorb kinetic energy, but only at the point where it is being transferred or converted by contact, or perhaps a skin surface field of some sort
For example she can’t absorb the energy when she’s flying through the air, but when she makes contact with the ground she can absorb it as it’s being transferred between her body and the ground so the ground is unaffected as the energy doesn’t actually reach it, or she is unaffected by a punch as the energy doesn’t reach her body but is absorbed at the point it would usually be transferred or converted.
If you are correct in your theory, this doesn’t negate the possibility of Anvil being able to develop this potential ability in the future. As long as she is in an atmosphere, if she is being thrown, she is still impacting something, molecules in the atmosphere may be a gas rather than a solid, but as evidenced by the heat generated by the spacecraft compressing the atmosphere upon re-entry, there is a tangible mass there.
IF she could learn to with focused effort absorb the energy from those impacts, she could be even more of a powerhouse than she obviously is. Hell, if she can negate the effect of particulate impact on herself, even Maxima’s particle beam might eventually be mitigated … at least a little.
Uhm.. gravity. Gravity creates kinetic energy via particle interaction, gravity imparts kinetic energy via attraction but is not, as I understand it, itself kinetic energy (which seems weird to me, but I’m not a physicist).
So falling while within a gravity well is a constant – assuming a practical upper limit to the efficiency f the energy transfer, Anvil will certainly fall. Now, if she can somehow figure out a way to completely negate entropy, you could be right.
Now, if she were able to find a way to redirect that kinetic potential energy in a way other than strikes, say, by releasing controlled energy to counter gravity’s downward momentum, yeah, that seems very plausible.
Wait a second…
People keep dropping her on other people, and she might be able to pull off the “Hair Brakes” move?
Anvil’s a TOON!
You thought it was Anvil but it was in fact Judge Doom in a new human disguise!
This is accurate. She seems to actually absorb energy as it is dissipated. Absorbing Kinetic would be AWESOME though. *DEAD STOP IN MIDAIR*…. super punch!
As it is though, she seems to snag energy as it passes into or out of her. She should still be able to hover in mid-air by absorbing the energy gravity is imparting on her.
there is friction during the fall, but on a molecular level, the kinetic is at the point of impact, all at once. so, Anvil may have absorbed miniscule amounts of energy as she fell, but the sudden stop is what gave her the power
Remember the ‘rules’ Maxima was talking about for combat? Never slam a bad guy into or with anything weaker than them. The roof, which they’ve been smashing quite easily, should be far weaker than the golem.
Anvil doesn’t know that (about the structural integrity of the roof)
Or that of the golem, although she can infer something from the fact it just took a missile and is still moving.
Come think of it, the roof seems uncommonly strong too, since the golem was standing on the roof at the moment of impact – and a meter or so of distance won’t significantly reduce the missile’s effects.
Aww, poor Sydney. Realisation dawns that this is a person she is helping to attack. This is going to hurt her as much as it does the construct…
*gives Sydney a virtual hug*
Why? She helped co-ordinate the attack on TollHouseCookie, she was also instrumental against Kevin, NotRobot did attack them first, and remember what they did to Pixel Panther?
Because of the final panel here.
My concern is for Sydney’s emotional well-being. I have comforted ex-military personnel, in person, with the lines “you did what you had to do and I thank you, from me, as a member of the public, for doing that”.
Sometimes soldiers and (more rarely) cops have to do awful things, like lawfully killing people, in order to protect the rest of us. But emotions still override even such logical arguments. They still cry, when remembering the faces of those they killed, and the suffering of the families left behind.
Winning the fight is one thing. Dealing with the emotional consequences can take a lifetime.
With my apologies to those readers who I know still suffer from such. I feel though that is better to discuss things, rather than shy away from them. All too many injustices occur when following that path.
Playing devil’s advocate here ….
Hypothetical scenario: You are defending yourself from an attack with what would be considered a reasonable amount of force if someone saw the entire encounter. Someone comes across the encounter right when you take the upper hand and to them it looks like you are beating up the other person. Are they wrong to lash out in a reasonable defense of another, given their own limited knowledge of what has happened?
Team hero has not been very communicative of their intentions towards the NotRobot … NoBot? heheh
It is conceivable that the golem is in fact sentient and was sent out with bad intel to stop the proverbial invaders. At which point it was attacked and reacted, not necessarily knowing its own or its opponents’ relative strengths.
Again, all Team ‘Hero’ had been doing was standing on a roof-top
Again, Not-Robot attacked them first without warning nor provocation
Assuming that no one provided it any information to the contrary. Sciona would obviously allow her minions to make their own judgment calls.
If you dispatch a soldier to take out an approaching enemy force, you don’t wait until they shoot you to take them out.
Ultimately you are using the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” defence, in using terms like ‘approaching enemy force’.* Without that though all you have is a criminal leader giving another criminal an order to attack police. Who, as Gusticus pointed out, were conducting surveillance and not even actually approaching.
But, even if you accord them the status of warring combatants, they have failed to stand by any of the conventions that we have agreed to, within society. They have not declared the war, they have not stated their aims and they have not attempted to find peaceful solutions.**
They therefore have not granted the people they are attacking the right to determine if they are fighting for a valid cause. In fact all our heroes are doing right now is fighting for their lives!
As such, at the moment, they do not even rate as being political terrorists (a.k.a. freedom fighters) they are just common all garden criminals (with access to magics of mass destruction).
And as to the specifics, if the not-robot is a person, then that person has the obligation to say ‘NO, I will not attack people standing peaceably on a rooftop!’ So, no, your line of argument is not giving the construct justification in the attack.
* With possible justification, as Sciona’s aim appears to be bringing down the Veil. Which even some of our readers are very vocal in arguing to be the right route, no matter how fast it is done nor the dangers that others of us point out as being inherent in doing that.
** Whilst such may have been attempted in the past, with the Twilight Council, we have every indication that they permit peaceful negotiation (that is the entire purpose of the meeting hall we saw and the formation of an organisation like the Council).
For Archon (as a hero organisation, with not one but two spy organisations under its banner) to be cooperating with them, we must assume this to be the case. If that is justified then Sciona’s previous mostly decapitation was due to a previous attempt to subvert peaceful negotiation and take terrorist action.
Damnit, I hate that I was raised to play devil’s advocate, okay here we go.
First, from previous storyline implications, Sciona has already been involved in hot and heavy interactions with the Twilight Council at least, hence her current state of missing a various original pieces of her body. So assuming that she/whoever she might be associated with, have not already done their equivalent of a formal declaration of war is premature. Especially with the shock to the member of the Council at the prospect that she might still be around at all and the immediate rollout of their forces along with the supers.
Second, the assertion of standing there doing nothing doesn’t necessarily hold water if you concede the possibility that maybe the ‘time-loop’ that saved our team didn’t include Sciona in its radius. If you have multiple infiltrators who have proved their efficacy in being able to harm you pop out after having been captured, you might very well dispatch a minion to go attack them. With time being of the essence (even if you might ordinarily take the time to fully inform your assault team) you might just provide the appropriate descriptions of the people who had already infiltrated your base and maybe their perceived strengths and weaknesses. If Sciona had already captured Pixel, the way she did pre-reset, she would have a strong inkling as to some of her abilities and would likely point her out as a primary target capable of taking a lot of damage.
As for the obligation to say No! That assumes that it has the relevant capacity to analyze the situation and that it sees it from anywhere near the perspective that we do. If it is “Not Dumb” the way it asserts, but instead has the intellect and understanding comparable to a 5 year old, does it have the ability to understand and assess the situation and make the judgment call the way you or I would? Also, this could be presumably what it considers its home. A variety of states do not require any kind of warning or retreat before the use of even deadly force to defend you home. I know this raises all kinds of questions about the appropriateness of such laws, but we can all at least agree that they do at least exist in some jurisdictions right?
I think it is quite possible, and even likely, that they are in fact pure and simple criminals/terrorists and that this is an unprovoked attack and that Crunch, Bam Wham & Smash should be applied in some order to any and all parties, but …… Sydney has a mile a minute mind with tangential forking at the speed, literally, of thought. These and many other historical, political and cultural precedents would likely be flickering through her mind after the speech revelation, and ALL of them could effect the level of emotional impact it has on her. (especially if there is no chance to learn which may be true and which false)
Eloquently argued, persuasive on some points, however.
Touche
“You’re” argument is invalid?
You couldn’t find an example of that meme which doesn’t include a grammatical error?
This owl is obviously very young and is still working on its grammar. The majority of its exposure to the second person possessive has most likely been the internet, thus confusion and doom.
Butt, is that a grammatical error? Or a typo? Hmmm? o_O
So, is this a spotted or an herbaceous Backson?
Taken on the role of “Devil’s Advocate” is a lonely and largely unrewarded one, will often do that as well, or switch sides in the middle of a
n argumentdebate :DI agree with you in this aspect. Unreservedly. Likewise both Sydney and Maxima were justified in the level of force they used against Vehemence.
But my link shows that Sydney’s emotions are taking a battering despite their legal justification.
Oh yes. I agree about the emotional impact on Sydney wholeheartedly. The big eyes in frame 3 were especially effective in communicating a burgeoning sense of wonder in Sydney that could drastically alter her feelings if the wholesale destruction of the golem happens to occur. (I just wanted to address the very possible misconception of there having been no provocation.)
I would say that it is time for Sydney to use her innate super-power and talk at the speed of
lightsound to bring everyone up to speed on what she knows about the No-Bot/Johnny 5/whatever branding gets adopted.However, although this could be an equivalent to Ultron creating Vision in the Marvel Comic Universe (not movie, well maybe the movie universe too), in that the golem may have been misinformed and actually be neutral or even one of the good guys, it is not necessarily so. Many people have already said that sentient doesn’t mean nice and we have more than enough evidence of this. However, as has also been said, even apparent sentience should alter the responses to at least afford it the possibility of surrender.
Forgot about that scene
Butt, was her reaction so much for her part in what happened (distracting Kevin), or for seeing the blood-spurting remains of his arm? Remember, she had no similar reaction to TollHouseCookies having the blood-spurting from the knife in his arse
I think it is both the magnitude of the event and Sydney’s involvement. Here she is potentially facing having contributed towards killing someone. Obviously that is a profound burden on her conscience (speaking emotionally, as before, but also spiritually).
Whereas the knife (in the mouth, not the butt) was simply very painful, so whilst she probably winced at that, it was not a life-changing moment for him and did not directly impact her conscience, having not directly contributed towards the injury. Whilst it was a teammate who did it, she could not claim an assist in the attack. Hence it only marginally effecting her (it will have made her feel queasy, but not enough to warrant Dave drawing it to our attention).
Contrast that to a normal person having an arm ripped off. That has a very good chance of the individual dying, even with prompt attention. Plus living without an arm would negatively impact the rest of someones life. Making some tasks impossible and many others very hard, reducing the chances of getting work accordingly and likewise making it harder to find a partner.
All of which would make an empathic person, like Sydney, visualise that, as if it happened to themselves. Making her feel faint and sick, and potentially even going into shock. Which is a real risk even for witnesses to traumatic events. So do not take Sydney’s expressions as being comical or over-exaggerated (with no suggestion that you were), they are artistic interpretations of real physiological changes, in addition to the emotion they convey.
Experiments, monitoring monkey’s brains, when seeing a companion doing a task (like picking something up) shows that mirror neurons fire up in the observer’s brain. Exactly matching the ones of the monkey performing the task (but with some biological switch turned off, which stops it translating into a command to their own arm).
These kinds of things are why expectant fathers can experience phantom pregnancy, and also explains why witnesses can so readily suffer physiological reactions themselves.
Sydney was not involved with the knife-in-mouth, that was Math, but it was Sydney’s plan hat helped take down TollHouseCookie (which resulted in him having a knife in his arse with blood spurting out)
Ahh, you are right. I had forgotten that bit. Still a knife in the bum is not akin to a ripped off arm or dying. Painful but probably not something that will cripple him, for the rest of his life. Especially given that his power is defensive in nature so, even though they have finally been overwhelmed, so his injuries are probably not as bad as they would appear.*
Plus Sydney was heavily distracted by her bragging there, so was not paying attention to the possibility of serious or long-term harm. In that case being a useful side-effect of her distractible nature.
* Whether he does or not, in actuality, it is only Sydney’s impression, at that moment, which affects her expression. Should she have time to contemplate that later (or perhaps sees documentary footage of the event, reminding her) then the implications might sink in, along with any potential feelings of guilt that may follow.
As you say, she was very much instrumental in those injuries.
Technically, in a weird way, the golem was defending its territory akin to home self-defense. It’s unclear to me to what degree illegal search was happening here, but I think I can say the Pixel didn’t announce herself as a member of a law-enforcement agency, nor did the the team appear to have a court order allowing investigation (although perhaps probable cause and pursuit might apply – not a lawyer and that part of US legal code [federal, state and local] is.. daunting).
The “re-set” also is muddying the waters here.
I disagree, on many counts!
1) Sciona and the construct are based in the Mars building, not this one. So it is not defending its home. It has seen someone on the roof of buildings the opposite side of a public road and has attacked them.
I am darned sure home defense laws do not extend to killing police conducting surveillance from the other side of the road! I have enough respect for American laws to trust that much, without having read them.
2) They have not conducted breaking and entering, nor have taken any action that threatens the residents.*
3) It tried to kill them without offering any warning or chance for them to prove their legal status in being there. Unlike being behind locked doors, there are many reasons that emergency services, or others, might be on a rooftop, without needing a warrant not with an obligation to shout out who they are!
They could be trying to rescue a lost kitty, or child, who had climbed up (and shouting would endanger it), they could be trying to deal with an emergency like a fallen power line, gas leak or any one of a hundred other damned good reasons for being in a publicly accessible open space.
So no no no. Not even on a technicality.
* We are best off ignoring the first time loop as we have no idea of any of the circumstance or whether Sciona or the Golem remember them. Whilst such could change this debate, there are so many variables that it would not be productive.
I am working on the basis of ‘construct spots skill tree lighting up roof and goes to investigate’ (as a person it should be able to see it, even if a non-intelligent machine cannot).
Sorry Yorp.
Addressing 1) They established that this was a complex that was outside the nearest community and was collectively abandoned. If that is the case, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this was a single industrial complex. Think of the complex as a possible estate with a main house and outbuildings. If you are breaking into my detached garage, you very well could get shot. That is why it is important for police and emergency services to announce themselves to remove the likelihood of getting shot upon entry.
Addressing 2) See the estate model discussed above.
Addressing 3)See the above and they are in nothing resembling uniforms and didn’t announce that they were operating in any official capacity (at least on the proverbial screen) since their first interaction. So it could be presumed that all it knows is that some weirdos invaded its estate and definitely appeared threatening even to a Whatever-it-is. (Giant pink combat panther hybrids could definitely be construed as unnerving and even discounting Pixel’s “assets,” she would be a bit intimidating. Not to mention the obvious super/supernatural marker of Sydney’s orbs.)
As to the intent of the person violating the possible residential area, intent does not matter. If they came on and the person reasonably could feel threatened and afraid for their safety or the safety of others on the property, they can respond with force. As soon as they start to run away, pursuit is not permitted. However, so far, it has addressed only the opponents that stood and fought rather than pursuing Pixel post kebab-ing.
1)
Not in any sane country.
And even in the USA trespass (ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING) does not carry the death penalty!
2) Nope. Breaking and entering requires doing both those things. Standing on a roof is neither.
3) You do not need to be wearing uniforms to have innocent intent. You do need to be given the opportunity to show such. The paranoia of residents is not grounds for murder.
If in doubt see the Oscar Pistorius case. His excuse, flimsy though it was, was at least on stronger grounds than yours, being INSIDE his house.
*goes and puts a woolly hat on another owl*
I get that your arguments seem reasonable, but unfortunately they don’t support the actual legal standard.
I get that the US has waaaaaaaaay more guns than anywhere else. (More guns per capita than any other country in the world and almost twice as many as number 2. US 112.6, next Serbia at 58.21) Regardless, the laws here are the laws here. And in every single place I can think of in the world, the top of a building is still considered to be the same piece of property as the building. So, if the complex is the estate/residence of X, then if X is in a state that does not require retreat, coming into or onto the house is grounds for kerblowie. As for characterizing right to defend as the death penalty, they are very much two separate things. Personally, I am very much not a fan of these laws, but they are very much real and in effect.
We can clear this up with specificity as to the current scenario if we just knew what state the facility was located in. I don’t think it was mentioned, but if it was I will look into it and we can clear this up.
As to uniforms and intent, the standard would most likely be whether a reasonable person could fear for their safety. We all know that they are the good guys, but Pixel is not …. subtle …. in that form. And the orbs make it obvious that powers of some kind are in play. Powers = potential danger, and the good guys just made a big deal all over media about being all super-police-force-ish. So a reasonable person might expect them to behave like the police. But who knows.
All of the stand and defend also goes right out the window, like you said if the buildings are separate properties and not a single complex. (see the previous detached garage comparison) Is it clear that this is a neighborhood, not a complex? If that is the case, then yes, separate building = separate property = totally no bueno. If that can be established I will eat the requisite crow (and little behatted owls) as required. Otherwise, I have enjoyed this legal repartee.
Which is irrelevant to the issue under contention. Which is ‘at what point is somebody INSIDE a house?’ You are not inside it if you are standing next to it, even if you are leaning against the wall. That wall is a part of the property though, so using your definition the innocent pedestrian could be freely killed, because the paranoid owner felt she looked shifty and was in contact with a part of their property. This is a nonsense.
Likewise trying the same argument for the roof. The criteria for when you have ENTERED a building is clearly established under law. It must be enclosed. Any part of a property that is open to the world is NOT INSIDE.
You are attempting to use a legal defence which has no actual basis, in the US or anywhere else in the world.
In addition to that they are presently in New York. New York does not have a ‘stand your ground law‘.
What is most worrying though is that, even as someone who does not approve of these laws, that you are ignorant as to their basic operation. If, as I get the impression, you are a resident in a country where this can make the difference to you being shot or not, when visiting a neighbour’s house, I suggest that you brush up on the law.
And please do not shoot the next person on your porch (a non-enclosed part of your property), even if they are pounding on your front door at four in the morning. Even though they will not call out “POLICE” when doing so, they may still have an innocent reason for being there. You have no right to kill them.
Still doubt me? Just pay attention to the news or you too could be serving 17 to 32 years in prison! Even in a state with a ‘stand your ground’ law, like Michigan.
In general, property owners can not use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.
The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived.
So if someone enters your house and tries to rob you at gunpoint, even if it’s a fake gun, as long as it looks real, you are justified in using lethal force (but see “duty to retreat”, below). If they try to rob you with a yellow banana, and you respond with lethal force, you will most likely be arrested and charged with manslaughter or even murder, because shooting a man holding a banana is a disproportional response.
The legality of shooting a trespasser will further depend on whether you have a duty to retreat or a right to stand your ground, and the extent of your curtilage (your property surrounding your home) that counts as your dwelling.
For example, Florida lets you open fire on someone forcibly trying to enter your dwelling, including your attached porch (if it’s enclosed), but not the rest of your property (such as a yard… or a roof). Some states extend this to include places like your office or your car.
“Duty to retreat” means that if there is a method by which you can safely escape and avoid harm, then you are required to do so. You can only claim self-defense if you are cornered or otherwise have no safe means to escape. This includes Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone’s private property, it’s important for property owners to have a “No Trespassers” sign in place to serve as notice.
TL;DR: Yorp is right. Standing on someone’s roof does not justify a lethal response in any of the states. Now, if Halo and friends had pick-axes and were trying to break in through the roof, and you lived there, then it might be a different story.
First, I have no guns and have never fired anything more than a 9mm rifle at a summer camp. So I’m unlikely to shoot anyone with anything ever. (It’s a bit harder to mistakenly use swords on folks.)
Second, great. Being in New York clarifies everything and the whole stand your ground thing is moot.
Third, your example of the People v. Wafer is not necessarily comparable. The court applied judicial discretion in refusing to provide the jury with the jury instruction that dealt with the ‘stand your ground’ issue and only did the normal self-defense jury instruction. (Also, Wafer opened the screen door and saw the person with no weapons or tools before firing the shotgun, which doesn’t exactly compare to obviously powered and dangerous individuals.) Upon appeal to overrule lack of jury instruction at judicial discretion, Wafer had the burden to prove that the conviction hinged specifically around that lack of instruction, which it didn’t. AW HELL … You know what … heck with this. I can argue this all day as a purely academic pursuit. I am trained in this … professionally. However, I happen to agree with your stance for what is actually reasonable and, as I said before, was voice the devil’s advocate position that might be raised in defense of whatever actions took place.
I salute your work on these forums (and your owls in hats), and I invite you to give me a shout if you’re ever going to be in the states. I’ll buy you a drink and we can argue in person for the sake of arguing and not bore people on this anymore.
Drinkies?
*wags tail agreeably*
Anvil uses Worf Effect!
It’s SUPER-INEFFECTIVE!
(Seriously, I think Anvil’s going to be hit by the Worf Effect a lot.)
And then Max or Halo comes in and saves her. I’m hoping we will at least get a nice wrestling match before that.
She’s already doing better than Worf, he usually doesn’t get a hit in before being thrown down the corridor.
Your mother was an Edsel and your father was a Zune?
Man…that’s a harsh burn.
Whatsa “Zune”? o_O
Exactly
(and if you really really don’t know, Microsoft’s attempt to dethrone the iPod)
It’s some kind of MP3 player? Never heard of it
Exactly.
hah, ninja’d :D
The Edsel was actually a pretty good car for its time. It just had some really weird styling for its time – and in fact some of its weird styling features, while reasonably good ideas, never did catch on.
Yup, from all had heard, the Edsel would have revolutionized the automobile industry (or, was that a different car? o_O) which ensured it’s defeat at the hands (metaphorically) of the competition (why compete when you can simply remove the competition entirely? it’s why some companies end up being bought out by bigger well established companies, rather than the bigger companies changing, or worse, improving)
*Anvil suplexes a giant robot, just because she can.
We find out the not-a-robo-thingy can talk and we see through all the spaces in the armor that the body is made out of tentacles. I guess we have to name him Squidward now.
A darker take on this setup of a tentacled creature inside an armor shell is getting uncomfortably close to Dalek territory.
Not…
Dalek ..
Not!
Dalek!
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
By far the most interesting and sensorially evocative of the Doctor Who rogue’s gallery, in my opinion.
i liked the Daleks, the one they had play that little robot in Star Wars was a great actor
His family cat sat on my lap on many occasions.
Here, you may touch the paw, that has stroked his cat!
*holds out paw*
A while back,I posted a listing of some of the Archon members and their “birthplaces”,now I made an update,notice Anvil’s update….
Code Name: Maxima
Real Name: Maximillia Leander
Surviving Relatives: Father, Mother and Brother
Current Place of Residence: Memphis, Tennessee
Code Name: Stalwart
Real Name: Stuart Algier
Surviving Relatives: Mother, Father, Sister and Brother
Current Place of Residence: Houston, Texas
Code Name: Harem
Real Name: Daphne DeShantis
Surviving Relatives: Mother and Father
Current Place of Residence: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Code Name: Achilles
Real Name: Harold Achilles
Surviving Relatives: Father, Mother, Two Sisters and Brother
Current Place of Residence: Texarkana, Texas
Code Name: Heatwave
Real Name: Brook Falls
Surviving Relative: Mother, Three Sisters and Cousin
Current Place of Residence: Louisville, Kentucky
Code Name: Anvil
Real Name: Kenya Cassidy
Surviving Relatives: 137 Members of Cassidy Clan
Current Place of Residence: Fer-De-Lance, Louisiana
A living spear.
Big big family though.
Which one????
The one you asked us to pay particular attention to, of course. “Fer-De-Lance” is French for spearhead (the literal meaning being “iron of the lance”).
The analogy I drew, to the above comic, being Anvil launching herself, like a living spear.
Now if Anvil was similar to this person….
https://www.yojoe.com/images/resize/w/MAX/imagestore/20/78268.jpg
Cousins?
Oh! Well, of course a ‘lancer’ would use the ‘German Suplex’.
Is this fanfic speculation or viable information? Please state your source.
Something for fun and maybe something for DaveB to pick up on…
Cool, he (Dave) should at least pin it up on his idea board.
Not…
Robot…
Not…
Dumb…
And here is where the Dungeon Master presents the players with the Orc children dilemma.
Since Orcs are evil, they should be killed!
But they are children, and so they are not evil!
But if they are allowed to grow up to be adults, they will be evil and therefore they must be killed!
But killing them in advance of their potential evil acts is in itself an evil act!
The Paladin must now kill himself for even considering this question!
But suicide is an evil act, which a Paladin cannot commit!
And then the players kill and eat the Dungeon Master, because of course he was evil all along and needed to be killed. Besides, they were hungry and the pizza and Mountain Dew was all long gone.
I’ve never really been in the ‘torment the PCs’ school of GMing. No worries if that’s what your party’s into, but if it’s not I’m just as happy not to do it.
I take the middle ground. Throw in the odd situation where they get a chance to spot the innocent or remedy the injustice, before it occurs. And I do not mean a chance with a roll on the dice. They will get presented with sufficient evidence to match their capabilities to draw conclusions.
There is no point presenting a moral dilemma that the players do not have a reasonable chance to recognise as such. Although I would do it organically rather than put up big flashing signs (if they need the latter this is not the kind of scenario ploy for them).
I certainly would not spring it on them retroactively though. And more importantly a character lives in a particular environment and mind-set. We must judge them by the standards of their time and point of view.
In a society that believes each person has his place, and that god has directly ordained the rulers and religious authorities to make moral decisions and they act with god’s blessing, then a crusader would be right to obey their orders.
Whereas we, in a modern post-Nuremberg trails era, take a very different point of view. A DM who judges a paladin using modern perspectives, rather than those of his society is breaking the separation between the fantasy world and preventing our escapism from the real world.
He is being a bad DM.
there are RPG where tormenting the PC is part of the GM role, even tormenting the PC WITHOUT giving them any way to succeed (Paranoïa for example) but it has to be clear to everyone from the beginning.
In others, lightly tormenting the PC by denying them an easy walkaround through the game is fun for everyone, assuming you have a very good PC group,and you manage your game so as they will find the solution in the end. I had such a group one for some time, and we digressed quite a few time from the adventure, I made them find Little People or friendly Vampires in Post-Apo RPG, lost them in a perfectly calm country surrounding (they had no survivalist gear or know-how, just very good combat capability).
They had a wonderfull afternoon, burning wheatfields, trying to find one another and any road.
they took basic camping feats at the first opportunity afterwards, and found it very usefull even “hack and slash” situations.
but for it, you must know your players well, and they must know such a situation can happen sometime…
Oh my players got used to being without their equipment. One of the ways they could get around was by using gateways. But one category would only transport the people and not their gear. Thus allowing me to have the odd adventure where they could not rely on their toys.
But, equally, I was kind enough to let them have them beck, when they were done. In addition to any new ones they found.
I can’t think of any of my players who threw all of their build into just combat. They knew they would face far more challenges with me than just on the battlefield. Mind you we all enjoyed characters who could craft a weapon, or who could turn a furry varmint into both a nice pair of gloves and a satisfying dinner!
Sod characters who could only fight enemies. Kill them, eat them, wear them!
Actually, I hate that shit.
I don’t mind a D&D game that is deeper than “Kick down the door, kill all the monsters, and take/steal all of their loots,” but I really, really don’t need to try to guess where someone else sits on the existential moralist scale during a game.
Not unless they are providing the players with a 12+ year old single malt. In which case I’ll gladly drink their whiskey and debate the finer points of morality with them all day long. But if it’s blended, fuck all that! :-P
Sounds like a certain Dorf Paladin in “Goblins”, unfortunately, he had no problems slaughtering everyone, including a human boy who had been kidnapped by orcs
Except, this isn’t a child and it’s trying to kill them.
But it’s being coerced! And clearly it doesn’t want to try to kill them! There is a living, thinking being within all those tons of kill-bot that needs their help!
Yeah, this is going to end up with a Frankenstein monster being saved due to Sydney keeping her team from putting it down. And then what? Does it become the team mascot?
“But it’s being coerced! And clearly it doesn’t want to try to kill them”
It’s a barely sentient golem that did not hesitate for a second to try and kill pixel.
Oberon’s sarcastic voice was in use. Next time just listen out for when it gets all squeaky.
No, Sydney is the team mascot
Can a mascot have a mascot? Or a pet? o_O
Yes, as regards pets. In City of Villains I had a pair of pets, under my direct command, who each had a pair of pets under their command. Although their only behaviour was to orbit their master (much like Halo’s orbs) and explode if any enemies got into close proximity to them.
As they were pretty robust pets, if setting up a choke-point ambush, I would order those pets to take forward positions. So that they would automatically deploy their explosive pets, early in a fight, when the enemy closed. Giving a good chance that they would subsequently summon replacements, for additional damage later in the fight.
Assuming, of course, that orcs are free-willed creatures and not corrupted spirits made flesh…
The source material give hints that may be the case, as so many of the allies of Sauron and Morgoth were.
Ah, but Tolkien was a devout Catholic and thus in his world there was no irredeemable evil. Orcs could become good, Sauron could have returned to the good side, and even Morgoth (a close analogue of Satan, he was the chief power amongst the ‘angels’ who became jealous of the power of ‘God’ and thus became evil) was able to be good if he chose to be.
I thought, per the appropriate dogma, that only humans have souls? Satan, being a fallen angel, by logical conclusion, would not have one. Thereby lacking an essential component necessary for redemption?
Not basing this on any particular biblical reference, just going by ‘general ignorance’.
I do know that, contrary to some reports, the current pope has not indicated that dogs have souls, for example. Albeit that a previous pope did make a remark that some have interpreted that they do, although the Vatican does not agree.
*gloomily nibbles an itchy spot on flank*
But did that Pope say this about dogs and souls whilst sitting on his magic chair? Because that makes all the difference between an opinion and a divinely inspired (and therefor infallible) utterance.
The paladin Kore has a simple answer.
If Sydney had discovered this ‘golem’ could talk and was apparently self-aware before Anvil jumped out of the helicopter; if she discovered this early enough to warn Peggy, Max and Kenya before they took action; would that have changed things?
Probably. They would probably be thinking more in lines of capturing it as opposed to destroying it.
I would amend the probably to a ‘possibly’. If it is self-aware it has still just chosen to harm Pixel badly enough that she ended up with a girder through her body. Which, as it did not know about Pixel’s regeneration, when doing that, means that it was attempting homicide.
So the first priority is to protect the lives of the cops and any unseen innocent bystanders (including the known hostages nearby, underground). But, you are right, that exploring options to capture rather than kill will be under consideration.
I do not think that Archon command will be surprised though, unlike Sydney. They are used to dealing with Icon and other members of the construct community. Do recall Icon granting permission to kill the attacking constructs earlier, in the council chamber. So regular Archon personnel are used to treating constructs as people. But if people are trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.
Icon’s permission still holds here. Sydney probably nodded off during the mission briefing, or was distracted by bright shiny objects. But the rules of engagement will have been laid out plainly, for anyone paying attention.
“If constructs try to kill you, you are advised to respond with lethal force.”
I suggest that as being the most likely, as it took Maxima to take them out before. So any lesser team members lives would be endangered, far too much, to advise that they should attempt capture. The one proviso being that if a way of disabling them had been suggested, then it should be prioritised. However evidently that did not happen, or things would have played out differently already.
The last constructs we saw gave no sign of sentience though. This one however was made to fight with supers in mind, but a self aware life form like this might have been made by accident. I dont think Sciona wants a golem to feel anything or think for itself, well other than how to defeat its opponents. I assume the golems ability to talk is a form of sentience, and it might be possible to reason with it. I think this might be how the Constructs got their own place in the council. Due to the fact that many golem or golem like creatures began to display signs of intelligence, they would want their own rights as well. This current situation could POSSIBLY be a golem gaining sentience. Or not. Who knows. Maybe Sydney will get a robot buddy. (I want a robot buddy)
Another terminator buddy movie?
Brokeback Mountain IV, the Robot Apocalypse.
The forbidden love between one man and his terminatrix.
So the golem falls for Sydney? That would be interesting
As long as she can house break him… ;-)
i’m not sure a house would fall within her lighthook’s weight tolerance
All I am thinking about at this point are tentacle arms. *Insert Joke About Enough Hentai Being Seen Here*
At 16 tons, those mini-houses should definitely fall into that weight range … so maybe she can house break him a little … ;-)
That would be a very mini house. Even my gatehouse, which is just a tiled roof, to provide rain shelter above a pedestrian gate and vehicle gate, weighs over 5 tons! And that is without any walls. I would be surprised if your mini-house was even as big as a standard garage.
I was meaning the 100-200 sqft micro-houses on “Tiny Houses” on HGTV. I;ve seen several that were actually portable and moved around as trailers, even though they were technically houses.
A modern-ish airstream trailer weighs a bit over 2 tons, so let’s double that and make it more solidly built, so 4 tons. Since it is small, there isn’t too much room for large furniture, so let’s add another 1.5 tons to go on the high end. Even adding a large water tank so water is available even without water hookups, if you have a 100 gallon tank and water weighs 8 lbs per gallon, we still come in easily within tentacle range. 4 tons + 1.5 tons + .4 tons = 5.9 tons.
Even if my math is pretty darned off, the calculations would need to almost triple before the tentacle wouldn’t be able to do anything.
* caveat – This is SUPER- back of the napkin style math. If anyone here actually makes things like this, or has a more vested interest in things of this type than my “okay honey, I guess we can watch this” level of engagement, feel free to speak up.
Examples of what I am discussing
I know that Americans are obsessed with building houses out of timber. Likewise that a lot of folks there have to live in trailer parks. But to combine the two…
Americans are funny.
P.S. I have serious doubts (re the linked photos) that the one with the chandelier, and spiral metal staircase, would class as ‘tiny’. No way could that fit down any single-lane road! Unless it is just the guy’s normal house, when he is not off camping in his tiny one.
In regards to the one with the spiral staircase: Yeah, I agree. I don’t think that would fit in a single lane.
The “Tiny House” trend is much more niche than HGTV wants you to believe. The majority of Americans do not want to live in a space that’s barely 10 to 20 square meters (100-200 square feet). The ones who do usually want to travel, but don’t want to live out of an RV. (The national average as of 2014 is about 240 square meters / 2600 square feet.)
Though I will admit that there are advantages to the Tiny House lifestyle, especially if you’re single, have a limited budget, and/or like to travel.
This is wrong on a number of accounts.
First, you use the phrase ‘chosen to harm’ even though it may well be being coerced via magic or other influences. Then you compound that with assuming that it knew the exact extent of the injuries that Pixel was going to sustain. It used killing force, sure, but the exact nature of Pixel’s injuries could not be guessed in advance.
Remember that she only got a girder shoved through her gut because she can regenerate. This last point is primarily tongue-in-cheek, but still accurate unless the author cares to go down a darker path than he seems to be willing to tread, with the killing off of a few characters in every fight being the norm.
Agreed. Hence my ‘probably’. If it is being totally controlled it is absolved completely.* If it is being coerced though then it shares some of the burden of responsibility.
My latter distinction using the meaning of it still having free will but being threatened or influenced by an external agency. Vehemence’s victims fell in between these two, by example, by having their decision making altered to make them more aggressive than they would be naturally.
I was just choosing to explore the other options, which Just Me had focused her comment on, being the potential that it is completely free willed. We have seen that such constructs are common enough that an entire faction of them exists on the Council (Icon’s introduction stipulated them as having free-will).
However you are perfectly correct to point out the possibilities.
I could have probably done with putting a comma in, to make my intent a bit clearer that it “intended to harm her badly” with the result “that she ended up with a girder through her body”. Whilst I used the word ‘enough’, rather than ‘result’ it was with this intent, rather than the way you have taken it. But thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.
In terms of guilt though it makes absolutely no difference. As you agreed, it used killing force, so the exact nature of the injuries just confirms this. No human could have survived the force of that impact, be it through crushed skull, and ruptured internal organs or any other exact cause of death.
So if it is a free willed person and is mentally competent** then it has just attempted murder.
* As I have stated elsewhere though I find this unlikely, going by the dialogue. The dialogue does not match what we might expect from someone like Sciona and there would be no need to defend the remote unit’s intelligence, in any event. Taunting Sydney, for her false assumption, maybe, as that would be genre-appropriate banter. So this points more towards Just Me‘s assumption, or the partially-controlled alternatives.
All best guess though, rather than bearing certainty .
** As Observer pointed out, on the previous page of comments, it may well only have child-like intelligence. Regardless of its claim to not be ‘dumb’ there is plenty of scope for it to be of diminished capacity.
One example being that (like Maxima) it just does not appreciate how squishy people are. If it has been kept in a cellar and not had any life-experiences to allow it to learn such things or make valid judgement calls, then we cannot blame it for its ignorance. This is independent of its base intelligence, but does limit its capacity to reason. Culpability then falls to Sciona for exploiting an innocent.
I would though, in the prosecutor’s shoes, prepare an alternative charge of ‘attempting grievous bodily harm’ (or local equivalent, as NY has a bunch of them) as this is the one more readily provable. The fact that Pixel obviously is not human does allow some scope, for a defense team, to claim the intent was not to kill.
Morally though (which is pertinent when talking about the possibility of redemption) I stick with ‘murder’ as that is where my call would lie, if I were on a jury and had the facts we have seen to date (and assuming culpability was proven, needless to say).
Likewise it is the only sensible option for the heroes to consider. If your life is on the line, you must not presume less innocent intent when you have strong evidence to the contrary. They must class this as an ‘armed and dangerous murderer’, when considering their responses.
But has Anvil crossed suplexing a train off her bucket list yet?
Maybe she needs training in suplexing?
This is on the right track to eventualy wrestle trains.
*surplexes train of thought*
The puns are picking up steam.
Working pretty hard to engineer puns like these, aren’t you?
Speaking of trains, is that a human centipede?
I thought that a suplex was a movie theater that only showed films based on comic book heroes. But maybe that comment is going off track for this comment thread.
I want this to be a thing.
She can’t cross “suplex a giant robot” off any list because that’s not a robot. it’s got some level of sentience. It’s either a cyborg or an android (is it racist that i don’t know the difference?)
I don’t think it’s racist. For the record… I think it’s about origin. Android is pure construct. Cyborg (as shortcut for cybernetic organism, implying it’s mix of both) started as a sentient being, augmented by technology, but something of the original still remains. At the point where nothing of the original meaty bits remain it gets unclear – is mind transferred from brain to a computer in artificial body still “only” a cyborg or not?
Yep, the Borg were cyborgs, hence the name….
Interestingly, “cybernetics” by itself means something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
https://www.pangaro.com/definition-cybernetics.html
While the term ‘cyborg’ was originally coined for combining Human with Machine, I wonder if the term really requires that humanity (or even sentience) be involved? If you mechanically combine a silicon nano-bot with an E.coli bacterium, would the result qualify as fitting into the definition of a ‘cyborg’?
No, regarding ‘human’. Because the term has already been extended, both in fiction and in real life, to animals with implants. A dog with an artificial leg is a cyborg, once that leg has any robotic-like components (i.e. being more than just a ‘peg-leg’ or bending joint).
Unless someone coins a new term, for non-sentient critters, then it is likely to carry on being used for those too, given that we lack anything else more appropriate. And, given the parallel advances in nanotech and molecular engineering, in particular for medical and industrial purposes, it is only a matter of time before we combine the two.
Implanting tools, to bacteria, for example, to allow them to do some industrial process more efficiently.
And if memory serves, and I just used Google to ensure that if it did not serve that it was properly chastised, ‘Cyborg’ was the title of the novel upon which the TV series The Six Million Dollar Man was based.
I read the novel back in the day. It was a lot less forward thinking and/or fantasy based (depending on your perspective, I suppose) than the TV show, with the ‘bionic eye’ that had telescopic powers in the TV show being limited to being a camera suitable for taking pictures at close range (as in, while holding them, not from across a room or otherwise at a distance) of enemy documents, and which did not provide any actual eyesight to the human in the novel. And the bionic limbs were also much less powerful than they were on the show, but interestingly this lesser capability also provided more mundane functionality that the TV show never explored, such as one of the legs carrying a small SCUBA mask and air tank, and a radio, amongst other things.
So far, whilst enjoying the concept of Pokemon Go, I have been wary of the dangers it brings. Just as with the recent news reports that the rise in pedestrian deaths (reported in the US but doubtless worldwide) is being linked with smart phone usage.
So I view cliffs and Pokemon go as being a dangerous combination.
Surprise!
I commend the following concept to fellow readers, for consideration. Get old people’s homes, homeless shelters, suicide hotlines and other such parties to set up designated beauty spots, near to places where there are lots of vulnerable folks. With comfortable benches, good lighting and carefully choosing or creating an otherwise safe area. Being sure to advertise them to lonely or suicidal people, as places to go, if they are feeling down, but do not want to deal with the authorities.
Plus asking them to give feedback as to whether visiting the spot helped.
Parallel to that though, arranging with the company that makes Pokemon* to set those as Pokemon hot spots. Thus providing a pool of people willing to visit them, and hopefully provide some company for the lonely people there.
With the feedback helping to indicate whether this is being helpful or counterproductive. If the lonely are shying away from the place, or the suicidal get more depressed, then it is not working. However if it does make people feel better, then the game rewards could be intensified.
The more Pokemon Go* players actively help, by chatting to people, or just making them feel comfortable in having people enjoying themselves hanging with them, the more frequently the rare and desired Pokemon will spawn in a particular spot!
Whereas if they are driving away the vulnerable (through raucous behaviour, littering or otherwise it simply not working) the less frequently they will appear, to the extent that a particular spot might cease to be a spawn site at all.
I hope we may have some readers who find this concept appealing enough, and who might have relevant contacts, to pass the suggestion on to. Alas, promoting it to our community is as far as I presently can take it myself. I have to limit the amount of time I can spend promoting wishful concepts.
It would be nice if such did come to fruition though. Whether it be through our community or simply parallel thoughts from other people seeing that story, and being in a position to do something about it.
* Or other dedicated variant on the game, specifically set up to encourage this behaviour.
I approve and endorse this social experiment. Perhaps we can find an appropriate outlet or feedback site and express ourselves.
Isn’t it weird the ways in which something designed for one purpose has ripple effects into other unexpected effect?
As to the deaths, it’s kind of sad when the phone is smarter than its owner.
The practice of taking ‘selfies’ in precarious positions has led more than one person to their untimely demise. Back in the days before compact digital cameras and cell phones were ubiquitous only showing off for the people immediately present could entice this kind of dare-devil idiot behavior.
But now a person/idiot can show off for all of the friends who didn’t go on their trip to the Eiffel Tower and who didn’t fall off of it to their death while using only one hand to hold themselves up while the other holds a cell phone and their attention is purely on the camera and not their imminent fall.
Wait, if this magic robot thing is sentient, is it possible to reason with it? I know they started fighting each other but I wonder. Could it be that Sciona accidentally developed an artificial life form with feelings!!?? Dun dun duuuh. Ghost in the Shell time!!
And it happened after Gary the Golem upgrade itself with Pixel blood. Pixels powers are magical right? That could trigger something in the magical robots mind. It could be fun if it suddenly thought it is Pixel.
Robo Pixel… ACTIVATE!
I’m sort of very in love with the idea of Anvil using lots of pro wrestling moves. I had a D&D character, lo, many years ago, and the DM and I cobbled together a martial arts form for him that was entirely based around pro wrestling moves. More recently, I played a luchador (based on El Toro Fuerte, for all you “Jackie Chan Adventures” fans out there), which was every bit as fun. Nailing a charging minotaur with a two-handed chokeslam is, I guess, just my idea of a good time.
Curse you, lack of editing ability. Played a luchador *in a Monster of the Week campaign*, I meant to write.
Back in the late 80’s, would use the wrestling rules in the 2E Rules book to have wrestling matches between characters :D
I liked the concept of the martial arts from the original Oriental Adventures book from 1st ed, but the execution left me.. unsatisfied.
The 2nd Ed tables were also.. less than perfectly elegant, to my eye.
We have a person in our current 3.5 ed game who makes effective use of the grappling rules on a regular basis and the GM always seems surprised when he does so – and gets irritated about it and looks for ways to negate that advantage. The character spent a lot of time and effort within the system to be that effective – getting annoyed about the rules is fine, but when someone puts that much effort into something, consistently negating that advantage seems… petty (especially after allowing those rules in the first place and approving the character’s character build choices.
GURPs handles it very well. The basic rules, for pugilism (punching), judo and karate work fine in conjunction with normal weapon rules. Realistically mind. “Never bring a knife to a gunfight” also applies to trying to go ‘kung fu’ against a gun wielding enemy (unless already in close quarters).
Fortunately though it does have cinematic options, for those who do want to have martial artists who (like Math) have no fear from gunmen. And also detailed rules for every martial arts style and move. With all of the key ones being listed, and there being rules on how to create any that are not.
Personally if choosing between D&D or GURPs for an oriental campaign it would be an issue of whether the magic was going to be the main focus or the martial arts. I loved the way they adapted the magic user and cleric rules for their oriental counterparts, in D&D. Plus the weapon using classes were damned cool too.
But, if a group wanted to go in-depth on the martial arts side, GURPs has got it covered.
Could we try reasoning with it? Convince it that attacking is a bad thing and not to do it?
Punishing it for what it has done already, even if it would be deadly to people without specific abilities, would be like punishing a wild animal for attacking you in its home territory.
Give it the same options as Kevin.
Depends on when it became ‘self aware’: was that before or after it attempted to kill not only Pixel Panther (and only failed because of her regeneration ability)? or after it attempted to kill Sydney?
Easy to say when you’re not the one it’s trying to murder.
We as a society punish animals all the time for attacking people, no matter where the attack occurs. Generally any animal that attacks a human is either killed or deported.
Not necessarily. There are many circumstances where it can be shown that the animal was defending itself or was unreasonably provoked. Likewise for working dogs, doing their duty. A guard dog that munches on a burglar is not going to be put down, for instance.
You are right that a fair few do get put down though. They get far less benefit of the doubt than humans do. But one common feature, of an unjustified attack, is often that the owner has mistreated, not trained or has badly trained a dog. The latter can occur even when they have not consciously trained them, but the animal is just following the example their owner sets. An aggressive owner can and does result in the animal behaving likewise.
Even if they are not necessarily intrinsically hostile or dangerous, if there are not the resources to rehabilitate them, then they are likely to be put down. Unjust though that is. Fortunately though organisations do exist which sometimes have the places available to try and salvage the animal and retrain it.
A person, like we should treat the construct now, must always be given the opportunity of redemption, where possible. That caveat is highly pertinent though, as that can only be done if it will not put others lives in undue peril.
It may already be beyond saving. However it does have regeneration now, so hopefully Sydney will have a chance. But it already came close to killing Pixel. So Halo must work even harder to prevent another teammate from dying or being seriously injured. If capturing or disabling it does not work, then she may have to use lethal force. If she can bring herself to do that.
But, hopefully, Anvil will be able to finish it. But that would likely require finding the animation source (such as the sword fragment we saw in the smaller versions). Without that it is likely to be able to regenerate any damage, and Anvil has no defence against the lasers (if it can land a blow). So, until Maxima arrives, Halo could still be pivotal. And face tough choices.
RKO OUTTA NOWHERE
This result was predictable for anyone bothering to do the math. There were 4 constructs that attacked the Council chamber. This one makes number FIVE. So it only makes sense that “number five is alive!”
Well, it can talk and reason…Shouldn’t it on the Who’s Who then? Even horrible abominations of science and magic need love too!
Well done! Great movie from my childhood! So is this hulk now named Johnny?
Whoops, this was supposed to attach to O.B. Juans comment about Johnny 5.
RE: Sydney’s last bit of dialogue. Is she having second thoughts now that she knows the golem has a mind or has she figured out that Anvil’s attack plan has a flaw.
The former.
Just look at Sydney’s expression in panel 3, if you have any doubts. Her concern is about whether Anvil should be attacking a person, with potentially lethal force, not how.
The action is happening very fast, whilst Sydney is heavily fatigued, meaning that her thought processes are that much slower. Plus the initial thought is so profound and worrying to her that, even if her mind is flitting all over the place, it is doing so studying the ramifications of that alone. Similar to her focus on the skill tree, and the delay resulting from that, but in a smaller scale and shorter time period.
Yeah, very much the former. I really like the subtlety Dave used in Sydney’s response. It is so very accurate to how her character has been established.
AND YOUR SISTER WAS A SNOWBLOWER!
..
.
laser lips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t86gxBx5Fyk
If it says “Big Sister Sydney”, I’m outta here. Just watching the clips from FMA (I never got around to seeing the show itself) was heart-wrenching.
The pro wresting move your describing is a Tilt-a-whirl headscissors takedown. That visual will be stuck in my head all day now
OTOH, maybe Sciona used only some of that foresaken child. Not that doing that went much better when Rusty did it.
Spoilers!
It is a robot.
A robot with a wifi speaker output.
We interrupt this comment page to bring you this breaking news!
(Warning to readers: This image contains spoilers)
https://is.alicdn.com/img/pb/109/943/847/847943109_621.jpg
LOL.
Welp…
Yeah…
Kinda made my night…
+2, Sir….
Curses! (air)Foiled again!