Grrl Power #616 – Superhero triage
Max is one of those heroes who actually has to think about whether or not to save the plane of people the bad guy shot down as a diversion, or go and tar the bad guy instead. Superman saves the plane every time. It’s a failsafe diversion. Max isn’t a psycho. She’ll usually save the people, but if the bad guy has a nuke strapped to their back and is heading to a major metropolis, sorry people on the plane, but there’s such a thing as superhero triage.
In this case, Max thinks Sciona represents a continuing threat greater than the danger of a bridge collapsing with 2 dozen cars on it. If nothing else, she can point to the fact that Sciona randomly attacked a bridge to distract her, and if she gets away, she might do it again.
Of course, Sciona didn’t actually attack the bridge, did she? She may have meant to, or maybe she was planning on dropping some vial of infectious crap on the road, or take a schoolbus full of orphans hostage, but that serendipitous deflection kind of chose for her.
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.
About what I thought… It’s gotten real now….
This also means Max will have to fight her alone with no backup…
It sounds like a potentialy great superhero fight.
Anime heroes do that all the time, she’ll be fine.
This is still a flash-back, and we’ve seen her address Corporal Scoville (Which Sydney isn’t yet) so we know she’ll live through this.
Ah, yes, one of the pitfalls of the flashback framing device.
It removes some of the suspense for anyone seen whole and alive in the future when the flashback started.
Unless that was a fantasy that Sidney’s living out as she bleeds out in the aftermath of the fight with Sciona.
Well…
…it depends on which FLAVOR of suspense you prefer.
Flashbacks deny you the suspense of whether-or-not she SURVIVES, that much is true.
Instead, you get to speculate, & explore the ‘puzzle’ of HOW she’ll get thru this crisis…
…& since this is provided via the ‘InterSprockets’, we must now wait for Monday to get our next ‘fix’ in this story-line, much like how our grand-parents had to wait for the next chapter in those old “Perils of Pauline”-style “B/W” movie-theater serials, wherein each chapter ended with yet another “cliffhanger”.
You think Hiro-&-Stalwart can hold the load off of those support-cables long-enough for Heatwave to flash-weld them in place…?
…or will the team use some other tactic?
well, do max actually need backup is another question … sydney still haven’t levelled up enough to challenge max as most powerful super on every field (combat especially)
Point – who CAN back up Max? Also, it’s only a matter of time.
Backup isn’t necessarily “Someone as strong/stronger than you”. It can also be someone who’s there to warn you of sneak attacks, or who has CC capabilities, or who can do little things like save civilians while you focus on the main target.
Dabbler.
She’s not the most reliable backup, but she’s got fighting chops and knowledge that can prove useful.
Except she doesn’t have the speed to keep up let alone catch up.
Just as well she is with someone who can
It’s not really as real as it should be. The problem I pointed out in a comment to the previous comic remains, that the author has failed to portray the bridge-construction accurately. While it has been pointed out that it is possible for a suspension bridge to be constructed such that the main cable (going from ground to tower to other tower and back to ground) is non-continuous, in that case it needs a very strong attachment to the tower, and here we are being shown nothing with respect to how the still-attached cable is still attached to the tower –and that connection absolutely must be very strong. But with respect to the still-attached cable, there are no bolts sticking out of the broken concrete, for example (the previous page clearly shows bolts going into the concrete of the tower)
At this point I’m pretty sure the bridge is being held up solely by a highly appropriate method – suspension of disbelief.
He he he. You got Lols there.
Maybe super-duper glue.
With “dupe” as an operative property.
Hey, I just noticed that the 3rd panel here shows Sciona not passing between the two towers, as was assumed she was going to do, based on the 5th panel of two comic-pages ago. What this implies is that, from Sciona’s perspective, the tower that got hit by the ricochet of Maxima’s energy blast could indeed have been the leftmost tower, and thus we have one somewhat consistent thing with reality. That is, as I previously mentioned, the more-rapidly-descending cable, from a tower, normally goes toward the ground, and not toward the center of the bridge-span. If the left-most tower got hit, then a short portion of the bridge span, from land to tower, is endangered, while the main span is not endangered so long as the top of that tower holds, and keeps attached to the other main cable.
That last bit should be “other section of the main cable”
Basicaly I think this is a case of my wings are on fire need to put them out NOW. followed by I need to haul ass away from psyco scarecrazy lady.
Let’s see the pro-Maxi squad (pMs) defend this steaming pile of bullshit!!!
I’ll bite. I don’t think Max is intentionally lying here. Given the level of hyper competence and absolute disregard for the life of anyone but herself, Maxima is just assuming in the heat of the moment that Sciona intentionally banked Max’s shot into the bridge. Whether or not Sciona actually intended to is open to debate. I personally don’t think she did. From a legal standpoint Sciona is absolutely culpable. Max is a police officer in pursuit of a dangerous suspect. If would be the same if they were involved in a high speed car chase. The fleeing suspect would be legally responsible for any damages incurred during the chase.
sciona’s lawyers would argue that they had no idea that she was under pursuit until she detected a very large energy source closing in on her…rest is what they call instigated accident. Sure they charge the criminal with that, but often enough juries tend to set that aside.
She comitted a brutal murder just 10 minutes before that. If she did not asume she was beign chased by Police, she is going for a Insanity Defense.
Technically a brutal attempted murder, though not from lack of trying.
Technically a brutal attempted murder of the joined persons whom she attempted to murder individually previously.
:-D
+1
How many murders of the same person can you be charged with in a row?
Is it murder if they come back from the dead? It’s a bit of a legal conundrum!
Just wait until Cooter gets back to his home to find that he has been declared legally dead, and his kids are squabbling over how to split the proceeds of the house sale.
* Thanks to his internet connected health monitor confirming that – wonderful deep sea connectivity nowadays.
You can’t be charged with murdering the same person twice. Jeopardy attaches.
Double Jeopardy Clause – the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Most states have the same guarantee for defendants appearing in state court. Even in states that do not expressly guarantee this right in their state constitutions, the doctrine of incorporation ensures that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments, therefore the protection against double jeopardy must still be afforded to criminal defendants.
Not that Sciona would have constitutional protections (at least according to a constitutional originalist judge).
Do constitutional rights apply to non-humans?
First off… my bad. I meant Cooter, not Sciona.
And correct, constitutional rights do not apply to non-humans, although there’s nothing that says it CANT apply to non-humans. Constitutional rights apply to US citizens. And to be a US citizen, you normally have to be a human. It gets a bit murky when you take Cooter into account though, since he is a US citizen, although not technically human anymore, or other ‘monsters’ who have US citizenship. I could see a loophole here – in which monsters who are US citizens would have the protection of constitutional rights, because the only law on point says the the Constitution protects citizens, and it’s silent on whether those citizens have to be human because it’s always been assumed that, in order to be a citizen, you are human in the first place. :)
You were right to say Sciona, as she is the murderess, whilst Cooter is the victim. So it would be Sciona facing the charges, not Cooter. So it is she who would need protection from double jeopardy.
However the question of whether Cooter is human does have bearing, given the insightful information you provided on a previous date. Namely that homicide specifically can only be committed on a human, as that is stipulated in the relevant laws.
The first time Sciona killed Cooter he was clearly human. A very poor example of one, but human none the less. So Sciona can be held accountable for the initial charge of murder.
For the second to apply though, we do have to determine if Cooter is human, for the reasons you stated, but combined with this point. If the second time he is killed, he is no longer human, there cannot be a charge of murder.
Therefore, as it would not be the same crime but some other charge (something under animal protection laws perhaps) double jeopardy would not apply.
Even though we observed Cooter dying, Guesticus is right , elsewhere, to point out that he has not been clinically pronounced to be dead. And the time where that could be done has passed, as he would pass any tests now (given that he is breathing, walking and talking). So he is alive again now, regardless of his former state.
He does though have a lot of non-human DNA in him now. That however is not a criteria to pass as human. If it was y’all would fail too! Given that humans have billions (+) of bacteria living inside them. Plus a certain amount of human DNA actually originated from microorganisms splicing their DNA into human DNA.
Essentially there is no difference, in principle, between Wyrmil doing that or a bacteria/virus. Except for the scale and degree. So an arbitrary law, which set an acceptable amount of foreign DNA, deliberately including mainstream human populations, but specifically excluding Wyrmcoot’s mix, could be unfairly fashioned. But I cannot see such a law existing to date.
A possible approach would be to look at the scientific classification of homo sapiens but ultimately this would still prove Cooter’s humanity as he was born a homo sapiens and still does have homo sapiens DNA within him.
Again anybody can suffer a parasitic infection and thereby be sharing their body with another lifeform (worms being an ironic example). That is considered a separate entity though, to the human host. Regardless of any DNA damage which may occur to the host in the process (or by other means for that matter).
So when Sciona attempted to murder him the second time (bisecting someone vertically would, on the face of it, justify such a charge)* he was still human, regardless of the modifications he had received. So double jeopardy might apply. Thanks for the information, regarding that.
Does Sciona have a birth certificate, green card or other way of proving that she is a U.S. citizen? Providing none of the documents supporting her claim (if she has such), or the regulations regarding them, stipulate that the person must be a homo sapiens, then Sciona is a citizen and would be constitutionally protected.
* “Yes, your honour, she is the woman who murdered me!”
OK that might downgrade it to ‘attempted’. Is that a different enough charge to loose protection from double jeopardy?
In any case though they are two different events. Although not mentioned in your quote, double jeopardy is designed to protect citizens from being persecuted by being repeatedly prosecuted for the same incident over and over again.
For example there is no way that someone who has been acquitted of murder, because the alleged victim turns out to be alive and well,** would be permitted to subsequently murder them, without facing the consequences of that action.
They were blameless for the first, because there was no death. However the second murder, even though it has an identical crime on the charge sheet, is not regarding the same incident.
** Quite a credible scenario for an openly abused spouse who vanishes. I know of more than one murder conviction under such circumstances. In jurisdictions, which allow such. Yet if they had, despite evidence to the contrary, actually fled to a remote location and remained hidden, then this could play out as described above.
“You were right to say Sciona, as she is the murderess, whilst Cooter is the victim. So it would be Sciona facing the charges, not Cooter. So it is she who would need protection from double jeopardy.”
Oops. Yep, you’re right. I was right the first time it seems. All these long posts. :)
‘For the second to apply though, we do have to determine if Cooter is human, for the reasons you stated, but combined with this point. If the second time he is killed, he is no longer human, there cannot be a charge of murder.”
I think I’m slowly beginning to rub off on you Yorp.
“Therefore, as it would not be the same crime but some other charge (something under animal protection laws perhaps) double jeopardy would not apply.”
Well… it’s the same crime if the crime is murdering Cooter… assuming Cooter still qualifies as being a human being. In which case double jeopardy attaches. If he’s no longer Cooter, then it doesn’t…. probably. Admittedly the law doesn’t have contingencies in place for if a murdered person is joined up and revived from death by a sentient earthworm-type of monster.
“Even though we observed Cooter dying, Guesticus is right , elsewhere, to point out that he has not been clinically pronounced to be dead. And the time where that could be done has passed, as he would pass any tests now (given that he is breathing, walking and talking). So he is alive again now, regardless of his former state.”
I’m going to agree with you and Guesticus on this. :) It’s still Cooter, whether or not he’s different now because of the merge. Aside from the whole ‘is he still a human being to be able to qualify as a murder victim legally, I don’t see any reason that Sciona can’t kill Cooter again (assuming she’s capable of actually killing him instead of injuring him) and have double jeopardy attach to protect her in US courts, from a legal perspective.
Of course, the Council doesn’t really use US law so that’s a whole other can of worms.
*wags tail studiously*
Incorrect. She can’t be tried twice for the same crime, no, but she can be tried for the two separate murders of the same person.
The fact that he was brought back to life after the first time doesn’t affect the fact that she deliberately murdered him both times.
Two distinct cases of manslaughter that just happen to have the same victim.
That actually isnt how it works. You literally cannot kill a person TWICE.
You can ATTEMPT to kill a person twice. You can attempt to kill someone, then the second time succeed on kill that same person.
But you cannot successfully kill someone more than once.
No but you can be tried for someone’s murder, and be acquitted, only for them to turn up alive and well outside the courthouse! Murdering them on the spot, in front of all the assembled witnesses would then leave the court having to decide if double jeopardy should apply.
I think the judge, for the new trial, would hold that it does not.
“No but you can be tried for someone’s murder, and be acquitted, only for them to turn up alive and well outside the courthouse! ”
This is true. Double Jeopardy would apply there. I know some attorneys who have said it wouldn’t (it’s actually similar to a scenario from law school) though, but I think their reasoning was flawed.
“I think the judge, for the new trial, would hold that it does not.”
I’d be interested to know why you think it would NOT apply? From what I’m seeing in your hypothetical, double jeopardy would definitely attach. You can’t be accused of killing the same person twice. I don’t see any way around that.
He’s not dead, so it’s not murder. Also he’ll be all healed up again soon, so there’s no evidence he was even attacked – just his word.
Barring the various people we saw walking around. So there could be eye witnesses. Plus it was at an intersection, so there is even a chance it was caught on a car dashcam or some CCTV system.
If either of those come to pass then it could actually swing the other way. Not only was he cut in half, but he then dissolved in front of them, with the remains dribbling down the drain. There has been more than one person convicted of murder, without a body being found, if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that a murder did occur.
So even with Wyrmcoot still being alive, Sciona could be convicted of homicide.
All that aside Sciona should be convicted of their murders, in any event. Should the true facts come to light somehow. Just not in that event, but originally.
Sciona did murder both Cooter and Wyrmil, in cold blood. They both died. What came back was neither Cooter nor Wyrmil, but some remnants of what used to be them. If you murder someone, and their organs get transplanted in other people, you do not get let off with ‘oh that is OK, they are still alive, go on about your business’.
Conversely, neither of their biological processes or identities were terminated.
They were savagely assaulted. Neither of them died.
Cooters most definitely was. He was clinically dead for a considerable period, whilst they were propping up the supports and then cutting through the vault door. Wyrmil was complaining about how long it was taking. Not to mention the subsequent scene with Deus.
Plus the fact that Wyrmil was left for dead and had to slowly crawl around looking for a way to revive himself, for an unknown length of time. Significantly having lost his head in the process! And we know that he was going to die without fusing his body with the Cooter giblets.
So I dispute that his biological processes survived. Only a part of him did, but not enough to sustain life. He is wholly dependent on the bits of Cooter, and clearly Cooter has the greater control over the body. So Wyrmil is mostly dead. Not quite all dead, granted. So you can’t go through his pockets for change.
Wait… yes you can. Sciona just chopped him in half. So his pockets are lying in the street.
Feel free to loot him, if you want.
How do we know he was clinically dead? Which clinic did the testing? Was there any testing to confirm his death?
As for Wyrmie, those are all speculations: we don’t know that he would have died without Cooter’s icky-sticky remains to fuse wth
Me. I am fully competent to certify that anybody who’s body has been splattered on the walls, in pieces no bigger than a postage stamp, is dead.
We do know that Wyrmil would have died because he said that.
*waves paw vaguely in the direction of Wyrmcoot’s internal duologue*
Given the scenario, I would not at all find it surprising to find Cooter’s ghost return from Hell to haunt his own revived remains as a new soul resides within it with the memories part of the cobbled together mess Wyrmil picked off the walls and floor, as the here after safely assumed he was definitely not going back to his body.
Pretty sure he was dead after he splattered all over the place.
Miracle Max would probably say he was just mostly dead. :)
Miracle Max’s procedure to test for being ‘mostly dead’ or ‘fully dead’ involved placing a bellows in the subject’s mouth, and pumping it, then listening to their chest.
Cooter no longer had either a mouth or a chest.
So Miracle Max would skip straight to looking for whatever remained of Cooter’s pockets, and seeing what he could loot from them!
Yeah I sort of saw the flaw in that argument when I wrote it, but I wanted to be able to make a Princess Bride reference anyway, so I don’t care.
But she clearly changed coarse for the bridge after detecting Max’s energy so the intent for some action was there.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2809
I never read that as ‘going for the bridge’; more so “going low and fast towards cover/concealment”. Same as Will Smith hitting the canyon in Independence Day. Typical dogfighting maneuver.
THAT’S how we can bring her down. We take an old Mac laptop and use it to introduce a virus into Sciona’s combat suit, thus making it shut down and fall out of the sky. (even though we don’t know what weird operating system it runs on, or what wireless connection frequency or data protocols it uses).
Hmm, it is almost like that plan would never have a chance of working.
We can only hope that Sydney has a ‘Batman approved’ adaptor in her utility belt. Next to her arts and crafts pouch.
Definitely a possibility, considering she can teleport.
I had not even considered that capability, thanks.
Please add that to my list of reasons why Maxima needed to go for the ‘guaranteed kill’.* This, of course, assuming that their research on her turned up that Sciona had such a capability. However, at an absolute minimum, they know that Sciona can create blood portals.
Further they consider it too dangerous to risk following her through one. Due to the possibility of the destination being booby trapped.
So there are two possible escape routes which Sciona could deploy, if given the opportunity. Which would allow her to evade justice, whilst believed to be in possession of one or more mystical WMD.
For the sake of balance I should point out that we know the blood portal took inscribing a pentagram (or similar). The creation of which is clearly not instantaneous. So, if assuming that their research would find Sciona’s teleportation ability, we should equally allow for Archon discovering this.
However should Maxima stay to rescue everyone, it is fair to approximate the time taken to do that with the task of reaching the river bank, drawing a pentagram and invoking the blood portal. Which therefore has relevance to that aspect of the debates.
* Yup, she needs to check her warranty and make a claim.
Plus apparently my guess has even more validity now in hindsight, since she CAN teleport (see the next strip, Yorp).
I don’t think you can blame Sciona for deflecting a projectile that would have killed her.
It’s wholly Max’s fault that she didn’t plan for this possibility, but even so. It’s not like you can blame her for not predicting it either.
However you can blame Max for not trying to apprehend Sciona in a less deadly fashion first.
A global scale threat like Sciona most be neutralised as fast and efficently as possible even if you may risk some collateral damage. Shooting her with a fireball before she see you makes sense. Maxima saw a opportunity and made a fast decision to take the risk with a fireball.
+1
you are spouting complete nonsense that no country in the world works by!
i don’t know what fantastical world you live in but in the real world it doesn’t matter what level the threat is you always care about the collateral damage. because the general populace will not care what “good” you think your doing and they will vote you out/ send you to jail as they should.
Yes. Attacking enemies with no concern for collateral damage is what foreign countries are for. :D
Exactly. This takes place on American soil, with an American soldier putting dozens of American lives at risk just to catch an illegal alien space elf monster. That kind of behavior might be acceptable when you’re in the sandbox, but this is Burgerland, damnit. Dead civilians means less consumer rubes! We don’t tolerate that kind of action here.
He he he.
Are you familiar with the trolley conundrum? you have a choice to save one life or many lives.
Granted in this case it’s a choice between saving ~50 lives (plus unknown number of kittens) and potential saving millions.
Sure it’s only “potentially” millions so it isn’t as clear cut, but it’s simple mathematics. There is a point where the cost of collateral becomes negligible in comparison.
Hey, if I have to run down one granny, on purpose, to save the world, she is going to be a pancake. It would have to be a pretty weird scenario to do that mind. But such choices do have to be made from time to time.
Sad examples being when naval commanders have to order hatches closed, condemning those on the far side to drowning. This is why the military has to have such tough discipline. All too many individuals would hesitate in such circumstances. Only to loose the ship.
Maxima is doing what she has to do. And should rightly ignore any quibbling lawyers. Save the lives first, argue the toss later.
Full-speed flying tackle by an indestructible superstrong superheroine not enough?
Personally, I think Max might be having a tidge of difficulty re-orienting herself out of full-on WAR MODE into PROTECT AND DEFEND- first move should be an attempt at apprehension or de-escalation, rather than destruction.
Like Sydney with Vehemence- she de-escalated the violence, while Max went first for the ‘Obliterate’ option.
What, do you know of one present that I have missed?
*carefully reexamines the last couple of pages*
Nope. Only Maxima there, other than Sciona and the innocent civilians. Maybe you suspect a super kitten or souffle?
First off Maxima is not invulnerable. We have seen her bleed. Plus, after that, she was on the brink of being killed by Vehemence! Only Achilles has that capability, and he is neither here, nor can fly and his super strength is far too weak to affect Sciona.
Secondly Maxima cannot even maintain her defence at maximum if flying (or super speeding – they are two separate powers) at top speed. So if you wanted her to do the latter, in order to have reached Sciona before she attacked the bridge, Maxima would have to sacrifice her defence in order to do that.
And he own life, when Sciona reacts just as fast as we saw parrying the energy attack, and cuts off Maxima’s head with her wings!
In other words, Maxima has cause *especially if examining the scene at Deus’s office* to assume Sciona has wings able to slice through most anything, or at least powerful surfaces, she was cut by a copy of Pixel’s plasma claws. So while not certain their is a possibility those wings can cut Maxima (even if only papercut her or a slight grazing at high defense) she doesn’t know; and lunging full speed down at a wall of swords isn’t a good way to test that.
Can’t discount the possibility that Max was flying with 100% boost (or as near as she can get while reinforcing herself not to fly into pieces as she travels Mach X)… flying right at her target and reallocating 100% of her boost to durability (or as near as is needed to make minor trajectory adjustments). No strength required if you’re simply acting as an invulnerable projectile; can switch to some strength after the impact is over.
You think sconia would not have attacked the pillars of the bridge with her super-powerfull wings as a distraction? Why else did you think she started flying lower?
And that is before you consider the danger she poses, even before they know what item she got.
I’d say that was indeed the main reason Maxima chose to risk the fireball. Sciona cannot have been expecting to lose someone being capable of giving pursuit in the first place by just harmlessly passing under the bridge.
Deus asked Sciona to keep it SUBsonic until she was a good 20 miles from his office.
When she went SUPERsonic, going to Cooter (and back), she got noticed by Norad.
She (actually her armour (armor for the Yanks)) noticed Maxima only when Sciona was already flying NOE at lower speed (no effect on the water). So she may be somewhere near her hideout.
Wiki excerpt:
During NOE flight, geographical features are used as cover, exploiting valleys and folds in the terrain by flying in, rather than over, them. This keeps below enemy air defence radar coverage, avoiding being silhouetted against the sky.
Addition:
Of course, when Sciona noticed Maxima she would have, given time, have done at least as much damage as has happened now accidentally.
You *can* blame Sciona for being a crazy serial killer and fleeing from the authorities, however.
I don’t think Max is at fault here for three reasons.
1. Nobody (including us comment-dwellers) thought Sciona could deflect one of Max’s shots until after it happened. Keep in mind this is somebody who can melt tanks.
2. Max followed her own rules for safe firing – the area behind Sciona was clear and harmless even if the shot missed. The shot ricocheting like that was a one-in-a-million thing that nobody could plan for.
3. Sciona deliberately changed course for the bridge when pursuit was spotted. Given that fact and Sciona’s record, Max absolutely should NOT have tried less-than-lethal force.
The one bit that stinks to me is Max saying Sciona shot the bridge. It’s up in the air whether Max is lying for convenience or thinks the deflection was deliberate and didn’t have time to explain the details.
Well argued on all aspects.
Spot on. I have the same sticking point right now about Max’s version of what just happened, but there is plenty of time for armchair analysis after the dust settles so I suspect she’s just trying to keep the team on-task rather than covering her mistake.
Max’s version is very concise and will result in the team doing what is needed instead of several precious minutes of inaction while everyone chatters about the destroyer-of-mosques striking again. Maybe with a more disciplined team she could call it collateral damage, but her support team (especially Syndey, who is currently carrying everyone else) is hardly a model of focus and military professionalism.
Insightfully argued.
She could have simply stated that the bridge was hit, butt no, she deflected the blame and now is out to eliminate the only other person who knows the truth
:-D
True. You make it sound like you think that is a bad thing? ;-)
You saying premeditated murder, by an official agent of US Law and slash or Order, is okay? o_O
Nope. :)
Technically speaking, if any crime is being committed (assuming anyone dies as a result of this), it wouldnt be premeditated murder – it would be involuntary manslaughter.
Unless you mean Sciona, in which case it still wouldnt be premeditated murder, since there was no premeditation. And also technically still wouldn’t be murder since a murder is an unlawful killing of another human being. It’s neither unlawful nor is Sciona a human being (although lets assume that even if there’s a treaty with the Council where they get the same protections as human beings, it’s still not unlawful)
(btw, it would also fall under Defense of Others as a valid defense for any charge against Maxima if she had killed Sciona there, even if you ignore it not being unlawful, Sciona not being a human being, and there not being any premeditation)
Even when in hot pursuit of a suspect, there are limits on what police are allowed to do if/when it endangers bystanders. Every government organization, in fact, has or should-have limits. Courts tend not to second-guess decisions made by cops in the heat of the moment, but if there was an in-universe debate over Maxima’s actions, someone might decided to bring it to trial (or at least a grand jury) to set precedent and to send the message that supers ARE responsible for their actions.
Maxima’s in a military unit though, not civilian law enforcement. They have different rules of engagement. That’s why cops don’t use fragmentation grenades to clear a room of potential hostiles…
A military POLICE unit….I’ve worked with the Coast Guard generally you go in “police first military second” unless you know you need to go in hot.
That being said….I have no clue how much LEO training Max has at this point, she is military trained first and foremost at this time that will skew your view. Add in the “I R SUPERHERO” problem and well…
Military says….take down the target.
Police says…..Identify yourself and give chance to surrender.
Honestly I’m not sure how this plays in Peoria…..good thing they have a PR group….(ARC-PR?,ARC-Spin?)
Identify your self and give chance to surrender is ok in some situations, but in a situation like this and with a villian like Scion, it be more like identify yourself and give her a chnace to kill you first situation. Scion has gone past the ‘give chance to surrender’ part and enter ‘armed, powerfull, and extreamly dangerious’ zone. Civillians, police and emergency personnel do not approach, do not attempt to aprehend or enguage.
Except Max is, as far as she’s aware, arguing from a position of complete safety and better firepower. If Sciona hasn’t been demonstrable shown to be faster or capable of hurting Max, Max should have attempted to de-escalate. Like I said above, I think Max is having trouble switching to non war ops.
My expectation is that something in that Vault can probably hurt Max, but let’s ignore that.
Sciona just got a serious power upgrade and (if we assume Max thinks she has everything missing from that magical Vault) has multiple potentially world ending cursed objects… including the Scythe.
Sciona’s solution to every problem is mass murder (thus her heading for the bridge). That plus the Scythe puts us pretty deep into “nuclear armed terrorist” territory.
I imagine she’s had LEO training out the ass – who’s more important to have good training than a supra who’s proven leadership temperament, loyalty, patriotism etc…. Nobody!
She’s gonna wind up where the shit’s the thickest every single time. She’s REALLY IMPORTANT!
Full FBI level training.
Telling me she’s been trained like a fibbie….does nothing reassure me on her training levels.
It also doesn’t replace your previous instincts….even if she trained and trained and trained that would make her a veteran soldier….and still a rookie cop.
I believe it’s called ARC-ianna.
> unless you know you need to go in hot.
Well, it is Sciona that is the subject being pursued. Whom has demonstrated little to no restraint in using plausibly lethal force on even allies.
Also, didn’t various people mention that the device she’s currently making off with needs to be “recharged” by a few million deaths?
Not to my knowledge, but I know I have missed some comments, so maybe.
However, if so, they are incorrect. The first device that Sciona used, in the Dark Reliquary, did require 99 lives to charge up. As she made use of it, to restore her original body, we know that it must have been left there fully charged.
Presumably it is now depleted. We also know that it was promised to Scthillia, after Sciona’s priority use. Deus had indicated that he would honour such, from the outset. So presumably Scthillia is now the proud owner of that. As an assassin for hire, she should be able to top it up in due course.
The item currently in Sciona’s possession is the Bane Ripper. Which Wyrmcoot used to summon the tentacles, to cover his escape. There has been no mention that it requires charging. It looks like it just rips the fabric of timespace and makes a hole to somewhere else. So I doubt that it requires charges.
Chad, Maxima being in the military doesn’t allow her to do extra force beyond what the police can do on US soil. Compare it to the US Coast Guard, another military organization that is not bound by posse comitatus, but still bound by the same rules as the police on US soil.
Point of order:
Maxima did go overboard on the fireball department only because it is already a known that small time functions do not work against the target. Such as spike strips being useless against armored wheels and the police discard it after their first encounter and go straight to pit manuver.
Still, which is worse?
The deflection of the fireball damage, or what Siona was intending to do the bridge in the first place?
“Maxima did go overboard on the fireball department only because it is already a known that small time functions do not work against the target.”
Vale would have to disagree with you about actions that do not involve plasma blasts being effective against Sciona. Maxima was fully capable of speeding up and tackling Sciona into the water, like an aerial pit maneuver.
“The deflection of the fireball damage, or what Siona was intending to do the bridge in the first place?”
The fireball damage is much worse than anything Sciona MIGHT have done, of which they arent even sure she was going to do anything or be CAPABLE of doing anything to the bridge. It’s just as possible that she was going to use the bridge as cover, to get out of line of sight and teleport away, or go underwater, or at worst, take a hostage. Which is still not as severe as destruction of the bridge and possible death of hundreds of men, women, and cuddle kittens.
@Pander
The fireball damage is much worse than anything Sciona MIGHT have done
Sciona has the scythe. Picture what happens to everyone on the bridge if she brings in another tentacle-with-teeth without Dabbler to translate and it decides it’s hungry.
Sciona is also (incorrectly) believed to have everything that is missing from the Vault of Scary Magic.
“Sciona has the scythe. Picture what happens to everyone on the bridge if she brings in another tentacle-with-teeth without Dabbler to translate and it decides it’s hungry.”
Pretty sure that another Trentacle is not as much of a threat as the GD bridge collapsing and sending them all crashing to their watery deaths as hundreds of tons of concrete and metal crush them from above.
Not to mention Maxima doesnt know she has the scythe in the first place.
“Sciona is also (incorrectly) believed to have everything that is missing from the Vault of Scary Magic”
No, she isn’t. Please show where that was ever stated. They knew that Sciona had accomplices.
@Pander : Not to mention Maxima doesnt know she has the scythe in the first place.
She knew Cooter had the Scythe. She knew Sciona took out Cooter. https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2804
Now it’s unclear whether the Scythe can bring in world ending creatures, but “summon eldritch abomination” seems like a problem on the face of it.
No, she isn’t. Please show where that was ever stated. They knew that Sciona had accomplices.
There are missing nuclear weapons, Sciona was the ringleader, and you seriously expect anyone to dance on that angle’s pin of logic?
Sciona is getting blamed for everything she took AND (incorrectly) everything Deus took.
“She knew Cooter had the Scythe.”
Actually you’re making an assumption. Nowhere does it say that she knows she has the scythe. And for the sake of argument, if she does, she only knows the scythe rips a hole from which rather polite tentacle creatures come out.
“She knew Sciona took out Cooter.”
Nope, she knows that Sciona intercepted Cooter, not what happened.
“Now it’s unclear whether the Scythe can bring in world ending creatures, but “summon eldritch abomination” seems like a problem on the face of it.”
Again your sum total of reasoning seems to be based on assumptions not based on anything actually in the comic.
“There are missing nuclear weapons, Sciona was the ringleader, and you seriously expect anyone to dance on that angle’s pin of logic?”
Actually the Council knows what Sciona was after. And she got what she was after, which gave her back her body. Sciona was a ringleader who immediately attacked her own people and had to leave in a hurry.
“Sciona is getting blamed for everything she took AND (incorrectly) everything Deus took.”
And yet she doesn’t seem to be carrying all that stuff on her that Maxima can see.
Can’t see Sciona merely using the bridge for cover, given her recently murdering her own teammates (more than once) to achieve her aims. If she can teleport, she doesn’t need to do it behind anything, and playing tag around the bridge isn’t going to shake her pursuer.
The only reason I can see for changing course would be to target the bridge or its occupants. We’ve seen both the scythe and Sciona’s wings cut through solid stone like butter. In fact, Max personally witnessed the carnage of Sciona’s betrayal in the vault and has a pretty good idea of what happened, and is in pursuit because she knows Sciona just now killed Cooter and took the scythe – which she personally saw cut through rock and release an interdimensional eldritch horror (sort of). Sciona clearly has means and motive to take out the bridge – whether it would’ve been worse is impossible to say, but taking that knife through the tower base or main cable would easily be just as bad as Max’s damage. Let alone whatever magical effects also happened to the fabric of space.
There is also the team’s report from the blood-harvesting setup at the warehouse where Sydney catching her red-handed (literally, ew). I say Max has plenty of justification to engage with lethal force here.
“Can’t see Sciona merely using the bridge for cover, given her recently murdering her own teammates (more than once) to achieve her aims.”
You can’t see Sciona, who had gotten punched out of Deus’s office by Vale like nothing, wanting to use the bridge for cover to escape the second most powerful super on the entire planet? Odd…. I can.
“If she can teleport, she doesn’t need to do it behind anything, and playing tag around the bridge isn’t going to shake her pursuer.”
Except her ability to teleport through blood requires a surface for the blood pool.
I’m sorry, at what point did we all decide Max is immune to those wing-blades?
Grappling with an unknown level of threat like Sciona seems like a damn fine way to DIE. I’d like to think after brawling with Vehemence, Max might just be over with believing her own hype.
At what point did you decide that she is not, given that she’s been immune to pretty much all damage she’s ever come up against? Including even Vehemence. I don’t think Sciona is even close to the strength-threat that Vehemence was, plus Archon actually knows what Sciona is, and therefore they’d have an idea of what her wings can and cannot do.
Also Maxima doesn’t seem to have stopped believing her own hype based on several things she’s said SINCE the Vehemence fight, and seems to believe that Vehemence was an unexpected abberation from the normal things she’d ever come up against.
Max’s attack was intended to stop Sciona from getting closer to the bridge, presumably in order to limit collateral damage. That Sciona deflected it at the bridge was either intentional on her part, or a rather unlikely accident. Taking into account that Max didn’t know Sciona could deflect the shot, and has very good reason to think she can’t, I think outright blaming Max for the damage is a bit of a stretch. Her potentially lying to deflect blame is another matter, although that’s not how I interpret it.
Remember we the readers have more information about Sciona than Max does. We know it was probably a desperate, reactionary action to defend against incoming fire that ended in a lucky break when it hit the bridge; from Max’s point of view it looks intentional because what are the chances of that happening randomly?
It really not a stretch to blame Maxima. It’s what acutally happened. Maxima was the proximate cause. She should have been more careful in her attempt to stop Sciona. Legally, she’s very likely going to be at fault.
Not legally. If something happens because of of a crime you committed then it’s your fault since it wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t committed the crime.
Negligence is not a crime, it’s a tort.
I’ll explain since you keep on acting like I’m accusing Maxima of a crime.
A tort is a wrongful act/infringement of a right leading to civil legal liability (other than under contract, ie, not a breach of contract, that’s a different civil case)
Negligence is a tort.
A crime is an act that violates the law AND is punishable by incarceration – such as a felony, misdemeanor, criminal offense, or criminal violation.
For example….
Involuntary manslaughter is a crime. Wrongful death is a tort.
Again, negligence is a tort. Please don’t act like, when I say negligence, it’s a crime. If I want to accuse Maxima of a crime, I’ll say involuntary manslaughter, which is the only crime that she could TECHNICALLY be accused of, but probably would not be since the burden to convict her of that is MUCH higher than a tort of negligence, and all the arguments people have incorrectly made when arguing with me about negligence would work better if arguing with me about involuntary manslaughter.
There is such a thing as criminal negligence in many jurisdictions.
True. And, according to the almighty Wikipedia (far more compact and easy to carry than a bulky law book), in the USA, including “negligent homicide”.
An in-universe debate would be interesting, and pretty appropriate given the circumstances. While I think Maxima’s actions are absolutely defensible, it wouldn’t make much sense for everyone in-universe to just shrug off what just happened. That being said, I hope the debate doesn’t take up too much attention from the rest of the comic, if only because long judicial trial story arcs aren’t my thing.
Besides, it’s another thing to hurry along Arianna’s inevitable stress-induced ulcers. I like Arianna’s character, but it’s still fun to see her aggravated! ;-)
Agreed, I want to see how this is handled in-universe once the dust settles. The top brass still consider Maxima a PR nightmare due to past events, even though she is the team leader.
There are definitely going to be a lot of under-the-table settlements and NDAs tied to payouts made.
If the cops in this hypothetical high speed car chase decided to fire at the car the perps were in and one or more of their shots ricocheted off the car and killed innocent civilians, there would be some Hell to pay.
Is there an anti-Maxima squad out there that I wasn’t aware of? I realize that people tend to get heavily invested in good writing, but I wasn’t aware people were taking this so seriously as to get angry at it.
Guesticus has been a cunt about Max since the beginning and takes every chance he can to belittle her and those who like her. He takes everything out of context and/or in the worst light possible and then acts upset when others disagree with his opinion. I’ve long since wished he’d grow up but at this point, I’d settle for him loosing the ability to communicate with others. He’s a troll of the lowest caliber and I have no pity for those. I wish him ill.
I don’t think he’s a troll (these seem like honestly held beliefs). But yeah he does get way too antagonistic about it rather than just a difference of opinion.
I think we have to assume Guesticus is not just one person — as evidenced by my ability to use Guesticus as my name in this comment. It may be uncool to use a name that someone else has already chosen, but the system does not prevent it. I have always imagined Guesticus to be a bevy of various people, on all the webcomics I follow, since it’s such an obvious (and admittedly nicely chosen) username.
See. I’m Yorp too!
I’m also David Nuttall. Admittedly without the icon (nor that of Yorp), but I imagine there’s a way to spoof that as well–I’m just too lazy to do the work. In fact, I’m too lazy to actually go about pretending to be various commenters, but it sure seems like a possible way to be annoying and muddy some reputations. (Actually, Yorp has such an extensive commenting commitment it has to be more than one person, doesn’t it?)
He really tends to be how he is on every webcomic i’ve seen him show up on, like YAFGC, and he’s even been banned from a few comment sections. think Spinnerette was one of them.
I have never been banned from any comment sections. Not that I am aware of anyhow. I had one post (which was offering constructive criticism, but politely worded) deleted on Spinarette. As I do not approve of such censorship I chose not to participate there anymore. And got bored of the comic some time after that in any event.
We did have one person imitating my image, and posting as if me. Who I challenged and requested that they stop. Which they kindly did. I took it more as an ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’ thing. But it is necessary to protect ones identity, hence me speaking up promptly.
Beyond that it is just me and my kittens posting here. And their contributions tend to be rather random key presses, when they choose to walk on my keyboard to give me a nose nuzzle.
Have never been banned from Spinnerette, nor YAFGC
And Ro Jaws as well!
Uh…. look I disagree with Guesticus a lot, but he does NOT take every chance to belittle her. He actually defended her in the Krona incident. I know this because I had an ongoing debate with him for a week+ about it. We were also civil with each other, and Guesticus is not a troll. He was civil with me, even if I thought he was being stubborn. Being stubborn isnt the same as being a troll, even if he could put it a bit better than how he put this post. Or how he puts the Deus posts sometimes.
Not to mention here, Guesticus is correct in that Maxima did something very wrong here. Something which she actually warned Sydney about doing.
How did Maxima do something very wrong here?
If we say a superhero is not allowed to blast a villain with clear LOS to the villain, with clear area in a wide area behind the villain in case they dodge or miss because the villain could possibly deflect the blast in another direction, when exactly can a superhero use their powers?
It’s like saying a police officer is not allowed to fire his gun if there is anyone within a couple hundred yards of the suspect in any direction because it’s possible it might hit a small piece of metal on their body and deflect and hit a bystander. It’s completely nonsensical.
neither the military or police are allowed to just open fire on people, there are rules of engagement and she followed none of them and the stronger the weapon the more rules there are. also you seem to be comparing what max did to a cop firing their serious pistol when the equivalent of what max did was shooting off a manpads.
“How did Maxima do something very wrong here?”
She acted with extreme recklessness when there were far less dangerous options for taking down Sciona, including tackling her with superior speed. She then falsified her on-the-spot report on what happened. She then left the scene of the accident which she at least partially caused (and in the majority of fault at causing) in order to pursue the suspect, as if the suspect was more important than civilian lives. She also ignored the exact advice she gave to Sydney at the restaurant about not firing at someone unless you are SURE it will not hit something or someone else.
That’s how Maxima was very wrong. I was very specific on why she was wrong in several posts so far.
“If we say a superhero is not allowed to blast a villain with clear LOS to the villain, with clear area in a wide area behind the villain in case they dodge or miss because the villain could possibly deflect the blast in another direction, when exactly can a superhero use their powers?”
When there are no civilians nearby who might be harmed as a result. The police can’t throw grenades at a suspect even if the crowd of civilians is several yards away, because of shrapnel. You don’t go with the massive attack first. You go with the minimum which will work because your first duty is to protect civilians. Not kill them as collateral damage.
“It’s like saying a police officer is not allowed to fire his gun if there is anyone within a couple hundred yards of the suspect in any direction because it’s possible it might hit a small piece of metal on their body and deflect and hit a bystander. It’s completely nonsensical.”
Actually police are NOT supposed to fire their guns as the first go-to option. And after every time a police officer does fire their pistol, even if it was justified, there’s always an investigation afterwards to see how necessary it was to do so. You’ve been watching too many Dirty Harry movies :)
If Max’s “first duty is to protect civilians”, what is she supposed to think Sciona will do to the people on the bridge if allowed to reach it?
There are no safe options here.
“what is she supposed to think Sciona will do to the people on the bridge if allowed to reach it?”
Actual threat vs possible threat. She caused the danger of death to civilians. She’s supposed to protect them, not cause them to become collateral damage. If Sciona, who is on satellite at this point, gets a head start away while Maxima is fixing her own problem, then Alpha Team can take over the pursuit instead. Maxima was wrong here.
Also, as I’ve said now EIGHT times in various posts, which no one seems to read for some reason, there were multiple ways for Maxima to stop Sciona WITHOUT using a plasma blast capable of destroying bridges. Including tackling her, outflanking her with pure speed, or using her very non-nuke-worthy gun.
Including tackling her, outflanking her with pure speed, or using her very non-nuke-worthy gun.
I suspect you drastically over estimate the power of that gun. Max seems to think it’s mostly for show/intimidation rather than effectiveness compared to her powers.
As for the rest, Sciona is also super-sonic (link below) and is therefore also moving at above-bullet-speed. So everything we’ve seen Max do in terms of raw flight speed? Sciona can do the same.
One hopes that Max is faster, especially if she maxes out at the expense of armor/strength, but that course of action also seems problematic and it’s unclear how fast Max can shift her power pool around and it’s also unclear how dominate she is in speed without doing so.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2804
Oh, and “moving at above bullet speed” means the gun can’t possibly hit Sciona, even if we ignore that it probably also can’t injure her.
Most bullets are supersonic.
Um… I hate to be pedantic here… but what, exactly, do you think causes the loud “bang” when you shoot a gun? I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t the gunpowder going off.
Even a lowly 9mm handgun round has a muzzle velocity of about 1250 feet per second. If you do the conversion to Imperial measurements, that’s 850 miles per hour. At sea level, the speed of sound is approximately 761 miles per hour. The bang is the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier..
Now, granted, both Sciona and Maxima are capable of going much faster than that, which is likely what Dark Matter intended to say. But at the time, both Sciona and Maxima were moving at subsonic speed, according to Dave.
Thank you MSpears.:)
You’re kidding yourself if you think Sciona is anything BUT an actual threat. prob with everyone arguing is they’re forgetting this is a superhero universe. should also add in what they’ve seen Sciona do in person, and the amount on record of what she did that the Twilight Council has.
Sciona’s entirely and completely willing to use innocent bystanders as human shields, or even as ingredients for blood magic. Maxima trying to toast her out of the sky when she had a clear shot that was, as has been noted repeatedly, NOT aiming even remotely close to the bridge.
and for the record, she actually DID take the time to at least jury-rig the bridge to be held up at least long enough for her support team to do something about it, even if it meant losing Sciona in the bargain.
“You’re kidding yourself if you think Sciona is anything BUT an actual threat.”
Immediate threat. Actual IMMEDIATE threat. As in imminent, currently happening threat. Like the bridge collapsing.
“and for the record, she actually DID take the time to at least jury-rig the bridge to be held up at least long enough for her support team to do something about it, even if it meant losing Sciona in the bargain.”
If Alpha Team can get there in 30 seconds, then Alpha team can pursue Sciona long enough for Maxima to save the civilians whos lives she just jeopardized, then continue her pursuit of Sciona.
I believe he is an A.I. spam-bot that gained sentience on 4chan.
I … uh … may be? Is that some kind of Chinese tech firm?
*pokes food bowl*
They are running a pretty good simulated environment, if so.
*Refills bowl with Bacon Cheeseburger flavored Num-Nums ™ *
Yay, beautifully simulated!
*nom nom nom*
Sconia just comitted a gruesome murder in broad daylight not 10 minutes ago.
And that is after the assault on the Council (dozens of attempted murders).
The murders/attempted murders comitted in the Vault (At least Virmil and Cooter)
The attack on a american business.
If she did not suspect she was being chased by Police (wich Maxima is), she is going for a Insanity defense.
Considering her total disregard for life the entirety we knew off her, it is very likely she was planning to attack the Bridge as a distration to get away.
Using deadly force is acceptable in such a situation. Only patching the bridge because you got reliable reinforcements on their way to continue to give chase is acceptable.
I would agree. Its fortunate actually that max as the strenght and speed nessisary to pull off a quick patch and resume chase. Plus airbore backup, and knowledge that Syd can fly that fast.
Only “fortunate” in the greater story sense since if she wasn’t able to or the rest of the team wasn’t right behind her she would have made different choices.
1) she didn’t commit a gruesome daytime murder 10 minutes ago. Cooter’s still alive because he’s bound up with Wyrmil. Also Wyrmil is technically not a person, so doesn’t qualify as human for the purposes of murder. Also Cooter technically already died beforehand (admittedly because of Sciona) but you can’t accuse her of the same murder twice:)
2) ARCHON isnt aware of the attack on Cooter/Wyrmil. They’re after her because of the vault and because she’s wanted by the Council.
3) Sciona has to be in the commission of a crime for the damage to be placed on her. The crime that she did commit (assaulting a government officer, theft, attempted assault of Deus, damage to property, attempted homicide, etc) is already in the past here.
Au contraire mon ami.
ARCHON is very much aware that Sciona just intercepted Cooter (whom Maxima personally saw escape with the scythe) and that something very messy took place in broad daylight. It’s at least attempted murder whether it technically succeeds or not, and Sciona is still actively fleeing the scene with the weapon.
Actually even in the link you provided, they don’t know what happened with Cooter.
They know it was at least an attempted murder. They know it was a vicious daytime attack without warning or quarter given.
Maxima did not try to kill Sciona because she thinks that Sciona killed Cooter. She was reckless in what she did. Please explain why you don’t think she was legally reckless? It literally fits the definition of recklessness and negligence.
But for Maxima firing the plasma blast, the bridge would not be collapsing. That’s the proximate cause of the damage. That’s how neglience works. It’s also how involuntary manslaughter can work if someone dies as a result. Even without intent to kill civilians. That’s the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder. Involuntary manslaughter – homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with recklessness or negligence;
Enemy of logic, thy name is Pander.
Says the person who’s only response to my post is an ad hominem attack. :/
Oh well, if you’re going to, I will too, but with more class.
Actually, I’m using silly things like logic AND actual legal knowledge. Go look up ‘proximate cause’ and ‘legal negligence’ then come back to the big boy table to converse.
Aw, lets not make fun of Penisbanners screen name. It’s such a small and petty thing to do, completely unworthy of you. But not me.
I think Pendrake is an awesome name! I even recently played under the name in a couple of solo computer games, because it is so cool.
It has a very Cornish feel to it. And (intentional or not) it is a portmanteau of “Pendragon” and “Drake”. Pendragon being the title given to ancient Briton warlords. Famously the legendary Uther Pendragon is King Arthur’s father.*
Plus Sir Francis Drake is one of Britain’s most colourful heroes. And is an ancestor of mine. Well if not for the minor inconvenient inconsistency of me being a dog. Obviously must have had some adoption occur somewhere in the family line. ;-)
* Although Arthur was actually mentioned in historical records, so there is probably some historical person at the core of the word of mouth accounts that were transcribed.
I don’t have a problem with his name, just that his posts are primarily to make personal insults instead of respond to what’s said in other posts in a civil manner.
If you’re going to throw legal terms around you need to use the correctly.
The “proximate cause” of the bridge collapse in this case is Sciona’s attack and fleeing from Maxima, not Maxima shooting at her.
And legal negligence is “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances” and I see no evidence of that failure on Max’s part, nor would any criminal court.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/6862130-no-charges-against-cop-whose-ricochet-hit-man/ Shows a case of a cop shooting at a deer and hitting someone behind the deer and even then he wasn’t legally negligent.
If you need an example of what level of recklessness is needed:
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1912284/new-york-cop-peter-liang-convicted-manslaughter-ricochet-shooting-black
The cop drew his gun with reason but had no target and fired it randomly when something startled him.
“The “proximate cause” of the bridge collapse in this case is Sciona’s attack and fleeing from Maxima, not Maxima shooting at her.”
No. Preventing YOURSELF from being killed by another person trying to kill you is not proximate cause.
Not to mention even if you were able to argue that it was proximate cause (which it is not), Sciona doesn’t have a duty to the people on the bridge, and therefore has not breached that duty of care.
I’m not ‘throwing around’ legal terms. I’m explaining them very clearly and applying them in a textbook fashion. You’re throwing them around.
“And legal negligence is “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances” and I see no evidence of that failure on Max’s part, nor would any criminal court.”
The ordinary prudent person only would apply to Maxima if she was not an expert. Then it would be based on the ‘hypothetical reasonable person of ordinary prudence’ standard. Maxima is an expert, so it judged as a ‘hypoethetical reasonable person of expert prudence’ standard, which is pretty much a hypothetical perfect person.
“nor would any criminal court.”
Once again…. torts are not in criminal court, they are in civil court. Hoping you’ll read it one of the many times I’ve said this.
Self defense doesn’t apply when you’re defending yourself from lawful authorities trying to stop you from committing crimes and/or fleeing.
I never said Sciona had a duty to the people on the bridge, I’m saying that by committing a crime she’s legally responsible for the outcomes of that crime including cops accidentally injuring bystanders while attempting to arrest her (within limits whihc Max was in).
Exactly, Max is an expert. She knows exactly how her plasma shot could act and she accounted for all the ways it could go wrong based on that expertise. The way things went wrong were outside any expert’s ability to predict them. Even under a civil case’s more lax requirements that doesn’t change that anyone else with the same knowledge and expertise would reach the same conclusion.
eg: an expert marksman shoots at something. It’s reasonable to expect them to account for a ricochet hitting something but not reasonable for them to account for an abandoned gas tank under the dirt getting hit and starting a fire for for the bullet to grow wings and start chasing after someone.
Maxima wasn’t trying to arrest Sciona. You don’t arrest someone by shooting them with a ball of Maxima plasma. You kill them that way. Attempting to defend yourself against death is a legitimate defense.
That’s exactly what the word involuntary is for, when you’re finding someone guilty of actions which they took, no matter how reasonable they might have seemed at the time, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of innocent persons.
1) His dead/alive status is unknown. Even archon does not asume he survived. That is at least attempted murder. Of a American Citizen called “Cooter”.
After the attack on Dios. Who is an American Citizen.
After the attack on the Council. Dozens of attempted murder of American Citizens.
Guess who is most likely not a citizen of that Country? Sconia!
She is somewhere between a Citizen turned attempted Mass Murderer, Terrorist and a Enemy Nation.
2) “Archon is not certain about this attempted Murder. So the other dozen attempted Murders do not count anymore.”
Wait, what? How do you think the Police giving chase or looking for anyone works in the world? by your logic they are not allowed to arrest anyone!
3) She is comitting resistance to arrest. There are not nearly enough people that can follow her, that she would not asume this was Archon – A GOVERNMENT AGENCY INVESTED WITH POLICY POWERS – following her.
And then there is flying at supersonic speed without a having registered a flightpath or otherwise being registered. As opoosed to Maxima, who is.
If your first instinct onseeing a police car following you is “ignore all traffic laws and leg it”, the Police has ample reason to asume you did something wrong and should stop you.
1) They know he merged with Wyrmil. Well, at least Decolette figured it out. And if she did, it stands to reason she’s let the others know what she figured out.
2) “How do you think the Police giving chase or looking for anyone works in the world? by your logic they are not allowed to arrest anyone!”
First off, you’re making a quote of something I didn’t say. Strawmanning of the most blatant and worst kind.
Second, I did not say she can’t arrest Sciona. I said anyone dying would not have Sciona charged with felony murder if Maxima’s blast winds up killing people, because evading arrest is not a felony. It’s…. sort of in the name of the crime. To be arrested for felony murder, someone has to die during the commission of a felony. Evading arrest is a crime, but not a felony – it’s a misdemeanor.
3) “She is comitting resistance to arrest.” – that’s a misdemeanor, not a felony
“And then there is flying at supersonic speed without a having registered a flightpath or otherwise being registered.” – that’s a traffic violation (which is even less than a misdemeanor) – not a felony.
ie, neither of those things would be useful for a charge of felony murder from Maxima accidentally killing people.
“pro-Maxi squad (pMs)”
Wow. Stay classy, my friend.
Which pile?
That Sciona deflected her bolt into the bridge? It’s not actually possible to plan for every possible contingency, and even if it was you have to weigh risks regardless.
Not being distracted by the bridge? She did stop it from immediately collapsing and doesn’t want to set a precedent for supervillains taking civilians hostage/putting them in danger as a distraction.
Or are you just perceiving her description of events as a spin job? Firstly, she’s not giving an accounting for events, she’s telling her team what they need to do in as few words as possible. Secondly, she probably does in fact think that Sciona did it on purpose; one does not get far in the military assuming the enemy got lucky, after all.
Giant explosions create what is known as shockwaves and shrapnel.
At least some of the Civilians on that bridge? Barring Dave handwaving those things away, they are hurt if not dying right now. And Maxima just flew off leaving their lives to the hopes her team will get their in time to save them.
The only shrapnel shown is the pillar breaking apart and the cables snapping. While both could do a lot of damage to someone even in a car it also shows Max intercepting and securing them at super speed.
The smaller shrapnel at that range wouldn’t be a danger to anyone (though some cars may be damaged and anyone on a motorbike could end up wiping out) unless they are in a convertible (or sticking their head out the window) and are very unlucky.
Yes she did and under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. Timewas of the essence and if Sciona get away she is a global threat. The people, kittens ans soufles on the bridge are acceptable collateral damage if Max needs more time to have a chance at stopping Sciona.
A global threat according to whom?
At this point Sciona’s only a person of interest whose only crimes so far have been property damage and possible self defense against a known violent criminal.
Heck they haven’t even confirmed that Sciona, if this Alari is her, actually has any of the magical weapons from the Vault.
No she’s a known terrorist super power with a past that shows she’s willing to use violence indiscriminately and against innocents.
So far Sciona has no past of indiscriminately attacking innocent humans on US soil.
Similarly Sciona is not part of a terrorist organization and has no history of terrorist action on US soil or against US citizens or forces.
actually… you’re forgetting one huge thing. She’s got a history with the Twilight Council. which likely would have actually briefed ARCHON on what she did before.
so far WE don’t know. that’s not the same as “she never did.”
You have to remember Sciona is a BLOOD MAGE. Innocent Bystanders aren’t just hostages or human shields. they’re ingredients.
Max keeping her as far away from anyone else as possible is actually EXTREMELY responsible on her part.
The Twilight Council is not the US Government, there’s laws have no standing on US soil except where they overlap with already existent US laws.
Further if they had briefed Archon, Maxima would have known Sciona’s capabilities. Which would up her fault from the mere negligence it currently stands at.
That doesn’t matter. If someone committed a pile of bombings in Ireland the US government would (at the least) keep an eye on them and would assume they are dangerous even though they never bombed anything in the US.
Also Sciona didn’t know she could deflect the shot so no way the Counsel would know that.
Ouch! Max would HATE having her backup called that. Then again, Omar would probably love to take a picture of her reaction.
Why would anyone defend you?
Hmm, seems a third party is involved.
Do you think mr. Deus used his magically teleporting hands(?) that can do bra tricks, to deflect the shot? Was the sex intended to infect her with a brain parasite that can already protect the host?? Or are the third party…. THE KITTENS?
Worse, Ninja-Kittens.
We always expect ninjas, but ninja-kittens… that’s a horror only Yorp can save us from.
Deus did nothing wrong. He’s the hero this world needs :)
What makes you say that? What third party?
In the first panel, I see Sciona, her wings, and the water behind her — what else is there?
There is nothing. Thrythlind seems to be hallucinating.
I don’t think that energy bolt came from Maxi. They both seem surprised at it.
We saw Maxi charging it up in the page before, Maxi’s surprise is that someone survived one of her bolts (must be stronger than a Mosque…)
:-D
Deflected, not survived. She’s not always trying to kill everyone she meets. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have given Vehemence a chance and killed him on the spot when they first met. She is pursuing a known killer and probably has authorization to use what force is necessary to apprehend her. Remember that her blasts had exploded on contact up to now so deflection might be a new one for her.
Spot on, for the former. True for the latter, but there are very few scenes, involving her or her constructs, where she does not kill or attempt to kill one or more people. And the remainder she was only held in check by Vale intimidating her. Even when they had sex Deus knew that Sciona would try to kill him if he did not have his bodyguard present!
You mean Deus, not Vehemence. Unfortunate choice mind, as I am certain that she would have killed him on the spot. He was muscling in on her meticulously planned robbery, after all.
Sciona was just caught out having no idea of his, or his teams, capabilities. Plus was intimidated both by the fact that they obviously knew everything about Sciona, her team, the Dark Reliquary and the items in it, and, despite knowing how dangerous she is, they were openly confident that they outclassed her!
Basically, in my opinion, she was too frightened, of the consequences, should she attempt to kill him. But absolutely wanted to. It was clearly why she took it out on Wyrmil, in a murderous rage. She shoved Wyrmil’s head into the death field as a substitute for Deus’s!
Likewise in the office, she was well up for it. And Vale had to repeatedly warn her and repulse her.
However, despite all that, she did not actually kill Deus, or even try. So you are correct.
True. But not just because she is a known killer. Even those have rights not to be killed on sight. It is also due to:
1) Maxima believing that Sciona is approaching the bridge to attack it and the people on it (and her history justifying that).
2. Archon believing that Sciona is in possession of various devices capable of destroying the world!
Just so.
Max does not practice what she preaches and plays a little fast and loose with the truth…
The truth will come out eventually.
If history is any indication, attempts to conceal the facts
of the situation will have more ramifications than the
offense itself.
Why? You seem to live in a fantasy where your bias against Max is justifiable as “I misunderstood so she has it coming!”
Fucking die you hypocrite.
Wow.
Where did that come from?
Did you just wish me death on a comment board whose entries can’t be edited or removed?
I wish you improved mental health.
Michael, I don’t have a bias against Maxima. But I’m a lawyer. What she did was bad and is probably going to bite Archon in the butt. I’ve explained why in another post.
She didn’t ‘misunderstand the situation.’ She was the primary proximate cause of the situation. Clear case of negligence, and if someone was to die, a clear case of involuntary manslaughter, so Maxima better hope that Alpha team gets there in time if she’s gung ho to keep going after Sciona instead of saving the civilians.
Also, don’t tell people to f**king die because you disagree with them. It makes you look unstable. I’ve thought people were wrong various times in the past, like with Maxima’s treatment of Krona, but yet somehow I did not tell anyone to die or that they were cancer. I gave a reasoned discussion on my points.
See… reasoned discussion is different than ‘DIE YOU HYPOCRITE! YOU ARE CANCER’
One is rational and part of being in a civilized society.
The other is being insane.
In what situation would Maxima ever be able to use her powers?
Actually, if that is the legal framework to justify holding Maxima responsible for the damage, police officers would never be able to shoot a suspect unless there was nobody within a hundred yards in any direction of a suspect. After all, a bullet could ricochet off a piece of metal they had on them and hit somebody in a random direction.
You can’t expect anyone to predict a random deflection. Making sure there are no targets behind or near the target (in the case of explosives) is more than enough to avoid legal responsibility.
She already does use her powers in every day situations. Most of those powers come with a ruleset for when she can use them.
The fireball is probably her version of “police handgun” as it didn’t explode enough to obliterate the bridge in full and only took the support structure down.
the real world does not work thew way you think it does, in the real world cops/ the city are already responsible for damages and deaths caused by there ricochets.
its always been this way
I blame movies for people not realizing this :)
“In what situation would Maxima ever be able to use her powers?”
In situations where she uses powers which will not risk getting other civilians killed as a result.
As I’ve said in several posts, there were several ways to deal with Sciona which did not involve a plasma blast capable of taking out a bridge.
“Actually, if that is the legal framework to justify holding Maxima responsible for the damage, police officers would never be able to shoot a suspect unless there was nobody within a hundred yards in any direction of a suspect.”
I seriously think you need to look up the rules on when a police officer can fire his or her weapon, and the consequences for if they do so recklessly. Just so you understand, while Dirty Harry was a good movie, it’s not accurate.
“After all, a bullet could ricochet off a piece of metal they had on them and hit somebody in a random direction.”
Which is one of several reasons why police are not supposed to fire their weapons unless absolutely necessary. Also, if this was during the commission of one of Sciona’s crimes (which it wasnt), THEN the blame would be on Sciona even though Maxima fired her plasma blast. Because it’s afterwards, it’s on Maxima, not Sciona. That’s just how the law works.
And in either case, there’s a tort here of negligence that ONLY Maxima is at blame, even if not a crime.
Plus Maxima KNOWS that the plasma blast is supposed to be a last resort weapon. There were many other options – tackling her, speeding up to get in front of her. Shooting her with MAXIMA’S NON-BRIDGE-DESTROYING GUN.
She lectured Sydney about it even with her Pew Pew Orb.
Clearly your one of those defense lawyers who defends blatantly guilty people by demonizing the victim.
You know, basically enforcing the Stereotype of lawyers everyone hates. like the guy who defended my Ex-brother-in-law, and kept a known rapist and child molester with eight victims, including my sister, cousin and his own niece, out of jail.
Actually I worked in the DA’s office for two years and I’ve been an intellectual property since I left. I’m not a defense lawyer. But fortunately anyone with even one year of law school would know the incredibly obvious things that I’m stating.
I’d probably have been on the side putting your ex-brother-in-law in jail. Given I worked on the prosecution side.
Also… what stereotype… the stereotype of knowing the actual law? Where did my stating that Maxima acted with recklessness (from a legal definition also) and has shown a textbook example of negligence equal that I’m defending blatantly guilty people? If anything, I’m coming down on Maxima specifically BECAUSE SHE DID SOMETHING TORTIOUS.
Oh wait… you probably don’t understand the word tortious either. It’s a civil court term. There are civil cases and criminal cases. The destruction of the bridge and any injuries caused by it, as long as there’s no death, would be a civil case. If someone dies though, that’s a criminal case. That would be involuntary manslaughter.
In fact, I also have not defended Sciona at all. But this is from Maxima’s action, and Maxima is at fault.
Grow up.
This is a military op over US soil, you can bet your ass Maxima’s superiors saw the entire exchange on high definition satellite.
And even if they somehow didn’t, witness reports and forensics on the bridge remains will show it was Maxima’s energy bolt that did the damage.
+1 for being the first to bring up witnesses and forensics. I do wonder though what witnesses even saw given the distance from the bridge when the shot was fired, and also whether even ArcLight’s forensic team could accurately determine whether Max or Sciona caused the damage. Simply not enough data on Sciona’s powers (or artifacts she may have) to prove beyond doubt that it was Max’s fireball.
It depends on what she tells when it comes time for debriefing.
I’ve got no problem with how she reported it so far. Radio instructions should be succinct, especially if there’s a risk interception, trying to explain that it was her shot that hit the bridge after being deflected would just be a waste of time at this point.
However if during debriefing after this mission she doesn’t own up to the fact that it was her shot that caused the damage then I’ll have a problem with it.
She could have just said that the bridge get hit
You try picking your words carefully while in hot pursuit of a super-criminal and doing quick and dirty bridge repair.
Yes! This! Remember that Sciona is capable of going supersonic and they stated that she could disappear very easily if she tried. Max has at BEST seconds to report the situation and patch the bridge before continuing pursuit. She’s not crafting a legal statement in her defense.
She already lost sight of the target.
And you could have died already. Seems we’re all disappointed today. You are cancer.
That’s not cool.
What the hell dude.
Actually, am a cancer survivor
Oh wow, I had not read that post and refute it in no uncertain terms. Whilst you often have diverse views, you also bring good observations and for either can stimulate healthy debate.
Plus the personal attacks are most unworthy!
Further I must commend your remarkable willpower in resisting responding in kind. I know that will have been a considerable temptation, so your restraint reflects very well on you and is a service to the community.
And double wow, because of having pulled through such a serious condition! I hope you remain in remission and healthy. Especially as you are a most welcome commentator.
Just like you is seems. Fucking die you hypocrite.
The replies to the similar comment above were well put and I endorse them here.
I would not want this version to sit here unchallenged though. Especially given my prolific commenting. So an absence of a rebuttal might look like silent approval.
TWb was making a fair statement with the:
Even though I approved of Maxima’s other actions, this is actually a fair statement. I said much the same myself. Albeit providing justification for her using spin.
This, like you, I have issues with. Maxima told Sydney to check what lies beyond her target. She did. It was water. But it does have a funny side to it, as Maxima lectured Harem about the possibility of blowing up bridges. So this is a call-back to that, but with Maxima’s feet in the “destroyer of bridges” shoes.
This comments board is often described as a “quiet pool of tranquillity in the internet” (or in similar less poetic terms). Simply because this is a comedy comic and we are all here to chill and enjoy ourselves. So such extreme threats are very much unwelcome here.
Besides which, if we can keep a cool head, the debates over these issues can often throw up interesting facts that we may not have come across before. Likewise with small (or not so small) details we could have forgotten.
Ultimately debating is much more fulfilling than intimidating dissenting voices.
While we know it wasn’t intentionally done by Sciona Max doesn’t. She’s reporting things from her point of view and doesn’t have the time and access that dramatic irony and a 3 day wait gives us.
Max preached to ‘look behind your target and pretend you’ll hit that instead’. Not, ‘Expect your target to deflect your shot into nearby innocent targets’.
Actually no, she said if you have to shoot at someone, assume you will miss them, and reposition yourself so the WORST possible outcome is tha tou will hit a drainage ditch or something empty, like a parking lot, or another bad guy.
This can be quite easily used to also say ‘assume that they might be able to deflect your shot, or that shrapnel might hit into innocent civilians’ – like how, during the press event, Sydney’s firing at the tank caused part of the tank to almost hit into the reporters, or her warning to Sydney about throwing someone with the lighthook – “You could kill dozens of people that way” [by throwing someone through a building]. “Even if they’re not hit by whoever you threw, shattered glass, sheet metal, pipes, filing cabinets all become shrapnel, not to mention broken gas lines combined with ripped up electrical wiring.”
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1224
You say “lying,” I say “making an assumption.”
Given the news post, I think I’m the one who’s right.
as a cook of twenty years experience, i know the emotion behind the facial expression in panel 1. that’s the “Something hurts/didn’t go as planned/is burning, Must do something about it RIGHT NOW” look. in this instance, all 3.
case in point, last easter sunday i cut about 5 grams of my left pointer finger off dicing onions. in front of customers. in a wide open workspace. clenched my hand, grabbed the bit of myself, and the cutting board, dropped the latter to be run through the (near boiling + chemical sanitizer using) dish machine, and proceeded to a hand washing sink to see if i could stop the bleeding without actual medical aid. the time between blade making contact and my retreat was all of 4 seconds or so. while the customers were confused and a bit irritated, it was better than them actually knowing what happened. crisis averted.
Well, now we know that her wings can be damaged.
And are flamable.
So those are more than energy constructs. There is something presumably organic, definitely combustible, even when travelling at high speed.
Or Maxima can set energy constructs on fire.
and she can feel them, *there appeared to be a pain reaction* while the threshold is likely very large, it seems these are more akin to “aura wings” where while they have a structure akin to energy they are part of the body permanent or astral body extended into the physical plane; and can be used for touch and thus have a semblance of a quasi-nerve connection to the body.
Did something like that to myself a few years ago, right side tip of left index, including a bit of the nail.
Bled like hell but not much pain, took a while to stop bleeding though.
Now my question is; did you weigh the part you cut off or is it an estimate?
‘About 5 grams’ seems quite a lot of meat for part of a finger.
estimate. i’m not quite that morbidly obsessive. had the unique experience of being complimented on both my clotting ability and my pain threshold by the ER nurses, though. upgraded my cutglove from the kevlar weave to aluminum chainmail after the fact, too. i only seem to cut myself on freshly sharpened knives…
Yeah with a sharp enough knife it doesn’t really ‘hurt’ but your body knows something is wrong.
I worry Max thinks Sciona has done it on purpose, and will refuse to think about it even as the rest of the team notices what kind of damage was done.
PLUS THAT BALL OF FIRE WILL LAND SOMEWHERE OR OTHER. With perhaps a nice purplish a la Sydney shield testing purple crater. The kind of thing that will show on the news after the unavoidable epic battle(s) and everyone thinks the show is over…
It looked as if the energy projectile as already detonated.
At least that’s one less item to worry about.
No, the ball exploded after putting a hole in the support, it was the explosion that caused the collapse
In canon of the story though, it does look like the explosion may have caused the collapse, and that maybe the bridge could have held at least temporarily. Quite a bit of discussion on the previous page about what sort of damage would have really happened with a hole punched through that precise spot, if anyone wants to go into that.
However, I choose to interpret the panel with the hole-punched tower as a freeze-frame, where the bridge was politely ignoring physics for a few moments, so that a) the readers have a moment to gasp in horror and anticipation, and b) the kaboom and collapse could all dramatically happen together in the next panel. Sort of a one-two punch line.
You have made a valid point and I commend you for it. While Max isn’t being malicious, she is making a false assumption and it may come back to bite her. I do hope it’s pointed out that it was an accident; but the intent of threat to the bridge did seem evident over the last few comics, so I feel Max is justified in thinking it was done intentionally. Mind you, we get the luxury of having all the time we want to analyze this and she gets all of two seconds. She’s under a lot of pressure here.
As for the blast, I’m pretty sure it will go out into space a blow up there. The explosion on the bridge looks like it was just from contact and not the full power of her attack. Which means Max oops’d even worse than some think. But that’s just a guess on my part. Take is worth a grain of salt.
Maxima should probably follow the advice that she gave Sydney in the restaurant.
… Why do we care whether Sciona gets the blame for this or not? How on earth could it possibly matter? The multiple murder charges (not to mention whatever else she’s done, they already know who she is) kinda trump reckless endangerment and vandalism.
She also jaywalks.
Wait… I thought her wings were made out of energy or even some sort of plasma base… how do they burn?
Apparently they’re somecsort of organic membrane that channels Sciona’s power?
How does Max shoot energy bursts out of her hands? Just as answerable a question.
Simply speaking, Max’s attack is more powerful than Sciona’s defense, so the defense was damaged in the attempt. It works because it DOES.
Plasma can burn, it’s just a state of matter.
Source: The sun.
Some varieties of plasma shields in fiction actually consist of plasma simply because it’s electromagnetically sensitive – it’s essentially just a gas held in place by magnets, but it’s held in place REALLY hard and you can’t really destroy electrons in normal conditions.
Was is said that they are energy or is it just what we all assumed from the way they glowed? They always keep the same shape and length and such.
Everything will be fiiine….. *whispers “no, no it won’t”*
“Medddiiiiicccc!”
at last, someone who got the reference :D
Now I have to ask what the reference is from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lSzUMBJnc
Now that is a medic!
I had seen that before, but only the once, hence not getting the reference. Funny though.
Makes me miss my medic from City of Heroes. Although I always did prefer bubblers (characters who could give folks force field protection). I avoided having a medic for ages, on the principle that if they missed a heal, and someone died, they would get the blame. But would rarely (unless on a team with me) get credit for saving them.
Whereas a good bubbler would be able to keep a force field on everyone, at all times. I even managed to keep key pets bubbled. Not to mention that it freed up time, once the force fields were up and running, to go on the offensive, and not to have to worry about peeps dying.
My bubbler’s always had a couple of AOE stuns, so much of the time enemy mobs would be too disoriented to even launch an attack. Let alone that the bubbles were mighty good at keeping folks alive, even without that.
Not to mention that my main bubbler was good (by support character standards) at pounding the c**p out of single targets. So could pitch in on arch-villain and giant monster fights. Whereas my mastermind one had robot pets who were powerful enough to mow their way through most mobs (even ones spawned for full teams), all by themselves!
And, amusingly, given the topic, also had a couple of robot medics, who could heal any damage that overcame their bubbles.
Can Sydney make it in thirty seconds????
Maybe not. Let us hope she can get there in less than five minutes though. The temporary repair might last longer than Maxima’s estimate. ;-)
We don’t know how far behind she is, but Sydney can do MACH 4 which is a hair under 3000 miles per hour or a little under 50 miles a minute. It’s been stated that Super Hiro is about as fast as a commercial jet liner, which puts him in the 700 mph range. Presumably Sydney was keeping pace with him until she was told to get a move on.
Could be an interesting experience for those inside the bubble when she kicks it into overdrive. They will probably be done with the bridge by the time Hiro catches up.
The area between Sydney and the bridge is going to get a good wake-up call from the sonic boom she will be laying down over their houses.
If Hiro positioned himself dead center on the front of her bubble as she got up to speed could he hang on in the 2000+ mph blast of air to catch a ride to the bridge? I believe William Shatner has shown us that SOME beings can survive the speeds of riding on air airplane wing in flight. (Which was later corroborated by John Lithgow)
Bill Weaver, a test pilot for the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, survived having the entire plane disintegate around him at over Mach 3. I’d say Hiro would do just fine as a hood ornament.
This is true – she can outrun her 2IC – so she might grab him with the molestical while flying real fast. Hope she remembers to grab his pants too….
Unless she has recently grown a third arm it will be difficult to fly, keep the shield up, and use the tentacle at the same time. (to be honest, I had the same idea for a moment there myself)
well… there’s an idea, have bit where Dabbler and Sydney somehow get merged. ;)
Sydney physique – CHECK
Extra arm – CHECK
Extra cybernetic arm – CHECK
Horns – Maybe
Tail – CHECK
Hooves – Skip that
Purple skin – Not fussed
Hey sounds good to me! Provided their merged facial features do not end up like some hideous monster. Either one or the other dominating or a tasteful blend of both would be OK.
The biggest problems would be the mental and emotional issues. Do they get to alternate using the body, like Wyrmil and Cooter? Or would Sydabbler have seriously conflicting desires over sexual issues?
A fusion of Sydney and Dabbler, somehow I think it would look similar to another fusion,
Opal, from Steven Universe;
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/0/09/Opalpng.png/revision/latest?cb=20160109203931&path-prefix=protagonist
Barring the hair, pretty good.
Thing is it was Max’s energy burst that sciona deflected.
Any decent lawyer could get that dismissed as an accident and blame shifted to Max for not waiting until she passed bridge and danger to civilians.
The counter would be her history, and why they were in pursuit. – as long as it doesn’t violate the veil’s existence that is….Ariana would be going greyer from having to deal wtih that. Not that this won’t do the same.
that requires 2 assumtions:
1: she didn’t noticed being chased
2: she couldn’t simply dodge/deflect it downwards
While maybe true, it will still be hard to argue, considering she is “fleeing” from a crime and when spotted made for said bridge.
So it will be her word agaisnt Maximas
Actually it depends on if Sciona was in the commission of a currently ongoing crime when Maxima shot at her. That’s the only way I see for blame to be shifted to Sciona instead of Maxima.
Think of it like this. If Sciona was robbing bank, and a bank guard shoots at Sciona, and accidentally hits a bank customer instead, Sciona would be on the hook because it was during the commission of a crime, even though Sciona did not actually fire the bullet.
If it happens after a crime happened, and a police officer happened to see a suspect matching the description of a bank robber a couple of days ago on the street, and started firing at her from the car and hit another person instead…. well then it’s no longer Sciona on the hook – it’s the officer.
I think it can be argued that unless a super’s projectile always remains controllable after release, once it is deflected or ricochets, where it goes can’t be blamed on the super, since deflections are almost never under anybody’s control. So on the legal end of things, I don’t think Max is culpable, but public opinion is nowhere near as subject to rational argument.
Arguments can then be made regarding level of force employed in the deflected projectile, but in this case since Sciona was not only managed to deflect the projectile, but wasn’t knocked into the river from a practically skimming altitude, the projectile was very likely of an appropriate damage scale to engage her. (As a contrast, shooting a normal human with a 120mm tank cannon is ludicrously disproportionate.)
It could also be argues that considering Scion’s history, aiting until she reached the bridge would be gross negligence since it would be reasonable to expect her to make an attack of her own on the bridge in the hope to distract and slow down her persuer. In which case making an attack in an attempt to prevent her from reaching vulnerable civillians was justified, especially since at the time Max did not know Scion could deflect her shot.
Another problem is Maxima could have done various other actions to stop Sciona instead of using the plasma bolt, not least of which was using her speed.
Yea, given the speed Maxima showed patching up that bridge before the larger rubble pieces could fall more then a couple meters. Maxima could have easily caught up to Sciona before she reached the bridge given Sciona’s known speed.
Exactly. That’s why I’m saying what Maxima did was reckless to the point of being negligent.
Maxed out speed = minimum defence = dead Maxima.
An officer is not obliged to die to protect the civil rights of someone who has attempted multiple homicides, has shown a pattern of indiscriminate attacks, who is believed to be in possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and is maneuvering to a position where many civilian lives would be exposed to her indiscriminate homicidal behaviour!
She doesn’t need ‘maxed out speed.’ She just needs more speed than Sciona. And since Sciona just barely goes above supersonic, Maxima definitely can do that even while at her perfect triangle of powers. She was able to keep up with Sydney at Mach 4 without having to alter her power distribution.
She already had more speed than Sciona, she was slowly catching up. Any more speed would require reduction of her other powers.
She had more speed even WITHOUT raising it. She can raise it more without sacrificing her invulnerability. You’re making up assumptions of what happened without any basis shown in the comic. It seem to be a regular thing with people for some reason.
Hello pot, kettle calling.
Maxima was not fighting or defending or super speeding whilst flying with Sydney, so you have absolutely no grounds to claim that “She was able to keep up with Sydney at Mach 4 without having to alter her power distribution.”
The only point Maxima made was that she was not at her top speed, so had some capability left. But we do not know how much.
Likewise with the statement you just made, or indeed claiming that Sciona was ‘only just going supersonic’. Her briefing simply said that ‘Norad identified a supersonic target’. There is NO mach number stated, so Sciona could have been travelling at any speed from Mach 1 to Mach 20.
Especially as Sciona was travelling inland from the East coast, which means they start ahead of her line of travel. So even if Maxima is half Sciona’s speed she could have intercepted.
Regardless of the numbers involved you are still insisting on an officer compromising her options in engaging someone who has already tried to kill various members of her team, and who, in any event, has mind affecting technomagic which bypasses Maxima’s force field.
It is bleeding heart liberal meddling like this which causes wars to be lost and cops to hesitate inappropriately and die. Once the decision has been made to engage with prejudice, they should use the most effective means at their disposal. Maxima did so in a manner calculated not to expose the public to danger.
The fact that Sciona had a capability never before witnessed by her (including by Sciona herself) does not make that a bad judgement.
A cop should not have to put away their handgun, when engaging a murderess armed with multiple ways of killing them, simply because they have a taser at their belt. The situation is not appropriate for an attack which would expose them to dying by closing to attack. If there had been a credible chance for a ricochet, maybe. But not without there being any hard surfaces in the line of fire. There was only water beyond!
“Maxima was not fighting or defending or super speeding whilst flying with Sydney, so you have absolutely no grounds to claim that “She was able to keep up with Sydney at Mach 4 without having to alter her power distribution.”
ActuallyI do have grounds to say that, since DaveB has said that Maxima’s normal distribution is a ‘perfect triangle’ between strength, speed, and armor. I do not make assumptions that she changes that unless there’s that ‘dial’ that DaveB has used EVERY TIME SHE CHANGES THE DISTRIBUTION. You’re the one making that assumption. You’re doing what you’ve done with the Krona argument – you’re trying to change the assumed norms in order to make your argument work. It doesn’t.
“Regardless of the numbers involved you are still insisting on an officer compromising her options in engaging someone who has already tried to kill various members of her team, and who, in any event, has mind affecting technomagic which bypasses Maxima’s force field.”
No, I’m actually insisting that an officer actually do his or her duty to protect civilians and put their lives BEFORE capturing the perp, especially if there’s backup on the way who is nearly your speed and can pursue the perp while you fix a mess that YOU YOURSELF CAUSED.
“It is bleeding heart liberal meddling like this”
I think that might be the first time anyone has ever called me a bleeding heart liberal.
“which causes wars to be lost and cops to hesitate inappropriately and die.”
No, cops are responsible for the deaths and damage they cause as well.
“Once the decision has been made to engage with prejudice, they should use the most effective means at their disposal.”
Again no, the first duty of police is to protect the public. Stop the immediate threat BEFORE potential future threats. You should realize this in the wake of what happened in the most recent school shooting, where the police did NOT deal with the immediate threat, instead creating a perimeter around the school for a future threat instead.
“Maxima did so in a manner calculated not to expose the public to danger.”
Again, no. She was the proximate cause of exposing the public to danger here. She literally did the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
“A cop should not have to put away their handgun, when engaging a murderess armed with multiple ways of killing them, simply because they have a taser at their belt.”
No they shouldnt. But if the choice is between a civilian hanging off a ledge, and chasing after the person who pushed that civilian off a roof, the cop’s supposed to FIRST SAVE THE PERSON HANGING OFF THE LEDGE.
Or even more appropriate, if the cop has a choice between pursuing a suspect and saving a person who he himself accidentally PUSHED OFF THE ROOF…. DEFINITELY SAVE THE PERSON HANGING OFF THE LEDGE FIRST. Especially if you have partners who can chase the suspect.
“I think that might be the first time anyone has ever called me a bleeding heart liberal.”
*wags tail*
It is amazing how you can flip between that and being the symbol of capitalistic oppression. ;-)
My theory about you switching places with an evil sister is looking more likely. :-D
No offense but it’s not really funny right now. And not accurate about me at all. It’s just another insult made for no good reason.
Already spent way too much time trying to explain the basics of a negligence tort and the duty of care of law enforcement officers, whether local, federal under the DOJ (like the FBI), or federal under the DoD (like the Coast Guard).
My apologies. I thought that the winky emoticon would convey that I was purely teasing, as a joke. There was no insult intended.
I know you to be a decent person and that your arguments always prioritise people’s rights. And I do recall that you do pro bono work. So you are far from being ‘a symbol of capitalist oppression’. To the contrary.
Your only link to that is championing Deus’s rights. But equally you stand up for Sciona or Wyrmil’s rights, when appropriate. So you act without bias. Regardless of the fact that we disagree over individual points, at times, your heart is in the right place.
So I would not want you to think I was trying to insult you. I simply erred in forgetting that emoticons can only go so far to conveying a joking tone, and should have tried to convey that more clearly. Or, if I could fend off the imp, not do that at all.
“My apologies”
Apology accepted, have a Yorpie snax.
“Your only link to that is championing Deus’s rights. But equally you stand up for Sciona or Wyrmil’s rights, when appropriate. So you act without bias. Regardless of the fact that we disagree over individual points, at times, your heart is in the right place.”
Technically I haven’t really been talking about Sciona’s rights – just that the law would not make her the proximate cause here, it would make Maxima the proximate cause, but I appreciate what you’re saying.
It does occur to me that is probably some sort of secret treaty between the Council and the US government for extradition purposes, so that Council criminals would be tried under the Council’s laws, and US citizenry criminals would be tried under US law. Seriously wondering what happens to Cooter in that situation, since he’s pretty much an innocent dolt in all this.
Taking Cooter on his own merits, and assuming that he never actually found any monsters previously* and thereby would not necessarily have a rap sheet, he could apply to join Archon!
Doubtless Maxima would find his attitudes to be enthralling. ;-)
His stated intent is to hunt monsters, which is actually something that Archon is actively doing. Specifically the ones who abuse The Veil and attack humans. Who are the ones that Cooter is after. And the Twilight Council clearly does not have issues with killing them, under appropriate circumstances, so he could do so with their blessing!
Which just leaves Wyrmil. He was implicated in the murder of Cooter, so could face charges such as ‘conspiracy to commit’ or ‘accessory after the fact’. Plus his clearly callous attitude, and willing association with an evil villain, means it is likely he has a criminal history beyond just that.
However if he could convince Archon that he is reformed (*wink wink, nudge nudge*) then they could seek a pardon for past crimes, so that Wyrmcoot could sign up. We know that such has been done in the past as Achilles, Mr Amorphous and Heatwave were all vigilantes (and must have committed crimes to be classified as such), yet were allowed to join as police officers.
Or they could just be let loose. Given that incarceration or capital punishment cannot be carried out on Wyrmil, without it also affecting Cooter.
Precedent for this has been established in the case of a conjoined person, who’s other half committed an offence, which had a mandatory prison sentence. But which could not be carried out without impacting the right of their sibling to remain at liberty.
* He should not have been able to, as we saw that all the monsters in front of him were protected by The Veil and looked human (enough to pass anyhow).
Thank you, for your graciousness.
*gobbles down Yorpie snax*
“he could apply to join Archon!”
To be honest, I’d love to see that happen.
“He was implicated in the murder of Cooter, so could face charges such as ‘conspiracy to commit’ or ‘accessory after the fact’.”
Conspiracy to commit murder, but not accessory after the fact. After-the-fact is a different type of crime. Good call though.
“However if he could convince Archon that he is reformed (*wink wink, nudge nudge*) then they could seek a pardon for past crimes, so that Wyrmcoot could sign up. We know that such has been done in the past as Achilles, Mr Amorphous and Heatwave were all vigilantes (and must have committed crimes to be classified as such), yet were allowed to join as police officers.”
I love everything said in this paragraph.
“Or they could just be let loose. Given that incarceration or capital punishment cannot be carried out on Wyrmil, without it also affecting Cooter.”
Very true!
“Precedent for this has been established in the case of a conjoined person, who’s other half committed an offence, which had a mandatory prison sentence. But which could not be carried out without impacting the right of their sibling to remain at liberty.”
Are you serious? Is this a real thing? Because I never heard of it but that sounds like an awesome legal thought experiment.
Yup.
“
“
Actually what Maxima did would, at least in tort law, satisfy the requirement of proximate cause (used when trying to determine if someone is at fault for another’s injury in many tort cases) if someone was going to sue Maxima for the bridge damage and/or injuries. What Maxima did, in tort law, would also fit the requirements for negligence. This is only for civil cases though. Anyone getting injured as a result of this will be able to sue Maxima, or more likely Archon (since she’s working for Archon).
As for crimes, there’s no mens rea of Maxima to blow up the bridge, but mens rea ‘follows the bullet.’ If a criminal shoots at one person, misses, and hits another person, the mens rea (intent) travels and still applies. Even if it’s not on purpose, it could be a reckless indifference to human life, sort of like when a police officer starts firing his or her gun in a crowd of people in order to shoot a criminal, and someone else gets shot.
That being said, Archon might have some sort of sovereign immunity against torts from accidents, although I’d be surprised if that was the case. Even then, reckless indifference by the government agent usually won’t let the immunity cover them, and what Maxima did could be considered reckless indifference, given how dangerous her energy bolts are, as was shown in the press release.
For example, involuntary manslaughter is homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with criminal recklessness OR negligence. If someone dies as a result of this, Maxima’s on the hook for it. Even if it was partially because of Sciona deflecting the plasma bolt at the last minute as a defensive measure.
If no one is hurt or killed as a result, though, there won’t be any criminal case – but there will still by multiple tort lawsuits. Both from the people on the bridge against Maxima and Archon, and the city against Maxima and Archon.
TL;DR – At the very least, there’s going to be a tort lawsuit if no criminal case, depending on if anyone is killed.
The blast only hit the bridge because Sciona deflected it there. It wasn’t a case of Max missing, it was a case of Sciona deflecting it. If Max had tried to tackle Sciona and Sciona had judo thrown her into the bridge with similar damage (which is just as likely of an outcome), would that also have been Max’s fault? At this level of power there is no way to not risk this level of collateral damage…
I don’t see how you can make a claim for negligence. She sent a relatively low powered blast (compare with the blast sent at the tank) at a known threat heading for a civilian population. There was nothing in the field of fire that represented a threat to any civilians, ie if she had missed it would have been fine. There is no evidence that any other method of intercepting Sciona would be as effective or less dangerous. The gun you have mentioned is not a viable method of stopping a threat of the level of Sciona, coming into physical contact with a blood mage seems… stupidly reckless, blasting from a different direction doesn’t change the outcome. Once the damage happened, she took time to minimize the continuing damage.
“The blast only hit the bridge because Sciona deflected it there.”
It doesn’t matter. The proximate cause of the damage is still Maxima’s reckless action
“It wasn’t a case of Max missing,”
I never said it was a case of Maxima missing, it’s a case of a ricochet of a shot that was not necessary to make when less severe actions could have worked instead.
“If Max had tried to tackle Sciona and Sciona had judo thrown her into the bridge with similar damage”
Even assuming that Sciona had mad aerial judo skills, being thrown into bridge would not have caused it to explode.
“would that also have been Max’s fault?”
Aside from the fact that your scenario doesn’t make sense, because Maxima hitting into things does not cause explosions, no, then there would have been an actual break in the proximate cause of what Maxima did, and would shift to what Sciona did. Here, it’s not. In the real scenario, Sciona’s action is to prevent being killed and reflexive. In your hypothetical, it can be argued to be a battery against Maxima, which could then be a new crime, and the proximate cause of bridge damage can extend from there instead.
“At this level of power there is no way to not risk this level of collateral damage…”
Incorrect, and you can minimize it, which Maxima did not do because she used her most destructive attack FIRST.
I think I’ll give incredibly evil, murderous, blood mage, Sciona the benefit of the doubt here. She seems just as surprised as Max at what happened. She’s innocent……now lets watch her intentionally commit horrible atrocities!
That is fair enough. Just don’t tell the press. Archon do not need bad publicity this early on!
Yeah, Archon is capable of producing it’s own bad press :P
Meh, sh*t happens in combat. And the scope is even worse in super powered fights. I actually like that Dave does not sugar coat these situations and pretend like the heroes will always be flawless in every act.
What they do though, like any soldier or police officer, is to make as good a call as they can, under the circumstances, and take their best shot.
Maxima followed her own rules, and there was nothing destructible beyond Sciona, in her line of fire. The fact that it got diverted off its path, and disasterously badly at that, is not due to incompetence on Maxima’s part. It is just bad luck. Sciona had a capability that (as per the author) even Sciona did not know she could do! So that was completely unpredictable.
So, lay it at Archon’s door, if you want, I am not bothered, as Maxima made a good call in trying to stop her and executed her attack well.
If I had been there and had a gun (or preferably a rocket launcher) I would have taken my shot. Rather than sitting back and waiting until after Sciona had purposefully done something like this, and then had to react to the unfolding disaster.
Supers who behave in a reactive fashion are dumb. If you can predict the enemies move you should act to counter the threat to life before it happens. And if you roll a critical failure on your attack, or the enemy a critical success on their defence, you just have to deal with it as best you can.
While agree it did not look like she expected to deflect the shot. I highly doupt her origional intentions toward the bridge to be benign. Heck I would expect that her origional plan for distraction might have been worse. But the bridge got damaged anyway and she tried to take advantage of the oportunity to make another run for it. To bad for her Max has speed and strength for emergency patch repair and get back to the chase with rescue team not far behind (reletively speaking with Syd’s speed capability).
The bridge was going to be damaged by Sciona as a delaying tactic.
Maxima’s unlucky ricochet just got there first.
Ditto,
I am just picturing a “not what I was going to do, but close enough.”
You can’t be found guilty of ‘future crimes.’
Agreed. But you can be shot whilst attempting to commit a crime. Even in cases where the attack is not visible. Provided that the officer has reasonable cause to believe that an attack is imminent.
The case I cited a couple of times (on each of the last two comics) was British metropolitan police shooting a suspected terrorist bomber dead. The circumstances were a good parallel to this one, in that he had no visible weapon/bomb, but had deliberately evaded police (he ran from them, into the tube station).
However the enquiry showed that the police pursuing him had been informed that he was believed to be in possession of a bomb (just like Sciona is believed to be in possession of WMD) and that he was considered a high risk.
Those officers were found blameless in shooting him. Even without giving him a warning. Their judgement was that the time delay would have given him the chance to trigger the bomb. And the criminal justice system agreed that they made the right call.
Note that this was put to a jury, and they had the option of “unlawful killing” or “open verdict” (a prior criminal trial had already established that it was not a “lawful killing” due to the failures by other officers in the investigation in assessing the individual as being a threat, but failing to pass on an assessment that gave a contrary opinion).
They exonerated the front-line officers by electing not to choose the “unlawful killing”. Despite the earlier bungled intelligence gathering, the officers who were in the same situation as Maxima had done their job right.
“But you can be shot whilst attempting to commit a crime.”
There’s no proof of any ongoing crime. At all.
“Even in cases where the attack is not visible.”
Again, no proof of any attack in progress. Just a fleeing suspect.
“Provided that the officer has reasonable cause to believe that an attack is imminent.”
I think you either mean reasonable suspicion or probable cause. There’s no such thing as reasonable cause. In either case, that doesn’t yet exist here at the point where Maxima decided to use deadly force.
“The case I cited a couple of times (on each of the last two comics) was British metropolitan police shooting a suspected terrorist bomber dead. The circumstances were a good parallel to this one, in that he had no visible weapon/bomb, but had deliberately evaded police (he ran from them, into the tube station).”
Britain has a different set of laws so I can’t comment on that as any sort of expert, but in the US they need to be doing something before you try to kill them. You can use non-deadly force or detain them, but you can’t go straight to killing unless they actually saw a weapon or a bomb. That being said, if the bombers where IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME at the time, then any fault moves from the officer(s) to the criminal, even if the officers were not aware of the severity of the threat – as long as there was an active crime occurring. Which, in the british case, there was. In the law it’s known as ‘intent follows the bullet.’
In addition, Maxima should not be leaving after a patch job that will only last 30 seconds. She should send someone ELSE ahead while she handles the mess she is at least partially (or fully) at fault for causing.
“Note that this was put to a jury, and they had the option of “unlawful killing” or “open verdict” (a prior criminal trial had already established that it was not a “lawful killing” due to the failures by other officers in the investigation in assessing the individual as being a threat, but failing to pass on an assessment that gave a contrary opinion).”
Also, Britain might have different levels of sovereign immunity for government (which could include the police) than states in the US have. This comic takes place in the US.
Did they not already have surveillance on wyrmil/Cooter, and did they not identify the alari figure as his attacker? Regardless of whether she can be convicted for his “death twice- that’s assualt and battery- this whole situation is as a result of following her for that crime with intent to arrest. Be aware she is also at an unknown power level using unknown equipment- for all Maxima knows those wing shapes could effectively biscect her. Although Maxima has police training and is required use lower power first, unless there is reasonable belief that she can effectively stop the target with her own body it would be even more reckless to attempt a tackle manoeuvre regardless of whether she has the speed to intercept. Failure at least would risk taking her out of combat by a water interaction, and possibly result in maxima’s death.
The shot was an attempt to direct the target away from civilians on the bridge and to intercept the target who had committed a brutal attack on one individual with intent to prevent further casualties, as regardless of whether wyrmil/Cooter is dead her attack method demonstrated a high degree of lethality to any normal human. How does whether or not there was visible intent to attack the bridge nullify the demonstrated violence and attempt to evade what she would intuitively know to be an “law enforcement agency” following her very shortly after she committed a crime?
“Did they not already have surveillance on wyrmil/Cooter, and did they not identify the alari figure as his attacker?”
No, they do not know that Cooter/Wyrmil was attacked. There is nothing at all which has shown that they know anything about that. You are making assumptions based on no evidence.
“Regardless of whether she can be convicted for his “death twice- that’s assualt and battery- this whole situation is as a result of following her for that crime with intent to arrest”
It’s battery, not assault. Assault requires the apprehension of imminent attack. Sciona did it without them seeing her coming. Also Cooter’s no longer completly human so even that definition might not apply anymore, since assault is on another human, whereas Cooter’s now sort of a human/monster hybrid. But moot point on that. Lets assume that he’s human for legal definition’s sake. That crime is over, so the fault would be on Maxima, not Sciona. The crime has to be happening for incidental wrongs to be the responsibility of the perpetrator of the initial crime.
Again, please look up the law if you don’t believe me. This is first year criminal law I’m describing.
“Be aware she is also at an unknown power level using unknown equipment- for all Maxima knows those wing shapes could effectively biscect her.”
So far, Maxima has been CONSISTENTLY dismissive of the idea that any of the Council have anything that can handle her ‘order of magnitude.’
“Although Maxima has police training and is required use lower power first, unless there is reasonable belief that she can effectively stop the target with her own body it would be even more reckless to attempt a tackle manoeuvre regardless of whether she has the speed to intercept.”
No, it would not be reckless for her to tackle Sciona. I don’t think you understand the definition of recklessness when it comes to legal terms.
“Failure at least would risk taking her out of combat by a water interaction,”
Maxima is definitely faster than Sciona, and stronger as well, unless you think that Vale is stronger than Maxima.
“and possibly result in maxima’s death.”
1) Maxima doesn’t strike me as someone who thinks that Sciona has what it takes to kill her.
2) Cowardice isn’t something that I think of when I think ‘Maxima.’
3) Also, police and soldiers are supposed to protect the citizenry. They know the job is potentially dangerous. That’s why they’re putting themselves in harms way – to protect the citizens. Instead, Maxima put the citizens in harm’s way before Sciona could put the citizens in harm’s way. She’s wrong. Just deal with the fact that the hero here is imperfect. She did something that would get any police officer suspended and probably put on charges, and definitely would get the city sued (or in this case, Archon sued). And Archon would lose (or more likely settle out of court).
“The shot was an attempt to direct the target away from civilians on the bridge and to intercept the target”
No. It wasn’t. It was an attempt to kill Sciona. Not deflect. In fact, if Maxima had done a warning shot AHEAD of Sciona instead of attacking her directly with the plasma blast, it would have created a wall of water in Sciona’s way which would have been better, and Sciona couldn’t have deflected that.
“who had committed a brutal attack on one individual with intent to prevent further casualties,”
So far the only person she committed a brutal attack recently on was Wyrmil/Cooter, and Archon and Maxima do not even know about that. The previous attack she made on anyone was on Sydney at the Mars factory, days ago. You can’t use deadly force as revenge. That’s illegal, even for the government.
“as regardless of whether wyrmil/Cooter is dead her attack method demonstrated a high degree of lethality to any normal human.”
Doesn’t matter. Cooter’s no longer human, and they know that already. Plus, again, they don’t know that she just attacked Cooter/Wyrmil.
“How does whether or not there was visible intent to attack the bridge nullify the demonstrated violence and attempt to evade what she would intuitively know to be an “law enforcement agency” following her very shortly after she committed a crime?”
Because you need the other person to have intent to commit a crime in order to use deadly force to prevent that crime, and even then it can’t be just some reasonable suspicion. There has to be more than that for deadly force.
And the act of dropping on top of the aforementioned object of Cooter in full view of witnesses from essentially supersonic speeds causing what is likely a fairly damaging shockwave of sound hitting both the surrounding buildings and people shown around the visibly human shape of Cooter does not constitute acriminal action? If you can assume Cooter can not be treated as a human i can assume that Dan’s deliberate lack of showing the surrounding area is due to his previous admittance of being weak in drawing cluttered background scenes, including those of broken glass and property damage.
“And the act of dropping on top of the aforementioned object of Cooter in full view of witnesses from essentially supersonic speeds causing what is likely a fairly damaging shockwave of sound hitting both the surrounding buildings and people shown around the visibly human shape of Cooter does not constitute acriminal action?”
That didn’t happen. Where are you even getting this? She swooped in, cut Cooter in half, took the scythe, and left. Where are you reading that there was a shock wave shaking buildings? Are we reading different comics?
“If you can assume Cooter can not be treated as a human”
Um… because he isnt human any longer? He’s merged with a monster. That’s not an assumption. That’s…. literally in the comic.
“i can assume that Dan’s”
Dave’s
“deliberate lack of showing the surrounding area is due to his previous admittance of being weak in drawing cluttered background scenes, including those of broken glass and property damage.”
1) DaveB, aka Dan who arent paying attention apparently, is actually really good at drawing cluttered backgrounds.
2) You can’t assume things that did not happen just because the facts, as actually written, don’t fit your argument.
“There’s no proof of any ongoing crime. At all.”
Except for the crime she’s literally in the middle of fleeing from. She attack (tried to murder) someone then stole a dangerous object from them and is now fleeing the crime scene. That’s an ongoing crime there’s no way it can’t be.
It’s too far removed for it to be included in the definition of felony murder. There has been actual case law on this, actually, involving someone being murdered in the aftermath of a crime, but not during the actual commission of that crime. It’s settled law.
Didn’t she change course towards the bridge?
Might that indicate intent?
It doesnt indicate intent to do anything to the bridge. It could just as easily be intent to use the bridge as cover to escape (going underwater, using blood teleportation, etc) once out of line-of-sight.
Yet every time they have encountered Sciona, she has attacked with intent to kill. With such a clear pattern of behaviour, what justification do you have for endangering the lives of everyone on the bridge?
‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is what you do in a trial, when you have ample time to examine an issue from every possible angle. In the field, when a terrorist, with a history of frequently attempting homicides, is in possession of a WMD and is approaching a populated area, it is entirely reasonable for a police officer to use their judgement and make a call ‘on the balance of probability’.
And under those circumstances I would expect any rational police officer to prioritise protecting the masses of civilians at risk in preference to extending the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist.
Yup, Sciona’s actions in the Council chamber do fit the bill of a terrorist attack, on multiple counts.
“Yet every time they have encountered Sciona, she has attacked with intent to kill.”
Actually they’ve only encountered Sciona once.
“With such a clear pattern of behaviour,”
One time does not create a pattern.
“what justification do you have for endangering the lives of everyone on the bridge?”
My justification is that Maxima DID endanger the lives of everyone on the bridge. And if she did something not as reckless, the lives of everyone on the bridge would not be endangered. You’re being a bit stubborn about something that’s obvious :).
“‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is what you do in a trial,”
Beyond a reasonable doubt is different than reasonable suspicion. They literally have nothing to do with each other. And again, there’s no such thing as reasonable cause.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement by the prosecution to fulfill when trying someone in a criminal case. Reasonable suspicion is a requirement that police have to justify investigating something. Neither have anything to do with the use of force.
“when you have ample time to examine an issue from every possible angle.”
Wrong. Beyond a reasonable doubt has nothing to do with what you just said. At all.
“In the field, when a terrorist, with a history of frequently attempting homicides, is in possession of a WMD and is approaching a populated area, it is entirely reasonable for a police officer to use their judgement and make a call ‘on the balance of probability’.”
That would be DURING the commission of a crime. There is not a current crime in progress that is needing to be stopped yet, unlike in your hypothetical scenario. You’re wrong, Yorpie.
“Yup, Sciona’s actions in the Council chamber do fit the bill of a terrorist attack, on multiple counts.”
If you try to use a prior act from days or weeks ago to justify use of lethal force in a current situation, then you are not protected legally from the consequences if it goes sideways. If Sciona was ACTIVELY doing something at that exact moment, though, then it would be Sciona’s fault. I’m not sure why this is difficult for people to understand. The burden of the responsibility for the bridge getting destroyed is on Maxima in this situation.
1. In the council chamber Archon personnel and civilians were attacked with deadly force. The attackers were constructs which were so readily identifiable as being Sciona’s handiwork that she was their primary suspect even though she was believed to be dead!
Their subsequent investigation, at the Mars factory, showed that it was indeed Sciona responsible, rather than some hypothetical individual replicating her powers and modus operandi.
2. Scouting said abandoned Mars factory Sciona attacked Pixel, Sydney and various civilians.
3. Krona’s reset occurred, giving Sciona the opportunity to rethink her criminal ways. She chose to yet again attack, this time with another construct. And again attempting to murder Archon personnel and Krona.
4. Arc SWAT got summoned to a breaking and entering at Machina Industries, to have the chief executive officer testify that Sciona had caused property damage and become threatening enough to require physical force to defend him from attack.
Not only is this a pattern it is one in which Sciona has ONLY behaved in destructive and most often deadly ways. Including the precursor attack, on the sigil, which, with hindsight, became apparent to be part of Sciona’s plan to break into the dark reliquary.
Not sure why you’re making numbers when you still have only shown one time that Archon has encountered Sciona in order to make a ‘pattern.’ (the Mars factory). You can’t make a pattern from one time.
Also the construct on the roof was part of the same one time, and the breakin at Deus’s was actually quite different from the actions she took at the Mars factory, which actually goes against a pattern (even though Sciona IS A violent killer – there’s no pattern that Archon can make based on the one actual example they have).
My point is not that Sciona is not a violent killer. She is. My point was disputing that they have a pattern. They don’t. Even if you include the initial mannekiller attack on the Council, that would at most make it two times. Two times also does not make a pattern.
Sorry, but try to kill me once, shame on you. Try to kill me twice, shame on me. Even look at me a third time and I am killing you on sight.
If that was true, then Maxima would have tried to kill Sciona immediately before she was alerted to Maxima’s presence. She instead wanted to trail her back to the hideout.
Yup. On account of Sciona being known to employ henchmen, and not being able to carry every item stolen from the Dark Reliquary.
Maxima does have to look at the big picture. Whilst Sciona was just in transit, she was a danger, but not an imminent one. The instant she spotted Maxima and diverted towards the nearest population density she got upgraded to a ‘clear and present danger’.
The military have very clear protocols when such things happen.
Even if it is a passenger plane, full of innocent civilians, but under terrorist control and fast approaching a densely populated city, the aircraft will be shot down.
Feel free to argue ‘oh but they were not clearly making an attack’ or ‘no weapons were visible’ but that is how our society handles such issues.
“Maxima does have to look at the big picture. Whilst Sciona was just in transit, she was a danger, but not an imminent one. The instant she spotted Maxima and diverted towards the nearest population density she got upgraded to a ‘clear and present danger’.”
No, you’re wrong. The imminent danger is what Maxima did to the bridge. You are trying to use buzzwords like ‘clear and present danger’ without knowing how it’s actually used. The ‘clear and present danger’ requirement is part of the Federal Espionage Act. Schenck vs United States, 249 US 47 (1919) when dealing with issues of free speech. It has nothing to do with pursuing criminals whatsoever.
In the Schenck case, Oliver Wendell Holmes (Chief Justice at the time) ruled that freedom of speech could be limited by the government. But Justice Holmes was careful to say that the government could only do this when there was a “clear and present danger” such as during wartime.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what’s happening here, and you’re making no sense.
“Even if it is a passenger plane, full of innocent civilians, but under terrorist control and fast approaching a densely populated city, the aircraft will be shot down.”
Now you’re using movie scenarios rather than something which has ever happened in real life. I believe you are either talking about the movie ‘Executive Decision’ with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal. The US does not have a protocol to blow up planes with American citizens on it in order to prevent terrorists from crashing it into a densely populated area.
Not to mention, in the Grrlpower universe, Maxima blowing up a plane like that instead of simply stopping it in midair would again make her liable for recklessness in a tort case…. plus possibly even manslaughter because of a reckless disregard for human life (a different standard than the recklessness standard in a civil negligence case).
No, I am describing actual policy. I am seriously surprised that you are unaware of such, given the prominence that such reporting had following 911.
And you are thinking that people are only allowed to use a niche version of a phrase. Whereas this is a debate on a comic, not in a court. So I am perfectly at liberty to use popular media buzzwords.
It is the kind of phrase that a politician would use when justifying launching their nukes, so I felt it was apt. But agree that it is not the best choice, when debating with a
pedanticlovely lawyer. ;-)Only in your opinion. Which I believe is badly flawed.
Top priority: save the world. Next priority: save the people on the bridge.
Cause they are in the world and would die anyhow if the world is destroyed.
Do recall that the items stolen were described as being apocalyptic in nature. Possibly not all of them are literally capable of destroying the world. But, until proven otherwise, we should consider the items to be as described.
As such Maxima is also correct in leaving the bridge rescue to her subordinates, whilst pursing the person who has stolen weapons capable of destroying the world!
“No, I am describing actual policy. I am seriously surprised that you are unaware of such, given the prominence that such reporting had following 91”
No, that’s the Royal Air Force – the UK – not the US. They are different countries.
“And you are thinking that people are only allowed to use a niche version of a phrase.”
No, I’m thinking that when using legal terms like negligence, you have to use legal definitions and applicable laws. Because that is how the law works. The law does NOT work by using media buzzwords as legal terms. You werent even using those buzzwords as legal terms correctly, like ‘clear and present danger.’
You’re wrong. Just deal with the fact that you’ve made a mistake. :/
“It is the kind of phrase that a politician would use when justifying launching their nukes, so I felt it was apt.”
Please tell me that you don’t think politicians who use buzzwords incorrectly are who you should be quoting, Yorpie.
“But agree that it is not the best choice, when debating with a […] lovely lawyer. ;-)”
I appreciate you removing the potential insult. Thank you.
“Only in your opinion. Which I believe is badly flawed.”
No, it’s not my opinion. You used the term ‘clear and present danger,’ which has nothing to do with this situation at all. That term is used for limiting the first amendment during wartime under the Espionage Act, and I gave the caselaw where Justice Holmes first used the term. It has nothing to do whatsoever with this scenario. You were wrong. Not an opinion. Fact.
“Cause they are in the world and would die anyhow if the world is destroyed”
You are making up a potential threat that does not exist – that the world will be destroyed – and ignoring an actual, immediate threat – that potentially hundreds are about to die in the next few seconds because of an explosion that was caused by Maxima’s plasma blast.
“As such Maxima is also correct in leaving the bridge rescue to her subordinates, whilst pursing the person who has stolen weapons capable of destroying the world!”
You did this same thing with Krona, I recall. You conflate a threat into an apocalyptic scenario, despite only having rampant speculation to back that prediction up, ignoring the real, immediate wrongdoing and/or threat currently happening. You’re doing the same thing, again, here.
Wow, seriously? You insult me by saying I was stating that I was using a scenario from a movie. To which I show you a NATO government policy statement, refuting that. Yet you fail to apologise for that.
On top of which you quibble that I was citing the UK instead of the US! I will refrain from using the “p” word, as I have no desire to insult you.
Sorry to point this out, but the UK does not just exist in movies. It is a real government.
“Wow, seriously? You insult me by saying I was stating that I was using a scenario from a movie”
I apologize for insulting you. It was not intended as an insult. It’s just what you described was almost identical to the plot to Executive Decision.
“To which I show you a NATO government policy statement, refuting that. Yet you fail to apologise for that.”
NATO is not US law. It’s a trans-national treaty organization, and cannot and doesn ot impose itself on US sovereignty beyond financial payments and international military efforts, not domestic ones.
I do apologize though for saying something that came off as insulting, again.
“On top of which you quibble that I was citing the UK instead of the US!”
Because Archon is based on US law, not UK law. They are different.
“Sorry to point this out, but the UK does not just exist in movies. It is a real government.”
And I can’t use UK law to determine how US law works here. Because it’s a different country. However, in the movie Executive Decision, that was in the US. I honestly thought you were basing your opinion on the movie because the plot of the movie is almost identical to what you said, except instead of crashing the plane into a populated area, they were going to crash the plane while having biological poisonous agent into a populated area instead.
No probs. Normally such would not bother me, but my head was hurting and I was crotchety. Plus it would be churlish of me to not completely forgive you, both because you are a lovely person and because you have graciously forgiven my inadvertent lapses.
As for the remainder, the US almost certainly has exactly the same policy in place. Whether or not they have had the courage to publicly state that as such, on the record. I certainly have heard a number of people in authority (but not necessarily speaking in an official capacity) saying that is the course which would have to be taken, as a last resort.
Which is only practical, as we know that the death toll for an airliner hitting a skyscraper can be vast.
No. I have the right to freedom of speech, and I have already pointed out that we are speaking in a public forum, not in a court. If I choose to speak as a layman and use negligence in its everyday meaning I may do so. You cannot compel me to do otherwise, by law.
As for the meat of the issue, I stand by my statement:
Whilst reiterating that I am using the layman’s term for ‘clear and present danger’. Me being a layman and not wishing to be bogged down in your legalise!
Just for the record since the 9/11 attacks the US has a similar policy in place for shooting down hijacked planes and the US Air Force regularly practices drills on that procedure. In fact most countries do, all NATO countries if I remember correctly (at least all the NATO ones got together to coordinate a bit around them as they do with most military policy so that they can better work together).
It’s not some fringe thing that only the UK has.
“As for the remainder, the US almost certainly has exactly the same policy in place. Whether or not they have had the courage to publicly state that as such, on the record.”
Not sure how legal it will be if it ever is implemented. Or even if it’s legal, there will probably still be torts as a result, although it of course will depend on what happens.
For example, if they shoot the plane down, and the falling wreckage kills the same amount or more than the building it hits.
“No. I have the right to freedom of speech, and I have already pointed out that we are speaking in a public forum, not in a court. If I choose to speak as a layman and use negligence in its everyday meaning I may do so. You cannot compel me to do otherwise, by law.”
Yes, you have freedom of speech of COURSE. But if you speak as a layman about something that is using a legal definition, you will still be wrong. I can say that 2+2=5, and you can say ‘you can’t say that’ – then I can say ‘you can’t make me not say that!’….. it doesn’t mean I’m right about how much you get when you add two plus two, though.
“Whilst reiterating that I am using the layman’s term for ‘clear and present danger’.”
Clear and present danger is a legal term. When you use it as a layman as if it has anything to do with the law, you are making an incorrect statement on what you’re talking about.
“Me being a layman and not wishing to be bogged down in your legalise!”
Legal-ese. And if you’re going to respond to a legal argument, and don’t use legal terms, then you’re just going to be wrong in the argument. Which is fine. You have a first amendment right to be wrong. But you’d still be wrong. :)
@Mark: NATO is an international military treaty, not a US law.
The Airforce would likely be protected under sovereign immunity. If so, it applies automatically and as such no tort could be enforced. The government could choose to waive that, for public relations purposes or just out of decency. Or if they wanted to do something similar, but without exposing themselves to waiving sovereign immunity, they could retain it and pay out a level of compensation they chose to set.
Just to point out you are being pedantic here, and are wrong in any event. Once I have stipulated that I am using the layman version of the term not the legal one, then the legal term has zero bearing on the matter. If it is a single word, you get out your dictionary, not your law books. If it is a turn of phrase you find out what it is commonly understood to mean.
I am not the only person to have used “clear and present danger” in this debate, in the layman’s sense. Because this is being carried out by general members of the public, and so we choose to use the language that we understand.
Also, contextually, as you say, the legal term is to do with another area of law completely, so there is no ambiguity. Just use the common sense English language understanding of those three words, and stop quibbling just because we do not choose to play by your rules!
Nope. Because I made clear the intended meaning of the turn of phrase I chose to use. This is perfectly normal in English. One word or phrase can have several different meanings. In a dictionary you look them up and they are numbered.
You use context to decide which is the relevant one. Here I have negated the need to judge the context by explicitly stating the version that applies. You do not get to expunge words and phrases from my vocabulary, just because they sound like ones you want to reserve exclusively for your profession’s use!
PD has kindly supplied us with the US armed forces Rules of Engagement, which corroborates that the US will shoot down a civilian aircraft, under terrorist control, when that may be necessary:
If we take Maxima’s statement about not letting Sciona reach the bridge and that she is moving to engage, as ‘declaring her a hostile force’ (clearly in less than the formal way we might expect in real life), then it obviates any need for her to visibly be making an attack.
Purely for interests sake (because we have been talking about duty of care) when looking at shooting down an airliner, it is clearly removing any duty of care to the people on the aircraft. At this point it is considered that their lives could not be saved, having expended all available options.
Although I am sure Soverign Immunity would be invoked to protect those calling the shots and the individuals involved in shooting it down.
This is a moot point, given the Rules of Engagement supplied as per the link above. Plus I was not citing the UK article to justify Maxima’s actions. It was purely as an example that it is not just confined to the movies.
However, again for interests sake, we have discussed this before. International treaties (military or otherwise) take precedence over national laws.
For example:
This takes precedence over any national laws which more militant politicians may wish to enact, that might contradict Article 1. If they want to enact such laws they would need to either negotiate an exemption under that article, or give notice to withdraw from the treaty (in this case one years notice).
I reiterate that this has nothing to do with Maxima’s present situation. There is no NATO treaty specifying that civilian airliners must be shot down. However I get the impression that most NATO countries did implement similar changes, to their rules of engagement, following 911.
thing you fail to have, oh Panderingly Ignorant Lawyerman, is ample history of the person in question.
while you can’t be found guilty of future crimes, Sciona has a rap sheet from the Twilight Council about six miles long and has been directly witnessed committing such.
1) Lawyerwoman, thank you very much.
2) Chasing someone who is an evil person does not mean you can be reckless and it does not absolve you of guilt if someone is injured or killed, or things are destroyed due to your recklessness. Anything you say about Sciona does NOTHING to absolve Maxima, because Sciona’s past crimes are not part of this current action. Therefore, the destruction of the bridge, which had the proximate cause as Maxima firing her plasma blast at Sciona, is the fault of Maxima, not Sciona, and it can’t even be considered a felony murder charge if someone dies as a result of Maxima’s action, because there was no current felony in this interaction. The last felony was when Sciona cleaved Cooter/Wyrmil – it’s separate from this.
I’m probably speaking over your head though. And no, previous crimes of a perp can not be used to excuse Maxima of doing something reckless in response.
Firing at a target, with only water in the line of fire beyond them, is not being reckless. Maxima followed protocol.
Hon. Yorpie. Baby. Pookie….. when I say reckless, I am using the legal term – a term for which Maxima would be liable in a tort lawsuit for the damage she just caused. I am not using some layman nebulous term. She operated with recklessness as it would be judged to determine negligence, based on her status as an expert and commanding officer, which would go beyond that of the normal ‘reasonable person standard’ of a layman.
She didn’t follow protocol also btw, and I’m pretty sure we’ll see that in a future strip where she probably will be chewed out by the General. It’s not even the first time the Destroyer-of-Mosques has done something reckless, based on what we’ve read in the comic.
She would only be liable if the jury agreed with your assessment. Or the courts martial, depending on whether it was heard in a civil or military court. Either way I feel she would be acquitted, as there was no way to predict that Sciona had an ability which could deflect the attack.
Without which Sciona would be dead, and the people on the bridge would be fine.
“She would only be liable if the jury agreed with your assessment”
Actually no, she’d be liable if she meets all the requirements for negligence, which she does. The jury then rules based on whether she meets those requirements.
“Or the courts martial, depending on whether it was heard in a civil or military court.”
This isnt a crime, it’s a tort. It wouldn’t be in military court. The only possibility of it being a crime would be if someone dies and Maxima is accused of involuntary manslaughter, in which case THEN it might be in military court, but it’s problematic, since Archon is treated more like the Coast Guard for US soil-operations, rather than the army, navy, air force, or marines.
Torts, though – that’s civil court all the way. At least Maxima should HOPE that she’d be in a civil court rather than a military tribunal – the former only issues monetary damages.
“Either way I feel she would be acquitted, as there was no way to predict that Sciona had an ability which could deflect the attack.”
She would lose a civil case for negligence. And again, negligence is not a crime, it’s a tort. And yes, it’s quite easy to show proximate cause was from Maxima. There’s literally only one action separating Maxima firing her plasma blast and the plasma blast hitting the bridge – the deflection. It’s a ‘but for’ argument that’s used in the law when describing proximate cause. But for Maxima firing her plasma blast, the bridge would not have exploded.
“Without which Sciona would be dead, and the people on the bridge would be fine.”
Could have, would have, should have. That’s not what happened though. What happened was the bridge got destroyed as a result of Maxima’s negligence.
And that ‘one action’ was unforeseeable by anybody in advance. As such Maxima cannot be held accountable for that.
This renders it an accident (if Sciona did not deliberately target the bridge). Or if Sciona did purposefully do that, then she is culpable, just as Maxima claims.
Otherwise if you drive your car down the road, and someone deflects your vehicle (by means you could not predict) into a school bus, then you would be held negligent.
Yorp… do you bother to read my posts when you respond? :/
IT. DOESNT. MATTER.
Maxima is going to be held to a higher standard than the ‘hypothetical reasonable person standard’ for a layman. She’d be held to the hypothetical EXPERT reasonable person standard’ instead. If you don’t believe me that she would fail to meet this requirement then please, by all means, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. You’ll see that I’m correct if you just bothered to do just 10 minute or so of research in tort law on the basics of a negligence case and what type of duty of care is required of a non-layperson.
“Otherwise if you drive your car down the road, and someone deflects your vehicle (by means you could not predict) into a school bus, then you would be held negligent.”
No. For SEVERAL reasons.
1) The scenario isnt remotely the same. The person who HIT INTO YOU would be the one responsible, since THEY, not you, are the proximate cause of the accident.
2) If the person that hit into you did so because, say, their tire blew out, then they are going to be held to the ‘reasonable person standard’ – although here, the reasonable person standard would probably STILL apply, if the lawyer can show that the tire blew as a result of the driver’s neglect to take care of his/her vehicle. However, if the tire blew a result of a manufacturer defect, then the reasonable person standard would protect that driver from negligence, unless they’re considered an expert.
Maxima is a high ranking commander with over a decade of experience. She’s an expert. She’s held to a higher standard of care for negligence and the element of recklessness.
I’m not sure how many more times I can repeat the same thing before throwing up my hands and just realizing people arguing are not even trying to understand what I’m saying here :/
Not even the greatest expert in the world could have predicted that. Your argument is nonsense.
For crying out loud Yorp, read up on the legal requirements for negligence and the elements of duty of care, recklessness, and proximate cause. You’re being unnecessarily insulting and not even trying to look into what I’ve described in great detail.
I have read every word on posts I replied to. And my head is hurting. So barely even inclined to reply, and certainly am not in the mood to look up things that I know, from past experience, that you will just tell me I am reading wrong anyhow.
Your stance keeps coming back to considering that Maxima’s energy attack bounces around randomly, like a bullet does. Maxima has fought in two wars, including against other supers. So she has plenty of experience with this.
If she has observed her attack bouncing off hard objects, then your argument is fine. Maxima knew there was a risk and took a chance when the public were exposed to the consequences.
However we have no evidence to support that. Until we get something to corroborate that then the bullet analogy does not hold water. Importantly cosmic radiation does not deflect its path when it strikes an object. You need something like a strong magnetic field to do that. *
Contrast that though to Maxima having all that battlefield experience and having never experienced a deflection. Likewise we know that Maxima conducts power testing. We saw her doing the early stages of that with Sydney, in the pool. Again it may turn out that all testing shows no ricochet.
In which case her judgement here was perfectly in accordance with her expert knowledge. Her energy attack should not bounce.
I am extending Maxima the benefit of the doubt, until we get evidence to the contrary.
* This is very important by the way, as we need to shield our astronauts from cosmic radiation, if they are to get to Mars safely.**
** Sciona has shown how dangerous it is approaching Mars.
“Your stance keeps coming back to considering that Maxima’s energy attack bounces around randomly, like a bullet does.”
No, it doesn’t. My stance only involves that she met the element of recklessness, in not meeting her duty of care, and she was the proximate cause of the accident. Which fits the requirements for negligence.
“Maxima has fought in two wars, including against other supers. So she has plenty of experience with this.”
The more experience you have, the higher a standard of care you are held to. I would probably have a somewhat different opinion if the same thing happened with Sydney, although I could see another attorney arguing that Archon was negligent for not training Sydney for those possibilities. But she’s a recruit with only a few weeks of training at most, while Maxima has over a decade of expertise. Maxima is held to a much higher duty of care standard than Sydney.
“If she has observed her attack bouncing off hard objects, then your argument is fine. Maxima knew there was a risk and took a chance when the public were exposed to the consequences.”
It literally doesnt matter for the purposes of showing the recklessness element for someone with Maxima’s expertise.
But just to be clear, we have seen her attack deflected before, by Hex during the restaurant battle. We’ve also seen other attacks roughly of the same power level, like Dabbler’s rail gun, deflected as well.
“Contrast that though to Maxima having all that battlefield experience and having never experienced a deflection. Likewise we know that Maxima conducts power testing. We saw her doing the early stages of that with Sydney, in the pool. Again it may turn out that all testing shows no ricochet.”
She has though – Hex did it, and it was only not as destructive because Maxima used a significantly lower amount of power than she used here, which again adds to the recklessness element of negligence.
And again, it’s literally irrelevant – the standard of care she would be put to would be much higher than an average reasonable hypothetical person standard of care, specifically because of her years of expertise.
“I am extending Maxima the benefit of the doubt, until we get evidence to the contrary.”
That’s honestly not how you judge the standard of care. You judge it from a hypothetical reasonable person of expert knowledge, and when the law says expert knowledge, they are referring to someone who has PERFECT expert knowledge. I’m not making this up. This is how a negligence tort works.
OK, now that I have had a good night’s sleep, I have looked up negligence. For information, despite your repeated insistence that I was using the layman’s understanding of “negligence”, I was basing my comments on news reports about the results of trials. So it was an informed layman’s understanding.
Which include cases of negligence which have been overturned because the results could not be reasonably predicted. As is my wont I accepted the Wikipedia result that popped up.†
I contend that Maxima was exercising reasonable care, by firing into the water, not into the crowd. The bridge being a football field away. However that is the layman’s understanding of the term, so we continue down to:
B = the destruction of the world and the loss of all human life.
P= the odds of the bridge being hit in a critical place. A fellow reader crunched some numbers on this and showed that it was statistically improbable.
L = the destruction of one bridge and the loss of the lives of those individuals travelling over it.
*sits on bum, so has all four paws available to help with the math*
Mmm, OK, working that out, B is greater than P multiplied by L. Maxima has fulfilled her duty to protect the world! Yay!
Oh, but I do recall some other post you made accusing me of unjustly stating that the world is at risk. Well I do so for good reason. Maxima has been officially informed, by the owners of the vault, that the items in it were apocalyptic in nature. Meaning that they can destroy the world.
So it is this which Maxima is obliged to act upon. Despite your insistence that she ignore it, which is simply nonsense. Their intelligence indicates that Sciona is the leading suspect. And the theft only occurred very recently, so there is a reasonable expectation that she still has one or more of the items on her.
Clearly though, to be fair, we should extend the above formula to apply a similar modifier to B as is applied to L. Namely the probability of B occurring. As the P has already been taken (and I promise not to tease you anymore, in this post), I shall opt for E (the estimated chance of B occurring).
E = fairly high, due to the points already stated. She probably is the thief (the blood portals being excellent circumstantial evidence pointing at her, along with her being involved in the precursor actions necessary for the theft in the first place).
Plus is probably still in possession of the one or more of the items (with the others being presumed to be in her lair). Further Sciona has already taken actions which risk causing a genocidal war on Earth. Showing that she is a credible risk of using the apocalyptic devices.
To compound that, Sciona associates with beings who have the means to leave Earth, so could destroy the world without risk to herself. She has, on more than one occasion, shown a callous disregard for life, human and otherwise.
Sciona has the motive for revenge, namely being decapitated by an organisation representing all the supernatural factions in the world. She is believed to have the means, by being in possession of multiple means of destroying the world. All that remains is the opportunity.
Which is the one element in Maxima’s control. She can prevent Sciona from having that opportunity. Which Maxima attempted, whilst exercising reasonable care in reducing the possibility of the bridge or the people on it being harmed, when balancing that against the risks.
And even if you eliminate the risk to the world, and just look at Maxima’s belief that Sciona was approaching the bridge, with intent to do pretty much what ended up happening, the odds of Sciona doing that were significantly higher than the potential risk of a ricochet (and then only if one allows that a ricochet would have been feasibly predictable).
Either way Maxima was making an informed decision, in the best interests of the lives of the people at risk (on the bridge and elsewhere, as the case may be). It was just bad luck that it went wrong in the way it did. Maxima is blameless.
† Damn this imp on my shoulder. I should not listen to it saying “go on, that will really tick Pander off”! Sorry. I am weak.
PS the justice who came up with that formula was very sneaky. He made it match the tags used for our comments, so (combined with me formatting it the same way he did) it would have messed up the formatting by making everything after his formula bold format! Were it not for me checking the post in a sandbox.
As a good puppy I also looked up proximate cause (yes, in the same source, but on the same page, so no additional teasing involved).
This corroborates what I have stated repeatedly.
But we do have another justice’s statements to consider:
No there was not. Sciona’s action intervened and demonstrably altered the sequence.
Nope. It really should not. Cosmic energy does not divert without a major magnetic field present. Nor did Maximas blast when striking the curved surface of Sydney’s shield, in testing. It simply exploded. So we have a canon example that it should not have ricocheted.
Yes it was. The only thing in Maxima’s line of fire was water. The thing that got hit was a football field away, with no appreciable way that the blast could get there, but for Sciona’s parry.
Absolutely. Sciona turning to parry the blast with her wings. And that certainly was unusual, as we have the author indicating that even Sciona did not know she could do that! Meaning even she found it unusual, let alone everyone else!
The only point that matches your contentions is:
Yes, Maxima’s blast did cause the injury. But of the two options, it is better described as indirectly.
However, as the events fail to meet four of the five criteria, Maxima is not guilty.
@Yorp and @Mike:
I’ve written out the actual elements of negligence on page 2 of the forum. You’re missing some vital parts which change how breach of duty would be applied, especially with the ‘reasonable person’ standard and what is reasonably foreseeable.
The legal definition of reckless is “Recklessness means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm” basically identical to the layman’s version.
Max didn’t, couldn’t, and shouldn’t have know that. Nobody did.
Recklessness, negligence, and all similar laws are all based around the idea that a reasonable regular person could predict the results. No person could have predicted the shot hitting the bridge (actual word of god in this case) so no Max isn’t legally reckless.
Please see what I wrote in response to you on page 2, since otherwise I’d be just repeating myself. It fits in responding to what you said here.
Also in trying to make a pun for my name, you don’t even seem to know what the word pander means, because you used it wrong. It’s sort of sad.
What the hell does ‘panderingly ignorant’ mean?
To cater to improper motivations, in a foolish or silly way?
*cries*
To think that such a wonderful, upright person, could sink to being described in such a way!
Still horizontal can be a lot more fun. ;-)
The horrible grammar is more harmful to me than his attempted but failed insult.
It doesn’t matter. If it was unintentional and her heading towards the bridge was benign she’s still guilty. If you cause death and destruction during the commission of a crime you’re responsible for it because without your crime that situation wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Nice max’s power attack burned the wings I don’t think either of them were expecting what happened.
Let us hope that has reduced her combat effectiveness and flight speed somewhat.
Or, at the very least, that, even with the watery dunk, it is hurting enough to distract her! ;-)
Sciona’s flight may be magically sustained (the wings being too slender for realistic flapping flight), but they did regrow when the rest of her body did. So those wings are part of her, and should have pain receptors accordingly.
Funny difference, where Sciona first flew low over the water, she now seems to use her wings as a sort of hydrofoil. Or she’s cooling her wings.
Anyway, she leaves a nice trail to the shore and maybe her hideout?
She was putting out the fire on her wings.
Nonsense, she was clearly drinking!
Enough of your pictures of sorcery, doggo!
I did not think that she was from ork
Heh. Good, off-the-cuff PR spin. Sciona did deflect the attack, and of the 360 degrees to send it, it went to the bridge support. The odds are against that being accidental, so it should stand longer run scrutiny (albeit with a lot of grumbling, by those who like to do that).
In the meanwhile the official position is ‘Sciona did it’, and the media feeding frenzy will have moved on to some other topic, before the complexities of the situation come out. So this evening’s headlines will be ‘Super Villain destroys bridge’.
Not that I like PR spin, but it is a necessary part of politics. And officers of Maxima’s rank and position need to be able to play the politics angle just as much as fighting the battles. So she is doing the right thing here. Even though she is playing fast and loose.
Now the cuestion is: Can Hiro and Anvil HOLD it wile the civilians are safely traslated?
Syd does not has the stregnth to hold that thing.
Don’t exclude Sidney yet! She may not be able to lift more then 15 (maybe 16) tons, but the lighthook at that time stayed intact. So, if it’s only a question of lifting power Sidney still may be able to use it as an very strong rope. Like Maxima used the bridge cables for temporary support in panel 7.
Drawback is that Sidney would be ‘tied up’ while she kept the bridge together.
ya got six-teen tons, whaddya get? Another day older and deeper in debt…
>Don’t exclude Sidney yet!
Also Stalwart…
Sydney doesn’t have to hold the bridge, one of the others could block access, while Sydney uses the lighthook to rescue/remove individual vehicles or their occupants. (so the emergency kittens should be safe, if badly shaken.)
Thank you, Yorp. When I was a captain in the Air Force (only one or two ranks behind Maxi), you would not believe the amount of political arse-kissing I had to do. I’d say my job was at least 33% brown nosing, 50% paperwork, and 17% actually flying.
(Speaking of paperwork… why is it that the closer we get to this “paperless society” I keep hearing about, the more paperwork I have to do?)
Becasue the paperwork still exists, it has just gone digital. The forms still need to be filled out even if they are now on a digital screen instead of a piece of paper. And in some cases, you need extra digital paperwork to authorize the use of digital instead of paper for the other forms.
Also, the digital format means people feel less guilty about excess forms. Less ink and paper used, after all.
Saving some trees in the process of inflicting more bureocracy on people.
@Krahazik:
Actually, even when there was digital paperwork, I used to have to file physical paperwork as well. The Air Force is (or was) quite fond of “fill this out in triplicate.” As David Argall points out, you often want a more permanent record than something that can be deleted with the press of a key.
In fact, our supply sergeant pointed out that officers were being issued triple-ply toilet paper, while everyone else were issued the standard single-ply stuff. The running joke was “It’s true! Officers do all their paperwork in triplicate!” ;)
While the computer made the paperless office possible, it also reduced the cost of the papered office by a massive amount. And you often want a more permanent record than something a press of a button destroys. But the main point was this huge amount of work that previously been too much trouble to put on paper, and which the computer made chump change. Saving that last dime is still a good idea, but there is not the incentive and any little thing can be enough counterweight.
Maybe in another computer generation or two, but the odds are that you will be dealing with a lot of paper for a long time.
Ariana managed to deal with the aftereffects of a destroyed mosque with Maxima fully responsible. As long as they catch up before any casualty happen, it will be mostly paperwork.
Yeah, paperwork with lots of zeros after the significant digits.
DaveB, I have to ask, don’t you use your own artwork as a reference?
In panel 4 there suddenly is a secondary support pillar which is not seen on the other tower or in any of the overviews of the bridge. Same goes for the cross braces in that tower in panel 3. Also, the road, which lay in between, now is flush with the outside of the towers.
It’s not that I don’t like the artwork but these are glaringly obvious deviations of recent drawings.
the multiple “pillars” are the base of the big destroyed pillar. Easiely to identify by the top of a Truck being visible in panel 4. Since it is’t a metal-bridge, but concret/stone it has to be (far) wider at the bottom. A split up of such a base into multiple pillars isn’t impossible.
I agree multiple pillars are possible. Supports like that have been used for Gothic cathedrals.
Point is, it should be visible on the other tower in panel 3 and in panel 5 from march 15.
Can’t the people ..like… drive off the bridge? Block the entrances and tell people to haul ass.
Has Sciona actually been shown to be a threat to the non-supernatural world?
So fa everything she’s done has been either in service of getting her body back, stealing an additional mystical artifact, or covering up her tracks afterwards. There’s no indication I can see that she’s particularly out to menace humanity. Granted, Maxima doesn’t have my reader-eye view of the world.
Oh, you mean aside from her comment to Deus about “When the rest of your world grovels at my knees, I think I’ll keep you around in my bedchambers” (paraphrased)? Unless she was joking… and I don’t think she is… her goal is world domination.
I think they meant as far as Archon knows. But then again, she DID attack multiple active troops and kidnapped a lot of people, who are still American citizens. That’s reason enough.
So far Sciona is only a person of suspect in the attack on Council, they have no direct evidence linking her to it at this time.
Except for Sydney’s eye-witness testimony of her draining Pixel’s blood and almost murdering Syndey herself.
There was nothing linking that location to the attack on the council.
That was just one of Sciona’s old property’s that they decided to investigate after randomly deciding it was Sciona that attacked them.
Further Sydney didn’t see anyone that could be identified as Sciona, remember that’s when she was in her troll body.
“There was nothing linking that location to the attack on the council.”
This is true. Although the super-mannekiller on the roof does allow for some assumptions.
“That was just one of Sciona’s old property’s that they decided to investigate after randomly deciding it was Sciona that attacked them.”
This is also true.
“Further Sydney didn’t see anyone that could be identified as Sciona, remember that’s when she was in her troll body.”
The modus operandi was the same though – blood magic, what Sciona was after. And she did get a good look at the top of her head.
Overall though you are making a fair enough point but there’s probably enough circumstantial evidence against Sciona to link her.
I don’t think there is.
I mean it would be one thing if they had encountered more of those Bloodrinker golems when investigating the old factory. But they didn’t.
Further the Bloodrinker golem’s weren’t the only clue they had. They also had the Swat equipment, revolver type grenade launchers, and custom grenade rounds. All things that Sciona, as far as we know, doesn’t have the history to get and or make.
Pretty sure Sciona does not have to ‘make’ the SWAT equipment. She could steal it or have one of her cohorts make the weaponry. But the modus operandi seems to be similar between the mannekiller attack in the Council Chambers and the super-mannekiller attack at the Mars factory
The grenades were custom made to kill supernatural creatures.
And the same logic of “she had her cohorts make them” can be applied to the Bloodrinker Golmens in the form of “Someone hired a bloodmage to make the swords then used them for something else”.
Further the giant mankiller golem didn’t have anything aesthetically or functionally in common with the Bloodrinker golems.
I don’t know… the giant mannekiller had at least a few functionalities in common, although both might have been invented by Dr Chuckles for Sciona, rather than by Sciona herself. This is all guessing though.
Not to mention the reason the Council tried to kill her in the first place was because of trying to take over the world.
Hey, Maxima does magic, too. She transformed Sciona from a Dragonfly into a Firefly.
Nice, maybe Sciona will also be suddenly canceled.
There are so many puns on this thread!
Now I’m sad ;_;
I saw what you did there…
Well… this is concerning. Max made a bad call last page (one that she really shouldn’t have given her powerset), and it blew up in her face. Now she’s doubling down on it by lying. I expect that will blow up in her face as well. Thankfully, only she’s likely to suffer for that one, rather than all the people on the bridge for this one.
Seriously though, there should be fallout from this. ( Maxima Assured Destruction is the new MAD? ) Max should at least get a chewing out and have to justify her actions to someone who won’t accept off the cuff rationalizations. As a military asset, I doubt that this would end her career (given all the factors involved) but maybe she shouldn’t be utilized in domestic missions except as a last resort.
I am not sure she is lying. She doesn’t have Superman’s vision, so she didn’t see Sciona’s face. For all Max knows, Sciona already had missile deflection as a power and deliberately put the rebounded shot into the bridge. Which is actually the right move for Sciona because it diverts part of the heroes into longer-term rescue operations instead of attacking or tracking her.
On the other hand, Max’s statement puts the best possible spin on circumstances for Max, so she might be already trying to justify her actions. And I like your take on limiting her in domestic operations – that would be a reasonable way to keep her powers from hogging the story.
I think Max genuinely believes the damage to the bridge was intentional on Sciona’s part. From her vantage point, what happened was (over the course of about a second): she fired on Sciona, who flipped over, bounced her shot directly into a bridge support (it *was* an accident, yes, but of all the possible directions that shot could have bounced in, it’s *still* incredibly unlikely that it just happened to hit a crucial structural point) and then flipped back over and accelerated away — having taken no obvious damage. I don’t at all blame her for assuming it was intentional (and terrifyingly competent).
I think Max IS being, at the very least, misleading. And the reason for that is… it wouldn’t be narratively interesting for Max to simply be mistaken. Think about it: after all her talk of being aware of what’s around and not taking any kind of facts for granted, plus the one or two slight hints that Max is housing/hosting some dark, malicious force, it makes sense from a narrative standpoint that she’d shift the blame on this to Sciona, even if subconsciously. Also, it’d be more interesting if she lies about this, and then is caught in the lie (there’s sure to be cell phone footage of this), than simply being able to say “oh, I was wrong, oops”.
Either way, it puts an interesting wrinkle in Max’s character. Someone like Superman would say “I accidentally hit a bridge!” or “Sciona deflected my attack!”. Max’s words put the blame solely on Sciona, as if Sciona had hit the bridge completely on purpose and without Max having attacked. And that’s relevant to her character, too relevant to be a simple mistake.
I’m not so certain. It’s been left ambiguous as to whether or not Max has super senses. Sydney keeps trying to get a clear answer, I seem to recall.
Also, look at the expletive that Max uses. That’s more commonly used when something goes unexpectedly wrong, rather than when someone else actively does something to you. I walk into someone’s fist at high speed, I say Sh.., someone punches me, I probably don’t choose that one. The situation is somewhat ambiguous since Max may just be bemoaning that her blast got redirected. However if Max really did think that Sciona purposefully deflected the shot into the bridge, why doesn’t she express anger at Sciona, rather than seemingly at herself?
I agree with you that Max’s actions may be a way to limit her role in the narrative. Benching her except for dire circumstances solves the Super Team narrative problem of ‘Why doesn’t Superman just do it?’, without necessitating ‘Superman is the villain now’, ‘Superman was killed and now everybody else has to deal with whatever hurt him’, ‘Superman temporarily lost his powers, so now that’s a thing’, or ‘Superman is just variably competent based on dramatic necessity’.
But who know? I guess we’ll see how things go.
To me it seems like Max is written to be a person on the moral greyscale. She honestly want to protect people but have no problem using lies, secretc, propaganda and terror to reach her goals.
+1
:-O
Maxima is a paladin!
It’ an interesting and pragmatic choice on Max’s part, and one which demonstrates the difference between soldier and super hero. It’s pretty much a given that no matter how dangerous the villain is, the super hero will stop everything to save lives.
Max, being military, presumably has different ideas about acceptable collateral damage or mission priorities. Not necessarily bad, and I’m certain she’d feel guilty for any lives lost, but different.
The other factor is most super heros only have a single power to work with, and maybe a minor secondary power, and no field backup. So if Max had been a typical super hero, she would either A) have strength so grab and hold the bridge while people run off, or B) super speed which would require her manually evacuating people before the bridge finished collapsing. In either case the villian escapes. But she has both speed and strength plus a capable and fast moving backup team enrout, so can do the quick patch job to hold the bridge together long enough for her backup to arrive and do the rescuing part.
I think I may have to update my thumbnail. That’s my new favorite face in the first panel.
Remember she beat up the were panther and technically already killed Syndey once. Sciona is a murder
Murderer is underselling it if you count her past and not just the actions taken against Archon employees.
yep, considering it took the Twilight council literally destroying her body jaw-and-under to stop her last time and even that didn’t kill her.
she’s probably got a Rap sheet of crimes that’s several decades (if not centuries) long.
I’ll be honest. I think Maxima’s bending the truth… I also think she’s doing it with good intentions, and for a good reason. One of the previous comments was made by an Air Force Captain who offered firsthand experience of having to be good at PR speak, and here Maxima took the chance to both deflect blame onto the bad guy, avoid getting yelled at by Arianna for hurting the team with a PR nightmare, and avoid any wasted time of “wait, WHO smashed the bridge?”
Also, I love the fact that they’ve emphasized teamwork so much. Superman would HAVE to let the bad guy get away because it’s a binary choice. One hero can only be in one place at a given time. A TEAM of heroes has a lot more adaptability to such situations – let the fastest team member continue pursuit while the others get to work saving innocent lives and averting disaster. In other words: Superman doesn’t have to let the bad guy get away when Green Lantern, Batman, and Martian Manhunter can handle the bridge while he and Flash keep up the chase.
Ugh, can this please not become the next iteration of ‘Strong Female Protagonist’ comment section?
I doubt that. This community likes to talk about a huge range of diverse topics, rather than focusing heavily on the feminist stuff. But it is natural enough for the SFP readers to do that, as it is the core thing that the comic is about. Whereas Grrl Power casts its net much wider.
You will find a certain amount of talk along those lines here mind, when appropriate. I, for one, am proud to be a feminist. But I don’t see much in the above page to provoke a lot of feminist debate. So if there is a thread or two that does not meet with your approval, it should be easy enough to skip past that and get to more pertinent topics.
*wags tail amiably*
I’m not a feminist. Although I am an egalitarian. Unfortunately nowadays, third wave feminism is not very egalitarian. It usually borders on or crosses right into being misandrist. Look at how they treat an ACTUAL feminist (second wave) who believes in egalitarianism, like Christina Hoff Sommers.
SFP has a whole lot of third wave lunacy on their boards and it’s very toxic. This comic’s forum tends to be a lot more reasonable-minded, with only the occasional person wishing other people get cancer. Whom most of us ignore as being jerky.
from my understanding “third wave” feminism is the most “egalitarian” version of feminism yet. with far more inclusion of people of color and even transgender woman as equal in the movement. while understanding the importance these differences play in the over all movement
“second wave” feminist tend to be predominantly cis white women and so the movement tends to be more dismissive the the interplay of race and religion plays in the movement. they also have more members that denounce trans women as not real women and want to undermine there progress.
“from my understanding “third wave” feminism is the most “egalitarian” version of feminism yet.”
No, third wave feminism is one of the most authoritarian and close-minded marxist philosophies to exist. Intersectional feminism, as it’s also known, puts the group before the individual, and means that a person that doesn’t fit a specific set of beliefs because it differs from their group is a bad person. That’s antithetical to egalitarianism.
Also I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when you described second wave feminism. The fact that you dismiss it because of using labels like ‘cis white women’ and therefore it’s not as worthy is, itself, pretty bigoted and very group-think. Not meaning that as an insult to you personally, but saying that someone is wrong JUST because of their sex,race, and sexual orientation is extremely hypocritical of you. Not to mention you’re creating a strawman with the last part of your sentence.
To those who read your post and might need to know what the different waves of feminism ACTUALLY are, I’ll give an accurate description here, so they don’t think what you said is in any way correct. I will not be using vox or some third wave feminism site to describe it, but instead I will use historical academic definitions.
First Wave Feminism: 1910-1950s – Women’s suffrage, right to vote, 19th amendment. Susan B Anthony is an example of a First wave feminist.
Second Wave Feminism: Equal Employment Opportunities, Equality in Marriage, Equal Rights Amendment, removing gender-specific jobs/etc. (equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME). Christina Hoff Summers is an example of a second wave feminist.
Third Wave Feminism: Eschews individualism for group-think intersectionality in feminism. Seprates people into smaller categories. Not just women, but ‘queer theory, black feminism, intersctionality’ – the concept behind intersectionality is there is a hierarchy of victimhood, and depending on how victimized that class has been or believes they are to be, they are to be given higher status within the organization of third wave feminism. Third Wave feminism ignores actual cases where feminism is needed because it’s not part of the political group-think. For example, forced female circumcission, forced female child brides, honor killings, and places in the world where they are NOT allowed to vote or are treated as property. Because that would interfere with intersectionality, which tends to be something I find inherently hypocritical.
Very often, third wave feminism is massively misandrist, and also derogatory to any woman who refuses to comply with the often political group think of the leaders. Which you’d think goes counter to the basis of egalitarianism, in which both men and women should have equal OPPORTUNITY. Third wave feminism claims consistently disproven claims like the ‘Wage Gap’ (which doesn’t actually exist), and that men and women statistically choosing different professions because of their preferences (again, statistically) is not because of free choice, but because of the dreaded Patriarchy, which is a catch-all thing for women to blame if any woman is not successful as the most successful men, despite the fact that men and women ARE just as smart as each other, but on average have different preferences biologically (ie, women tend to be more people oriented, while men tend to be more thing oriented). Again… TEND to. It doesn’t mean all. Don’t give any #notall whatever as a response.
Again, I should make a point of the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. You do not have a right to equal outcome. That’s marxism. You also don’t have the right to force someone to give you the same opportunity as others. That’s not ‘equal opportunity.’ Equal opportunity is that you have the right to NOT have the government step in and prevent you from having the same opportunity as anyone else. It’s merit-based.
For example, I’m a woman who is a lawyer. Not only the legal field, but I’m in a part of the legal field which tends to focus on intellectual property rights and before that I worked in the DA’s office. The amount of women to men in the legal community is roughly equal, although in intellecutal property, more men choose that field than women. It’s not because of sexism, because I’m in that field. It’s just statistically, women do not go into my field as often as men because of personal choice.
I’m going to stop posting on this thread because it’s definitely off topic.
I just really don’t like the SFP forums.
That’s a big misunderstanding. You seem to be conflating “feminism” with “sexist extremists”.
No, I’m not. I’m stating that what they call third wave feminism is not feminism of first and second wave. They hide behind ‘it’s just equality’ when everything they actually do and say is distinctly NOT about equality. It’s awful – and pretty insulting to women who actually base where they get on their own merits and personal choices. Intersectional marxism is not a good thing and should not be considered ‘feminism.’
*doggy paddles confusedly*
I don’t know these waves. I just want females to be treated equally. Well, with a bit of extra gentlemanly behaviour thrown in, such as opening a door or giving up a seat.
What wave does that put me on? Is I going to drown?
Females are already treated equally. First and second wave feminism handled it and now, if there’s gender-based discrimination, there are laws to let the aggrieved party sue.
As for the opening doors and giving up seats, that just means you’re chivalrous. Although there should not be laws mandating that you must give up your seat or publicly shaming you and fining you for sitting with your legs spread.
Gonna seriously not talk about this though because it’s not the law and has nothing to do with the comic. Pretty sure I only responded at all because of the stuff about SFP’s forums, which are pretty awful.
Females have equal protection under the law, they aren’t *treated* equally. We’re now at the point where laws have done as much as they can (provided we prevent the backsliding laws that keep popping up) but that doesn’t mean everyone is equal.
Here’s an example using marriage to show how legal isn’t the same as what people do/think: https://xkcd.com/1431/
Fine. Females aren’t treated equally. They’re treated BETTER than men.
I say that as a woman btw :)
PS – not sure what the XKCD comic you posted had to do anything with women having all the same rights as men, but I don’t care since I do not feel like arguing this. If you respond to this post, I’m just not going to respond to it anyway. Last post of mine on this particular thread.
You’re neither. you’re a Lawyer.
O…kay? I’m a lawyer and an egalitarian. Your point?
Oh wait that’s an attempt at a lawyer insult! Hahaha. You’re so clever.
Can you feel the sarcasm? That’s sarcasm. You’re not clever. I wanted to make that clear. :)
I agree that there isn’t really anything in this page to cause a feminist debate btw, although I think 12th was mainly talking about the VERY few obnoxious people who are wishing death on people they disagree with, or wanting them to get cancer – which is something that happens more than a bit on StrongFemaleProtagonist’s forums. The difference is here, it’s definitely the TINY minority of people. There it seems to be the norm.
To repeat, I’m not a fan of the people on that forum :)
I was just going by the comment, in its own context, and the comic page. At that time I had not read through everything preceding it.
I quite enjoyed reading through the comic, when Dave did his guest strips. But the comments were rather heavy. Mind you pretty much what you might expect with the internet in general, when any entertainment medium focuses on carrying a politically hot issue.
If you go to that comic, I definitely recommend avoiding the comment section. They’re just terrible on it.
I doubt it will be. For one thing, unlike SFP, the person running this comic doesn’t ban people for wrongthink and people don’t get triggered by words like infants.
In case I was too subtle, I don’t have much respect for StrongFemaleProtagonist, unlike this comic (for which I have mad respect).
Even if Sydney is more than 30 seconds away, I’m pretty sure that, barring an accident, the bridge (or that section) can be mostly cleared of cars within 30 seconds as drivers safely panic.
Oh gawd, Sciona’s shit-face is adorable xD
:-D
As opposed to her pooping face?
Well sometimes that has to be done, to stop the sh*t hitting the fan.
Congratulations, I have just lost any respect I had for Maxima as a character.
Not only did she lie to both her team and superiors in an easily disproven attempt to cover her own ass. But she was willing to run off and leave already wounded civilians in immediate danger.
I wouldn’t be so hasty… After all, Max DID do a quick fix on the bridge with her super speed and strength and called in back up stat before resuming the chase… and Max didn’t aim at the bridge… she aimed at Sciona to keep her from getting to the bridge. She HIT Sciona! From Max’s perspective it wasn’t an oops moment… From Max’s perspective Sciona deflected her shot into the bridge deliberately. As has been said above, Sciona’s shot deflecting ability is not a power that has not previously been seen so she had no reason to suspect that her shot would do anything but blow Sciona out of the sky and into the water. Ever been in a police chase? I mean have you ever been a police officer involved in a high speed chase? I have… (former Military Police) and I’ll tell you that during the chase tunnel vision sets in pretty quickly. You get fixated on the target. You can be 20 feet behind the perp and totally not see them toss out a five pound bag of marihuana.
I’m witholding judgement on the “lie” until the report comes in. I assume she assumes that Sciona did that intetionally. and rather than spending a whole sentence going “i fired at sciona and she reflected my attack into the bridge” she compartimientalized the facts to what the team needed to deal with in the “now”
As for the civvies… read the description. It is accurate. she did a patch job and Sydney’s top speed is more than sufficient to get there in a few seconds. compared to Sciona’s likely major threat level
So you’d rather have Max wait until Sciona reaches a heavily populated city and demonstrate how puppy-kicking evil she is by depopulating it while Max stops to completely secure the bridge? We’ve already been demonstrated that Sciona is armed, extremely dangerous, and insanely trigger-happy. Sciona chose to divert path directly into that bridge FOR A REASON. Maxima CAN NOT ALLOW HER TO ESCAPE!!
It’s a reasonable guess on Max’s part that Sciona deliberately deflected the shot to attack the bridge, and the shot itself is a reasonable use of force considering the threat level Sciona brings to bear.
I think Maxima is just assuming that Sciona deflecting a shot at the “perfect” angle to create a distraction was on purpose, as opposed to a cartoonishly unlikely accident. Later she will probably report that it was her shot that was redirected, and to be fair she assumed that shot was going to hit water at worst. As far as choosing to continue to persue, she knows she can probably take Sciona while the team may or may not, while either group can handle the bridge. Seems like a reasonable call.
You guys seem to have forgot that explosions cause shrapnel and shockwaves that would have slammed into the cars on that bridge and wounded a number of people.
Further you forget that Sciona has no history of attacking civilians and has been out and about for a couple days by this point without doing so. Which means she’s not what would be considered an “Imminent threat” that would justify ignoring wounded and possibly dying civilians.
Sciona is collecting magical artifacts which can probably be compared to nukes. She’s shown no hesitation at murder (even of her allies), torture, and mass murder even potentially up to genocidal levels.
The councils illusion generators are to create the masquerade and prevent a genocidal war. Disabling them to disable an alarm is akin to throwing bombs into a football stadium as a distraction to rob a bank.
The shockwaves are definitely a problem for pedestrians (if there are any?), but anyone in a car would probably be fine (though lots of broken windows).
As for shrapnel, I don’t think that’s an issue – the explosive charge itself didn’t have any material to throw, and the bridge pieces are (mostly) fairly large and have minimal velocity. Anyone under the falling pieces is in trouble, but that’s just falling rock, not shrapnel.
“no history of attacking civilians ” sure she does, she launched an attempted mass murder on a political body already. She’s a full on terrorist at this point.
+1
question: when will sydneys two remaining orb gain function?
“First there were two. And lo, Sydney did say “glub, glub”. And the emerald orb did appear in the hand of our lady whereupon it passed gas,” (strike that), “broke a mighty wind” (uh, maybe not), “it gave forth the breath of life, saving her from her plight.”
“And then there was one.”
ah right, had forgotten life support orb, just now to clear question …is last one containment unit or not
That’s the warp drive orb.
Warp drive seems more like an add-on to fly orb.
The fly ball does have a lot of extra spaces on it, so that is possible. Plus it is one of the few orbs that has a faint trail leading off it. Possibly indicating that a whole new branch could be unlocked!
So there could be warp factor 1, 2, etc. Or it could be the stargate branch, of course, with each ‘skill’ being a new destination somewhere else in the galaxy (or even other universes).
The final orb though is likely to be the pony summoning orb. ;-)
Last orb is either time travel, hammerspace, or the universal remote to all TVs in the known galaxy.
Such a power would be unimaginably dangerous! Just imagine setting them all to just having daytime talk shows, all the time! The blackmail potential would be astronomical!
Not soon I hope. It’s fun speculating about their functions.
Normal Sciona has had her beauty returned… Chibi Sciona is just… teh kewts!!!
Still blaiming Max for this one. Bothers me more with the way she phrased it. I have no trouble with her prioritizing sciona though.. but i hope her report reflects the actual conditions that went down and that the short version she told her team was because of more pressing concerns.
…Wings of energy can BURN? I call bullshit
Also did Maxima just blame her f**k up on Sciona?
*slap on wrist* BAD Maxima no blaming the bad Guy/woman for your mis- *sound of punch in face*
AAAG!
Well then they aren’t energy but some sort of manifestation construct. We have evidence they aren’t hot to the touch just very sharp and durable, even if they can retract into a spirit fireball form.
That or how they interact with the space around them, in relation to unknown explosive force Maxima is channeling from an unknown source space resulted in an unlikely if not under normal circumstances impossible phenomenon to occur thanks to the interacting distortions.
Basically, “I’m on fire? How am I on fire? I’m made of fire!”
-Fire Elemental vs S class Fire Mage.
That “burning” may be residual plasma playing along the energy field that is the wings. Consider a piece of metal with some alcohol placed on it then ignited. The metal isn’t burning, but it appears to be burning at an initial glance.
I suspect the “Shit!” isn’t one of pain, it’s one of “Shit! Max caught up to me, and I just exacerbated my problems by blowing up a bridge by accident and I need to get the h*ck out of here right the h*ck now!”
She should probably go see a urologist, er, dermatologist about the burning sensation.
I wonder what Dabbler’s armour, in that scene, actually looks like. Fully sealed space marine armour maybe?
“+/- 5 minutes” Yes, it is possible that Halo has already missed the already collapsed bridge. Karmic/temporal dept for that free +1 man she got earlier.
“It was right about then that Sciona realized just how far out of her depth she was, fighting Max.”
DID Sciona really hit the bridge. DID SHE Maxima? :)
If a baseball smashes your window, who is at fault, the person who threw the ball, or the batter who put it through your window?
*wags tail cheekily*
(Yea, Maxima is playing fast and loose, but it is not like she has time to give a detailed report.)
Lets use a more appropriate comparison.
A person is fleeing from a house he robbed and the owner gets a good look at him.
The owner of the house sees the robber a day later and pulls out a gun and starts firing wildly at him. In a crowded mall.
The robber ducks behind a pillar, and a bullet that hits the pillar ricochets and hits an innocent civilian.
The owner was the one in the wrong. The robber’s crime was no longer occuring, and the home owner was being in reckless disregard for human life (from a criminal standpoint), or at the very least (from a tort standpoint) negligent.
Mmm, you have conveniently skipped any aspect which showed the suspect indiscriminately murdering people on multiple occasions, so I have to dispute your impartiality in claiming that this is a “more appropriate comparison”.
Mine was facetious, but to the point. Whereas you constructed an elaborate straw man, but missing key elements. On top of which you fabricated the ‘crowded mall’ in an even more biased manner, given that Maxima had clearly lined up her shot to not endanger anybody.
A more appropriate real world example would be of a gunman who had shot at multiple people running towards the crowded mall. With a cop taking a shot, whilst they are still outside, and with nothing but a brick wall beyond them, but it ricocheting into the mall.
“Mmm, you have conveniently skipped any aspect which showed the suspect indiscriminately murdering people on multiple occasions, so I have to dispute your impartiality in claiming that this is a “more appropriate comparison”.”
No, I’m not skipping anything. I’m using the law. You know that I know the law. You know that the scenario that I just presented is very close to what’s happening in this strip. Even if the robber has killed people IN THE PAST, it doesn’t mean the gun-owner can start firing into the crowd, and if he’s shooting at the robber and a ricochet hits another person, he’s going to be at fault. Even if not for a crime (which is still possible), it’s DEFINITELY a tort.
Why do I always have to give the same explanation multiple times on the forums? :/
“Whereas you constructed an elaborate straw man, but missing key elements.”
Yorp, please stop claiming I made a strawman argument. It’s insulting and disingenuous of you to say that. I did not make a strawman argument. If you want the missing element, fine – the robber in my scenario has killed a person in the past. It still doesn’t exonerate the gun-owner who shoots a bullet and the ricochet hits an innocent person.
“A more appropriate real world example would be of a gunman who had shot at multiple people running towards the crowded mall. With a cop taking a shot, whilst they are still outside, and with nothing but a brick wall beyond them, but it ricocheting into the mall.”
No, that would not be an appropriate real world example, because in THAT example, there’s an ongoing current crime, while in the scenario above, and in my scenario, there is a PAST crime.
And that is the point. You constructed a strawman that does not match the present circumstance. A homicidal maniac is approaching a bridge, whilst armed with a weapon of mass destruction.
Bandying around “I am a lawyer” does not change that.
I did not construct ANY strawman at all. I have not presented anyone else’s argument. I’ve given hypothetical situations that match up with this event. You’re wrong about claiming I made a strawman argument. A straw man is based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”. I did not do that. In fact, you’re doing that.
I haven’t ‘bandied around’ that I’m a lawyer. I’m giving detailed descriptions and examples of what the law actually IS… because I know the law.
Because I’m a lawyer.
And yet still:
Unless your analogy is a reasonable approximation of the situation, I will stand by my characterisation. Each version you have brought up deliberately does not include key features which would correspond to the point of contention.
If you actually did that, and showed an everyday example which I could see matched the moral and legal decision Maxima had to make, and which clearly showed her to be in the wrong, then you would convince me. Yet all you do is remove the elements that are not convenient to your agenda. Rendering it useless in persuading me.
Even when you decided to modify your initial analogy, you did not incorporate the fact that the person was believed to be armed. You deliberately pushed it back to ‘somewhere in the past’.
A much more appropriate version would be to say that ‘yesterday she robbed a shop of a number of weapons’. But no, you do not want any element that might justify a police officer’s belief that the individual is armed.
Not to mention your “and starts firing wildly at him. In a crowded mall.” Which is a totally unfair analogy as Maxima was firing precisely accurately, and not into the middle of a crowd. In fact not even near as, last we saw, Sciona was half the length of the bridge away from it!
The ricochet argument is fair mind, but not your bending of the truth. You are being as bad as Maxima!
*wags tail profoundly*
This is why you have to keep raising the same points over and over again. Because you are not creating fair examples and people are seeing through that!
“Unless your analogy is a reasonable approximation of the situation, I will stand by my characterisation. Each version you have brought up deliberately does not include key features which would correspond to the point of contention.”
My analogy IS a reasonable approximation. Yours is not.
Not to mention something I keep saying now. It doesn’t change that she acted
with recklessness. Negligence, as a tort, occured here. I’m not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Read my other comments in which I said the same thing, in detail. Because at this point I could just start cutting and pasting.
“The ricochet argument is fair mind, but not your bending of the truth. You are being as bad as Maxima!”
Okay, now I’m getting offended that you’re accusing me of bending the truth, when I have not. You have, instead, and you’ve ignored any pertinent information just to create a strawman to argue instead of what I’m writing in my posts. I’m disappointed in how you’ve been in this back-and-forth.
Btw Yorp, I apologize here if parts of my post seemed a bit salty. I get annoyed when being accused of strawmanning when I’m not, and saying I’m bending the truth (a roundabout way of calling me a liar) when I’m not.
Don’t worry about it. Bending the truth is not the same as lying. It is something that everybody does any time they weigh an argument, in favour of one interpretation, over another.
I do contend that you were pushing it too far to be reasonable in a balanced debate. But it is perfectly understandable, as you are speaking for one side of an argument, and placing your emphasis accordingly. I would be remiss in not calling you out on that. However would not characterise it as lying.
Please stop mentioning torts. You make my mouth drool! (No need to define them, that is just a joke, you forced me to look them up once before).
As for your accusation that I created a strawman, you failed to say how. Sciona is a homicidal maniac. She did divert to approach the bridge. Finally Sciona is carrying the Bane Ripper.* Maxima’s assumption that she intended to cause harm to those on the bridge was well founded!
Plus it is not creating a hypothetical. It is describing the situation in front of us!
Or, if you were referring to my earlier alternative, offered in response to your analogy, mine was a compromise version of yours. Which I consider to be a fair attempt to bring your analogy closer to the actual situation, albeit still suffering the flaws that analogies inherently have.
Which I am OK with leaving as ‘I agree to differ’, given that it did not result in us finding common ground, but instead ended up entrenching diverse opinions.
* An item from the Dark Reliquary, which has been described as being ‘full of apocalyptic weapons’. Even if it is not capable of destroying the world, we saw that it can summon a group of monsters.
Clearly Sciona knows its properties and how to make effective use of it, given how much she coveted acquiring it. Even just with that capability I am justified in describing it as a weapon of mass destruction, given its potential to take the lives of everyone on the bridge.
“Bending the truth is not the same as lying.”
It pretty much is. Please don’t accuse me of it again – I’d appreciate it.
“It is something that everybody does any time they weigh an argument, in favour of one interpretation, over another.”
No, that’s called debate, not bending the truth (ie, lying). Moot point, I’d just appreciate if you don’t accuse me of it, as part of mutual respect for each other. Thanks.
“Please stop mentioning torts. You make my mouth drool! (No need to define them, that is just a joke, you forced me to look them up once before).”
No Yorp, Torts are….. oh wait … joke. :)
“As for your accusation that I created a strawman, you failed to say how.”
You took something I said, changed what I said to something that would be different, then argued against that different thing. That’s what I mean by creating a strawman.
“Sciona is a homicidal maniac. She did divert to approach the bridge. Finally Sciona is carrying the Bane Ripper.* Maxima’s assumption that she intended to cause harm to those on the bridge was well founded!”
Brane Ripper. And that wasn’t the strawman to which I was referring. Paragraphs 4 and 5, and several other posts of yours elsewhere on the forum were the strawmanning I was talking about.
“Plus it is not creating a hypothetical. It is describing the situation in front of us!”
No, it is creating a hypothetical in order to describe the situation with real world comparisons that meet the situation as closely as possible while still being possible in the real world.
“Which I am OK with leaving as ‘I agree to differ’, given that it did not result in us finding common ground, but instead ended up entrenching diverse opinions.”
Agreeing to differ is fine. Eventually, one day, I’ll get to convince you that I’m right and you’re wrong on one of these arguments :)
This isn’t the next day though, this is 10 minutes after she killed Cooter (sort of) in broad daylight in front of witnesses, and just turned towards a bridge full of civilians on being spotted. Max is still in hot pursuit – the scope of an active crime scene is much bigger than normal when the participants can fly supersonic.
1) She did not kill Cooter 10 minutes ago. Cooter’s alive. Plus Archon doesnt know what happened there with any specificity.
2) You have no frame of reference to say it was 10 minutes ago.
3) That is still a past crime, different from a current ongoing crime.
4) Hot pursuit does not allow for rampant weapon discharge as the first response.
1) they know she at least attempted murder, just because he survived doesn’t make what Sciona did any less a violence act.
2) It’s definitely less than 30, they were in hot pursuit since they picked her up going supersonic.
3) past crimes show what she’s willing to do. She already has murdered or attempted to murder lots of people so assuming she’ll murder or endanger more when she moves towards them is a safe assumption
4) it does if the shooting is less of a risk than letting the ‘suspect’ collect hostages. Again: Max had a clear shot and imminent danger to prevent.
“1) they know she at least attempted murder, just because he survived doesn’t make what Sciona did any less a violence act.”
Doesn’t matter even if we do assume that they know. It’s a separate crime, and not part of the current pursuit, so it’s Maxima’s responsibility, not Sciona’s. That’s just how the law works.
“2) It’s definitely less than 30, they were in hot pursuit since they picked her up going supersonic.”
Where does it say that? It doesn’t. You’re making assumptions. But even if it’s 30 minutes, it doesn’t matter. See #1
“3) past crimes show what she’s willing to do. She already has murdered or attempted to murder lots of people so assuming she’ll murder or endanger more when she moves towards them is a safe assumption”
Doesn’t matter for who’s responsible for the actions of Maxima firing her plasma blast, legally. She’s required to act in a way that is not reckless to the safety of others, and is required to not use not only lethal force, but lethal force capable of causing massively destructive explosions, as her first action.
“4) it does if the shooting is less of a risk than letting the ‘suspect’ collect hostages. Again: Max had a clear shot and imminent danger to prevent.”
Wondering where your law degree is from. No, there’s no ‘if I think they might take a hostage, then I can use explosives’ exception. Also she clearly did not prevent imminent danger. She caused imminent danger. You need to stop acting like people can tell the future, and react based on what actually HAPPENED. Notice I’ve never said Maxima committed any INTENTIONAL tort or intentional crime. I use very specific words. Potentially an involuntary manslaughter. Negligence. Recklessness. None of that REQUIRES intent on Maxima’s behalf.
1) “It’s a separate crime, and not part of the current pursuit” how? That’s literally how they found her to pursue her. That’s the crime she just committed right before Max started chasing her.
2) reasonable estimations based on the conversations and actions that have happened since she was shown committing the crime. But it doesn’t matter, even if it’s hours later she’s still being pursued for the attack on Cooter/Wyrmil as shown in comic 612 where Max says they picked up her trail show where the trail intercepted Cooter/Wyrmil then continued on; Max immediately left that briefing to go follow Sciona. They are actively in pursuit of someone fleeing a crime they committed.
3) it does matter because those past actions tell us what she’s likely to do. Those past actions tell Maxima that Sciona is going to hurt or endanger bystanders to throw off pursuit. You’re exactly right Max is REQUIRED to act in a way that doesn’t put people in danger. That means she’s REQUIRED to not stand by and let a mass murderer attack civilians or destroy a bridge.
4) You seem to be hung up on the fact that Max’s attacks explode, that just because of it it’s the equivalent to throwing a grenade in the middle of a crowd to stop one person. She’s using reasonable weapons to stop the target without endangering anyone else. It doesn’t matter if that weapon is explosives or gas or a hoard of rabbits, the way she used it couldn’t be reasonably assumed to be a danger to anyone else and was done to prevent the chance of injury to the bystanders from going up. You don’t need a law degree for that; we aren’t trying a case on minutiae and exact phrasing we’re talking about broad strokes definition of Recklessness here and Max doesn’t come close to being reckless not by any definition of the word either English or Legal (in any jurisdiction).
To put it succinctly: By shooting at Sciona Max took the action that presented the least danger to the people on the bridge. Letting Sciona reach the bridge would put it in more danger than the zero danger presented by shooting Sciona. And if you want to talk laws: a reasonable person with Maxima’s knowledge and training would come to the same conclusion so there’s no recklessness or negligence.
BTW, when she attacked Cooter/Wyrmil, it was daytime.
There was also time enough for there to be witness reports and interviews and a meeting.
It’s now nighttime. It wasn’t 30 minutes.
It was also shown to be sunset as Sydney was flying. You are right it’s probably not 10 minutes, it would have taken time for Norad to get them the information, the command staff to process it and react, and get the briefing set up and such.
But the exact length of time doesn’t matter, they are following her after she attempted to murder Cooter/Wyrmil and did so as fast as they could. Just because cops take time to respond to a crime doesn’t mean the crime is over and a new one starts when the suspect refuses to pull over.
Amount of time does matter when it comes to the commision of a crime being a defense for Maxima to shift the blame to Sciona more successfully, because there would be felony murder charge potentially against Sciona (assuming someone dies), which would help in the civil lawsuit against Maxima (or against Archon, more likely, since they have the deeper pockets).
You have posted a ton of simply incorrect statements about this situation, and this example perfectly shows how wrong you are. It literally removes all parallel to this situation.
To modify your scenario:
-It is not a robber, but a convicted mass murderer escaped from prison (Sciona was effectively already sentenced to death by the council).
-Said mass murderer is seen running towards a crowd while carrying a shotgun. (Sciona is believed in possession of many WMDs, and known to have a base power easily capable of destroying the bridge. See DaveB’s post under the comic that explains the types of things that Sciona could have been planning on, Maxima would have expected Sciona to do something like that, just like a police officer would expect a mass murderer running towards a crowd with a shotgun to start shooting.)
-Instead of “the owner,” it is a police officer with a duty to protect the public.
-Police officer is standing off to the side with no one in the line of fire, including behind the mass murderer.
-Bullet deflects off the suspect’s belt in a highly improbable manner into the crowd.
-As an additional thing the police officer believes that the rounds in his gun are specially made so that they could be deflected.
-Distances are such that options like tackle are not possible (Both Max and Sciona can travel supersonic, we don’t know actual difference in capability, so we should assume Max judged it was unlikely she could catch up in time, rocks fall slowly in comparison.)
From Maxima’s reasonable perspective (which is all that matters for her personal liability) the reckless option would be not shooting.
“-It is not a robber, but a convicted mass murderer escaped from prison (Sciona was effectively already sentenced to death by the council).”
Doesn’t matter – whatever the crime of the felon, it doesn’t provide an excuse for a cop to be reckless and putting civilians in danger when pursuing. At the very least, they’re supposed to minimize the danger, not increase it. Maxima increased it. Sucks to be her today.
“-Instead of “the owner,” it is a police officer with a duty to protect the public.”
Actually a police officer is at a HEIGHTENED duty of care, over that of a normal person. You’re literally supporting my argument without realizing it.
“-Police officer is standing off to the side with no one in the line of fire, including behind the mass murderer.”
Still doesn’t matter. Especially if the police starts pulling out heavy ordinance and explosives and starts throwing it at the suspect.
“-As an additional thing the police officer believes that the rounds in his gun are specially made so that they could be deflected.”
Anything can be potentially deflected. Ricochets happen. That’s physics.
“-Distances are such that options like tackle are not possible (Both Max and Sciona can travel supersonic, we don’t know actual difference in capability, so we should assume Max judged it was unlikely she could catch up in time, rocks fall slowly in comparison.)”
A tackle is definitely possible here. Maxima is FASTER than Sciona. She wasn’t travelling faster initially because she was trying to track Sciona back to her hideout FIRST. Once she was found, she should have sped up and aerial tackled her to stop her if she was concerned about the bridge. Or shoot her with her non-bridge-destroying gun if she REALLY had to. At no point did Maxima think she would not be able to catch up to Sciona. She knows she’s the fastest, and she wasn’t even raising her speed attribute, which she could have if she wanted to, like she did while doing the ‘patch job’ on the bridge.
“From Maxima’s reasonable perspective (which is all that matters for her personal liability) the reckless option would be not shooting.”
No, because Maxima’s actions were NOT reasonable from a legal perspective. Just so you understand what ‘reasonable’ means legally and for police:
A reasonable person, in criminal law, is a hypothetical person who exercises average care, skill, and judgment. For EXPERTS, like police, it requires MORE than reasonable for an average person. Maxima did not meet this requirement. Ironically, it would be different if Sydney did the same thing, because SHE could be judged on a more lax standard since she is only a trainee.
This is how the law works. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.
“Doesn’t matter – whatever the crime of the felon, it doesn’t provide an excuse for a cop to be reckless and putting civilians in danger when pursuing. At the very least, they’re supposed to minimize the danger, not increase it. Maxima increased it. Sucks to be her today.”
Not a counterargument. Maxima was not reckless, and did not increase danger, even if a random ricochet was something she knew to be possible, the chances of it going in a direction that would hurt anyone would be less than 1 in a thousand, versus a near guarantee of Sciona killing everyone on the bridge.
“Still doesn’t matter. Especially if the police starts pulling out heavy ordinance and explosives and starts throwing it at the suspect.”
You have to either stick with your comparison being a gun, or adjust it to match this situation where there is no expectation of a reasonable chance of anything else being in the blast radius.
“Anything can be potentially deflected. Ricochets happen. That’s physics.”
Even in the real world, something that disintegrate or explodes on contact can’t be deflected. We are dealing with magic and superpowers. As far as Maxima knew, her shot should have exploded on contact rather than be deflected.
“A tackle is definitely possible here. Maxima is FASTER than Sciona.”
Perspective makes it difficult to tell (possibly intentional to avoid causing consistency problems), but as of when Sciona swerved towards the bridge, Maxima was probably 10 times farther away, she isn’t 10 times faster. The blurred bridge repair is just comic book physics – no sonic boom involved.
“A reasonable person, in criminal law, is a hypothetical person who exercises average care, skill, and judgment. For EXPERTS, like police, it requires MORE than reasonable for an average person. Maxima did not meet this requirement. ”
Your assertion that Maxima did not meet this requirement is not supported by anything. The chance of a deflection harming someone was very low. With her extensive experience with her powers and super powered fights, Maxima believed that the chance of it being deflected to begin with was 0. The chance that Sciona was going to kill people on the bridge if Maxima did nothing was approximately 100%. The only alternative you have suggested is a tackle, which is at the minimum something that DaveB clearly did not intend as an option, or he would have commented on it. It is easy to interpret the distances such that this is true, since Maxima can certainly throw an energy ball faster than she can fly.
You have claimed to be a lawyer, so I would expect you to use arguments based on facts instead of unsupported assertions.
“Not a counterargument.”
I don’t think you know what counterargument means. It definitely is a counterargument to what you said. It’s also how the law works.
“Maxima was not reckless,”
Yes, she was reckless. The result of the bridge exploding as a proximate cause of her action shows that she was reckless, using her most powerful attack as her first attack. You don’t start firing bazookas when a gun …. or better yet a tackle… will do just as nicely.
“and did not increase danger,”
Did you miss the bridge exploding and the peril of the cuddle kittens? It was the last strip.
“even if a random ricochet was something she knew to be possible, the chances of it going in a direction that would hurt anyone would be less than 1 in a thousand, versus a near guarantee of Sciona killing everyone on the bridge.”
Aside from the fact that you’re pulling your statistics out of nowhere, the idea that Maxima could have known that a random ricochet was possible is even more proof that she was reckless. In the law, normal people are held to a ‘reasonable person standard.’ Experts are held to a MUCH HIGHER standard, and Maxima is a commanding officer with years of training, so she is an expert and would be held to this higher standard. Rank confers greater responsibility for your actions, not lesser.
Also your 1 in 1000 statistic is made up, and your ‘absolute certainty that Sciona could kill everyone on the bridge’ is likewise made up baloney.
“You have to either stick with your comparison being a gun, or adjust it to match this situation where there is no expectation of a reasonable chance of anything else being in the blast radius.”
No, I’m perfectly within my rights to use multiple hypoethicals as comparisons of why what Maxima did was reckless.
“Your assertion that Maxima did not meet this requirement is not supported by anything”
She’s a commanding officer with over a decade of experience in warfare and protecting civilians. She definitely meets the requirement as an expert, which requires a higher standard than the ‘reasonable person’ standard for an average person.
Going to skip your next few sentences because it’s more of you making up BS statistics based on nothing, and go on to the last sentence.
“You have claimed to be a lawyer,”
Oh no, you’re denying what I’ve said I am. Tell you what – actually read a single book on tort law and criminal law and you’d see that everything I said is textbook correct. I’m a lawyer, but I could have been a first year law student and still given the same answers. The fact that you’re ignorant about the law does not make my facts mere assertions.
“so I would expect you to use arguments based on facts instead of unsupported assertions.”
Again – learn to law. My arguments are ALL based on facts, and usually straight from the legal definitions that any first year law student would have been taught. The fact that you are too lazy to look up what I’m saying to see that it’s accurate is your problem, not mine.
“My arguments are ALL based on facts,”
No, they aren’t. You don’t even get the facts right about what I said in my previous post. For example, I did not deny your claim about being a lawyer, I just stated what I have the information to know, which is that you made that claim. I also stated that your behavior in these threads has not met my expectations for a lawyer, which has nothing to do with whether you are one.
I also did not say “absolute certainty,” I said “approximately 100%.” I try to avoid ever making absolute certainty statements. We know this anyway from authorial intent that DaveB stated under the comic. In universe it would be harder to prove, but it is still the fact, not something I made up.
You point to statements about the law as facts that you have stated, but I didn’t argue the statements about the law, I argued that your statements about the situation are wrong. For example:
-I explained why Maxima meets the stricter standard, I didn’t claim that she doesn’t need to meet that standard.
-I explained why a tackle would not have been possible.
-I have seen many people explain to you how that was not Maxima’s strongest attack, which is obvious, since her strongest attack would have immediately destroyed the entire bridge. Yet you still are making that claim.
You keep accusing people of not reading your posts, but you are doing much more of ignoring the content of my and other’s posts. Try actually responding to the content of posts instead of unrelated things.
*nods*
“No, they aren’t. You don’t even get the facts right about what I said in my previous post.”
Yes they are. In fact, I keep repeating the same thing over and over, usually dealing with the requirements for a negligence case. You ignore it, as do several others who keep making the same flawed arguments in response.
“I also stated that your behavior in these threads has not met my expectations for a lawyer, which has nothing to do with whether you are one.”
I truly don’t care if I meet your expectations for a lawyer. Any legal terms, definitions, and requirements that I’ve given can be easily proven by even the most cursory legal research from anyone who took first year torts, or at least read a book on Tort law. Seriously, you don’t have to take my word for it – do your own research if you want and you’ll come up with the same conclusion.
“I also did not say “absolute certainty,” I said “approximately 100%.”
… I don’t think you know what ‘certainty’ means if you think ‘approximately 100%’ isnt certainty.
“-I explained why Maxima meets the stricter standard, I didn’t claim that she doesn’t need to meet that standard.”
No you didn’t. You claimed that because of Maxima’s experience, she meets a stricter standard. That’s not how it works. Maxima’s experience is WHY she is going to be held to a stricter standard of a hypothetical reasonable person with perfect expert knowledge. Again, this is basic knowledge for tort law. Look it up for yourself if you don’t want to take my word for it.
“-I explained why a tackle would not have been possible.”
No you didn’t. Your reasoning is flawed and based on rampant speculation without basis in facts
“-I have seen many people explain to you how that was not Maxima’s strongest attack, which is obvious, since her strongest attack would have immediately destroyed the entire bridge.”
Because those same people all keep not comprehending that the plasma blast power itself is her most powerful attack, not that she’s using her plasma blast at its highest intensity. They’re intentionally trying to misstate what I said (including you) because what I said is accurate.
“You keep accusing people of not reading your posts, ”
Because they never respond to the primary things that I keep repeating, and instead make up speculation and present that as fact, and ignore the legal definition of negligence and its elements.
“but you are doing much more of ignoring the content of my and other’s posts. ”
Riiight, that’s why I’ve been posting inordinately long and detailed posts to each person. Because I’ve been ‘ignoring’ the content. Despite that most of my posts are actually taking each sentence or paragraph and responding to each part in detail.
Your detailed replies are a credit to your dedication.
I only wish to address one point here, namely:
A 100% chance of something occurring is certainty. By qualifying that with ‘approximately’ it ceases to be certainty. But rather becomes ‘close to certainty’. Whilst the latter is a more normal way of describing a situation, ‘approximately 100%’ does make logical sense.
Further, in a debate, it is fair to use. There are many things in life which cannot be stated with certainty. Even in physics, which is a hard science and can say various things with certainty, there are areas where they have to rely on statistical probability, before announcing a discovery.
Once the odds have approached close enough to 100% (expressed in some fancy mathematical term), they can announce a discovery. With the confidence that their find is almost certainly true.
That ‘almost’ though is a vital qualifier because, even it if is only a remote chance, there is that slight margin for error.
You haven’t proven legal negligence like you seem to think you have, people all over have refuted your claims towards that. Just because they didn’t use legal terminology doesn’t make your arguments right just because you do use legal terms.
“Because they never respond to the primary things that I keep repeating, and instead make up speculation and present that as fact, and ignore the legal definition of negligence and its elements.
…
Riiight, that’s why I’ve been posting inordinately long and detailed posts to each person.”
No one is ignoring that though, they are showing how Maxima’s actions do not meet that legal definition. For the most part you have responded by simply repeating the definition, which does not change the fact that the definition is not met in this case.
If it seems like you are being ignored, it is because there only 2 parts in this entire post you just made where you actually address the point, which is more than many of your posts:
“No you didn’t. You claimed that because of Maxima’s experience, she meets a stricter standard. That’s not how it works.”
Which is simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote. My explanation described how she had the best information available to anyone in the world. I left off how her action is reasonable because of that, since “no expert would have thought a deflection was possible, so any reasonable expert would have thought the choice was no risk” is trivial.
and: “Because those same people all keep not comprehending that the plasma blast power itself is her most powerful attack, not that she’s using her plasma blast at its highest intensity.”
Her most powerful attack is her max intensity blast, I am pretty sure we have seen her punch harder than the blast we just saw.
You almost make a point when you say:
““-I explained why a tackle would not have been possible.”
No you didn’t. Your reasoning is flawed and based on rampant speculation without basis in facts”
But your response is so lacking in any substance, it might as well be an admission that you are wrong.
@Yorp:
“A 100% chance of something occurring is certainty. By qualifying that with ‘approximately’ it ceases to be certainty. But rather becomes ‘close to certainty’. Whilst the latter is a more normal way of describing a situation, ‘approximately 100%’ does make logical sense.”
This is getting pretty semantic. Lets agree that ‘approximately 100%’ means close to certainty, but not absolute certainty.’ Also lets agree that ‘close to certainty’ definitely meets the civil legal burden of ‘preponderance of evidence.’ (51% or more).
@Mike:
“You haven’t proven legal negligence like you seem to think you have,”
I most definitely have. Several times, in fact.
“people all over have refuted your claims towards that.”
No, people have said ‘no you havent’ then use incorrect layman terms to try to argue against a legal argument, or don’t understand the legal definitions because they’re using very nebulous layman definitions instead, or (in your case) don’t seem to understand that civil torts and crimes are entirely different things, as is recklessness in a civil case vs a criminal case.
“Just because they didn’t use legal terminology doesn’t make your arguments right just because you do use legal terms.”
Since the argument I’m making is about if Maxima committed a tort (negligence), then yes, you (or others) not using the correct legal terminology while I am using the correct legal terminology and applying it correctly DOES make my arguments right.
@AGuest:
“For the most part you have responded by simply repeating the definition, which does not change the fact that the definition is not met in this case.”
Because the definition and the way the elements are applies IS the entire argument I’ve been making, and no one’s been able to refute it. They instead keep using layman terms, start acting like it’s a criminal case instead of civil, make personal insults, or try to change the argument. So I keep having to repeat the initial argument and try to word it in a way that these people will understand, because half the time I’m not sure if they understand if and are being intentionally ignorant (not trying to insult here), are making strawmen arguments, or genuinely don’t understand what I’m saying. The definition I’ve given, sooo many times now, is most definitely met in this scenario.
“Which is simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote. My explanation described how she had the best information available to anyone in the world. I left off how her action is reasonable because of that, since “no expert would have thought a deflection was possible, so any reasonable expert would have thought the choice was no risk” is trivial.”
The reasonable person standard, when applied to experts, requires an essentially perfect person. The more of an expert the person is, the easier it is to satisfy this element in a negligence case. Maxima is a very expert person when it comes to fighting the bad guys. So she’s held to an incredibly high standard, and the hypothetical person has an incredibly high standard of care which Maxima has to meet in a negligence case.
“Her most powerful attack is her max intensity blast, I am pretty sure we have seen her punch harder than the blast we just saw.”
That’s intensity of the plasma blast. Her plasma blast, PERIOD, if her most powerful attack, and even her punch isnt going to make things explode, because of surface volume of the attack. An explosion is more destructive than a punch of the same level of power put into it (ie, 15 percent plasma blast vs 15 percent punch)
“But your response is so lacking in any substance,”
Since my response has been entirely based on the law, it is nothing BUT substance. What you said it just ‘no it isn’t’ followed by trying to make a personal insult, instead of an actual argument.
Agreed.
Agreed. ~100% > 51%.
Good :) The burden of proof required for a tort is a preponderance of evidence, not ‘close to certainty.’
Btw, check out the next day’s strip.
Sweet, sweet vindication for me. Maxima could have done something other than a plasma blast, and was willing to do so next strip, and Sciona may very well have been going towards the bridge so she could have cover to teleport away and leave Maxima all stupid about ‘where did she go?!’
“Sweet, sweet vindication for me.”
No, It does not show that Maxima could have caught up in the relatively small distance between Sciona and the bridge. Her thoughts about civilians as a distraction are just further evidence beyond what we already had that she intended to initially harm civilians as a distraction when she heded towards the bridge. Plus Teleporting she demonstrated she could do right in front of Maxima and still lose her, no need to hide behind the bridge if that was the plan.
“The reasonable person standard, when applied to experts, requires an essentially perfect person. ”
You are arguing that she needed to be omniscient. I don’t think you could convince any jury that “reasonable expert” equals “omniscience.” Every expert would have been wrong, including Maxima and Sciona (and since Sciona did the deflection and didn’t know she could, Sciona could be considered more of an expert than Maxima).
Also, you haven’t even addressed the actual improbability of the blast being in such a perfect direction unless it was deflected intentionally in that direction. You dismissed my estimate of the odds out of hand, but have provided no such estimate yourself. I have relevant engineering and physics background to give an order of magnitude estimate of the odds based on these pictures, and if given the right data could do better than that. In this case I am an expert, probably more of one than Maxima, and I say that even if it was known that a deflection was possible, they lack of any population in most directions makes the risk of her actions very low. Certainly this is less than the risk of “do nothing.”
“Because the definition and the way the elements are applies IS the entire argument I’ve been making, and no one’s been able to refute it. They instead keep using layman terms,”
You have argued for criminal charges against Maxima, not just civil ones. People are not wrong just because they use layman’s terms.
You actually have struggled with meaning of some words, the fact that literally everyone but you understands “strongest attack” to mean her full power blast indicates that you don’t know what those words mean. The meanings of words (outside of specific technical definitions) are determined by how everyone as a group uses them. Your further explanations are fine, but you should stop using the term “strongest attack” unless you are deliberately trying to be deceptive. It simply paints a false picture.
Also, as far as civil stuff goes in universe, Archon is certainly going to cover bridge repairs and other damages (probably including compensation if someone dies) if for nothing else than PR reasons. They simply wouldn’t let it get to court, and assuming the word “reasonable” still has any relation to its dictionary definition, they would informally find Maxima’s actions reasonable as long as she doesn’t try to cover up the specifics when she isn’t pressed for time, and she would not have any personal liability.
*clapsAGuest*
Awesomely argued! I should not give you a gold star, as it would give the impression of me being overly biased.
But you totes deserve one! Just don’t let Pander know I told you so.
This is an example of why careful planning matters. Collateral damage on this scale is a significant consequence. The questions of intentionality and predictability will come up at the inquiry.
Max is likely to get a reprimand once all the facts come to light but not much more than that. Sciona’s power level represents a national security threat and Max’s initial attack represents a reasonably measured response in light of that security threat. Sciona’s ability to deflect that attack couldn’t have been predicted from available evidence. From my armchair, Sciona’s reaction indicates she was just as surprised as Max at the deflection and at the impact with the bridge. Even though it appears to my eye that deflecting it into the bridge was unintentional, from Max’s viewpoint, Max has to assume that it was deliberate.
Now, if Max tries that same power bolt again, knowing that Sciona can apparently reflect it at any target sho chooses, then yeah, the inquiry is going to be very problematic.
As a side note, if it comes to light that Max has ever watched Tenchi Muyo, then arguing she didn’t know Sciona’s “Wings of the Light Hawk” could deflect energy blasts might be more difficult to argue. :D
Said it for the previous page, will reiterate for those of you who missed it and keep saying this is Maxima’s fault:
The angle between the plane of reflection and the vector of the object being reflected determines the direction of the ricochet. Kind of wordy – Sciona’s wing position was the deciding factor in where Max’s blast deflected. It could have been straight back at Max; it could have been towards the bank of the river. It went toward the bridge. Sciona’s fault.
Sciona had already altered course to head for the bridge. This wasn’t because she wanted to rob the toll booth, or catch the ice cream truck for a sno-cone. She was deliberately heading to the bridge to do damage, perhaps slicing through the hanger cables. Sciona’s intent.
Max is fully justified, then, in stating that Sciona took out the bridge as a diversion.
Regarding what she should now be doing, well, it’s not a big bridge and I think that unless the traffic is moving at 10 kph the civilians can clear off of it in the 30 seconds estimated. People won’t be driving ONTO the bridge given that explosion. So the only thing Team Alpha is required for would be civil engineering. Max is much better off chasing down Sciona.
There are many things wrong with your reasoning, Continuity.
1) Sciona’s wing position was the deciding factor in where Max’s blast deflected.
Sciona’s wing position was a reflexive action to prevent her from being injured or, more likely, killed by Maxima’s plasma blast. Not Sciona’s fault. Maxima’s fault. Maxima had a wide variety of ways to stop Sciona that did not involve a plasma blast. For example, when a police office is chasing down a fleeing car, they don’t fire wildly out the window at the car. They usually try to carefully hit the car from behind in order to knock it off the road where it can’t hurt anyone if it goes out of control. Or they radio ahead to cause a roadblock,etc. Maxima was fully capable of speeding up and tackling Sciona. She didn’t. She’s at fault for a reckless action.
2) She was deliberately heading to the bridge to do damage, perhaps slicing through the hanger cables.
Unless Maxima has the power of precognition, this is also poor reasoning, given Maxima does not know what Sciona’s wings can do, and there’s no reason to assume that Sciona CAN do that. What’s equally or more likely is using the bridge as cover to have Maxima lose sight of her long enough to escape – perhaps underwater or via a blood teleportation once out of sight. Sciona’s intent is unclear here, and you’re making unfounded suppositions.
3) Max is much better off chasing down Sciona.
Max’s PRIMARY duty is to protect citizens. This takes precedence over chasing a suspect, who is probably on satellite at this point and there’s an entire Alpha Team that can chase after her as well, with a flier who is almost as fast as Maxima. Police (and Maxima is essentially acting as a super-police even though it’s under the military wing here) have the primary duty of protecting the citizenry. Especially from dangers that they caused or are at least partially at blame for causing.
1) Max wasn’t “firing wildly” she lined up her shot and checked the background. The idea that he shot could be deflected like that wasn’t known by anyone on earth. It wasn’t a reasonable assumption to think her shot could hit something off to the side and far away.
2) that’s what it looks like to Max. Assuming Sciona was about to endanger lives is a reasonable assumption given her past actions.
3) Right Max’s primary duty is to protect citizens. All of them, not just the ones on the bridge. She a has a team right behind her able to help the bridge but only she is in a position to help Sciona’s next targets.
“1) Max wasn’t “firing wildly” she lined up her shot and checked the background.”
Will you stop putting words into my mouth. She was using an EXPLOSIVE attack which could potentially be deflected or miss the target. It was her FIRST go-to attack. It shouldnt have been. She was wrong. We know she was wrong because of what HAPPENED AS A RESULT. What you’re doing is making excuses for a mitigating defense… which would likely fail for her in court. Especially for a TORT. Because no matter what your excuse for her is, it doesn’t remove the fact that she was negligent, and that there was a proximate cause between her firing her plasma blast as her decision, and the bridge’s destruction as a result.
“The idea that he shot could be deflected like that wasn’t known by anyone on earth.”
Doesn’t eliminate the recklessness of what she did. She should have had some research on what her wings were potentially capable of doing before pursuing Sciona.
“that’s what it looks like to Max. Assuming Sciona was about to endanger lives is a reasonable assumption given her past actions.”
Still irrelevant. Maxima’s response was reckless and negligent, given the multiple other things she could have done to stop Sciona.
“3) Right Max’s primary duty is to protect citizens. All of them, not just the ones on the bridge.”
No, she’s not god. She’s basically a cop. She isn’t there to protect every person on earth for the undefined future. She’s there to protect people in the moment FIRST… THEN people in the future second.
Especially when there are people in danger because of HER ACTIONS specifically.
“She a has a team right behind her able to help the bridge but only she is in a position to help Sciona’s next targets.”
Her team behind her could simply go after Sciona, while she saves the people on the bridge…. and then Maxima can catch up with Alpha team, given Sydney is almost as fast as Maxima and should have no trouble keeping up with Sciona, but Sydney can NOT do what Maxima can do in saving the people on the bridge nearly as easily.
When someone is armed with an apocalyptic device you do not work your way up through things that may just inconvenience them. If they survive your first attack, there may be no world left to save.
The same is true of if it is just the people on the bridge at risk.
You use the most effective attack at your disposal.
You have no way to prove that the people on the bridge would have been in any danger from Sciona being hit by the explosion, or from it exploding in the water beyond. Our debates either way are nothing other than speculation.
Until you can prove that Maxima should have been able to foresee Sciona deflecting the attack, or even that it was a reasonable possibility, then you cannot convince me that she was negligent.
“When someone is armed with an apocalyptic device you do not work your way up through things that may just inconvenience them. If they survive your first attack, there may be no world left to save.”
False statement made by you. Strawman argument since you can’t refute what I said.
“The same is true of if it is just the people on the bridge at risk.”
This sentence made no sense.
“You use the most effective attack at your disposal.”
Incomplete statement. You use the most effective attack that will not result in collateral damage. That’s why cops use a pit maneuver instead of taking out a shotgun to blow out a fleeing car’s tires like they do in the movies.
In addition, does not matter for a negligence case. She still did something that meets the legal requirements of the element of recklessness. Cut-and-past what I’ve said elsewhere which you havent bothered to read.
“You have no way to prove that the people on the bridge would have been in any danger from Sciona being hit by the explosion, or from it exploding in the water beyond.”
Yes I do. Because the bridge was, in fact, hit. The duty of care that Maxima had towards the civilians was breached.
“Our debates either way are nothing other than speculation.”
Please read up on the reasonable person standard for non-laymen in a negligence suit.
“Until you can prove that Maxima should have been able to foresee Sciona deflecting the attack, or even that it was a reasonable possibility, then you cannot convince me that she was negligent.”
Please read up on the reasonable person standard for non-laymen in a negligence suit.
Also read up on the proximate cause element in a negligence suit, and how far the courts have stretched it for foreseeability in the past.
(Yorp- apologies for any saltiness in the beginning Got tired of having to repeat the same points, which are not opinion, just what the legal requirements are, and got annoyed at the accusation to me of strawmanning when I wasn’t.)
Long debates, especially when over particularly contentious issues, with entrenched positions, will lead to mental fatigue and likely irritation, with the replies reflecting that. It certainly does not bother me (with the fatigue toxins flushed from my brain).
The rest is all pretty much covered in points elsewhere, so not much need for me to repeat them here.
I’m just irritated about having to repeat the same point over and over with people never arguing my actual points, or misstating them. I’ve wound up just cutting and pasting a very fleshed out list of what makes a negligence tort and might just cut and paste that mainly so I don’t have to repeat myself over and over again. I still have a few days of free time left so I can spend it talking on web comic forums. :)
I feel Max is just lying here. :p
Max: I shot at Sciona which she blocked and it ricocheted to a bridge.
…sounds more like it. :p The way Max says it, feels like she’s trying to deflect blame. :p
Why is there a bridge that big in the middle of nowhere?
By the terrain, I don’t think they are in Arizona.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere,_Oklahoma
Although at one point Arizona did try to build a bridge to Nowhere.
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/15235
The bridge may be in the middle of Nowhere, but at least it’s better than Nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing,_Arizona
Derp. Got my first line position mixed with my second line. It looks like my typing skills are going nowhere today.
Well they’re not in Kansas anymore.
Congress.
Both apt, and very well-timed.
Danke.
Because there is a big road from somewhere to somewhere there I assume.
Speaking as a Sciona lawyer [unpaid, for a variety of reasons, including her tendency to hand out pink slips made out with your blood].
Sciona has reason to assume a pursuing Max is hostile, but not that she has any legal authority. For one thing, most of her… escapades have happened in different jurisdictions, where Max lacks legal authority and/or knowledge of the “crime”.
Sciona was not attempting to damage the bridge as a diversion. For one thing, on the available evidence, she can’t. Sciona is a room wrecker, not a building buster. She might be able to take the bridge down in an hour or so, but there is no reason to think she could do anything serious and still have time to flee.
She also has alternate motives. The bridge is not ideal, but it does provide cover for evasive action. A quick turn left or right and she might lose her pursuer. Also, she has bat and possibly other forms, which would be improved if she were out of sight even briefly. So dive under bridge, use evade tactic and problem may be solved.
The charge of collateral or deliberate damage can easily be rejected. Sciona has no clear way of knowing Max could do this sort of damage, or that she is authorized to use such force. [and she probably isn’t. The presence of civilians limits both police and military, as well as the limits on shooting fleeing suspects. The cops get a lot of latitude in this so Max is likely not in trouble, but shooting at fleeing targets is a last resort, not a first.]
Speaking as a lawyer lawyer, I agree with most of what you said, except for two points.
1) Sciona probably DOES know what Maxima could do, since what Maxima could do was televised on every news channel a few days ago, including her plasma blast What Sciona COULDNT have known, though, is that she’d be capable of deflecting that plasma blast. THAT would be a reflexive action, like when someone puts their hands up when there’s an explosion – it’s not like your hands is going to stop the explosion from killing you.
2) Cops get a certain amount of latitude during a hot pursuit, but not reckless actions, which Maxima’s use of the plasma blast could definitely be called. It would be like a cop deciding to fire wildly into a crowd to hit a fleeing suspect, or a cop taking out a bazooka to fire at the suspect when a tackle would do just as well. Maxima SHOULD be in trouble for this, although I suspect that Archon probably has a fund on hand to handle settlements about this, assuming no one gets killed as a result of Maxima’s reckless action (if someone gets killed, it’ll be a crime, if it’s just property damage, it’ll likely just be a tort).
Again not a crowd. She was out in the open with nothing but water behind her on her way to a crowd. Max shot while it was still safe *before* Sciona reached a crowd.
Doesn’t matter. A ricochet doesn’t care where the crowd is. It still qualifies as reckless. And not having any research on what Sciona’s wings might be capable of doing is negligent. Going to your biggest attack as your first attack is reckless as well. Again, a cop can’t throw a fragmentation grenade at a criminal, even if the criminal is a short distance from the crowd.
Sciona was not ‘a short distance from a crowd’. Panel 1 gives us a nice wide shot and there is nothing but water around her. The nearest structure (possibly the river bank, maybe the bridge) is in the distance. Even the long shot, on the previous page, indicates that Sciona was half the length of the bridge distant from it.
They have researched Sciona. There was nothing which indicated that Sciona’s wings could deflect energy attacks. Mainly because she has never done that before, and surprised herself (see the author’s blog above). So your accusation of negligence is totally unfounded.
Plus this is not a ricochet, it is a parry. Those are two very different things. The former being an accidental deflection the latter being a purposeful one.
Maxima has been through two wars, so we should give her the credit that her experience has shown that such attacks have been effective in the past. There is no blame to be associated with coming across a foe who has an undiscovered ability like that.
Repeating myself now. Doesn’t matter. It still qualifies, legally, as reckless and as the proximate cause of the bridge exploding.
And yes, it’s a ricochet. Not a parry.
A parry is an act of warding off a weapon with a countermove.
A ricochet is when a shot or projectile rebounds off a surface.
What happened is the latter, not the former.
“Maxima has been through two wars, so we should give her the credit that her experience has shown that such attacks have been effective in the past.”
No, as I’ve said multiple times, including at least once to you, her experience makes her an expert, and puts her at a HIGHER duty of care, not a lower one.
“There is no blame”
The only blame being given, in a negligence tort, is that she had a duty, a breach of that duty, proximate cause or cause-in-fact, and damages.
She had a duty to keep the civilians safe.
She breached that duty. We know that because the civilians were not safe as a result. Think of the cuddle kittens.
She was the proximate cause of the damage to the bridge and danger to the civilians.
There was most definitely damage as a result.
Sciona uses her wings as a weapon. Here she moved those weapons to block the attack. That is a parry, as per the definition you described. A ricochet would be if it bounced off armour. These are distinctions between active defences (what Sciona did) versus passive ones (which did not happen).
You are having to repeat yourself because you are failing to explain how a person can be held negligent for a deflection occurring which could not reasonably be predicted.
Maxima had to make her decision in a few seconds. We had a few days to debate her impending attack. Nobody predicted that the attack would be deflected at the bridge.
OK, several folks predicted that the bridge would be damaged, one way or another, but that was using comic story logic, rather than any real world analysis.
And, talking about which, I would be interested to see if you could show any real world example of how an energy attack could be diverted that considerable distance? Not possible? Then how could Maxima be expected to consider that to be a risk?
Only if there was any intelligence showing that Sciona had such a capability. We know they investigated her. They managed to find her Mars base as a result of such. We also know that there was no hint that Sciona could do such a PARRY, because the author has told us that.
“Sciona uses her wings as a weapon.”
And as a shield. That’s not a parry.
“Here she moved those weapons to block the attack. That is a parry, as per the definition you described.”
No, it is a ricochet. You are wrong. Again.
This is a parry. it involves basically catching and moving it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavXVMtjsME
This is a ricochet. It involves a deflection – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wHu7YsKrho
“And, talking about which, I would be interested to see if you could show any real world example of how an energy attack could be diverted that considerable distance? Not possible? Then how could Maxima be expected to consider that to be a risk?”
See above. Also, doesn’t matter for a negligence case when Maxima is held to an expert standard of car for determining recklessness.
“Only if there was any intelligence showing that Sciona had such a capability. ”
Incorrect. They know what Alari are. They’re going to be able to find out the capabilities of Alari if they aren’t negligent.
Plus, Yorp, I just gave you the elements of a negligence case, and you completely and utterly ignored it. This isn’t opinion. This isn’t a straw man argument. This is not even a hypothetical when I give the elements of a case. It’s very clear law.
You’re the one ignoring things, and diverting people with pedantic differences between reflections, parries, and ricochets.
It all comes to the fact that (as Yorp said) you are failing to explain how a person can be held negligent for a something occurring which could not reasonably be predicted (key legal phrase there). Legally they can’t, negligence and/or recklessness laws don’t cover random unpredictable things happening.
Some examples from legal textbooks:
If I push someone and they fall down and hit their head that’s reckless (it’s a reasonable thing that can happen as a result of pushing someone). If I push someone and they fall against a table, hitting a spoon, that launches a grape, that goes into someone else’s mouth and they choke on it that’s not recklessness because that course of events isn’t predictable by a reasonable person.
Here (even ignoring actual testimony from the creator of the universe) we have Max launching an attack that should explode on impact not only not exploding on impact but reflecting and hitting a bridge pylon in just the right way to cause the bridge to collapse (or be in risk of collapse since Max prevented further collapse). No reasonable person could predict that outcome.
“You’re the one ignoring things, and diverting people with pedantic differences between reflections, parries, and ricochets.”
No, you have. Not me. Also I’m not the one who brought up parries, that was Yorp. I just corrected him. Also, pretty sure no one mentioned reflections.
“reasonably be predicted (key legal phrase there). Legally they can’t, negligence and/or recklessness laws don’t cover random unpredictable things happening.”
If Maxima was an average person, then the average reasonable person standard would apply. Maxima is not the average person. She’s an expert, and is treated to a much higher standard of care than an average person. In a tort, the standard of care for an expert is a hypothetical person of expert reasonableness’ which is pretty much a person of almost perfect foresight, depending on the expertise of the person. Maxima’s expertise works against her for this, because the reasonable person standard makes the hypothetical person nearly perfect, and the standard is that high for Maxima. She did not meet the standard of care here because of that. Again, that’s how the law works. You’re using a very incomplete understanding of the law right now, but at least you’re using something, so that’s appreciated. Week 1 of torts vs week 2 of torts.
“Here (even ignoring actual testimony from the creator of the universe) we have Max launching an attack that should explode on impact not only not exploding on impact but reflecting and hitting a bridge pylon in just the right way to cause the bridge to collapse (or be in risk of collapse since Max prevented further collapse). No reasonable person could predict that outcome.”
See my above statement so I don’t have to repeat myself and make the thread even longer.
To save you having to read down for my counter below, I copy the conclusion here, for your convenience. There is more elaboration below though to support the contentions:
Your link showed a bullet ricochet, not an energy attack parry. Not what was asked for as evidence.
Well I hate to use the term again, but you sure are bandying around “negligent”, without basis.
Sciona is an Alari and did not know that such was possible. Yet you think that Archon are negligent for not being able to find that out?
The fact that I told you the flaws in the hypothetical case you stated shows that I did not ignore it. I said that it did not match the specifics in this case.
And no much how you cite “its the law”, I am damned certain that negligence can only be upheld if it can be shown that an expert could reasonably predict the outcome. I do not need a law degree to know that. Even if you choose to withhold admitting to that, to suit your own purposes.
“Your link showed a bullet ricochet, not an energy attack parry. Not what was asked for as evidence.”
You do realize that there are no examples of plasma blasts being fired in real life, right?
I showed the difference between a parry and a ricochet, period.
“Well I hate to use the term again, but you sure are bandying around “negligent”, without basis.”
I’m not ‘bandying’ around negligent. That’s the tort. With a lot of basis. The fact that I keep having to repeat all the elements of negligence, and how the scenario in the comic meet those elements IS BASIS.
“Sciona is an Alari and did not know that such was possible. Yet you think that Archon are negligent for not being able to find that out?”
Possibly because Sciona has no way to know just how powerful Maxima’s plasma blasts are. If Maxima had used 50 percent power, or 100 percent power, it might have not been possible at all and Sciona would have been incinerated, with the blast blasting through the wings instead of hitting off of it.
“The fact that I told you the flaws in the hypothetical case you stated shows that I did not ignore it. I said that it did not match the specifics in this case.”
You did ignore it though. You ignored pertinent parts of the argument, repeatedly. It’s a bit irritating but I’m not sure if it’s intentional on your part or you just don’t see it and you innocently don’t realize you’re repeatedly missing what I’m explaining.
“And no much how you cite “its the law”, I am damned certain that negligence can only be upheld if it can be shown that an expert could reasonably predict the outcome. ”
An expert is held to a much higher standard than a hypothetical reasonable person standard. MUCH higher, especially for someone at Maxima’s level of expertise.
“I do not need a law degree to know that.”
It would help, because you’d have a more thorough understanding of the standard of care needed.
“Even if you choose to withhold admitting to that, to suit your own purposes.”
I haven’t withheld admitting to anything. You just keep not understanding the standard of care at play here.
Yes. Which is why you stating (by your repeated analogies to bullets) that they can ricochet has no basis.
Incidentally if you look back a couple of pages, you will see Dave describing Maxima’s attack as cosmic energy, not plasma blasts. However we do know the properties of cosmic rays. They don’t ricochet either.
If they did astronauts would be perfectly safe inside metal spacecraft. They are not. In order to significantly deflect cosmic rays you need to use a strong magnetic field. Astronauts in low Earth orbit (such as the International Space Station) are within the Earth’s magnetic field, so get protection from that.
To travel to Mars they would either need to surround the crew areas with water (to stop the cosmic rays penetrating) or generate a strong magnetic field (to deflect them).
I also note that you chose not to admit that that it would be impossible for Archon to find out that Alari have an ability that was unknown to anyone. Rather you chose to argue about Maxima’s blast, which has nothing to do with Archon being negligent in their research about Alari!
You were wrong to state that and you have failed to admit to your error.
If an event is impossible, by the understanding of a perfect expert, that individual cannot be held negligent, should that event happen.
It is impossible for a cosmic ray to ricochet. God has stated that no one knew that Sciona had an ability which could do the impossible. That includes a hypothetical perfect expert. Ergo Maxima is not negligent.
By the way, to clarify, by “reasonably predict the outcome” I mean “realise that what resulted was a possibility”. A bullet could go in thousands of safe directions if it is deflected, but if there are people close enough to be hit, then that could reasonably be predicted as a risk.
But that is only true of things that ricochet. If Maxima’s energy attack simply does not do that then there is was no predictable risk.
I will simply point out here that Maximas shots exploded on contact with Sydney’s shield earlier in the comic, during durability testing, that shield is rounded and as such are much better suited to deflect shots than the flat surface of Sciona’s wings, in fact flat surfaces are much less likely to deflect shots than rounded because they cannot push away the kinetic energy as easily.
This also gets even more clear when we see Maxima fire at the Tank during the press conference, her shot cut through the armor of the tank as if it’s hot butter, in short, her shots have some insane levels armor penetrating properties, which again makes deflections and ricochets less likely, by all accounts what happened with Sciona would be a freak accident of such low probability NO ONE could be held accountable as by all evidence up until then said it should not have happened.
As for taking the shot being reckless or not:
Archon has been given Intel about Sciona’s past from The Council, Arianna says so during one of the briefings, as such they know what she tried to do, what she was capable of back then and what she was convicted for, they also have first hand experience from Mars and the aftermath of her trip into the Vault on top of a list of what was taken from the vault itself, which includes WMD’s of such destructive power that they have been described as “Apocalyptic” in nature, with Apocalyptic meaning “Capable of destroying the world and all life on it”
Considering Maxima is a field agent and the commander of the field team it is quite reasonable to assume she has been briefed on this and as such when Sciona diverted towards the bridge she would have to, as a super hero, a soldier and a law enforcement agent have to take into consideration the reason that Sciona did so and act out of the worst case scenario.
The worst Case Scenario would be that Sciona planned to use one of the WMD’s that she got from the vault on the bridge itself, whether she actually carried one of those? Maxima had no way of knowing, but given available Intel she would have to assume that to be the case, to do anything less would be not only stupid but in complete contradiction to her job description, as such allowing Sciona to reach the bridge at all would present a tremendous risk to not only the local public but potentially the world itself.
Now given the approximate height of that bridge, when we take into account that suspension bridges in USA ranges from 130ft (approx 40 meters) to 955ft 291(meters) tall as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_the_United_States_by_height and given that the shot is shown to hit at or very close to 45 degrees here: https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2811 we can assume a required minimum distance of about 282ft (86 meters) of travel before the deflected attack hit the bridge in question, that means that when Maxima hit Sciona SHE was about 282ft (86 meters) away from the bridge itself +/- a bit given angular dependencies and the fact that it wasn’t exactly 45 degrees but that was the closest I could find.
Either way at that distance and considering that Maxima had to hit Sciona from a near 90 Degree angle to get a 45 degree ricochet on the bridge, means that there is NO way the shot would pose a danger to anyone under normal circumstances, if she missed it would have hit the water and detonated, if it hit and didn’t get deflected the explosion would be nowhere near to hitting the bridge itself.
As a jury member in court of law, given this evidence I would personally say and argue for a full acquittal of Maxima since the chance of the shot hitting where it hit given distance and angle would be astronomically low or Sciona put it there deliberately using skills hereto unknown to both the council and Archon.
Note the math at the bottom of my previous comment assumes the bridge is 200ft tall which is a rather small suspension bridge, the bridge is most likely higher than that which just increases all numbers involved
Thank you for adding that. Especially for your opening:
Given that we have seen a laser-like attack being deflected by Sydney’s shield, in the battle at the steakhouse car park. Yet Maxima’s was not.
Note that I am not claiming this to be proof that Maxima’s attack cannot ricochet normally. However it is consistent with that. On top of the fact that cosmic rays do not do such (only a strong magnetic field, or something similar, can deflect them).
Hex’s field did. Fortunately, the shot Maxima made at Hex was a LOT less powerful than that made at Sciona. Although it still wound up being very powerful – might have been her lowest setting that she’s used in the comic for her plasma blast that I’ve seen.
if this is the one you are referring to https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1384 it seems to me like it detonated on impact with the shield and the resulting shockwave pushed Hex back seeing as she is sent flying through a pine tree and then crash landed on the ground.
Agreed. So that corroborates, rather than refutes.
To be honest though I had forgotten about that one though, so thanks both for bringing it up.
@Yorp:
It clearly looks like it hit against her shield and bounced off before exploding – you can even see the cracks showing where it hit. It does not corroborate. It refutes.
The shockwave DID throw Hex back though, but that was after it had already bounced off. In fact, if it hadn’t bounced off the shockwave would not have been as effective against Hex to do that WITHOUT killing her.
@U.N Owen:
“assumes the bridge is 200ft tall which is a rather small suspension bridge, the bridge is most likely higher than that which just increases all numbers involved”
Considering the amount of cars on that bridge and the width of the waterway, 200 feet seems VERY small, and I think you might be underplaying the size of the bridge significantly.
Also, just so you realize, Maxima’s motivations for WHY she did what she did (taking the shot at Sciona) does not make a difference to the fact that it was reckless from a tort standard for negligence for someone of her expertise, which you’ve admitted is considerable to the extreme. :)
I can clearly see the missile incoming. Although I can see various shrapnel-like traces exiting the explosion they all appear to be pretty much the same, so I take those to just be normal explosion effects.
What I do not see is a corresponding trail, to the one clearly visible on the incoming missile, bouncing off the shield or travelling through the explosion. Nor do I see the missile itself. Given that the missile and trail have contrasting colours, one or the other should be visible, to properly corroborate your assertion.
I can see cracks. But all over the shield. Which consistent with the rather big explosion we see. As opposed to radiating out from a central impact point, like this.
Most importantly we do see the explosion. Rather making your point moot. So I think you are really clutching at straws to try and maintain your grip on the crumbling edifice of your case.
But, just to help prise another finger off your hold, please note that if the blast did have the property of exploding AND ricocheting after that, then Maxima’s shot, in the indoor firing range, should have been bouncing around all over the place.
We saw no evidence of that. Nor did Maxima take any precautions in the event of that happening. Whereas we have seen her going to the extremes of doubling up protections by putting Sydney in a blast-resistant suit and having a huge metal block, to protect her in other testing.
Which suggests to me that Maxima has no expectation of her blast ricocheting. Likewise Peggy, who has served with Maxima in warzones, and who was the rangemaster and thereby in charge of the safety.
And their dialogue made clear that such demonstrations were routine. Which would be consistent with my assertion that they have years of experience showing that when it hits it goes “BOOM” not “BOOM ting peeow ouch!”.
If that’s 30 seconds in Dragonball Z time it could take months for the bridge to fall.
True that. It is over 9000 (milliseconds). ;-P