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.
That was a pretty good call on Maxima’s part.
I’m sure whether or not Sciona intentionally deflected the blast into the ridge will be discussed in the debriefing.
But overall; no serious or illegal mis-acts from Max.
Actually SEVERAL serious mis-acts from Max, and possibly one or two illegal acts, depending on if anyone dies or is seriously injured as a result of those mis-acts.
Max was already cleared to engage Sciona: So it wasn’t shooting at her.
Max made sure to aim downwards at Sciona while she was still several dozen yards away from, and several hundred under, the bridge: So even if Sciona had dodged the blast would do nothing but cause a large geyser of steam and water.(Dave already confirmed that neither thought Sciona could deflect the blast.)
Max secured the bridge, shielded civilians, and let her teammates handle securing the bridge while she went after the higher priority threat: Not illegal either if we assume Max was legally allowed to make such a call.
“Max was already cleared to engage Sciona: So it wasn’t shooting at her.”
No, she was supposed to be following Sciona, not shooting at her. But that’s a moot point. If Maxima felt that Sciona was going to try to threaten the bridge, she had many options which did not involve deadly force, not to mention many options which would not put the bridge at possible risk.
“Max made sure to aim downwards at Sciona while she was still several dozen yards away from, and several hundred under, the bridge: So even if Sciona had dodged the blast would do nothing but cause a large geyser of steam and water.(Dave already confirmed that neither thought Sciona could deflect the blast.)”
You’re still missing that Maxima’s first go-to attack was her most powerful attack – something she clearly told Sydney to never do. She said even if you think you have them, ASSUME YOU WILL MISS AND HIT SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ELSE. Use that attack as a last resort.’ Maxima used it as her first resort. She was in the wrong.
“Max secured the bridge, shielded civilians,”
For 30 seconds. She gave her team a total of 30 seconds to get there to do something that she can do better, with less risk to the civilians, because she’s being a gloryhound and wanting to be the one to capture Sciona, instead having Alpha Team pursue her while she clears the bridge. Sciona’s on satellite already, and Sydney is almost as fast a flier as Maxima is.
“Not illegal either if we assume Max was legally allowed to make such a call.”
Maxima is not legally allowed to keep civilians in threat of becoming collateral damage, whether she’s in charge or not. In fact, if she’s in charge she’s under a GREATER duty to protect the citizens, not a lesser duty.
She gave that speech to Sydney because, unlike her, Sydney had no way to moderate the power of her blaster attacks.
Max has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to choose how powerful her energy attacks are.
And what other choices did Max have? Get into melee range of the person that can magically manipulate blood? A low-level blast was the safest option to quickly and efficiently disable Sciona.
***
Max is chasing Sciona because she is the only one who is currently fast enough to keep a visual on her, and strong enough to disable her. A thirty second head-start would be way too much time for Sciona to go to ground and into hiding.
And her first priority as a “superhero” is actually to neutralize unnatural/super threats while minimizing property damage.
^ Stopping the multi-national threat at the possible expense of one bridge and a few dozen civilians is easily covered by that.
“She gave that speech to Sydney because, unlike her, Sydney had no way to moderate the power of her blaster attacks”
No, she gave that speech because she wanted Sydney to ALWAYS be cognizant of not making civilians into collateral damage. You know… like Maxima just did here.
“Max has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to choose how powerful her energy attacks are.”
Even at 15 percent strength, Maxima fired a shot powerful enough to blow up a bridge. She clearly didn’t limit her power enough, and even at the lowest levels she’s used the plasma blast, it’s been incredibly powerful. Plus again, Maxima hasn’t followed her own advice MULTIPLE times – apparently with any big bad, she ignores the advice she gave Sydney. Advice which was GOOD advice.
“And what other choices did Max have? Get into melee range of the person that can magically manipulate blood?”
She had MANY choices, several of which I’ve already mentioned not once, not twice, but multiple times. Not to mention she has a faster reaction time than Sciona unless she’s surprised by fear vomit.
“A low-level blast was the safest option to quickly and efficiently disable Sciona.”
Clearly it was NOT. You seem adamant on ignoring the results of what happened. Also, 15 percent of a blast, capable of destroying a bridge does not seem to me to be ‘low level’ by any stretch of the imagination.
“Max is chasing Sciona because she is the only one who is currently fast enough to keep a visual on her,”
Incorrect. Sydney is also fast enough.
“and strong enough to disable her.”
Incorrect. You’re making assumptions based on no info. Dabbler is also capable of disabling her. Even Sydney was capable of doing so with her lighthook. She was capable of breaking Sciona’s ogre-arm with just the orbs alone. And all Sydney actually has to do is follow her for the few seconds it would take for Maxima to clear the bridge of innocent civilians.
“A thirty second head-start would be way too much time for Sciona to go to ground and into hiding.”
No it would not be, since 1) Sciona is on satellite, and 2) Sydney is able to fly up to mach 4. And Maxima can go faster than that, so Maxima could simply catch up after fixing her own mess.
“And her first priority as a “superhero” is actually to neutralize unnatural/super threats while minimizing property damage.”
No, her first priority is to protect people. She instead put them in danger.
“Stopping the multi-national threat at the possible expense of one bridge and a few dozen civilians is easily covered by that.”
That is just about the most horrible thng I’ve ever heard anyone say, reducing people to mere collateral damage in an accident that you yourself caused, in order to POSSIBLY stop a future danger. It’s the same reasoning some people gave about why it would be fine to threaten to kill or kill Krona because of the worry that she MIGHT do something destructive in the future.
Immediate threat takes priority over a possible future threat. Especailly when you have a backup team to keep in pursuit of the future threat, and that future threat is on satellite, and it would take no more than 30 seconds for Maxima, while it will take longer for the others, since they don’t have Maxima’s same levels of strength and speed to save everyone on the bridge, whereas they DO have the speed to pursue Sciona.
“You know… like Maxima just did here.”
Maxima shot from what she thought was the safest position in that situation. An unexpected and unpredictable rebound in not her fault.
“Even at 15 percent strength, Maxima fired a shot powerful enough to blow up a bridge.”
It blew up a hole through a section of a support pillar.
We’ve seen her punch someone with more power than that.
“She had MANY choices”
No she doesn’t. Max’s only options for disabling anyone in a fight is either through physical contact or use of her blaster power.
“Sciona is on satellite”
That would not stop Sciona from getting to her base and grabbing an artifact and using it against them.
“Immediate threat takes priority over a possible future threat.”
^ That sentiment holds no water in real life.
If the government learned of an individual that they knew for a fact had access to weapons that could easily cause damage on a global scale, and that person was a terrorist with a history of mass-murder and torture, then their immediate termination would be put above possible civilian casualties while pursing them.
“Maxima shot from what she thought was the safest position in that situation. An unexpected and unpredictable rebound in not her fault.”
What is so hard for you to understand about the difference between an intentional tort and a negligent tort? Seriously, I’m not making fun of you. I’d really like to know why you don’t understand what negligence means, after I’ve described it in detail multiple times. I’m not even using unique definitions – it’s something anyone who looks it up can see. Go on Westlaw or Findlaw or Lexis Nexis.
“It blew up a hole through a section of a support pillar.”
It blew up a hole through a section of support pillar, then exploded, destroying the entire top of the pillar. Remember how it happened with the tank as well?
“No she doesn’t. Max’s only options for disabling anyone in a fight is either through physical contact or use of her blaster power.”
Physical contact, gun, getting in front of her to force her to divert her direction, firing warning shots in front of her to cause a water explosion to force her to divert. Admitedly the best and safest course of action for civilians would have been physical contact – ie, an aerial tackle, like a police car ‘pit maneuver.’
“That would not stop Sciona from getting to her base and grabbing an artifact and using it against them.”
It would let them still track her and Sydney would be able to catch up within the 30 seconds or less it takes, then after Maxima saved the civilians, she can be there too at faster speed as well.
“That sentiment holds no water in real life.”
The sentiment of an immediate threat taking priority over a possible future threat of COURSE holds water in real life!
It isn’t “negligent” because the shot Max took was entirely reasonable based on the information she was given and the current situation.
Max’s intention was to get Sciona away from/stop her from getting to the bridge:
1)Gun wouldn’t have done jack-diddly.
2)Getting into melee was incredibly risky against someone who, supposedly, has the ability to control blood. Putting herself in front of Sciona causes the same dilemma.
3)(Unless Max upped the power considerably)A shot, and subsequent geyser/explosion, wouldn’t have been large enough to divert Sciona from the fairy expansive river.
4)Attempts to do so would require a rapid firing of her blaster ability. Which would have been a negligent tort considering how much of wide area would need to be covered.
5)Hit Sciona head-on with a low-level blast and from an angel that, even if she missed, would only hit the river.
If Max had known about Sciona being able to deflect shots, then yeah, she probably would have chanced getting into melee with her.
But as things stood option #5 was the safest one.
***
“The sentiment of an immediate threat taking priority over a possible future threat of COURSE holds water in real life!”
Not in a reality where someone like Sciona exists and presents such an overwhelmingly damaging, and incredibly likely, future threat of wide scale destruction on a national level.
“It isn’t “negligent” because the shot Max took was entirely reasonable based on the information she was given and the current situation.”
NEGLIGENCE.
Legal. Negligence.
You must never read any of my posts since I’ve now explained this so many times.
I am going to try to spell it out as succinctly as possible now.
To be guilty of the TORT (ie, civil wrongdoing for which you can be sued in civil court) of Negligence, the following elements must be satisfied.
1) There must be Duty of care to another person or people. In this case, it’s the duty to protect citizens, which is a duty of all police officers, and in Archon’s charter, regardless of whatever else is in the charter. If you’re in law enforcement, whether civil or military, you have a duty to protect innocent civilians.
2) There must be a breach of that duty of care towards other people. The breach can be determined by a standard which the individual fails to live up to. You measure that standard depending on the expertise of the person. If the person is NOT an expert, the standard of care is that of a hypothetical ‘reasonable person.’ If the person is an expert (which Maxima is with over a decade of experience and is a commanding officer and one of the most powerful supers on the planet, as she says VERY often, then you are held to the standard of care of a hypoethical ‘expert reasonable person.’ An expert reasonable person, in the law, is the perfect exemplar who would have determined every contingency that could be discovered by research and hypothetical scenarios, and even slight possibilities of it occuring. It is an incredibly high standard on purpose, based on the idea that the more of an expert you are, the more responsibility you have to use that expertise responsibly.
3) Cause – The breach of duty causes harm. This can either be DIRECT harm or proximate cause. Here, it’s obviously not direct harm, since there was a ricochet of Maxima’s plasma blast involved. That’s PROXIMATE cause instead. You figure out proximate cause with a ‘but for’ method of reasoning. But for Maxima firing the plasma blast, the bridge would not have been severely damaged.
4) Harm – Or more specifically, damages. There must be actual damage which occurs as a result of the breach of duty. The bridge being damaged is harm. Individuals who might get hurt is harm. Cars being damaged is harm. All of that is legal harm, because there are actual damages that occur as a result.
All the excuses that everyone has given for Maxima, usually that she did not MEAN to do it, or that she was trying to stop Sciona from potentially doing the same thing or worse, or that she didnt anticipate a ricochet happening, are irrelevant to the elements which I have listed.
I hope I don’t have to explain this again.
BTW, to everyone saying how she did not intend to damage the bridge, that would only be a defense for an INTENTIONAL tort. This is not an intentional tort. It is negligence.
It’s not as cut and dry as that.
If the law system strictly abide by the definitions you just gave then literally every mistake that caused property damage or injury that an officer of the law committed would have had them charged with a Negligence tort.
“It’s not as cut and dry as that.”
Yes, it actually is as cut and dry as that.
“If the law system strictly abide by the definitions you just gave then literally every mistake that caused property damage or injury that an officer of the law committed would have had them charged with a Negligence tort.”
No, because most people are not at the level of expertise as Maxima. Most people would get held to a far lower standard of care. Also the duty of care is only one of four elements needed to prove negligence.
Oh… also negligence is one of the most common torts for a reason.
Read the briefing again. Yes, Max’s planned position was to keep an eye on here until the rest of the team could catch up and engage but it was also to engage if she had to and Sciona heading towards civilians is definitely a reason to engage without the team.
That wasn’t her most powerful attack, not by far. It was a measured attack based on what little she knew of Sciona. And she did check where she could hit on a normal miss or ricochet. Nobody could have expected that deflection (even Sciona didn’t). And the “attack as last resort” thing was for Sydney who has a very powerful weapon and zero training.
Again she balanced the risk to civilians vs the risk Sciona could pose to people further down the line. “30 seconds” is a worst case guess and it’s being passed to her team who is less than 30 seconds away.
Her actions are geared towards maximizing civilian safety long term and she is legally authorized to make those calls in the field. That’s one of the things that comes with the rank.
“Read the briefing again. Yes, Max’s planned position was to keep an eye on here until the rest of the team could catch up and engage but it was also to engage if she had to and Sciona heading towards civilians is definitely a reason to engage without the team.”
Do you notice she has her GUN…. why didnt she use her gun instead of the plasma blast? Why not tackle? Why not intercept with superior speed? Why not a warning shot ahead of her if she HAS to use the plasma blast for some stupid reason.
That’s reckless. Why does no one ever bother responding to what I post? And instead just repeat the same statements that I’ve repeatedly refuted? It’s a bit irritating.
“That wasn’t her most powerful attack, not by far.”
Yes, it’s her most powerful attack. And it was a big enough attack to destroy a bridge. It’s overkill and you know it is. Not a measured attack at all. And in clear violation to even what she told Sydney to do.
“It was a measured attack based on what little she knew of Sciona. And she did check where she could hit on a normal miss or ricochet.”
No, she didn’t.
“Nobody could have expected that deflection (even Sciona didn’t).”
She didnt know what to expect. Which is another reason what she did was reckless. Why does no one understand what I mean when I say reckless?
“And the “attack as last resort” thing was for Sydney who has a very powerful weapon and zero training.”
As opposed to Maxima, who has a very powerful weapon and just put the lives of hundreds of civilians at risk. Seriously, everyone who is comparing this to a police shooting don’t seem to realize that in a police shooting, the police would be temporarily suspended while they figure out if the police should be charged, and either way, the city would be getting sued for torts.
“Again she balanced the risk to civilians vs the risk Sciona could pose to people further down the line.”
And she chose wrong.
“30 seconds” is a worst case guess and it’s being passed to her team who is less than 30 seconds away.”
If the team is only 30 seconds away, she should help the civilians who are in immediate need, where 30 seconds can mean dozens or hundreds of deaths, and have her team pursue Sciona until she makes sure civilians are safe, then catch up with Alpha team.
“Her actions are geared towards maximizing civilian safety long term”
And cause maximized civilian deaths short-term. Lovely.
“and she is legally authorized to make those calls in the field.”
No, she isnt authorized to put civilian lives in danger then not put the now-endangered citizens lives before the fleeing suspect of a completely different crime.
“That’s one of the things that comes with the rank.”
No, rank actually makes her MORE responsible.
Probably she couldn’t accelerate fast enough to tackle Sciona and couldn’t hit her with the gun. Also, she might know that the gun wouldn’t hurt Sciona.
I agree that in terms of a police action it was unjustified. In order to justify it you have to think of her as supersonic missile, which intelligence indicates has a weapon of mass destruction as a warhead. In which case Maxima is justified, but from a national defense perspective not a law enforcement perspective.
“No, she isnt authorized to put civilian lives in danger then not put the now-endangered citizens lives before the fleeing suspect of a completely different crime.”
Correct. But if she was trying to shoot down a nuke she would be justified.
If she thought Sciona was just an ‘ordinary’ multiple murderer, not a weapon of mass destruction that could go off imminently she was clearly wrong. It depends on what kind of information they have on Sciona, and we don’t know all of it.
Obviously she’s not ordinary. What I mean is that previously she was killing limited numbers of people secretly for resources, sending out assassination teams for specific people, that kind of thing. Dangerous, but not necessarily so dangerous it’s worth collapsing a bridge over.
On the other hand, Maxima may have information along the lines of, “one of the missing items is the Whatchamacallit, you can use it to drain the life from an entire city and give yourself godlike power – just like Sciona tried to do before, except we kept her from getting the Whatchamcallit” or something along those lines. In which case stopping her probably is a bigger priority than a bridge.
If it’s more like.”We have to stop her before she kills again! I mean we don’t know she will, but it’s kind of her modus operandi, as a ruthless power hungry blood mage, so we’re pretty sure she will. And it could be hard to find her again. We don’t know exactly how hard. And she may have some long term plans that are really bad. We don’t really know exactly what, but judging from her previous plans their probably pretty bad.” That’s a different matter and it’s more likely Maxima should let her go and hold up the bridge.
And THIS kind of Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking is the thing that every use of force scenario boils down to. Every. Last. One. A bunch of people who have no idea of your capabilities, your knowledge and reasoning, with the luxury of hours or days to make the decision instead of half a second, will argue over whether the actions you had to decide on in that half second were the correct ones, and damn you to hell if they decide, through the luxuries of knowledge or time, that you made the wrong ones.
Bear in mind this debate you are having, will probably be going on for months, still, in comic time, if not years, and will apply to every single use of force scenario that any team member gets engaged in.
Not saying you’re wrong for arguing it, mind, just that it kinda puts into perspective the risks inherent in protecting your lives and the lives of others for every single person who decides that defending themselves is better than rolling over and praying that a criminal is merciful.
Thanks for the perspective. IMO, post-crisis review can be useful, but mostly to determine if the rules of engagement for the next conflict should be tweaked.
Why does this sight not have ‘Insightful’ buttons? *grumble*
If she could shoot her with the plasma blast, she can shoot her with the gun.
And since Maxima is faster than a speeding bullet, if she can shoot her with a gun, she can tackle her.
Also, there was no nuke involved. If there was, she would have stopped her as soon as she even SPOTTED her.
Except you have no idea how hard it is to aim while flying at higher mach numbers, or how fast that “speeding bullet” actually is. If she’s in the low supersonic range right now, a pistol round would be near impossible to aim. You’re talking about both relative velocities and wind shear exceeding the velocity of a projectile that is relatively lackluster. It is for this reason that aircraft aren’t armed with big, slow moving bullet firing guns, but with rapid fire, high muzzle velocity guns, to fire a cloud of projectiles that the opponent will hopefully fly through.
Meanwhile, an energy blast might be a much easier thing to aim, with much higher velocity (not shown) and CLEARLY higher yield. Especially if you’re pretty sure pistol bullets won’t do diddly, which is a safe assumption for any living being that is strong enough and tough enough to fly in the high subsonic realm unassisted.
The sheer amount of assumptions being made by Maxima defenders are staggering here.
Also a bullet is not slow moving. The AVERAGE speed of a bullet is 2500 feet per second, or 1700 mph. Even a 9mm bullet travels at 1300-1500 feet per second which is roughly 820 mph. And Maxima is definitely not using a 9mm round in that cannon of a gun she carries. The crack you hear when a bullet is fires is a mini sonic boom, assuming you’ve heard a bullet being fired not on without it being on TV.
In addition, normal physics dictates that the bullet being fired from a gun while you’re travelling at supersonic speeds does not suddenly slow down. There’s still relative speed. Take the old thought experiment of how, if you’re in the back of a train moving at light speed, and you fire a gun from the back of the train to the front, is the bullet travelling faster than light? No – there’s relative speed. It’s travelling at the same speed as it would if you were stationary.
“AVERAGE speed of a bullet is 2500 feet per second” … out of a rifle. Pistol bullets run 750-1300 feet per second, 1700 if you’re firing .500 mag. I know these things. I’ve been shooting for something like 30 years now, for fun and profit.
“In addition, normal physics dictates that the bullet being fired from a gun while you’re travelling at supersonic speeds does not suddenly slow down.” Right, it emerges into a supersonic slipstream for which it was not designed, which can cause instability, tumbling, and disintegration.
Stop insulting my intelligence.
“Pistol bullets run 750-1300 feet per second, 1700 if you’re firing .500 mag. I know these things. I’ve been shooting for something like 30 years now, for fun and profit.”
You don’t think Maxima’s handcannon shoots better than a tiny pistol? Stop insulting MY intelligence.
You would have to demonstrate some before I would be capable of insulting it. Barring some declaration of superscience, I assume it’s shooting at maximum 1700fps, because anything higher would tend to blow out rifle primers due to excessive chamber pressure.
Tomy, do you realize that 1700 fps is almost 1160 mph?
And do you realize that the sound barrier (supersonic) is 768 mph?
“You would have to demonstrate some before I would be capable of insulting it.”
As soon as a person decides to argue my facts with insults, I know they have nothing.
“Barring some declaration of superscience, I assume it’s shooting at maximum 1700fps, because anything higher would tend to blow out rifle primers due to excessive chamber pressure.”
1700fps = 1,159.06 miles per hour
Supersonic = 768 miles per hour
“You would have to demonstrate some before I would be capable of insulting it.”
As soon as a person decides to argue my facts with insults, I know they have nothing.
“Barring some declaration of superscience, I assume it’s shooting at maximum 1700fps, because anything higher would tend to blow out rifle primers due to excessive chamber pressure.”
1700fps = 1,159.06 miles per hour
Supersonic = 768 miles per hour
Also, since you’re such a gun expert:
17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire = 2040 fps
30 Carbine Handgun = 1790 fps
500 Smith and Wesson = 1950 fps
460 Smith and Wesson = 2200 fps
454 Casuli = 1900 fps
Apparently real life is superscience! WOW!
https://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.handgun-ballistics.html
So much for a max of 1700 fps, barring superscience. Not to mention that even 1700 fps is already supersonic. In fact, almost all handguns fire bullets that are supersonic.
“That wasn’t her most powerful attack, not by far.”
Yes, it’s her most powerful attack. And it was a big enough attack to destroy a bridge. It’s overkill and you know it is. Not a measured attack at all. And in clear violation to even what she told Sydney to do.
…are you just forgetful? That attack blew up a single supporting area on the bridge (given it was clearly an integral support). It didn’t destroy the entire bridge itself or even damage anything that far from where it hit. In the news broadcast where they introduced their powers she melted a tank which then created a miniature nova in the dessert, and then had the after effect of turning that portion of dessert into a whirling pool with clouds of strange lighting pouring into it. After which she brushed off a comment about it even possibly being her full power.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1129
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1150
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1157
I mean, even this was only a test shot https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1043
So, no, that was not anywhere near her most powerful attack.
I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally ignorant or just not understanding what I’m saying.
Plasma blasts are Maxima’s most destructive weapon, regardless of how much power she uses in her plasma blast. Clearly, the fact that she used enough of a blast to destroy a bridge means it’s excessively powerful for what she did here. Even in your links, what she did with a plasma blast at even a LOW setting was clearly her most powerful type of attack.
Pander. You’re ignoring that Sciona’s wings carved through the pillars in the vault, and that she survived as the top half of a head. Given that information, the pistol would most likely have done nothing to stop her. Additionally, I don’t think that we’ve seen Max’s shots deflected like that before, even against Sydney’s shield. Max had no reason to believe that her blast would hit anything except water, and every reason to believe that he pistol would be useless against Sciona, leaving her plasma as the only ranged option. Increasing her speed to get closer to Sciona isn’t a much better option, given wings that seem to carve through most materials.
Now would you please stop playing armchair general, I’m certain that Max will get plenty of that from her ACTUAL superiors.
No, I”m not ignoring either of those things. The fact taht she was able to slowly manage to break a pillar does not mean she can cause the same destructive force as destroying a bridge with those wings. Even if she was able to snap ONE steel cable before Maxima intercepted her (which I consider unlikely considering Maxima’s superspeed), it would not have collapsed the bridge or done even a fraction of the damage that Maxima just did with her most destructive weapon.
” Max had no reason to believe that her blast would hit anything except water”
As I’ve now said dozens of times, it doesn’t matter if she thought she’d hit Sciona. It’s still recklessness, and she’s held to a much higher standard than an average person would be LEGALLY. I’ve literally said this about a dozen times. She had no reason to think the gun would not be a valid option either – she was being a showoff, which is something in character for Maxima to be. It’s not even the first time that she has been a showoff – especially with her plasma blast. She’s done it several times. This time, however, she actually wound up putting innocent civilians at risk as a result.
“Now would you please stop playing armchair general,”
Armchair lawyer actually. Which is good, since I’m a lawyer. Technically not even armchair. I’m sitting in a pretty comfortable leather chair though. Leather Chair real lawyer.
And btw to anyone like Pendrake, you don’t even need to believe that I’m an attorney. You just have to take the 5 minutes it would take to look in any basic criminal law and tort law book to look up the definitions of negligence, proximate cause, legal recklessness, and when the reasonable person standard applies and doesn’t apply for experts vs laymen.
“I’m certain that Max will get plenty of that from her ACTUAL superiors.”
I’m sure she will, but part of what I tend to do on the forum, when I see a legal issue, is explain it – and sometimes argue it to people who have no clue about the law. That’s not actually a slam. A lot of people are clueless about the law – that’s why they hire lawyers.
Saying “Plasma blasts are Maxima’s most destructive weapon” is like saying a hand grenade is the same as a MOAB because both explode.
No, I’m saying Maxima’s plasma blasts are her most destructive weapon because they’ve been shown REPEATEDLY to be her most destructive weapon. Even when she’s using it at a lower setting, they still cause massive destruction – every time.
I guess I’m still missing the part where it’s showing off? Or where grandstanding is in Max’s character?
Example: Her fight against Vehemence where she let him punch her and said ‘That’s what you get for grandstanding’ to herself when he broke her nose.
Maxima is extremely powerful, knows she’s extremely powerful, and takes every opportunity to let people know that she is extremely powerful. Even Sydney recognized that it’s a bit of a bruising to her ego for her to not be the fastest, or for her to not be able to get past Sydney’s shield with her punches, and when she can’t budge Sydney’s tube she’s pretty much offended at that too.
She also takes almost every opportunity possibly to say how she’s one of the most powerful supers in the world, and that they have not even seen her full power whenever she does show off, like at the press conference.
This is not a bad thing, but it IS her character.
It is SORT OF in her character – I say that because she has explicitly stated she uses her status to intimidate villains into giving up, or not attacking at all. In the face of actual threats, or when the “be scary” act is no longer useful, she has dropped it and gotten her hands dirty.
Though I do admit, she has shown instances of smirking when other people’s jaws drop at how powerful she is… that is the closest I can recall to personality traits rather than tactical choices.
It’s also a blow to her ego whenever she’s up against something that she CAN’T show off against, like punching Sydney’s shield (Sydney ‘had her number’ when she said ‘hope that isn’t a blow to your ego’), how the fight turned against her with Vehemence, and Sydney’s quip about how she might eventually be faster than Maxima and admitted it might hurt her pride to not be the best and fastest at everything.
She shows off. It’s not necessarily a bad thing because she often does it in order to intimidate others into not causing trouble, but it also blows up in her face sometimes.
It would have likely blown up in her face with Death Toll too, had Sydney not intervened.
Yes, Max showed off at the “Dog and Pony Show” news meeting, where she was specifically antagonized. Her commenting that she’s one of the most powerful supers is, on the other hand, a pretty well earned statement of fact. Having pride in it is fine, but that doesn’t translate into thinking that any of THESE actions were grandstanding. Sciona survived getting her head cut off, and is EXTREMELY dangerous. The pistol MAY have been able to do something…if it could hit. There’s a reason super-sonic jets don’t tend to have people leaning out of the cockpit with glocks. And going back to the “survived having her head cut off”, if I heard that, I certainly wouldn’t expect a bullet to slow them down much. So…yeah, she shot her with a blast. One could easily point out Sciona deflecting them with minimal damage is a pretty clear sign that the shot was pretty close to appropriate amount of kill in this case. Arguing that it’s overkill because it FAILED to kill the target seems self-defeating.
Hindsight is always 20/20, one can always argue that this or that should have been done instead…and eventually you might hit on an argued plan of action that WOULD actually have been better. Such as using an airburst blast just above sciona, instead of this one.
Though we don’t actually know too much about the details of Maximas control over her plasma blasts, and how much fine tuning she has. Getting it to appropriate power at range might automatically involve the timed explosion taking that long, and being a passive part of the blast? But the bottom line is…yes, the outcome wasn’t perfect, and she may well end up being accountable because of that. But that doesn’t mean her call, without knowledge of how it would turn out, didn’t make sense.
Nicely argued FFKonoko.
The rules that apply to recruits in training are not the same as the rules that apply to commanding officers in the field.
I can’t express it any more plainly than that.
The same rules do not apply to recruits that apply to commanding officers.
Commanding officers are considered experts, and are supposed to be held to a HIGHER standard than the recruits. Not LESS. They’re not able to ignore the rules. Not without consequences if they mess up.
I don’t think that was her most powerful attack… did you forget page 1142 and the subsequently page 1157?
Actually that attack was ALSO a plasma blast. You’re proving my point. Plasma blasts are Maxima’s most powerful attack.
You’re demonstrating motivated cognition of the first order. Saying that that plasma blast was Maxima’s most powerful attack is like saying “You’re carrying a Derringer and a bazooka and you shot someone with the Derringer: you went straight for your most powerful attack, because firearms are your most powerful attack!”
You’re also twisting the narrative. Let’s look at the sequence of events:
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2809
1) Maxima catches up to Sciona and follows her, staying well back and 0.5km (~500 yards) above her. (Note: Hypotenuse says range to Sciona is probably on the order of 1km or half a mile.) She does not fire.
2) Sciona catches sight of Max. She immediately changes course and heads for a bridge full of civilians, with the clear intent of damaging the bridge in order to force Max to let her go.
3) Max attempts to preclude this plan by shooting Sciona down. She chooses the plasma blast for very good reasons which I’ll cover below. She does NOT use her strongest blast. She spends a moment charging the blast (see panel 6 of above-linked comic), presumably in order to check her backstop. Her backstop is a *river*, so pretty safe to shoot at.
4) Sciona deflects the blast, a superpowered ability that Max had absolutely no way to predict and has never seen anyone else demonstrate before this.
5) Max knows that her team is only seconds behind her and is perfectly capable of saving the bridge. She could probably just go for Sciona and trust the team to deal with it, but instead she opts to do a quick patch job on the bridge, advise the team to hurry up, and order them to fix the bridge instead of backing her up against Sciona, whose threat profile has just gone up considerably.
Any reasonable court is going to rule that Max handled this exactly correctly.
Now, why did Max choose her plasma blast instead of her pistol?
A) She knows that Sciona is a super (or equivalent).
B) She knows that Sciona is powerful enough to worry the Twilight Council.
C) Lots of supers are bulletproof. For Whom the Death Tolls was. Vehemence was. Half of Arc-SWAT is.
D) Remember, range to Sciona is about 1/2 a mile (500m up, some distance back, probably about 800-1000m overall). Even if she hits, the bullet will have lost the large majority of its force at that point.
QED: It is entirely reasonable to believe that Sciona is bulletproof, or at least strong enough not to be taken down with one shot.
E) There’s almost no chance that Max could hit with the pistol under these conditions. Remember, range to Sciona is about 1/2 a mile (500m up, some distance back, probably about 1000m), **WAY** outside of accurate range. (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=29660 is the first link I found to this, but feel free to point out another source that says handguns are accurate at 500m) She would also be firing a ballistic weapon downwards at an angle while moving near (above?) supersonic speeds under unknown wind conditions at night. A plasma blast, on the other hand, is a line-of-sight weapon with no drop and therefore more accurate.
New topic: You seem to really enjoy criticizing the characters and the comic. Why is that?
…I post a rebuttal to Pander’s complaints, that then immediately see this post. More thorough explanation, and better laid out. Good work.
“QED: It is entirely reasonable to believe that Sciona is bulletproof, or at least strong enough not to be taken down with one shot.”
She’s not TRYING to take Sciona down. She’s trying to stop her from getting to the bridge. She was originally trying to track her to her hideout for the stolen items as well. In addition, they know what Sciona is. They know what Alari’s capabilities are, so it’s not entirely reasonable to believe that Sciona is bulletproof. They’d know one way or the other already.
“There’s almost no chance that Max could hit with the pistol under these conditions.”
She’s a trained soldier with at least a decade of experience in warfare, the best in weaponry, and superhuman abilities. Also the numbers you use in your calculations are ENTIRELY made up out of the aether. She’s nowhere near 1/2 a mile away.
The only way to stop her would be to “take her down”. As has been said all over before she isn’t going to surrender.
It doesn’t matter how much training you have, you’re not going to hit a moving target 500m to a mile away with a pistol. One mile shots are difficult for snipers.
Oh my god, stop making up stuff. She isnt a mile away. She isnt a half mile away. You’re getting these numbers out of your imagination.
If we a very bored and insane math whiz it might actually be possible to figure out actually distance as drawn…..the bridge has several cars on it we could assume a rough average size of the cars and get a rough estimate of the bridge size….we have Sciona’s rough height (Max and Sydney give us Deus rough height and we can match him and Vale to Sciona)…..and I’m pretty sure after all that it equals….
Divide by two
Carry the three
multiply by Pi
and yes and the answer is
KEVIN BACON!
Kevin Bacon is always the answer.
Lol.
Fine say it’s half a mile or even a quarter mile (looking at page 614 she’s no closer than that and she increased distance as she moved towards the bridge), that’s still too long for a pistol shot. Competition shooters drop below 75% accuracy at 30 yards. Maximum range for a 45 revolver is 200 yards (or 0.1 miles) and you’re using a scope and a steady rest to hit a target.
Maxima is one of most powerful supers on the planet, with over a decade of training. She was also firing from above. Gravity isn’t going to be nearly as much of a problem. Especially over the much closer distances than what you’ve inaccurately claimed.
Not to mention everything I’ve ever said on this comes from the LEGAL definition of the element of recklessness which would be used as the standard for the duty of care that Maxima must use, which, because of her extreme expertise, is assumed by any court to be EXTREMELY high, nearly that of a perfect hypothetical person.
“It’s not entirely reasonable to believe that Sciona is bulletproof”
Dude.
She deflected a fucking energy blast that vaporizes stuff. With her wings. After being reborn from just the top half of her head.
For all intents and purposes she is bulletproof.
Tell that to the Replicators from Stargate SG-1.
Just as a notation.
They do know the normal biology..
but as far as Arc Swat and the Council knows…
She’s had literally every missing artifact in her possession for a relatively long time (2 days at least probably several given the time frames).
many artifacts of which the council fully stated are world ending world changing and super empowering in nature.
Pander says “Also the numbers you use in your calculations are ENTIRELY made up out of the aether. She’s nowhere near 1/2 a mile away.”
No, they are not made up. Look at DaveB’s post under the comic, 2 comics ago. I quote: “To be fair to Max, she was **at least** half a kilometer above Sciona, and she doesn’t glow like those wings.” Emphasis added.
A km is 1000m or 0.62 miles, roughly half a mile. Let’s make the math easy and say that meters = yards. A mile is 5280 feet. 1/2 km is 500 yards or 1,500 feet, roughly 1/4 of a mile. Max is not directly above Sciona, she is some distance behind her. Therefore, we have a right triangle where the height is >= 500m (~1500′) and the length is unknown but probably at least the same. The hypotenuse is the range to Sciona. If the two legs are the same then the hypotenuse is sqrt(2) * 1500′ = 1.4 * 1500 = 2100′, which is approximately half a mile. DaveB said she was **at least** 0.5 km above Sciona, meaning that this is a minimum. Half a mile is a very reasonable measure.
“No, they are not made up. Look at DaveB’s post under the comic, 2 comics ago. I quote: “To be fair to Max, she was **at least** half a kilometer above Sciona, and she doesn’t glow like those wings.” Emphasis added.”
You literally proved that she was NOT a mile or a half mile away from Sciona…. and yet are still arguing it.
1/2 kilometer is 1/4 mile. That is not half a mile. You are making up facts to support your incredibly flawed argument.
Also, you aren’t good at math. Lets assume something that you’re saying is true, even though the pictures themselves show that it ISNT true….. that she’s not just above Sciona, but 1/4 mile BEHIND her too (she clearly is not, but I like to steelman an argument, rather than the strawmanning other people do against me).
If you are 1/4 mile up, and less than 1/4 mile behind….. how far are you from the target?
In other words…. what is the diagonal distance of a rectangle if one side is 1/4 mile and another is 1/8 mile? How about let’s make it easier. Math might be difficult. so I’d like to make this as clear as possible.
Do you think that the answer is that you add 1/4 and 1/4th to get the distance of the diagonal of a square if the sides are 1/4 mile?
Ugh, I hate math. I hate that I’m also good at math. I went into law because I hate math. Anyway…. here’s some math.
To find the length of the diagonal of a square, multiply the length of one side by the square root of 2.
It comes to roughly 1/3 mile. The diagonal of 1/4th mile up and 1/4th mile behind (which isnt even a correct assessment of the distance, since even DaveB said it’s 1/4th mile away, not 1/4th mile up AND 1/4th mile behind) would be 1/3 mile. But it’s not that. DaveB said she’s roughly 1/4th mile away. Not ‘1/4th mile back and 1/4th mile above. A very possible shot. In fact, a bullet from most guns would take under a second to hit the target at that distance. A typical 9mm bullet even can travel farther than that, let alone one of Maxima’s bullets. Let alone MAXIMA HERSELF, who is definitely far faster than a speeding bullet.
Seriously, even when you make up numbers, you do it wrong. :/
Max has a whole range of plasma blasts from “give you a blister” to “vaporize a tank and leave a flaming glass crater where it used to be, with a shock wave that will incinerate people down half a mile away” (which, by they way, made her laugh when someone referred to it as her ‘full power’ attack) To say because she used a plasma blast she used her best attack is like saying shooting something with a .22 pistol is the same as shooting something with the 16 inch gun on a battleship because they are both metal projectors fired by conclusively igniting gunpowder. a squirt gun is not a fire hose, nor it it a water-bombing forest-fire-fighting aircraft.
Max DID assume she would miss. if she had missed it would have hit the water. She assumed she would hit, and nullify her target, or miss, and hit the water. She was not expecting her shot to be redirected.
IF she had used her *BEST* attack, it would not have been deflected into the bridge, it would have killed the target, flash-boiled, the lake, the bridge and all the cars and people on it, while leaving a polished glass bowl the size of a small town and probably would have set off earthquake sensors 2 states away.
Using the .22 to 16inch gun scale, where 16 inch gun is the best shot we have seen so far, she was barely firing Peggy’s .50 cal rifle, it just happened to be deflected into the worst possible location for collateral damage.
Well said.
I feel kind of guilty as a lot of the posts I am expressing approval of are ones which counter Pander‘s arguments. However they are saying things that I would raise myself had I thought of them, or just doing it better (and likely more concisely) than I would.
Plus folks are being brave in standing their ground against a lawyer, where they disagree. Not an easy thing to do in our society.
Please show me any example of Maxima’s plasma blast being ‘give you a blister.’
The lowest power level she’s ever been shown using was against Hex, who did manage to deflect it before it exploded. It was a LOT lower than what she did to Sciona, and lower than what she did in the target room, the testing range, or in front of the press.
…Hex did not deflect Max’s shot-it detonated on contact with Hex’s shield, Broke said shield with enough force to clean Hex out of the air + affected the unwarned combatants on the ground. In-comic, Max’s shots have been blocked on three occasions- the multiple test shots with Halo, the aforementioned Hex, and now Sciona- and I have an idea why it didn’t detonate this time. Whatever the effect Sciona’s wings generate that allows her high-speed flight redirected the bolt rather than stopping it+may have even accelerated it(that explains why the bolt burned thru the bridge tower before it went off instead of on impact). On another note,Max followed what she told Sydney TO THE LETTER. Her backdrop was water if she missed and Max’s last resort was to close to hand to hand range with a bloodmage armed with the equivalent of 4 diamond edged chainsaws …
“…Hex did not deflect Max’s shot-it detonated on contact with Hex’s shield,”
Actually she did deflect it. It just exploded almost immediately afterwards. You can see that from how the hex shield gets cracked when the plasma blast hits off of it, and doesn’t blow up directly ON the shield. That’s how Maxima’s plama blasts seem to work. It hits, THEN explodes. That’s why the plasma blast didnt explode RIGHT when it hit the tank. Or the bridge. It exploded after it went THROUGH the tank and the bridge, or after having bounced off Hex’s shield or Sciona’s wings.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1384
“Broke said shield with enough force to clean Hex out of the air + affected the unwarned combatants on the ground”
No, Hex doesn’t have the same level of toughness that Sciona has, so when something hits against the shield hard enough, she IS going to get knocked back. Plus she was disoriented when it exploded right near her.
“and I have an idea why it didn’t detonate this time. Whatever the effect Sciona’s wings generate that allows her high-speed flight redirected the bolt rather than stopping it+may have even accelerated it(that explains why the bolt burned thru the bridge tower before it went off instead of on impact).”
You’re making up a reason to fit your belief. A reason which isn’t supported in the comic unless DaveB is to actually state it, like in a Dabbler’s Corner perhaps. From what I’ve seen with Maxima’s plasma blasts, they can be deflected before they explode. Also with Halo, technically it never was deflected… it didn’t seem to go through that huge steel block she was hiding behind – Halo was protected from the resulting explosion by her shield instead. I’m going to make a guess that, if the plasma blast had directly hit Halo’s shield, it would have bounced off that as well, and the amount of time that it takes for it to explode AFTER it bounces depends on how much power Maxima puts into the blast. The less power, the faster it explodes.
“On another note,Max followed what she told Sydney TO THE LETTER.”
No she did not. She completely did the OPPOSITE of what she told Sydney to do.
“You’re still missing that Maxima’s first go-to attack was her most powerful attack – something she clearly told Sydney to never do. She said even if you think you have them, ASSUME YOU WILL MISS AND HIT SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ELSE. Use that attack as a last resort.’ Maxima used it as her first resort. She was in the wrong.”
Most powerful attack? Hahahahaha. No.
Okay why are people being intentionally obtuse?
The plasma blast itself is her most powerful weapon. Not that her plasma blast does not have various ‘settings’ for intensity. But we’ve already seen that even her LOWEST settings are her most powerful attacks.
I lightly boop you on the nose with my loosely curled hand. Obviously, that’s the same as my most powerful punch.
Just because something is of the same general category doesn’t mean it’s of the same intensity. Technically, the flash-bangs that police use sometimes to disorient dangerous suspects are explosives – but that doesn’t mean that they’re the same as dropping a bunker-buster bomb.
You’re being incredibly INTENTIONALLY ignorant here.
Maxima’s LOW setting with the plasma blast is enough to cause massive damage. We’ve seen her use it multiple times.
In the target room.
On the target range to test Sydney’s shield.
At the press release.
Against Hex.
When she was surprised a a teenager and took out half of her house accidentally.
It seems that the LOWEST setting she used was against Hex or in the target room, and in both cases that was still enough to cause a massive explosion, both times. The two times she uses SLIGHTLY higher levels, it causes MOAB level explosions. And none of that was her ‘max setting.’
It’s PAINFULLY obvious that it’s her most powerful attack, and even the lowest levels are massively powerful compared to any of her other powers.
There is no way you can’t realize that I’m saying that, so you’re clearly trying to create a strawman argument by intentionally misstating what I’m VERY clearly saying, repeatedly, and acting ignorant of the repeated fact that it’s her most powerful attack, similar to how Superman’s heat vision is HIS most powerful attack, despite that he can vary its intensity. Unlike Superman’s heat vision, though, we’ve never seen her plasma blast do anything LESS than a massive explosion.
“You’re being incredibly INTENTIONALLY ignorant here.” I think you are. Seriously how many times do you need it explained that she used the lowest setting she thought would stop Sciona and too precautions to do it when there was only water that could be hit if she missed.
This was like a 15% power attack for Maxima. If she had used a full power attack, well, Sciona wouldn’t have been able to deflect it, but everyone on the bridge definitely would have died too.
See? Even at 15 percent, Maxima’s plasma blast can blow up a bridge. Tell me again how that isnt her most destructive power?
She blew up a small chunk of a support beam.
If it “blew up the bridge” then all those people would be dead already.
…. ‘a small chunk’??? She blew up the entire top supporting central pillar of the bridge. The thing that holds the cables, which keeps the bridge up.
Which was all of a dozen feet or so, max.
It was alone through sheer bad luck that Sciona’s deflection sent that blast into one of the very few sections of the bridge that would have caused structural damage.
Seriously, where do you get your numbers? a dozen feet or so? No. They’re much larger. MUCH MUCH larger. You can even see that in the picture.How small do you think bridge supports are? They’re HUGE. For example, the Golden Gate bridge’s tower that supports the cables is 768 feet over the water, and 500 feet over the roadway.
You really should stop making up numbers based on not only no evidence, but in contradiction to numbers which would make sense.
The Golden Gate Bridge is a famously big bridge, and spans a considerably wider body of water than this river, so citing that really is not helping estimate things. Plus you are quoting dimensions for the height of the pillars. Whereas your own description stipulated something else:
That has nothing to do with the total height of the pillar, given you specify the “top”.
Personally I would say that Vtech325‘s estimate is a reasonable ballpark guess. The explosion panel mind, contrary to your statement, does not give us a way of estimating the size of the pillar it is destroying, as we only have the pillar itself to give us context.
However if you look up to panel 4 above, we do have Maxima next to the pillar in question, to help us judge the size both of the pillar and the bit of it that she is punching away.
At first glance she appears taller than it is wide. This is probably a trick of perspective however, as she may not be flush with the pillar. However she can’t be too far away as she is punching away a chunk that fell off the top of it.
Any suspension bridge is going to be pretty huge. There are no ‘small’ suspension bridges in large metropolitan cities tat can have so much traffic on it. Especially considering how many cars are on this particular fictional one.
Pnader, let’s try re-phrasing the issue, maybe that will help settle this (continuous and annoying) debate.
When you say “her most powerful attack,” everyone is interpreting it as “the attack with which she creates the most destruction.” This is something people are arguing it against because it is like calling a slap my most powerful attack when I could be punching instead. Both are using my hands, both are more powerful than staring at you, but they are categorically different because there is a calculated use of force.
If you want to call her attack reckless because Max should have somehow planned for an ability she had never seen, fine, you’re a lawyer, you can have fun arguing that one. But by continually focusing on calling it “her most powerful attack” you are strongly implying a reckless, callous, and overbearing amount of force. THAT is what everyone is disagreeing with, because (just like the other negative personality traits you claim Max shows) we have seen no evidence of those thoughts or proclivities.
Now, if you can present evidence that she has acted callously and with no regard for human life, while trying to boost her own ego and acclaim (these are things you’ve claimed in this thread, after all), THEN we can talk about whether her actions can be considered to follow that pattern. But first, you must establish the pattern, and your only flimsy thread of evidence is the IMPLICATION, rather than fact, that she used excessive force.
Seriously, I know I shouldn’t treat lawyers based on stereotypes, but stick to the facts buddy.
“When you say “her most powerful attack,” everyone is interpreting it as “the attack with which she creates the most destruction.””
It is the attack that causes the most destruction. It’s been shown to be that every time she’s used it. What people are doing, though, is acting like because I said ‘plasma blasts are her most powerful attack’ that ‘well she’s never used her plasma blast at its highest possible setting’ – which is a pretty dumb counter to what I said, since it doesn’t dispute the fact that the plasma attack has been her most powerful attack. They’re being intentionally obtuse about it in order to try to create a strawman argument, since they don’t seem to be able to argue the point which I’ve actually presented.
“This is something people are arguing it against because it is like calling a slap my most powerful attack when I could be punching instead. Both are using my hands, both are more powerful than staring at you, but they are categorically different because there is a calculated use of force.”
Which is something I have not said. Maxima giving a slap at a light power is going to be less powerful than her using a plasma blast at a ‘light power’
“If you want to call her attack reckless because Max should have somehow planned for an ability she had never seen, fine, you’re a lawyer, you can have fun arguing that one.”
No, I’m calling her attack reckless because it meets the legal definition of reckless, as would be used in a case of negligence, which is a tort. It could ALSO be used in a charge of involuntary manslaughter possibly (although there’s a higher standard there, since that’s criminal instead of civil).
“But by continually focusing on calling it “her most powerful attack” you are strongly implying a reckless, callous, and overbearing amount of force.”
No, by continually focusing on calling it her most powerful attack, I’m saying it’s her most powerful attack. Which is because it’s her most powerful attack. I don’t think you, or a lot of people, seem to understand what reckless means in a legal context at all, despite my having described it VERY specifically many, many times now. It has nothing to do with callousness.
“THAT is what everyone is disagreeing with, because (just like the other negative personality traits you claim Max shows) we have seen no evidence of those thoughts or proclivities.”
Actually, the personality traits that I’ve described for Maxima have been shown multiple times throughout the comic. If you don’t think there’s any evidence of it, then you haven’t been reading the comic.
“Now, if you can present evidence that she has acted callously and with no regard for human life,”
PLEASE LEARN THE LEGAL DEFINITION FOR RECKLESSNESS. I mean I’ve mentioned what it was almost every post I’ve made now, and a lot of people don’t seem able to understand it. And some, like you, blatantly say it means something completely different, by saying it means ‘callous.’ It doesnt mean callous. It’s a term to describe negligence! Also, it’s not ‘reckless disregard for human life’ which is for a criminal lawsuit (involuntary manslaughter) – although an ALTERNATE requirement for involuntary manslaughter, if she does not meet the requirement of ‘reckless disregard for human life’ is ‘an act which is inherently dangerous which results in an unintentional death’ – and that’s somethingof which she COULD be guilty.
“while trying to boost her own ego and acclaim (these are things you’ve claimed in this thread, after all),”
I seriously don’t think you read my posts, because 1) you are horribly mistating what I said in order to try to strawman my argument, and 2) I’ve given multiple examples of how she DOES brag – constantly – about her abilities and seems to have an ego about anyone else being possibly better than her. Sydney’s called her on that not once, but twice.
“Seriously, I know I shouldn’t treat lawyers based on stereotypes, but stick to the facts buddy.”
I love how I do give facts, and people who don’t know how to argue resort, constantly, to character assassination and ad hominem attacks instead. I notice that several people did that to Guesticus as well, and it’s rather sad. If you can’t defeat an argument based on facts, don’t go for the insults instead. I have done nothing EXCEPT to stick to facts.
ummmm, no. If Maxima had used her most powerful attack there would a glass crater left behind after all the water, cars and humans were flash-boiled into vapor along with all of the metal on the bridge. the stone may have melted, or may have been shattered into sand. “punch a hole the size of a car through concrete” is about a 3 maybe a 4 on the Maxima scale. Maxima attacked the target to prevent the target from turning a bridge-full of civilians into hostages and/or collateral damage. Unfortunately the deflected attack ended up causing exactly the thing max was attempting to prevent.
Water doesn’t turn to glass at any temperature.
Ok, this comment proves you’re just being obnoxious. That’s not what they said at all.
Quote: “If Maxima had used her most powerful attack there would a glass crater left behind after all the water, cars and humans were flash-boiled into vapor along with all of the metal on the bridge.”
“Ok, this comment proves you’re just being obnoxious. That’s not what they said at all.”
Oh look, another ad hominem attack. Its like some people can’t do anything but that. Shiro said, and I’ll quote from his post:
“If Maxima had used her most powerful attack there would a glass crater left behind after all the water, cars and humans were flash-boiled into vapor along with all of the metal on the bridge.”
Not to mention Shiro utterly ignores that when I say ‘her most powerful attack,’ I’ve CONSTANTLY said I mean her plasma blast in general, NOT THAT SHE IS USING THE MOST POWERFUL SETTING OF HER PLASMA BLAST.
You’re the one being massively obnoxious.
So she used her plasma attack so what? It’s her only ranged attack that could hit at that range. She didn’t have time to close to melee range before Sciona got to the bridge and even if she did going hand to hand would be engaging Sciona where she’s strongest.
That’s like complaining that a cop shot a suicide bomber rather than using their billy club. Even if the club could take them down that’s an unreasonable risk.
“So she used her plasma attack so what?”
So it meets the definition of reckless in a tort. It’s why police officers don’t fire bullets when chasing someone in a car as their first go-to option, and instead do things like the pit maneuver. Maxima was doing the equivalent of chucking MOABs at Sciona when she could have done other options.
“It’s her only ranged attack that could hit at that range.”
With her speed, she didnt need to do a ranged attack. Or she could have used significantly less than 15 percent power on the blast.
“That’s like complaining that a cop shot a suicide bomber rather than using their billy club. Even if the club could take them down that’s an unreasonable risk.”
If the cop decides to stop suicide bomber by throwing a grenade at them, and the resulting explosion destroys the building anyway, then yes, the cop is at fault for the tort.
Also “you’re just being obnoxious” isn’t ad hominem, it’s an observation at this point.
From all outside perspective you’re not being reasonable in your arguments.
Ad hominem – Instead of using genuine discussion, you attack the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.
Could you at LEAST understand the definition if you’re going to dispute it?
I’ve also noticed that people ignore any of the laws that I’ve stated, repeatedly. It’s almost as if they want to beat me in an argument, but can’t by just using what I actually said.
Also you, like several others, are seeming to be intentionally missing that her plasma blast, PERIOD, happens to be her most powerful attack. Not that she’s used her plasma blast at its highest intensity, but at whatever intensity she HAS used it at, it’s always seemed to be her most powerful attack each time. Even with Vehemence, it did the most damage, and was what she was going to use to kill him if he did not comply with Sydney’s deal. Just accept that it’s her most destructive and powerful power.
Pander.
Shut. Up.
We don’t want to hear more of your arguments. We don’t want to hear you insist that you’re in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. We don’t care that you’re a lawyer, and we don’t think that that means that you’re correct in this case. Now PLEASE stop responding, you’ve made it quite clear that you’re here because you want us to say that you’re right, rather than to discuss the comic. And yes, you are being obnoxious.
Stop posting. This isn’t a debate, people don’t agree with you, all that you’re doing by continuing this argument is making yourself look like an asshole.
“Pander.
Shut. Up.”
Wow, what amazing oratory skills you have.
“We don’t want to hear more of your arguments.”
Then don’t make arguments for me to refute. I don’t throw around insults. I’ve mainly repeated what the elements of negligence are, and occasionally what the elements of involuntary manslaughter would be. Mostly for the tort though – for duty of care, recklessness, and proximate cause.
“We don’t want to hear you insist that you’re in the right and everyone else is in the wrong.”
It helps that I’m not stating an opinion. I’m stating how negligence works. It’s something that anyone could easily look up.
“We don’t care that you’re a lawyer, and we don’t think that that means that you’re correct in this case.”
Then you could stop repeating the same thing that I keep refuting over and over.
“Now PLEASE stop responding, you’ve made it quite clear that you’re here because you want us to say that you’re right, rather than to discuss the comic.”
This HAS been discussing the comic. You calling me obnoxious is not discussing the comic – it’s namecalling – just like people have done to Guesticus (someone I’ve disagreed with in the past yet never called names).
“Stop posting.”
No, you stop posting instead. Or stop reading the posts I make if legal information annoys you so much. I haven’t gone around making personal insults, while you have.
“This isn’t a debate,”
Actually it is a debate. It’s most definitely a debate.
“people don’t agree with you,”
Some don’t. Others do. The people who don’t have not given a good rationale for why they don’t.
“all that you’re doing by continuing this argument is making yourself look like an asshole.”
All you’re doing when namecalling is making yourself look like someone who makes personal insults and ad hominem attacks instead of reasonable debating. I honestly don’t care what you think of me, because your first step is to sling names.
Well, I for one would like to see Pander’s arguments refuted. Like, actually refuted, instead of “no it isn’t”.
Now, quod gratis adfirmatur gratis negatur, but Pander hasn’t been affirming things “gratis”, he’s been repeatedly posting references:
– Maxima does not have an attack more powerful than her plasma blast, making her plasma blast her most powerful attack. To refute that one would have to point out a more powerful attack that Maxima could have used. “She was using it at a low setting” is not a refute, it simply means she was using her most powerful attack with some level of restraint.
– Maxima does constantly brag and show off, to the point that Sydney called her out on it at least once, and she even noted to herself that grandstanding is a bad habit. To refute that, one would have to… Well, I honestly don’t see how to refute that, when Maxima herself explicitly said, to herself, “that’s what you get for grandstanding”.
– Maxima did have other options to try to stop Sciona (kicking her in the back at mach 4 comes to mind, shooting her also comes to mind). To refute that, one would need Word of God stating that Maxima could not reach Sciona before she hit the bridge, and using the gun was not an option because they were both flying at high enough speed that the bullets would not work (hypersonic speeds do weird stuff, even to bullets).
– Maxima is a trained military officer, and thus is held to a higher standard of behavior than Joe Random Average. To refute tat one would have to prove that maxima is not a trained military officer, or that that standard doesn’t apply to this case for some reason.
All I have personally seen in reply to those points is “no, it isn’t”. With no additional weight behind them other than “no it isn’t”.
You may find Pander obnoxious, and that is your right as a human being, but regardless of that I would like to see somebody, anybody, refuting the actual factual points he’s raised with actual factual arguments.
I mean, I would very much like to see that. Please do. He may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t make him right by definition. But unless somebody presents actual counterarguments (and again, “no it isn’t” is not a counterargument), he becomes right by default.
Maxima did think Sciona would take the blast and go down, and she accounted for evasive maneuvers by ensuring she would have a safe backstop, so she gets some slack there… But she still fired a tank buster at a moving target within range of a bridge full of civilians. That doesn’t sound very reasonable, and it will sound even less reasonable after the dead civilians’ familes’ lawyers get teir hands on Maxima’s dossier.
Then you’ve been reading the wrong replies. His points have actually be refuted multiple times by this point.
Her. And no, no one has actually refuted what I’m saying. Most of the people arguing against my posts don’t even seem to understand what I’m saying, because they keep on using layman definitions rather than reading the legal definitions which I’ve been continually giving, over and over and over again.
Thank you Asterix. Nice post.
…+125…
…this was meant for CJL’s initial post- got ninja’d. Pander, what is your next move? Are you going to take DaveB to small claims court to get back any+all Patreon funds you’ve given because he won’t change his universe to suit you? This isn’t a court case or debate society; you’ve even twisted DaveB’s reply in your”must be right/must be The opinion” grind fest…
“Pander, what is your next move? Are you going to take DaveB to small claims”
Dafuq?
“to get back any+all Patreon funds you’ve given because he won’t change his universe to suit you?”
Seriously… dafuq? I’m just giving the law. And not criticizing DaveB, by the way. I’m criticizing a fictional character’s action, as it would be seen when dealing with a lawsuit that would occur as a result of her actions. What exactly is wrong with you?
” This isn’t a court case or debate society;”
It’s a debate on a forum, in which we’re able to argue things which, in this case, is my arguing about how the law would treat what Maxima did.
Again… dafuq?
“you’ve even twisted DaveB’s reply in your”must be right/must be The opinion” grind fest…”
Twisted? He stated that Maxima was using 15% power. And 15% power is apparently enough to blow up a bridge. More would probably have vaporized it and killed everyone. I wasn’t twisting anything. It just seems to confirm that Maxima’s plasma blast is her most powerful attack
We should not intimidate any commentators into silence. There is a good reason why folks reply on multiple threads, and that is simply because a lot of people do not read through all of the posts, so there can be a heck of a lot of duplicate comments.
So replying to their posts gives them feedback that they might not otherwise have. Likewise, if a comment is stating something that the respondent considers is incorrect, it allows them to put their opposing opinion. Regardless that it may have been said on previous threads too.
It is fair to say if you find someone’s posts objectionable or obnoxious. I certainly encourage that for anyone who feels such with me. I know that I can be overbearing at times, and prefer that people speak up if they feel I am overstepping the mark.
However it is wrong to do so in an aggressive or rude manner. It makes a toxic environment for everyone. Far better just to indicate that you will be ignoring someone’s posts, as an example. Or, if not wishing to paint yourself into a corner, where you might feel foolish in subsequently responding to a post, just indicate that repeating their arguments will not make you change your mind.
Folks here usually use the phrase ‘agree to differ’. But that is just a deterrent to them bugging you on that thread. They are at liberty to continue where the debate is ongoing elsewhere.
On the plus side extended debates can sometimes result in people shifting their views. Although some are more flexible than others. However even a concession on a small point can help lead to a consensus, in due course. Although that usually requires both sides to try to find a route, rather than just fighting their corner blindly.
Here here!
What ‘here here’ – you’ve been trying to intimidate me into silence too. I’m just not the type of person that gets intimidated by people calling me names or, in CJL’s case, telling me to shut up. I argue (civilly, mind you) for a living.
Btw, please read one of my above posts, I spell out, VERY specifically, the different elements of a negligence tort. I’d be interested to see if that clears anything up. Thanks.
“It is the attack that causes the most destruction.”
It isn’t. It’s canon that it was fired at around 15% potency. If it was the attack that causes the most destruction, by definition, it must have been fired at 100% potency.
No, that would be her most destructive power at it’s most destructive potential. Her plasma blast is what causes the most destruction. Everything I’ve said has been completely accurate. Stop playing word games here, k?
Do you actually want me to believe that you really consider that a professional boxer fist-bumping your shoulder is in any way comparable to said boxer punching your nose into your skull just because they’re the same “power”? (which in the boxer’s case would be defined as: using his body muscles to put kinetic energy into his hand, closed into a fist, to impact a foreign object).
It’s just not the same. You’re the one playing word games here, k? Under your rules, accepting that “energy balls” are “her most destructive power”, saying “she used her most destructive power” is not only inaccurate (unlike you say) but also fallacious, because it still leaves open the question about how much potential she used her most destructive power at. And that question is one hundred percent integral to the argument, since it’s the difference between “melting a hole in a steel beam” and “Hiroshima”.
You’re basically saying that “she hit someone with a car” is an accurate representation of events when she just bopped a guy at under 1mph.
Maxima In the wrong and if anyone dies should be tried for murder. Why? Becouse she fired off the equivalent of a Military Missile in a Civilian Area even if it was Cleared to engage she should used a fist not her energy powers. I am looking at her as a Pilot and I think Military would to. Machine Guns ok Missiles?” Are YOU NUTS MAXIMA!” They might not Jail her. Quietly decide she the real threat a gun pointed at America and Seek to kill her. I am from a Military Family and the View that an unkillble Solder with Nuclear Level Powers Answerable to no one with Feminist Ideals would Make many Simply go to the Kill her cut her body up option. To many fan boys here. No realists She be grounded or Jailed. She Had Option number one Punch her hand to hand ect..Using a Plasma attack (a Nuclear attack as the Press would call it) Would get her Jail Time.
P.S. No she not Even close to thinking as military. She Should of tried to follow Avoided using Energy Powers that recently she used to scare the Public worse the Press. As a Leader she Kind of sucks.
She was out of range for her first and it’s quite the assumption that she could quickly and easily win against those energy blades.
Also it’s a side thing but missiles are more accurate than machine guns on a jet. Much easier to avoid collateral damage with them.
I agree with almost everything you said except that, technically speaking, IF she got tried for a crime (I’ve been arguing about torts rather than crimes), she’d be tried for involuntary manslaughter since there’s no premeditation.
So, if Sydney did it, then it would be murder!
No, if Sydney did it, it would not be murder. There would still be no premeditation. Murder requires premeditation. At best it would be involuntary manslaughter. But this whole time I’ve been arguing primarily about torts, not crimes, so lets talk about if Sydney would be guilty of the tort of negligence if she did the exact same thing.
The answer is possibly, but not likely. Because it’s going to be a LOT harder to show that Sydney has the same level of expertise as Maxima, a decade+ long decorated war veteran and one of the most powerful supers on the planet, vs Sydney, someone who’s only been using her powers for a few days with any sort of training and is distinctly an amateur. In the ‘breach of duty’ element of negligence, she’d be held to a much lower standard of care than Maxima is held – the hypothetical reasonable person standard, rather than a hypothetical expert reasonable person. So while she MIGHT be negligent, it’s a much harder case against Sydney than it is against Maxima because of that one element of negligence (Breach of Standard of Care), even though Duty, Causation, and Harm would all be met.
Of course, with Sydney there would always be the option to sue ARCHON instead…. saying that ARCHON was negligent in sending Sydney out into the field before she was properly trained enough to anticipate such things, since Archon WOULD be an organization that would fall under a higher standard of care.
Psst. Visual pun.
Premeditation —> Meditating prior to committing the act.
Max was in the right to engage, the ranged option (and she only has the one right?) was the best choice to interdict the perp. melee is messy. collateral damage in a high speed chase is the fault of the lawbreaker and while an officer might be called on the carpet for endangerment it kind of depends on the nature of the perp as to how much trouble they might be in. I thought heading for the bridge given the way Sciona used the wings as weapons, that she was going to slice the roadbed or cables and drop it into the river. Max had some idea of the lethality from seeing what Vale and she wrought in their fight.
And the guy here Just made my point..All these terms right from a TV show. One would not use a attack with world Nuclear in it’s definition Not in Civilian USA Air Space if your in the military Particularly after scaring the Press with it. . End of story..
Well you could but you not stay in the Military out side Prison.. That’s how it works in reality not a video game. And its got 0 to do with fair and Everything to do with Politics and traditions and Regulations. Maxima Blew up a Bridge and she kiss her career good bye. No President or Politician would trust that hothead. And Several could and WOULD make a careers out of Destroying her and anyone that backed her.
Agreed. I made the same choice in Mass Effect. Either A: kill enemy who caused so many innocents to be in danger/guaranteed death if you don’t stop it, or save the people put in harm’s way in order for baddie to escape.
If that’s the only bad thing they did, then hopefully scream at them to make them catchable or save the innocents, but if that isn’t the case, well, too bad. 50 innocents killed right now Vs multiple hundreds probably killed later plus the Archon/Super Neutral/Council individuals already killed plus whatever innocents were already killed previously.
Go for the bad guy.
Didn’t mean to imply the Neutral aliens/lycanthropes/supers weren’t innocent, just I really really REALLY like Night Breed and was thinking ‘naturals’ or something in regard to the non-powered.
Actually, in Mass Effect, Shepard had a specific position (Spectres) that literally let him ignore the rules that others would have to follow. It’s not the same as the laws that Maxima has to follow – US Federal laws.
Don’t ask me too much about Mass Effect though. I only played the first one, then the disc got scratched so I never played the rest of the trilogy.
I pre-ordered and showed up to midnight releases for them all.
You only playing the first one is a good thing.
I own all of the mass effect games, to be honest. I only PLAYED the first one. I got near the end of the game, then the disc got scratched and ruined, and I lost my save. So I’d have to play it again from the beginning. I didn’t want to do that so the trilogy was sitting in my collection for the past few years. :)
Also I’m a bit of a completionist when it comes to games in a series – I need to play them in order. Given my job keeps me pretty busy that’s not usually an easy option for me. I’m sure eventually I’ll play all 3 and Andromeda (which I also have), although I’ve heard some horrible stories about 3’s ending and Andromeda’s… everything.
ME3 was complained about a lot, but it should have been obvious to all of us in 2 (it was to me in retrospect). The storyline is good. The gameplay is good.
The fact that none of your choices makes the slightest difference when the opposite of that was how it was advertised, however, is not.
I was told that they fixed the ending of ME3. I didn’t really read too deeply though since I’ve always planned on EVENTUALLY playing the game, though. All I know is that people were really angry because ‘none of your choices wound up mattering.’
They did….its called the happy ending mod.
https://www.nexusmods.com/masseffect3/mods/66/
Apparently people who finished the game at launch had to deal with something called a …”Starchild”? I’m not sure as I have never seen this creature….but he’s supposed to be a dick who shows up and ruins the game forever.
Heh….its funny but if it’s the mission I think you’re talking about Viirin. You actually get a benefit in 3 from letting him walk. So the game rewards you for “save the civis” option. (Not by much…Balak is worth a whole 15 points to the Batarian Fleet in 3 soooo meh…see “choice not mattering”)
I don’t really remember which mission I’m talking about. I havent played Mass Effect 1 in several years, but I’ll take your word on it :)
Pander your adult my guess Exposed to military Command ether you from a family with officers or wear trained as an Officer. These people are not there Quoting RPGs.Yep she go to Jail.
Okay, gonna weigh in on some issues here.
First, Sciona is NOT culpable for the bridge, unless some proof can be brought that she intentionally targeted it. If not, all she did was shield herself against an incoming, lethal assault, and just by bad luck it ricochets into bystanders. What other options did she have other than just dying? She’s fast enough that she could have dodged, I guess, but she had such little time to react and no experience with Max’s energy attacks to even know that deflection was a possibility, that she could not be reasonably expected to recognize the potential hazard to others in the time she had to react. A lawyer could get that charge thrown out of court without breaking a sweat. (…. well, he might break a sweat because Sciona’s his client. Lady’s scary.)
And she didn’t intend it. I’m going to say the deflection was unintentional. It’s pretty clear from the Monday panel in which she deflects the shot that it was a panic reaction and not carefully set up, and her reaction today in Panel 1 was not her usual “exactly as planned” smugness. Also, DaveB’s made it clear in comments that it was not intentional.
(Sciona’s guilty of a whole bunch of other stuff, of course. I’m just talking about the bridge.)
Max’s guilt is… trickier. Yes, she is a law enforcement officer who opened fire without identifying herself or calling for the suspected (and actual) criminal to stop or surrender. But Sciona did just eviscerate a man, has twice attempted to assassinate what amounts to her own government, and has reacted to law enforcement by launching very nasty assaults upon them as well… and she just diverted towards a bunch of civilians. If ever law enforcement was justified to engage with extreme prejudice, this was it.
Furthermore, she used good practices. The backstop for her energy pellet was the river and the bridge was well outside of the blast radius even if she did hit Sciona… and given the possibility of having to fight near the bridge, it could be argued that opening fire now rather than when Sciona had gotten near civilians was the safer call. Max obviously didn’t know Sciona could deflect her shot, so it’s hard to hold her culpable on any other basis than “you didn’t know she couldn’t”… and since her job involves engaging unknown threats, that’s a pretty hard standard to hold her to. The worst we can say about her decision is that it was negligent, and even that’s a stretch.
Basically, this is a high-speed pursuit that ended up with a bunch of other cars wrecked on the highway… from before police had the experience with high speed pursuits to know that was a likely outcome.
Also: Sciona is a multi-national threat if what we heard about the artifacts are right.
Law Enforcement does, and should, give most people at least a chance to surrender before resorting to overt force.
I imagine the same niceties are not extend to people they believe could and would turn a state into a glass-floor.
Sciona is pretty much textbook “Shoot on sight” protocol after events at the warehouse.
She’s well past “I’d like you surrender, maybe, please?”
Well, law enforcement *used to* give people a chance to surrender…
Max and them aren’t law enforcement. They’re military aren’t they?
The organizatin is transitioning into law enforcement though..
but currently they still are military no?
Different rules of engagment right?
They are gendarmes. This is the internationally recognised term for a military force which conducts policing duties. Their rules (in peace time) are exactly the same for regular police, when you look at how they are meant to treat suspects. France has both a national police force and a gendarmerie, yet an individual who gets arrested, by either, will be treated in exactly the same fashion and have identical rights.
Thus, as law enforcement officers gendarmes are expected to give a warning. For example “Armed police officer, stop or I shoot”. This in the context of someone behaving in a threatening manner, as opposed to fleeing. Shooting a fleeing suspect would be an unlawful killing.
Gendarmes strictly use military organisation, and the author has stuck to this in Archon. All of the personnel have military ranks. Those who work with them, but are not military, are classed as ‘civilian specialists’ (and thereby actually are answerable to military authority, but to a lesser degree than service personnel).
They are however giving full training in law enforcement roles. So they learn everything that a regular police officer does. However they may also be called upon to respond in military situations. Hence they have military discipline, punishments and rules that they must follow. As well as training for roles that regular police might not. Such as heavy weapons training or joining regular military on maneuvers.
This is why when Harem says (something to the effect of) “You can’ tell me who to date”, Maxima says “Yes I can”. As a member of the military, with Maxima being her commanding officer, that is something she specifically has say over. And can veto a marriage for example, when a unit is operating under such rules (typically when in a warzone, but not restricted to that).
This is to stop conflicts of interest if a soldier wishes to marry one of the enemy, or someone who is otherwise considered a security risk. Secretly marrying, against such rules, would result in a courts martial.
None of which could happen to normal police officers, as they have the same rights as any other civilian in society.
A gendarmarie does have extra powers though, because, in a state of emergency or in wartime, countries often give special powers to military forces. Sometimes automatically on declaration of such (depending on how the constitution and relevant laws are set out). Other times only when ‘martial law’ is imposed.
So rules such as providing a warning, allowing access to a lawyer, and so on (details varying from country to country of course), would still apply to police, but would not apply to soldiers or gendarmes.
In this case though Maxima is acting as a regular cop/SWAT cop. She has deemed that Sciona intends to attack the people on the bridge (her past behaviour makes this credible). Further she is too far for her voice to be audible (and Sciona may be travelling at supersonic speeds). So no warning can be given without delaying and thereby endangering the civilians’ lives.
Finally it justifies her opting for a lethal attack.
These are exactly the same rules of engagement that any SWAT sniper would operate under. They must take the shot before innocent people can be killed.
“You can’ tell me who to date” = “You can’t tell me who to date”
It’s as if you didn’t read any of my posts which address every single issue you wrote here and why you’re wrong.
He isn’t really wrong about anything. All of his points are based on what we’ve seen in story and how Maxima has acted in previous fights.
And DaveB made his point pretty clear as well(in the description): Max’s first priority is neutralizing the very powerful threat.
Tell you what – read any of my posts so I don’t have to repeat myself, then let me know when you have by addressing those posts :)
Max’s first priority is to keep people from dying. She’s supposed to protect the people.
Which actually requires looking at a bigger picture than “what happens in the next 30 seconds.” She’s got back-up that can hand rescue work, and nobody is better position to take on the recurring threat of Sciona at large.
The threat to the civilians is IMMEDIATE. Sciona is not.
So poses a much larger and inevitable threat, however.
Not an immediate threat though. The bridge is an IMMEDIATE threat.
I’m sure that if the civilians die because Sydney doesnt get there in time, or Alpha Team isnt capable of saving every single civilian like Maxima could have, that the relatives of the deceased won’t be that happy that Maxima dismissed them as acceptable losses of collateral damage.
No, they won’t be happy.
So?
So….. civilians are not supposed to be seen as collateral damage by those meant to protect them (police, Archon, etc)? Especially collateral damage for things that someone from Archon caused to happen?
“Supposed to”
Based on what?
Based on the law. And that if someone dies as a result it’s involuntary manslaughter?
Would a cop or solider be charged with involuntary manslaughter if their bullet ricocheted off something they never could have predicted and hit a civilian?
It depends on the situation. If they’re acting in a law enforcement capacity, it’s much more likely that it would because of recklessness and proximate cause in a negligence tort. With soldiers, it depends on if it’s during a war, on foreign soil, or domestic. If domestic, same as the cop. There are different rules of engagement for soldiers during wartime and foreign ‘hot’ missions than for people engaged in domestic law enforcement.
It is and it isn’t.
Her priority is the longer-term protection of the greatest number of people. That is not necessarily the same thing as providing for the immediate protection of everyone in her proximity.
Maxima is trying to stop a longer term threat that is a threat to a whole lot more people than the handful that might be on the bridge.
If you read my post below, you might gain clarity as to why people disagree with you.
Sciona is an active threat, and is therefore prioritized over a small number of possible casualties, especially since aid for those possible casualties is arriving imminently.
In an active shooter scenario, with the shooter in sight, law enforcement has to prioritize dealing with the shooter over casualties on the ground between them. Dealing with existing casualties is a lower priority to preventing the threat from causing future casualties. Especially when the law enforcement in question is the first wave of responders and they know that additional responders are close behind them and can deal with the casualties if the threat is neutralized.
Sure, it sucks for the people who are already casualties, but the sad truth is that not everyone can be saved, and if saving one person now instead of stopping the threat means two more people become casualties, the harsh calculus is that the one person has to wait until after the threat is dealt with.
The people on the bridge aren’t even current casualties yet, and aid will arrive shortly – and probably before people start getting hurt.
You’re taking an extremely short term view that while stopping possible casualties in the next two minutes or so (that someone else can and will stop), will result in Sciona causing a great many more casualties in the future.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case. The few are the people on the bridge, the many are everyone else in the world (and probably people on other worlds, too).
Maxima is letting the team save fewer than a hundred people (two dozen cars, and there probably isn’t an average of 4 people per car), so that she can seek to stop someone who’s already killed way more people than that, and is a significantly greater longer-term threat.
No one’s addressing your posts because your core premise is FLAT OUT WRONG.
Archon is evidently under DoD, not DoJ. They are NOT COPS. The direct protection of the public is not their highest priority – which is manifestly obvious because they do not wander around major cities on patrol like vigilante superheroes or like cops. They sortie when they see a crisis or a crisis brewing. That right there says, “No, we do not give a shit about fighting building fires or rolling up and stopping shoot-outs. We. Let. People. Die. Every. Day.” Same as almost every military unit on this continent, because militaries protect nations, not individuals. Sorry if you thought every life, every citizen is infinitely precious. They are not. The word triage is right there in the title of the page.
Maxima is taking action to minimize civilian casualties so long as it does not endanger the primary mission – tracking a murderous super-class threat before she unleashes some flavor of catastrophic loss of life. If someone does die, obviously there will be fallout. If someone is injured, there will be fallout. This was not a perfect outcome, but expecting perfect outcomes is what makes most superhero comics agonizingly stupid, and it seems pretty clear to me the point of Grrlpower is refuting some of those tropes.
It’s less like I didn’t read your post, and more like I didn’t agree with your points but decided to start my own thread to express my own opinions rather than posting a distinct reply to every person who was talking about the same point in pretty much every other thread.
Because that would be silly.
But to clarify two points. First, I was not talking about Max’s decision to continue pursuit rather than rescue civilians. Just her decision to open fire in the first place and how that decision led to the bridge being damaged. And second, a sidearm, even a large one, at what looks like over two hundred yards fired on the move at a skew angle while traveling at hypersonic speeds (and all that would mean for bullet tumble) would have zero expected accuracy. The gun wasn’t a realistic option.
“It’s less like I didn’t read your post, and more like I didn’t agree with your points”
You should probably try to refute my points then. Which would be difficult, since I’m just using the actual laws that would be in effect. I’m not even stating anything that a first year law student wouldn’t be able to know, if they took first year criminal law and first year torts law.
“The gun wasn’t a realistic option.”
Neither was the plasma blast. Or at the very least, not at the strength level she blasted. Feel free to explain why a tackle wouldn’t have worked, or speeding ahead and THEN firing the gun.
We don’t know that Max is actually faster than Sciona, especially once Sciona knew she’d been spotted and went evasive. Even if she is, is she actually so much faster that physically intercepting her or interposing between her in the bridge was possible in a matter of seconds? We don’t know that either. But given the way maxing out works, either option could have required Max to drop her armor and strength to almost nothing, which would have been suicidal.
As has been pointed out several times, Max DID line up her shot so the backstop for it was the river. The deflection was a freak event that no one could foresee. Max (or, more likely, Archon) might face civil liability for the damages caused to the bridge, yes… and will most likely do quite a bit of labor to repair it for PR purposes regardless of liability. But she’s no more criminally culpable than police are if their bullets ricochet. Which requires quite a bit more recklessness than we saw here.
I have taken a first-year law course, thank you very much. Not much beyond that, but I do have basic legal literacy. So feel free to cite any relevant cases or elements of the US Code or UCMJ that you feel support your position.
“Even if she is, is she actually so much faster that physically intercepting her or interposing between her in the bridge was possible in a matter of seconds?”
She most likely is, based on what we’ve seen of Maxima’s speed in the past, going from the bank to Archon in a matter of a few seconds. Being capable of catching bullets. Peggy’s assessment of how Maxima is fast enough to catch a bullet when pointing it at point-blank range at Sydney, or even moving the gun before the bullet has a chance to leave the barrel (which is an insane speed that she’d be capable of doing). Even in this very strip, we see what she was able to do with the patch job within a few seconds – she would have been capable of catching Sciona.
“either option could have required Max to drop her armor and strength to almost nothing, which would have been suicidal.”
No it would not have. When she patched the bridge, she obviously had to still have her superstrength at rather high levels or she could not have lifted the immense cables and tied them up like that.
“The deflection was a freak event that no one could foresee.”
If you were using the reasonable person standard for an average person, I might agree with you. But Maxima would require BEYOND the reasonable person standard because of her expertise in these matters. If you have taken first year law, you will know what that means from your first year torts class.
“Max (or, more likely, Archon) might face civil liability for the damages caused to the bridge, yes… and will most likely do quite a bit of labor to repair it for PR purposes regardless of liability.”
Yes. Because she met the legal definition of RECKLESSNESS and was the proximate cause of the bridge destruction.
“But she’s no more criminally culpable than police are if their bullets ricochet. Which requires quite a bit more recklessness than we saw here.”
Actually police can becriminally culpable if a death occurs, if their actions are judged to be reckless overkill.
“I have taken a first-year law course, thank you very much.”
Hopefully torts and criminal law. There’s no such thing as a ‘first year law course’ that’s all-encompassing. There are different classes IN first-year law.
“Not much beyond that, but I do have basic legal literacy. So feel free to cite any relevant cases or elements of the US Code or UCMJ that you feel support your position.”
Sure thing. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, which is pretty much the FIRST bit of caselaw any law student is taught about when they learn about proximate cause. As for the reasonable person standard (which is the standard used in negligence) the Clapham omnibus. Feel free to read up on it :)
“Even in this very strip, we see what she was able to do with the patch job within a few seconds – she would have been capable of catching Sciona.”
Recall that Sciona was already traveling at supersonic speeds. Max can do the same, but we don’t really know how close Sciona is to Max’s upper limit.
“When she patched the bridge, she obviously had to still have her superstrength at rather high levels or she could not have lifted the immense cables and tied them up like that.”
But that’s when she DIDN’T pour on the speed to catch up to Sciona.
“Maxima would require BEYOND the reasonable person standard because of her expertise in these matters.”
True, but even people with expertise would be hard pressed to say ahead of time how Max’s energy pellet (which operates on unknown physics) would interact with Sciona’s wings (which operate on…. magic? …. maybe?).
“Yes. Because she met the legal definition of RECKLESSNESS and was the proximate cause of the bridge destruction.”
Hardly. Recklessness requires a conscious disregard of the risks. Rather than consciously disregarding the risk of a deflection, Max seems to have not been aware of it at all.
“Actually police can becriminally culpable if a death occurs, if their actions are judged to be reckless overkill.”
But this obviously wasn’t overkill. Nor was it the level of recklessness of, say, discharging a firearm down a random stairway when spooked (something that a cop recently got convicted for in New York, IIRC).
“Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company”
Well, that does cover duty of care in a case of negligent, civil liability, but does not seem to cover whether Max is criminally liable. I’m also surprised you’re using the standard of negligence here to establish civil liability. Surely it would be much easier to make a case for strict liability due to an inherently dangerous activity.
“Hardly. Recklessness requires a conscious disregard of the risks. Rather than consciously disregarding the risk of a deflection, Max seems to have not been aware of it at all.”
No it doesn’t. Please learn your law. :/ Recklessness is an element used in negligence, which is based on a hypothetical person called the reasonable person standard. For experts, however, it’s based on a hypothetical person of expert standards, which is a LOT higher than the average reasonable person, which Maxima would fall under. She fits the definition of recklessness in what she did.
I’m not sure why there are people who are not getting this. And since you’re not getting this, I’m dubious that you’ve actually taken any first year law courses, since this is taught in the first year where you take Torts law.
“Well, that does cover duty of care in a case of negligent, civil liability, but does not seem to cover whether Max is criminally liable.”
Negligence is a CIVIL LIABILITY ISSUE. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire time!
I’ve repeatedly said it’s negligence, and that the only possible criminal charge would be if someone dies as a result of this, in which case it fits the requirements for involuntary manslaughter.
“I’m also surprised you’re using the standard of negligence here to establish civil liability.”
Why would I NOT use negligence? It’s the most common tort used, and it fits this situation EXACTLY.
“Surely it would be much easier to make a case for strict liability due to an inherently dangerous activity.”
Geez…. this doesn’t fit a strict liability definition. Strict liability tends to be for minor offenses and abnormally dangerous activities, but the government tends to have sovereign immunity against strict liability claims, so of COURSE I wouldnt use a strict liability standard.
I seriously don’t think you’ve actually gone to law school. I think you might have looked up something on a legal website and are not understanding the standards which you’re repeating.
“For experts, however, it’s based on a hypothetical person of expert standards, which is a LOT higher than the average reasonable person, which Maxima would fall under. She fits the definition of recklessness in what she did.”
I agree that Maxima should be held to the standard of an expert… at least in terms of both law enforcement and her own powers, and probably those of her team. (She probably can’t be expected to be an expert on Sciona’s powers, or how the two power sets interact.) What I’m asking is, should she have known this was a risk even by the standards of expert knowledge? We don’t know much about the history of her energy pellet attack. If no one has ever deflected it before in all the times she’s used it, then even by the standard of expert knowledge the deflection was not a foreseeable risk. Bullet ricochets have precedent that experts like cops should be aware of, but what if the energy pellet does not have such a precedent? I’m not saying it’s never happened to her, and if it has happened then I’ll agree that there’s a good case that she should have known that it was a risk.
“Recklessness is an element used in negligence.”
I was under the impression that negligence was a level below recklessness, in that negligence requires only carelessness or perhaps not knowing what you’re doing, while recklessness requires a knowledge (either actual, or assumed by a reasonable person and/or expert standard) that an action was risky and conscious choice to engage in that risky behavior.
“Negligence is a CIVIL LIABILITY ISSUE. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire time!”
There is also criminal negligence, which was a point of confusion. I’ve been trying to discuss this issue primarily from a criminal standpoint, though I’ve engaged in points of civil liability when they came up, which reading back I can see I wasn’t very clear on. While you’ve referenced torts for various individual points of the discussion, I was not clear that you were only discussing all of this from ONLY a civil standpoint. We definitely were not on the same page there.
“The government tends to have sovereign immunity against strict liability claims, so of COURSE I wouldnt use a strict liability standard.”
*does some research* Huh, Federal Torts Claim Act. Yup, Feds are immune to strict liability claims, even for things like explosive ordinance. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
“I seriously don’t think you’ve actually gone to law school.”
That is correct. The course I took was first-year undergraduate level. I wasn’t claiming to be any sort of expert, just that I could likely muddle my way through case or law references you might choose to share.
“I agree that Maxima should be held to the standard of an expert… at least in terms of both law enforcement and her own powers, and probably those of her team”
Then you would have to agree with me that Maxima met the legal definition of recklessness, and was tortiously negligent.
“What I’m asking is, should she have known this was a risk even by the standards of expert knowledge?”
The expert hypothetical person is an extremely high standard that the law sets for people with expert knowledge or training, as opposed to laymen who only have the ‘hypothetical reasonable person standard.’ She’s expected that she SHOULD have known, based on the law. I didn’t make up how the law works. This is just how it works.
“I was under the impression that negligence was a level below recklessness, in that negligence requires only carelessness or perhaps not knowing what you’re doing”
You would be wrong then, sorry. Recklessness is an element IN proving negligence Negligence is the tort. Recklessness is an element used to prove the tort. There’s no tort called ‘recklessness.’ There’s a tort called Negligence.
“There is also criminal negligence, which was a point of confusion.”
Understandable, but every time I’ve used recklessness on this forum, it’s been to describe that Maxima was wrong in relation to the tort of negligence. A very few times, I’ve mentioned that IF there was a crime, people would have to die as a result of Maxima’s action, in which case it COULD be involuntary manslaughter, which requires as an element of the crime ‘reckless indifference to human life’ (different than the tort definition of recklessness) or ‘an inherently dangerous action which results in the unintentional loss of human life.’ Involuntary manslaughter would be a tougher sell, because the burden is more in Maxima’s favor, but in a tort, it is NOT. Although she could still be tried criminally HYPOTHETICALLY, since it does meet the second element of that crime. It’s a tougher sell though, and requires actual loss of human life happening, not merely the threat to human life. There’s no such thing as ‘attempted involuntary manslaughter’ because you can’t attempt a crime for which being an accident is taken into account.
“I’ve been trying to discuss this issue primarily from a criminal standpoint, though I’ve engaged in points of civil liability when they came up, which reading back I can see I wasn’t very clear on. While you’ve referenced torts for various individual points of the discussion, I was not clear that you were only discussing all of this from ONLY a civil standpoint.”
About 90 percent of my posts are about the civil liability here. I only occasionally even mentioned the possibility of an involuntary manslaughter charge, and usually I was pretty critical of the likelihood of something like that succeeding in court given all the mitigating circumstances and the burden of proof required, as opposed to the burden of proof in a civil tort.
“We definitely were not on the same page there.”
Apparently. I think you might realize what I’ve been saying now, though.
“Feds are immune to strict liability claims, even for things like explosive ordinance. Thanks for setting me straight on that.”
No problem.
“That is correct. The course I took was first-year undergraduate level. I wasn’t claiming to be any sort of expert,”
No problem again.
“unless some proof can be brought that she intentionally targeted it” doesn’t matter it happened during the commission of a crime she committed so she’s culpable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
Except this didn’t happen during commission of the crime. It happened at least a quarter hour later (to judge by the changing light levels and the times Max called out in briefing) and quite a ways away. Max can’t even claim to have been pursuing her from the scene of the crime. Sciona is now far removed in time and space from the incident in which she was perpetrating the crime of robbery and (attempted?) murder, and so her defending herself from Max’s energy attack was not part of perpetrating that crime, and so the felony murder rule doesn’t apply here.
(Also, no one on the bridge has died. Yet.)
This sequence of events occurred directly after the attempted murder of cooter/wyrmil, and while Sciona was:
1. carrying stolen property,
2. attempting to evade a legal authority,
3. deliberately moving the chase towards a concentration of civilians and breakable infrastructure,
4. wanted in connection to many and various other crimes, including attempted murder of a law officer,
5. and flying without a registered flight plan.
She’s culpable as *hell* right now. Just because someone’s still on the run after 15 minutes doesn’t mean they’re now any less legally responsible for any of it.
Cracking up at the addition of ‘flying without a registered flight plan.’ :)
Good use of the ‘Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking’ trope.
That being said, Sciona IS far removed from the initial crime legally. Reltzik’s correct.
“1. carrying stolen property,”
What property? Don’t see her carrying anything
“2. attempting to evade a legal authority,”
Where and when did Maxi identify herself at any stage? All Sci-fright knows is someone is following her
Superb points.
Better replaced as follows:
1) Believed to be in the possession of one or more WMD (and having a history which makes it credible that it may be deployed).
2) Has clearly noticed the covert surveillance.
Maxima is not law enforcement. She’s a military leader, in command, in the field, in advance of her team (which would be absolutely against regulation in any outfit that wasn’t Archon) and doing judgement calls in a split second.
She knows a terrorist who has been sentenced to death and has attacked/killed in brutal fashion just minutes before (as far as she knows) is approaching a number of unsuspecting civilians with a weapon of mass destruction (Sciona herself) and is making that approach because she became aware she was under surveillance.
The assumption is going to be that she’s going to kill or injure as many as possible and hold the rest hostage to get a free ride back into hiding. And that’s probably the correct assumption, given what we know about her.
This is what’s going on. It’s not a cop at a traffic stop, it’s military vs terrorist who is in the process of attacking civilians.
Actually, Archon is both military and police, so yes, Max counts as a law enforcement officer. But yes, I agree that engaging with extreme prejudice is justifiable here.
Actually she is law enforcement. She’s just law enforcement that is part of the military, instead of a local government. Sort of like how the Coast Guard works, which is why they are not bound by the posse comitatus act
Not just sentenced to death, they took off most of her head…which she SURVIVED.
And she’s a blood mage with a set of wings that cut through things. For all we (and ARC) know, Sciona can power up from killing people.
technically, military are not required to announce themselves first. and Max is military.
Depends on a variety of factors, including when it’s on US soil or if it’s a sting operation or not. The Coast Guard, for example (I believe – I might be mistaken on this but I know the Coast Guard does act very much like law enforcement despite being a branch of the military) does have to announce themselves, just as police do. It’s known as the knock-and-announce rule (derived from the Fourth Amendment)
Soldiers in a war do not need to do this. The reason? US citizens have certain constitutional rights that combatants in a war or foreign military actions do not.
Wait, so is the Coast Guard military that does police stuff too or are they police that does military stuff too (I don’t know if we got an equivalent in Australia)? Wouldn’t the former mean that they are technically military and thus falls under the “military jurisdictions (sort of, I’m not a legal guy so no idea how to describe it) and thus not bound by the laws applicable to the police?
The Coast Guard has to follow a lot more duty of care than the other branches of the armed forces, specifically because they operate within the US – they’re the only military branch that does, I believe. The Coast Guard is also unique in that it doesn’t fall under Posse Comitatus, which is why I keep using it as an example, since Archon isn’t under posse comitatus for the same rationale according to Arianna at the press release.
The military has the OPTION to take over a case, but it’s not a requirement. And since Archon operates a lot like law enforcement, it would very likely fall under a civil court jurisdiction, which would likely be LESS severe to Maxima than a military court would be. I’m not a military lawyer though, so my understanding of torts as they apply to a military court are extremely basic, unlike civil court. What I do know is the rules of evidence in military court are MUCH more streamlined – if you can lose in civil court for negligence, it’s going to be a LOT easier to punish that same person in a military tribunal instead, with harsher punishments than monetary punishments.
Just so.
It is worth mentioning that there are a bunch of exclusions, under Posse Comitatus, which allow various different military forces to operate on US soil. But they are for specific situations, like restoring order during rioting So it does not contradict your statement, as the Coast Guard are permanently excluded from it.
Military actions can also call uponSovereign immunity, under certain circumstances. Commonly used in wartime.* I too am not familiar with the intricacies of this, under other circumstances, but I would imagine that any act which is deemed to be protecting the national interest would allow this to be invoked.
* This I am personally aware of, as during WWII my grandfather’s fishing boat was torpedoed by the Royal Navy, whist drawn up on the beach, in a safe UK harbour! Which, during the war, they did not confess to, so it was presumed to be an enemy action. Such is reasonable mind, as considerations such as not lowering public morale are vital in a critical time.
After the war though, the truth came out. However the Royal Navy still invoked Crown Immunity, so he was unable to claim compensation, or sue them, despite them admitting to it openly.
There actually arent that many exclusions to it. I mention the Coast Guard as a comparison for Archon mainly because the Coast Guard IS an exception – one of the few which make for a good comparison.
You can actually see how few exclusions there are to it in the link you provided, Yorp.
1) It doesn’t cover state defense forces, obviously. It’s for federal forces, not state forces. That’s because of the Constitution.
2) It allows for the Attorney General to request, from the Secretary of Defense, temporary emergency assistance if domestic law is inadequate. This isn’t a constant thing though, and if Archon was using this exception, the Attorney General would have to make the request every single time they operated on US soil.
3) Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command (doesn’t fit for Archon)
4) Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President (would be impractical for the same reason as #2)
5) The Coast Guard
6) Advisory roles (doesn’t fit, since Archon is not operating as a purely advisory role).
I was only pointing out the exceptions, to show that, in the real world, military forces other than the Coast Guard can operate on US soil, and then only as a point of interest.* Archon being specifically exempt from the act, the further exemptions have no bearing on them.
Sovereign immunity, on the other paw, would be very pertinent to Maxima’s situation here and now.
* For instance it could allow us to look up rules of engagement that have been used historically, in policing-like roles (subduing rioting for example), should someone wish to follow that up. Which would give us a clue as to what Arcon’s rules may look like.
“Sovereign immunity, on the other paw, would be very pertinent to Maxima’s situation here and now.”
Actually sovereign immunity doesn’t protect law enforcement against a negligence tort.
It does the military though.
All of you talking about Maxima having done something wrong here, both in taking the shot and in continuing to pursue Sciona instead of stopping to assist the civilians are both wrong and forgetting something important.
This is a world with superheroes and high-level magic.
Individuals can represent far more destructive capability than anything short of heavy military armaments, if not WMDs, in their own person.
Sciona is a clear and present danger to the public.
The applicable analogy would not be regular law enforcement chasing a “normal” criminal (even a murderer or serial killer). IMO, the appropriate analogy would be active pursuit of a terrorist(s) who are currently transporting live WMDs.
I think something from the Superheroes series by Drew Hayes is applicable here – specifically, the way they rate Supers and the gauge for appropriate response to them is by immediate destructive potential – Non-Threatening Combatant or NTC (someone who has powers that don’t affect their ability to do damage/cause destruction, basically equivalent to a human in terms of their Powered ability to do damage/destruction), Standard Class (significant damage and are a danger to life, but not a threat to a large scale area), Demolition class (can destroy a couple blocks if unchecked for an hour), Manhattan class (can do damage equivalent to a nuclear bomb if unchecked for an hour), and Armageddon class (can theoretically cause the end of humanity, if not the Earth itself, if unchecked for an hour).
At the Manhattan level, Civilian casualties/Collateral damage are low, almost non-priority, the primary goal is stopping the threat as fast as possible (by whatever means that takes). Some civilians may die in the process, but far more would perish if the threat doesn’t get neutralized quickly.
At the Armageddon level, civilian casualties and collateral damage are to be entirely ignored when stopping the Super – no priority is placed on civilians, the objective would be stopping the threat -kill on sight, no matter what it takes, at any cost, civilians or allied supers/Heroes are all expendable in the stopping of an Armageddon level threat.
On that scale, Sciona would probably be at least a Manhattan-level threat, and is quite possibly an Armageddon-level threat. Two dozen cars on the bridge? That’s maybe a hundred people, tops, if all the cars are mostly full. Stopping Sciona is way more important (orders of magnitude, really) than sticking around to save them, and would be even without aid for the civilians arriving shortly – with aid for the civilians arriving shortly? I question Maxima stopping to do the patch job that she did at all.
+1
And another +1 for referencing my favorite series :)
this scale is complete junk and only seems logical from a outsiders/readers view because we want to see thing blow up because its fun.
a scale like this could only work in a super lead dictatorship because in any form of democracy “Civilian” go by a more important name “voters”. any government enacting rules like this would quickly be voted out and for good reason “they don’t care if you die”
Ah – you’re kidding, right? If not, I suggest you read up on the actions of the Sri Lankan government vs the Tamil Tigers over the last decade.
And that government is still right where it was. In fact, they just had elections.
your trying to use Sri Lanka, that used draconian laws to disrepair those against them and other dictatorial practices in its not to distant civil war, to disprove my point of how it could only work in dictatorships? ….lol
Russia and north Korea also have “elections” doesn’t make them real democracies or their leaders any less dictators.
Ok, US history then. Would you rather discuss Sherman’s actions during the Civil War or the attack on Washington? Or, if that’s too far back, the actions taken against the native population in the Americas? Or maybe we should go to the imprisonment of Japanese immigrants during WWII? Battle of Kelly Creek wasn’t that long ago. Somebody else mentioned the battle of Paloma above here, which was undertaken against a much smaller threat than Sciona.
Or, if you’d prefer discussing the actions of both of the North American governments, maybe this would interest you?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2014.955947?src=recsys&journalCode=rset20
That’s pretty recent.
Governments don’t play around. None of them.
“they don’t care if you die”
^Is a gross oversimplification of the system that is shown in Super Powereds.
Heroes primarily, and publicly, make a concerted effort to avoid property damage and civilian casualties.
But some times that requires prioritizing neutralization of a threat over saving nearby civilians.
^ How and why would people “vote that out”?
i know nothing about “Super Powereds” but it sounds like the normal comic book BS based on the “rule of cool” trope over any real world logic. power girl on the other hand is trying to be a little more realistic about it (with in reason). so lost lives and property damage are hand waved away quite so easily.
Super Powereds is a 4-book novel series, with a spinoff that happens roughly parrallel to book 3.
It’s hardly “Rule of Cool based BS”.
The fundamental point behind the scale and the standard Rules of Engagement based on the scale is that it is not a comic book. That Heroes cannot save everyone all of the time. That some villains (especially extremely dangerous Supers) should not, and cannot be taken alive. That sometimes there are threats so dangerous you can’t let them go to save some civilians right now. That there are situations when you have to let some civilians die in order to keep even more from dying. That some threats are so dangerous they need to be stopped at any cost.
Not everyone with the powers has the mindset and such required to successfully be a Hero – the tests/training exercises involving stopping Manhattan and Armageddon targets typically cause a number of people to drop out of the program and not continue on the path to become a Hero.
If someone has personal destructive capabilities on par with a nuke or is capable of ending humanity in relatively short order, then no, civilians in the way don’t matter anywhere near as much as stopping the threat for good.
On the Super Powereds scale, Sciona is a Manhattan or Armageddon level threat.
Maxima would probably be rated at Manhattan-level.
Superman saves everyone and lets the bad guys get away because he doesn’t have a team backing him up, and he’s short-sighted.
Sciona is, for all intents and purposes, a known terrorist and mass murderer with live WMDs.
Backup/assistance to aid the (probably fewer than 100) civilians on the bridge was already nearby and inbound.
Letting Sciona get away would not be worth saving the relative handful of civilians at risk on the bridge.
Stopping Sciona would be worth leaving every one of those civilians to certain death. Fortunately, those civilians are not facing certain death and don’t need Maxima to save them because other people equally capable of helping them (if not more capable of helping them) is about to arrive.
Maxima could have entirely ignored the bridge, and left it for the rest of the team, instead going straight for Sciona, and that would still have been a good call.
Stopping to personally deal with all of the civilians, and letting Sciona get away? Entirely the wrong call. That would be grounds for a court martial.
The principle at play here is simple. Saving 5 people now when it will cost 10 people later is not the right call. Supers/Heroes have to protect the greatest number of people, but they also have to consider more than just the next couple of seconds/minutes. They need to consider longer-term consequences of their actions.
“Superman saves everyone and lets the bad guys get away because he doesn’t have a team backing him up, and he’s short-sighted.”
*cough* Justice League *cough*
Try reading him in his own books. Its downright embarrassing how easily he gets sidetracked.
I’m actually a big fan of Superman (although I’m a BIGGER fan of Supergirl, who I think has more faults and is a better-rounded character overall – that’s just my opinion, no arguments please on this).
But it’s hard to take solo books to heart considering that they’re in a joined universe, imho. :) I’m just pointing out that Superman does have a team backing him up.
Even in his solo book, there’s quite a few people in the ‘Super family’ – Kara, Krypto (okay people AND dogs), Steel, Kon-El, Power Girl, Natasha Irons, Guardian, Traci 13, Dr. Fate, Power Girl, recently I believe that even Livewire’s been reformed and is on ‘Team Superman’ for lack of a better term. That doesn’t include all the times that Batman and Wonder Woman, as the other two members of the DC Trinity, team up with him as well, even in his own title
… and just what do you think “Freedom isn’t free” means?
that you’ve watched to many movie and are confusing cheesy idioms/one liners with how the real world work? LMAO
I get it while most comics use the rule of cool trope for world building but girl power is trying to be more realistic (with in reason) and in real world no populace would willingly put up with that for long.
A man walked into a church in texas and shot up the whole place, but guns are OK because another person with a gun showed up and killed him.
You’d be suprised what a populance will put up with.
Populations put up with whatever they are trained to put up with.
Whatever the local “sacred group” or “right” is, they’ll put up with a LOT before actually changing the rules. Same for the “out” group. It’s been way over a century since the emancipation proclamation, and the out group still isn’t treated identically. (And anyone who disagrees by explaining how the out group in question DESERVES being treated that way, is simply proving my point. And doing it well, too.)
Took quite a few years to persuade the government to quit exploding nukes in the desert, now didn’t it? Army was sacred, and still is for the most part.
Took quite a while to get rid of the commie hater nonsense, in fact, it’s still pretty common. Meaningless, doesn’t even have an actual target, but it’s still common.
What we choose as sacred and profane is important to us, even though it means very little in the actual grand scheme of things. And we’ll put up with anything to protect it.
Hey guys. Look back at page #77.
What goes around comes around.
Granted it was several hundred pages later that Dave actualy used the gold Star joke here https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2260 I Suspect that s just the inevitable coincidence that’s found in any long running story.
Otherwise OMG Gwen’s Gona Die! And it’s going to be Sydney’s fault!
VERY GOOD RECALL ORANGE! :)
It was more a, “I was archive binging and found a funny callback” than memory, but thanks!
I think Maxima is on safe ground if you look at it as military action instead of a police action. Supposing you secretly build a supersonic plane and then take off across the country at supersonic speeds without filing a flight plan and without responding to radio communication (Sciona may not have had a radio, so we’ll say you built your plane without one or turned it off, whatever). I’m pretty sure that you’re going to get shot down by the Air Force and law enforcement isn’t going to enter into it. Supposing, additionally, the Feds have intelligence from another government (intelligence that may not be available or reliable enough for court, but has a history of being reliable in the past) that you have acquired a weapon of mass destruction, have killed civilians indiscriminately in the past, and have tried to overthrow at least one government, and as soon as you notice pursuit change course towards a bunch of civilians. I think you’re going to be shot down. Even if you can’t prove it Sciona probably WAS trying to destroy the bridge. It doesn’t provide much cover, but between supersonic speed and cut/smash through stone wings she could probably destroy it easily, maybe worse than Maxima’s explosion.
On the other hand and from a law enforcement perspective, you’re simply not allowed to shoot someone unless they’re threatening you or someone else, and merely changing direction doesn’t count. We know she murdered a bunch of people, in America, but Maxima can only speculate about that. As far as she can prove, Sciona did some property damage to Deus’s place, and then was just having a fun joy ride with her new wings. Or her old wings that she always had, because she didn’t see her regeneration.
Also as people pointed out she likely had other safer options, although it’s possible that’s not actually true. Sciona was very near the bridge especially for someone moving at supersonic speeds. Imagine how fast a bullet would cross that distance, that’s how fast she was traveling*, it would have been a fraction of a second. It’s entirely possible that either her energy blast is faster than her top flying speed or that it would take to long for her to accelerate to top speed so her energy blast was the only option. Another possibility is that Maxima was concerned about some kind of bio weapon and wanted to destroy Sciona entirely, although obviously that didn’t work out.
*Well faster than a subsonic bullet, possibly slower than some rifle bullets since we don’t know her exact speed. But certainly in that range.
There’s actually a real world precedent of your example: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-a-rogue-drone-in-the-1950s-caused-a-fiasco-that-end-1786633506
Yeah, the battle of Paloma – that was a real screw up.
…there was a more recent example involving a LearJet where the pressurization failed +the AirForce basically shadowed the plane until it ran out of fuel and crashed in a field…
that isn’t the one i heard of- there was one where they shot the learjet down because it was heading into a city.
We as readers know Sciona has commited crimes that if proven she could be convicted of in America, but from what Archon knows at the moment, what actual crimes could the charge her with?
1) Some unknown person, murdered a whole bunch of people and hung them up in a warehouse. Sydney saw some giant male body with half of another head which the Council suspects is Sciona – in a magical alternate future vision in which she was killed. Try testifying to that in court.
2) Some unknown person attacked the Council, while it was meeting in America. They suspect Sciona, but have no proof
3) Some unknown person broke into the council’s vault and assaulted Wyrmil and Cooter. They only found Cooter/Wyrmil. It’s possible Deus told them Sciona was there, but it’s not clear since that would implicate him in the crime. This crime did not take place in America so they probably can’t try her for that, but they might be able to extradite her to the Council.
4) Sciona trespassed on Deus property, broke some things, and threatened him. You’d probably need Deus to press charges.
5) She’s certainly breaking a bunch flight regulations flying like she is.
6) There might be outstanding warrants for previous crimes that the council could ask for her to be extradited for.
Anything else? I don’t think you could even say she is fleeing the police. The police never had a chance to tell her to stop. Maybe illegal entry to the country? But that’ll just get her deported.
The Council already informed Archon that the “unknown person” was in fact Sciona.
And how dangerous she was, not just in power level but willingness to use that power against anyone, even innocent bystanders.
The council first said that she was their top suspect due to the use of powerful and difficult blood magic, but they weren’t sure of her alive/dead status or if there were other blood mages who could pull of the feat. Then when Sydney described being attacked by a large ugly body with half a head on top of it, they said, yep our first instincts were right it must be her. Then she shows up in seemingly her original body. But nobody saw her other than Sydney, who saw her briefly in stressful circumstances, in the dark. That’s good reason for Archon to think it was Sciona, but it’s not really good enough proof to convict her in court. Not to mention the Sydney saw Sciona in an alternate future in which she was killed, so it’s really going to have a hard time holding up in court. So I don’t mean that Archon doesn’t “really” know who committed these crimes, but rather what they know in terms of being able to present as evidence to charge her with crimes. There’s probably a lot of things that the US government “knows” in terms of intelligence gathering, that can’t be presented as evidence in a crime.
Not only was it an alternate future, it was an alternate future in which Sydney and Pixel broke into Sciona’s property without a warrant and didn’t identify themselves as officers of the law.
Although if it actually was Sciona’s property, that’s a good step on the way to getting her for all the murders that took place there.
She didn’t kill anyone, all of those non-humans Sciona was draining blood from were still alive.
Yes just kidnapped and violated people with no regard for their long term health. That makes her much less of a violent threat.
Just because she failed to kill people doesn’t make her less of a killer. Her repeated attempts just in the last day show that.
Technically speaking, and I’m not defending Sciona as not being evil, but failing to kill people does make you less of a killer.
Cooter though did die.
And if he says otherwise he is a liar!
Dead people are always such fibbers.
By “killer” I mean “someone who kills and is willing to kill” not legally a murderer.
She’s shown that she won’t hesitate to kill people to get her way.
The fact that her victims survived by luck and skill of the good guys doesn’t make it any less likely that she’ll continue to try again and makes it more important that they stop her because otherwise they may not be lucky next time.
Someone who is willing to kill doesnt mean they’re a killer.
I mean yes, Sciona is definitely probably a killer. But we havent actually seen her kill anyone except for Cooter (if you consider him to have died, although he sure is walking around and talking a lot for a dead person).
But you said ‘just because she failed to kill people doesn’t make her less of a killer.’
That’s just incorrect. If you fail to kill people, you are most definitely less of a killer than someone who does NOT fail to kill people. Sciona might just be an attempted killer as is really bad at being a successful killer :)
Dues saw her.
She’s wanted Dead, not alive, by another government for various heinous crimes. She has Cooter’s “summon eldritch abomination” item (and whatever else the Council is missing). It’s unlikely Cooter was a skilled user, so Trent was probably the least thing it can summon. Deus and Sciona have both been behaving like that item has serious depths.
So she’s basically a walking nuke who uses (mass) murder as the solution to any problem. I’m thinking this is less a “can we convict her in court” thing and more of a “because of public safety, kill her on sight” sort of thing.
And, she just committed murder and about three pages back that was discussed as “it doesn’t look good for Cooter”, aka we’re nearly sure he’s dead and we would be certain if he wasn’t showing non-human powers a short time ago.
Actually, he’s probably still alive and will recover, but Archon doesn’t know the extent of his healing power, so from their perspective it’s a reasonable guess he’s dead. Still, there’s no body or even proof that Sciona attacked him.
Actually they do know that Wyrmil is pretty near impossible to kill, or so they thought, from what Decolette said. Also Decolette was the one to figure out that Cooter and Wyrmil merged (or at least it’s heavily implied that she figured it out). So Archon probably knows that as well.
…supersonic bogie intercepted C/W’s tracked location, ripped him to shit per admittedly Veil-shrouded witnesses then took off and resumed supersonic flight. Although it would have happened off camera (page?), Harem would’ve told ArcSwat exactly what Sciona looked like- she took pics/video with her phone …
Simple enough: flying at supersonic speeds without a registered flight plan. That’s a crime, that is.
It is not enough of one to justify any violent actions, particularly without attempts to contact the flier.
all we have to do is realize that Sciona falls under the category of terrorist and Max is military. Max and Sydney and the team have the particulars of who and what Sciona is and that she has access to potential WMDs from the vault. given that, Max is required by her mandate to track if possible to recover the artifacts, and stop by any means necessary if not. from what the team has found out, Sciona is a potential nation-state level threat.
Sciona does not fall into the class of terrorist, except at the casual gross misuse of language level. The terrorist use attacks on more or less innocent bystanders as a primary tool, with the more publicity the better. Sciona has [to date] only attacked “military” targets. Up until recently, she has been entirely under cover, negating her ability to inspire terror.
Even the current “attack” on the bridge does not qualify as terrorism. She likely doesn’t mind any death, destruction, or terror that results, but that is at most completely secondary, and quite possibly not a goal at all. After all, dead slaves don’t do much work. Our terrorist starts with the goal of destroying the bridge, not doing it as an attempt to achieve some different goal.
Sciona is not nice, but she does not qualify as a terrorist [yet]. Murderer, pirate, revolutionary…among other terms, but not terrorist.
Nor can we say “Sciona is scary dangerous. Therefore we can do anything no matter how stupid or dangerous when attempting to stop/capture her.” That way, we end up doing more damage to ourselves than she can do.
I strongly disagree. Your argument is biased to the assumption that ‘if the American public are not affected/aware of something then it is not merit consideration’.
The Twilight Council however represents every faction present on Earth,* as well as races and civilisations from the galaxy beyond. It is closer to the United Nations, of the supernaturals, than just representing a single nation. So it is a hugely significant political body, who’s affairs impact throughout the supernatural community and even into the galaxy.**
Which Sciona tried to eliminate, by her team of SWAT clad constructs. And those people being attacked are not military targets, rather they are, which makes them civilians (barring those few who might be military as well). An attempt to wipe out the assembled leadership of the supernatural world, which got within a hair’s breadth of succeeding, will certainly have provoked terror, amongst many races and communities.
That is categorically a terrorist attack. Especially combined with her earlier attempt to bring down The Veil. It is already weakened in places, so is risking the (human world) publicity that you demand. And is vulnerable to being broken with the loss of another sigil or two. Which could lead to a genocidal war, but at the very least would provoke vigilante attacks and persecution by hostile governments and religions.
So Sciona is conducting a sustained terrorist campaign and very much should be treated as a terrorist!
* Albeit that there is not a specific human delegation, there are humans present within other delegations. Zephan Zoeng being a prominent example, in the mage’s delegation. Plus we have seen that Archon have a voice there too, when requested.
** Mostly in sex tourism offices admittedly. ;-)
If the American public [or other relevant body] is not aware of the threat, it is not terrorism. It may be highly undesirable and/or criminal, but it is not terrorism. That requires a purpose of scaring people. That need not be an ultimate goal, but whatever is the ultimate goal can be quite distant and unknown to those terrorized.
And Sciona’s targets have been “military”, if not military. Attacking the enemy leadership is a routine military activity. A machine gun attack on a random crowd is terrorism. An attack on Congress is not [tho the members of Congress might disagree].
The attack on the Veil is also non-terrorist. Sciona deems it a trap. By hiding in it, the other races are letting the inferior humans rule when they should be ruled. So destroy the Veil and the non-humans are forced to take their rightful rulership. This plan may be considered mass murder on a grand scale, treason, insane [since there is a very good chance it would fail totally], and several other crimes, but it is not terrorism since it is little concerned with whether anyone is scared at all.
“Terrorist” is a current devil word, losing all meaning beyond “bad”. But we need to remember that words have more precise meanings and we need to use them.
I had not followed the thread up to the top, so I should start out by saying that if we are trying to determine if American courts should treat Sciona as a terrorist, and if the events that occurred in the Twilight Council Chamber are being kept secret, then no public trial could take place.
However there are provisions for trials behind closed doors, and these are often invoked when intelligence sources or classified information would need to be revealed, in order to judge a case.
So, even though all the events are classified, it is possible for this to be tried in a US court.
Now we can move on to your assertion that:
Well I have seen reports of people being charged with terrorist offences, in the USA for attempting to acquire bomb making materials, and/or planning to commit a terrorist act.
Note that, until it came to trial, these events would be unknown to the American public. Yet convictions have been secured. So your assertion is incorrect.
Of note, high profile US police officers were attacked, using explosives, super power stealing abilities, mind control, blood draining and a giant robot-like monster. Which would be terrifying, if those aspects were revealed in open court. Further, had she been successful, the loss of much of America’s elite super force would create terror in the US public, and not being told how or why would likewise provoke terror.
So there are multiple grounds on which Sciona could and should be considered a terrorist.
Additionally the acts I listed previously would create terror in the supernatural populace. And it may well be that the US has secret treaties with the Twilight Council (their active co-operation in law enforcement strongly implies that). Which could well include extradition treaties. The Twilight Council will most definitely consider her a terrorist, so would invoke the treaty and demand that the terrorist be extradited for trial in their courts.
Here you are totally wrong. In order for it to be classified as a military action Sciona would have to be a member of a recognised state’s armed forces. There are international treaties (such as the Geneva convention) which stipulate this very precisely.
An attack by one or more civilians, on the legislature of a country, is most definitely an act of terrorism. There are numerous examples around the world, even in just the last few years. Including Canada and the United Kingdom. They were officially classed as terrorist incidents and I assure you that those individuals would have been tried as terrorists!* If not for the fact that they were shot dead.
Politicians are civilians. Even the commander in chief is a civilian. That is the whole point of the role. It is to signify that the military are ultimately answerable to the civil populace.
* In the UK it makes a heck of a difference, because their civil rights get stripped to next to nothing. Terrorist suspects can be detained vastly longer without charge, can be denied access to lawyers for a considerable period of time, and a lot more.
rather they are = rather they are politicians
I’m really confused by these comments.
A) Obviously Max isn’t lying. That’s stupid. She’s making an assumption.
B) Who cares if Sciona gets the blame for this or not? She is a murderer. Reckless endangerment and vandalism don’t really register compared to the shit she’s apparently done in the past, either, if their reaction to her being active is any indication.
B) Because with great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man 101. Maxima has great power. She needs to be responsible for her actions and put civilians first. Just like Superman would have in DaveB’s example.
Maxima’s legal duties as this worlds version of a superhero is not restricted by a spider-man quote.
Fine. Then lets have her legal duties in this world’s version of a superhero restricted to the LAW, which I’ve gone into detail about in various other posts, in which I described why she’s acted with recklessness and would be liable for the damages, and possibly criminally liable if someone dies as a result.
But you and others seem to ignore THAT as well for who knows what reason. So I went with the much simpler ‘With great power comes great responsibility’ quote, which might be Spider-man, but it’s also a good lesson in life.
Or would you prefer a quote from real life?
“The price of greatness is responsibility.” – Winston Churchill
It is not illegal for the military to prioritize taking out a target over saving civilians.
It’s morality can be debated; but it’s legality has a clear precedent.
Except Maxima is not military in that way. She’s military more in the way that the Coast Guard is military, in order to avoid the Posse Comitatus Act. The Coast Guard, like Archon, needs to prioritize saving civilians as well, just like the police do, even though the Coast Guard is military.
There’s a difference between military in a war and military on US soil where the rules of engagement are concerned.
She blatantly is based on what we’ve seen of her so far and how she’s acting in this very confrontation.
You seem to be operating off of the assumption that Max is flippantly ignoring all major protocol and disobeying direct orders.
When it’s far more likely that this is actually how Archon is legally sanctioned to deal with large scale threats and this is just our first experience with it.
“She blatantly is based on what we’ve seen of her so far and how she’s acting in this very confrontation.”
Even Maxima described what they do as being ‘essentially cops.’ It was her biggest reservation about putting Sydney in Archon – the authority that comes with the badge.
And during the press conference, Ariana spelled out that they are essentially cops under the purview of the military so that they do not fall under the Posse Comitatus Act – in the same way that the only other military section that doesn’t fall under posse comitatus does … the Coast Guard.
“You seem to be operating off of the assumption that Max is flippantly ignoring all major protocol and disobeying direct orders.”
No, I’m operating under what she’s done in the past, what she’s been reported to have done in the past to make her a problem (despite being incredibly useful because of her extreme power levels), and based on the duty of other military agencies which do not fall under the posse comitatus act while operating on US soil – the Coast Guard.
“When it’s far more likely that this is actually how Archon is legally sanctioned to deal with large scale threats and this is just our first experience with it.”
Ariana went into some detail on how Archon works within US soil by stating how it does not fall under posse comitatus. It’s the same with other government agencies which are allowed to police on US Soil, like the FBI and the Coast Guard for federal, and the police for local – they all operate under similar protocols when it comes to protecting the civilians as the PRIORITY, not having them be collateral damage if there’s a future threat. This isn’t Winston Churchill letting Coventry burn so the Nazis woudlnt know that the Allies broke their codes or something. US law and the protocols for government law enforcement agencies all prescribe that civilian safety is paramount. You don’t sacrifice a few now to potentially, possibly save some later.
“You don’t sacrifice a few now to potentially, possibly save some later.”
This isn’t a “maybe” situation. Sciona is a mass-murdering psychopath with the mystical equivalent of nukes.
Taking her out now is paramount to the public safety of literally everyone in America.
“This isn’t a “maybe” situation. Sciona is a mass-murdering psychopath with the mystical equivalent of nukes.”
No, she doesn’t. And yes, it’s a ‘maybe’ – vs a definite.
“Taking her out now is paramount to the public safety of literally everyone in America.”
Well then I guess that Maxima is at fault for not taking her out instantly BEFORE Sciona knew that Maxima was following her. You can’t have it both ways.
Sciona clearly cannot be carrying every item stolen from the Dark Reliquary on her, so it was a perfectly legitimate call to tail her back to her base, in the hope of recovering all of them. This is the complication caused by the loss of multiple WMD. If possible they must recover every one of them.
Whilst Maxima was undetected that remained a valid ploy. The instant that she was spotted though the correct response is to terminate with extreme prejudice.
The quibble between “mass murderess” and “attempted mass murderess” is a petty distinction that is totally irrelevant to the judgement call.
As for the “maybe”, it is more appropriately phrased as “to the best of their knowledge Sciona is in possession of a magical WMD”. The distinction is between something that has a low probability versus one that has a high probability.
Importantly it is the one which justifies the act on the grounds of national security.
Literally nothing you said here….. NOTHING…. makes Maxima’s recklessness suddenly not reckless for a negligence case.
Please, Yorp, read what I’ve written when I write my legal definitions.
“Importantly it is the one which justifies the act on the grounds of national security.”
National security does not mean you are allowed to put civilians in danger and then let them die from something that you caused to happen. A claim of national security does not shield a negligent agent from liability. It’s not a defense.
Except Maxima wouldn’t be blamed for that bridges’ potential collapse.
She had no way of knowing her shots could be deflected like that, and it wouldn’t change the fact that Sciona’s capture is a higher priority.
“Except Maxima wouldn’t be blamed for that bridges’ potential collapse.”
For the umpteenth time, actually yes, she would. It meets all the requirements of neglience, most importantly proximate cause and the heightened standard for duty of care for an expert.
No, Pander. It doesn’t meet the requirements of negligence. Here’s a general definition:
“Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. There are four steps in proving negligence. The plaintiff must prove: that there is a duty in the circumstances to take care duty of care” and it’s basically the same in every jurisdiction.
The key phrase in all negligence (and similar laws) is “reasonable care”. You did what a reasonable person would assume is a safe action.
Max meets that, she used an attack calibrated so the explosion wouldn’t hurt the civilians, shot when there was water behind her target, and, when the unreasonable happened, she made sure the civilians were safe and that further help was inbound before she continued pursuit.
Any judge would through out a negligence charge before it even got to court. If you are actually a lawyer clearly you’ve never encountered criminal cases before.
Repeating this here, because I don’t think you’re going to read my other posts if it’s not directly in response to yours.
I am going to try to spell it out as succinctly as possible now.
To be guilty of the TORT (ie, civil wrongdoing for which you can be sued in civil court) of Negligence, the following elements must be satisfied.
1) There must be Duty of care to another person or people. In this case, it’s the duty to protect citizens, which is a duty of all police officers, and in Archon’s charter, regardless of whatever else is in the charter. If you’re in law enforcement, whether civil or military, you have a duty to protect innocent civilians.
2) There must be a breach of that duty of care towards other people. The breach can be determined by a standard which the individual fails to live up to. You measure that standard depending on the expertise of the person. If the person is NOT an expert, the standard of care is that of a hypothetical ‘reasonable person.’ If the person is an expert (which Maxima is with over a decade of experience and is a commanding officer and one of the most powerful supers on the planet, as she says VERY often, then you are held to the standard of care of a hypoethical ‘expert reasonable person.’ An expert reasonable person, in the law, is the perfect exemplar who would have determined every contingency that could be discovered by research and hypothetical scenarios, and even slight possibilities of it occuring. It is an incredibly high standard on purpose, based on the idea that the more of an expert you are, the more responsibility you have to use that expertise responsibly.
3) Cause – The breach of duty causes harm. This can either be DIRECT harm or proximate cause. Here, it’s obviously not direct harm, since there was a ricochet of Maxima’s plasma blast involved. That’s PROXIMATE cause instead. You figure out proximate cause with a ‘but for’ method of reasoning. But for Maxima firing the plasma blast, the bridge would not have been severely damaged.
4) Harm – Or more specifically, damages. There must be actual damage which occurs as a result of the breach of duty. The bridge being damaged is harm. Individuals who might get hurt is harm. Cars being damaged is harm. All of that is legal harm, because there are actual damages that occur as a result.
All the excuses that everyone has given for Maxima, usually that she did not MEAN to do it, or that she was trying to stop Sciona from potentially doing the same thing or worse, or that she didnt anticipate a ricochet happening, are irrelevant to the elements which I have listed.
—
Also, yes, I’m an attorney. And I worked in the DA’s office for two years before I went into private practice – mostly intellectual property law (trademarks, copyrights, and patents mainly)
As for never encountering criminal cases before….. negligence is not a criminal case, it’s a tort – that’s a civil case. You don’t seem to understand the difference.
Even with all the stuff you listed under 2) a perfect expert could not have predicted that the energy attack could have deflected to hit the bridge. The only known means of doing that is Sciona’s wings, and that we only know by hindsight. At the time of making her call neither Maxima, Sciona nor any and every other expert in the world knew that such was possible.
Ergo even with the perfect expert standard Maxima is not negligent.
“Even with all the stuff you listed under 2) a perfect expert could not have predicted that the energy attack could have deflected to hit the bridge.”
Yes, they could have. That’s the point of the perfect expert hypothetical. You’ll be amazed at the caselaw in what they assume an expert would have predicted.
I’m telling you – the more of an expert they are, the higher a standard of care is required. Maxima doesn’t meet this standard.
“Sciona nor any and every other expert in the world knew that such was possible.”
Okay seriously Yorp… what part of ‘hypothetical’ expert is difficult here?
“Ergo even with the perfect expert standard Maxima is not negligent.”
Yorp. You’re wrong. Okay? I’ve explained in excruciating detail so many times now how insanely high the standard of care is for Maxima. She doesn’t meet it.
Ah so we get to the heart of it finally. No word of god for the universe says no, nobody could have predicted that as an outcome.
Your “expert” argument actually works against you here because all of Max’s expertise just reinforces her idea that it would explode on impact where as a layman might think it could bounce like a bullet because they have no expertise on Max’s plasma shot and how it acts.
Agreed.
I spent about an hour trying to get results for “expert negligence tort usa” and numerous variants. Paywalls stopped me in some cases, most only dealt with the common man (the expert result being expert witnesses) and other clutter that was not relevant.
However what did crop up a lot was medical malpractice hits. Doctors are experts and do get torts filed against them a lot. And every discussion I saw, or guidance on how such is conducted had phrases such as ‘reasonably foreseeable’.
So unless there is a conspiracy by the medical industry to conceal the “insanely high the standard of care” an expert has (entirely plausible mind) it seems to me that there is still some degree of judgement being applied as to whether the act was reasonably foreseeable.
The distinction being that it is reasonably foreseeable by an expert rather than a common man. And yes it would need to be a ‘properly trained person with many years experience and consistently sound judgement’. But I, as with the others who have chipped in, do not find it plausible that they must be able to foresee the unforeseeable.
That deflection was not just incredibly remotely unlikely, it was not possible, in the understanding of anybody.
To assert that it was is nothing to do with the law, that is a judgement that you are making. YOU have decided that ‘this is possible’ and have then applied the law to that preconception.
Whereas I have decided that it is impossible and thereby declare that it cannot be held as negligence.
The truth is likely to be somewhere in between the two positions. But I refuse to believe that if every expert witness (note expert, not common man) stands up and says “this was not reasonably foreseeable, in fact had I not seen the results I would not have held that it was possible” that a court could find even an expert negligent!
It simply would not be justice and I do not think that the courts are that blind.
So this is said out of a faith in the legal system. We do not have someone of your legal standing, and without a personal investment in the situation to put a counter argument. However it is worth noting that, despite your impressive credentials, this is out of your current speciality.
Had we access to an emergency legal expert hologram we might be able to find the defence angle which would prevent such a travesty of justice.
Of course, you could be sporting and put yourself into the shoes of Maxima’s defence council, and suggest some angels that you would try yourself.
*wags tail hopefully*
the coast Guard actually DOES use the same threat vs. civilian safety scale as the military in the event of an active large scale threat that is currently engaging / active in the theater of coast guard forces. in the event that it is possible for the coast guard is able to divide their forces to protect / evacuate civilians they will do so, however, if said division would end up compromising national/ large scale citizen safety they will prioritize the target FIRST and potentially at the expense of their immediate surroundings( Civies included) this all boils down to : the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. faw 50 and losee 100? or lose 50 and safe 100. any military/political/civic force will choose to safe the hundred.
This seems more like your opinion rather than an actual fact. Especially if they’re operating in a domestic situation.
I’m going to cut to the chase here. In the case of a hijacked airliner in the United States, power has been handed to the US Air Force to determine whether or not that aircraft is a serious enough risk to warrant shooting it down to prevent another 9-11 level of damage.
I think that pretty well takes care of the argument that the US government would not do this. They can and they have. The authority rests with the judgement of the commanding officers in charge.
In this case, as I said above, Max is the commanding officer in the field, and presumably her commander has told her to use her best judgement.
1) Please show me where the US has done this
2) Please distinguish between a criminal on US soil and an enemy combatant soldieror soldiers attacking in an act of war, since war has different standards than law enforcement. Even if, let us assume your stance is correct, the US was to shoot down a plane that was about to cause another 9/11 (I’m giving you your best case scenario argument here)…. they have a far more legitimate defense than Maxima has, since the threat of the plane being used as a missile is IMMINENT. Plus that authorization would be coming from the President, not from some Colonel.
You know… like the bridge collapsing is imminent.
I think that PD is referring to here is what happened right after 9/11 has happened when the US airspace was in lock down and any planes found to be flying were to be shot down… at least that’s what I remember.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/us/us-practices-how-to-down-hijacked-jets.html here you go. It describes every part of it.
Yes, though I put up the actual ROE elsewhere. The pertinent parts to interception of terrorists inside the US, anyhow.
Hence the patch job good enough for backup to arrive. Superman doesnt seem to have the rest of the justice league on speed dial when Lex Luthor hands him a choice of what to save, or he could have the Flash grab Green Lantern to save the plane while he stops Lex. Max, however, has Sydney, Hiro, Stalwart and the rest.
30 seconds isnt good enough, considering she’s leaving the mess for someone else to fix, and again… she CAUSED IT. She can have alpha team pursue while she clears the bridge of people…. you know, like she’s supposed to do… then catch up with Alpha team to capture Sciona.
Superman doesn’t cause a mess then have others have to fix his mess while he evades responsibility for it.
None of Alpha team are fast enough to effectively pursue a hyper-sonic target that has over a 30 second head start.
Actually you’re wrong. Sydney can go up to Mach 4, which is well above hypersonic.
Hypersonic is typically Mach 5+
Sorry, I meant supersonic, which is what Sciona was travelling at, NOT hypersonic.
Panel 1. SUPER-Sonic. Mach 1. Not Hyper-sonic.
Here’s the link to the comic where they said supersonic, not hypersonic.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2804
You were wrong.
Btw, I said hypersonic accidentally because you made a false statement, saying hypersonic. You should correct your own mistakes.
Actually Vtech325‘s statement (taken it itself) is perfectly correct. Sydney is rated at Mach 4 so cannot go hypersonic. Plus she is rated higher than anyone else on the team, as even Super Hiro is only a three star flyer, compared to Halo’s four.
So if Sciona is leaving at hypersonic speed then Maxima is indeed the only flyer on the team who can pursue her.
Although there is one other who could potentially do that, with a bit of retraining. Now have a think about it before clicking.
Peggy! Currently she is only rated to fly helicopters, but she could retrain to fly a hypersonic fighter. Nobody else (that we know about) is a pilot, so everyone else would need considerably more training to do the same.
Yorp, no. You’re wrong. Vtech made a MISTAKE by even bringing up hypersonic in the first place. Read the link! FIRST PANEL. Sciona is going supersonic, NOT HYPERSONIC.
Seriously Yorp, I like you but it’s irritating when you’re being disingenuous in your arguments.
The entire argument about hypersonic is a MOOT ISSUE…. since SCIONA IS NOT ABLE TO TRAVEL AT HYPERSONIC SPEEDS. Vtech made a false statement, then when I repeated HIS false statement, he said tried to make that the new fact, when hypersonic was never something that was actually happening in the comic to begin with.
“So if Sciona is leaving at hypersonic speed then Maxima is indeed the only flyer on the team who can pursue her.”
Repeat after me. Sciona is not able to fly at hypersonic speeds, only supersonic.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2804
You are wrong. Vtech was wrong. Please admit when you’re wrong when it’s blatantly obvious :/
(Yorp, my apologies for saying you were being disingenuous when you might have just had a misunderstanding or not understood what I’ve been describing)
Don’t worry about it.
You are using absolutes, which you cannot prove. We have no idea about Sciona’s top speed. Further hypersonic is an optional term. Whilst it is generally used nowadays, it is not always so.
Ergo it is still appropriate to describe an aircraft going at mach 8 as being supersonic.
Likewise Sciona could have been going at any speed from mach 1 to mach 20.
On top of which that was a briefing for the speed that Sciona was travelling at, whilst travelling normally. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that (just like Sydney) she is capable of ‘engaging nitro’ to bug out at maximum speed!
So if Sciona has gone hypersonic now she will outstrip anyone but Maxima.
“You are using absolutes, which you cannot prove.”
I am not using absolutes. I’m using what has been seen and stated in the comic. I do not make unfounded assumptions when I’m making an argument.
“Further hypersonic is an optional term. Whilst it is generally used nowadays, it is not always so.”
Not exactly. Hypersonic means Mach 5 or higher. Supersonic means Mach 1 or higher. While something that’s travelling at hypersonic speeds is also travelling at supersonic speeds, something travelling at supersonic speeds is NOT travelling at hypersonic speeds.
However, you’re making an unfounded assumption, in order to tailor the facts to your opinion, rather than just take what has been given in the comic. I’m not using unfounded assumptions, but you are. This is not me insulting you – I’m just stating a fact. You shouldnt make unfounded assumptions when making an argument – it harms the validity of your argument.
“So if Sciona has gone hypersonic now she will outstrip anyone but Maxima.”
If. She hasn’t. You can’t make assumptions that are not based on what has not yet occurred, then treat those assumptions as fact.
“You can’t make assumptions that are not based on what has not yet occurred, then treat those assumptions as fact.”
Responding to myself since I can’t edit.
Okay actually you CAN make assumptions that are based on what has not yet occurred, then treat those assumptions as fact, but you shouldn’t, because it’s poor reasoning and basing your argument on a fallacy, or at the very least basing it on something that is not accurate.
I must have missed where that is said in canon. Please enlighten me.
The only reference I recall is the briefing by Maxima stating that Norad had picked up a supersonic target. Which:
1) is not saying how fast it is going merely that it is travelling at some speed greater than sound
2) does not declare that it cannot go faster.
Hypersonic is a term that isonly generally used. This is due to the different properties that aircraft have to endure above that point. However hypersonic is not always used, because there are contexts where that is not relevant.
In this case we are not talking about aircraft but supers and we are not discussing the stresses their bodies have to endure. So it is entirely appropriate to use the word supersonic, which is applicable to any speed faster than sound, with no upper limit.
Note often, not always.
“If. She hasn’t. You can’t make assumptions that are not based on what has not yet occurred, then treat those assumptions as fact.”
1. You don’t know that she hasn’t. We have absolutely no means of telling what speed Sciona is presently flying at.
2. I have stated no assumption. In actually (previously unspoken) I assume that she is NOT travelling at hypersonic speeds. However you had refuted Vtech325‘s suggestion that she may be as being impossible. That is not the case Sciona may be travelling at hypersonic speeds.
And if she is then only Maxima can catch her. This is not an assumption it is a logical fact. Which I proved by citing the flight speeds of the rest of the team, all of which were inadequate.
“I must have missed where that is said in canon. Please enlighten me.”
Why do you keep trying to make me prove a negative? No. You’re supposed to prove it since you’re claiming something that has never been stated in the comic, while I’m proving something that HAS been stated in the comic. Your method of arguing is really irritating, because you make up a fact that appears nowhere in the comic, although what I’m saying IS in the comic, then tell me to disprove the made-up fact. Of course it’s not going to say ‘she doesn’t travel at hypersonic speeds’. It doesn’t have to. If she travelled at hypersonic speeds, it would say that instead of supersonic.
Also…. READ THE VERY NEXT STRIP!!!!!!!
And this was a briefing on pursuing Sciona. If they knew her maximum flight speed it would be a hugely important fact, bearing on their ability to pursue her, which they should have revealed. Just as with them pointing out the significance should she drop below supersonic speed. The fact that they did not mention that implies that they do not know.
Plus I am afraid that it is my turn to say that you are either not reading or are ignoring what I post. I have explained to you twice now that hypersonic is not a term that has to be used. In fact many people do not even know it exists!
“Supersonic” is used three times more often than “hypersonic”.
Maxima was briefing people that she knows are not aeronautical engineers or fighter pilots. It would be appropriate to use the more commonly understood (yet still perfectly correct) term, in a time critical briefing.
Hokey kokey. Mmm, yes, I see. Absolutely. Sciona could well have flown at hypersonic speeds and Maxima was the only person who could have caught up with her.
If you wanted to concede, you could have just said so!
Note this is me *winking*, to indicate that I am teasing you.
My point being that the next comic just shows Maxima having caught up with Sciona. Sciona could have been pottering along at 30 mph, thinking that Maxima was busy rescuing people. Or she could have been flying at Mach 10 and Maxima caught up at Mach 15.
And it really is not worth arguing over this. My SOLE purpose was to point out that Vtech325 was right about the pursuit capabilities of the team in the HYPOTHETICAL situation of Sciona travelling at hypersonic speeds. Neither Vtech325 nor I have at any point said that she is.
To the contrary Vtech325 conceded the point a long time back. And I have likewise said that it is my assumption that she is not.
As a final point though, it is something that Maxima would need to have accounted for in her decision making. Unless their research turned up Sciona’s maximum flight speed, she would have to have a contingency plan in mind, in the event that Sciona was faster than everyone else.
Yes, Sciona is stated to be supersonic.
I’d still say such a substantial head-start would be too much of a risk though.
Less of a risk than not doing anything to save the civilians, considering Halo is the second fastest flier and can keep up with Sciona (not to mention Dabbler can track her via technology).
I thought satellites were tracking Sciona?
It was stipulated that NORAD were tracking her. Which is the acronym for North American Aerospace Defense Command. Who employ a range of different options for tracking targets. Ranging from ground based radar all the way up to satellites.
DaveB mentioned that AWACs aircraft would not be able to track Sciona whilst low flying in this river valley. Rather implying that it was an AWACs that picked her up. They can track a target lfrom hundreds of miles away. Also implying that a suitable satellite is not presently in position (it can take hours sometimes to reposition one, or to wait until ones orbit brings it over the target area).*
AWCS aircraft though are subsonic, so if one has been tracking Sciona, since before the team were briefed, it is likely to have fallen well behind. Therefore my not be able to track her much longer, in any event. Plus they do only have finite fuel.
Possibly a suitable satellite might become available. Or another AWACs could have been launched to replace this one (if there is an airbase ahead of her line of flight). But presently the team are the only ones able to track her.
* From my extensive knowledge of Hollywood documentaries, like when they tried to catch Magneto, in his forest camp.
I think that with Magneto in the forest, they were using heat signatures, which is how Jamie Maddox (Multiple Man) tricked them.
Still sort of annoyed at that movie because Jamie Maddox is not in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants and doesn’t follow Magneto.
Yea, a satellite with thermal imaging cameras. Various images like that were also broadcast from incidents in the Gulf war. Be it from high altitude surveillance aircraft or satellites.
Lets be real here. There’s no way that Multiple Man would have been on Magneto’s side. He’s not a villain in the comics. He’s a good guy. He’s on X-Factor and X-Factor Investigations and he was in the X-Men.
OK Pander, please just take a few deep breaths. Now let me take that shield away from you, before you gnaw it too deeply.
Just remember that Hollywood documentaries are renowned for not accurately portraying real events. I am sure that your sister will not be able to woo Jamie Maddox away from you.
But, you can always choose to have one of him each. Or more than one, according to your tastes. ;-)
So the long and the short is:
1. There will be an after action review. Like anyways, when supers lock horns.
2. There was an unknown and unpredictable interaction of powers.
3. Maxima’s field command decisions will be upheld as reasonable in light of exigent threats and circumstances.
4. Maxima will be admonished to take even more care in the future. She will except this criticism with professional aplomb.
5. She will bitch about it later, in relative privacy and be reminded by cooler heads that ‘yeah, the concern IS legit. Take it with dignity and eternal gratitude no one was hurt any worse.’ Possibly by Arianna. Because Sydney is frankly overused in this role.
6. A wiser but still aggressive Max goes on about her business.
7. There’s likely going to be an out of court settlement paid out by Archon to the city and to anyone injured as a result of the bridge collapse.
And of course Maxima will likely be staring at a reduction in rank.
Not necessarily or likely. Unless someone dies as a result.
Even if someone does die and Maxima is determined to be a fault, she may simply be to valuable (and dangerous) to giver her a significant punishment.
This is possibly true. Maxima is too valuable to take out of commission. But it would not be something that is legal.
No one’s supposed to be ‘above the law.’
But lets not dismiss the realpolitik of Maxima is only really bound to the law by her own moral fiber and maybe some threats against her family. One hopes somebody, somewhere is already hard at work on Rogue Maxima contingencies. …And is right up front in telling Maxima “‘we believe these are necessary.”
In my own most-developed supers setting the DoD does not let supers into the military precisely because the practical limitations to punishing them them is massively corrosive to discipline, morale, and the chain of command.
Oh I’m not dismissing the fact that Maxima is so powerufl that, in the end, she’s only bound by her own morality.
I’ve just been explaining how the law actually works to people here, and what Maxima is guilty of – recklessness and negligence (for torts) and possibly involuntary manslaughter if someone was to die as a result (which I doubt will happen).
I’m also sure that the government does have multiple contingencies for a Rogue Maxima. It doesn’t remove what I’m describing with the law though.
That’s kind of terrible actually. I feel like the moment they decide to tell Maxima that “If we ever decide you’re not doing what we want you to do we’re going after your family” is the moment Maxima resigns (Or becomes a villain). It’d be like taking the families of anyone who works on a nuclear sub hostage because you’re afraid of them nuking someone without permission.
That’s a little different. Maxima *is* a nuclear weapon, whose sole oversight and control is her own morality and ethics. A nuclear sub officer can’t just point at a city and pop it like a zit on a whim, with no-one able to intervene save for afterwards. Maxima can.
Edit (since we can’t, this will have to do): Sure, she won’t do that, but I guarantee you someone, somewhere, higher up in command has considered that and an appropriate response at control.
Especially if the US government in GP follows the trend of the government trope in comics, i.e. outright villains (tons of shadow/black ops) or completely incompetent (“Oh, thank you Super-duperman for saving us yet again from something our entire military couldn’t even touch!”).
Which is why I mentioned the out-of-court settlement being the most likely result, including one for wrongful death (the civil side of murder and manslaughter charges).
I really don’t think Maxima is in any danger of demotion. A simple “try harder in the future” will probably cover it. She’s likely to be harder on herself than the board of inquiry. Afterwards I’d like to see her talk it out with Hiro rather than Sidney, as he’s much MUCH closer to her in terms of having to deal with this sort of snap judgement/casualty calculus. Sidney’s “genre savvy” is actually a huge handicap in this situation.
Nearly all bridges are federal. No payouts were made when the USACE at Memphis knocked all the supports out from under the bridge at Helena Arkansas about 20 years ago. USACE about killed themselves getting new supports for the deck up and ready, IIRC, they had the job done and inspected in about a month and a half. Which is light speed for bridge construction.
They were moving a barge with a crane on it via towboat under the bridge, water was up, pilot eyeballed it and said “it’ll clear”. It didn’t, by about three feet. Knocked all the support steel to hell and gone.
This is incorrect. Case in point, the bridges in New York are mostly owned by the Port Authority, a state-run organization (actually joint venture between New Jersey and New York).
Same thing for most of the bridges in California, including the Golden Gate Bridge, which are owned by California, not the Federal Government.
Same for most bridges in major cities. Most cities have some sort of Port Authority that own and run the bridges.
Most major cities, that is. I’m assuming that the bridge in Helena, Arkansas, was owned by the federal government as part of some interstate highway deal.
Must be funny for cities that are far inland. Say one of the states ‘in the middle’.
“What’s your job?”
“I work for the city port authority”
“… ahh, did they notice that we are two hundred miles from the sea? I am guessing you don’t want to risk your pay cheque by telling them?”
The Port Authority makes a lot of money with tolls :) I’m assuming that’s why the cities tend to own their bridges if it’s a large enough population in the city. They wouldn’t want to cede that money to some federal authority. THAT is just my guess though, unlike a lot of what I’ve said on this forum being based on legal fact. :)
I suppose I meant that bridges are generally built with federal money and inspected by the Corps of Engineers. Ownership translates to “who pays for maintenance.
I just know that most bridges in major metropolitan cities are owned and managed by those cities. They’re also maintained by those cities or states when not owned by the federal government – that’s why they collect tolls.
I think you’re right about them usually being BUILT by federal money though, although I know that in New York City, the city builds the bridges now. Probably wasnt that way when New York wasn’t the economic powerhouse it is today though.
LOL at panel 3. At first I thought she was throwing up a rooster tail of spray for cover, but she’s dunking those four blades in the water because they were ON FIRE in panel 1. Cripes, you just get your wings back and a symbiote-super ignites them!
To put it another way.
Suppose the Coast Guard detected a submarine they suspected of carrying drugs, or terrorists, or a big bomb, or kinder eggs or whatever (and they had the weapons to stop it), could they just sink it without warning? No.
Suppose they detected what looked like Russias new nuclear powered torpedo nuke speeding towards the US, and intelligence reports from other countries said that’s what it was (and they had weapons to stop it) could they shoot it without warning, even if doing so might endanger nearby civilians? Yes. But it wouldn’t be a military not law enforcement action. And if it turned out it was actually an experimental super submersible built by some eccentric billionaire for peaceful purposes, and their mega depth charges killed innocent divers in the area, they’d still be justified.
953, says Federal MILITARY police force.
The military/police aspect of Archon doesn’t seem perfectly analogous to anything in the real world, I’m not sure it would even be legal in the real world. The Coast Guard which can act both as law enforcement and military seemed like the best analogy.
Of course, the Coast Guard is not under the jurisdiction of the DoD.
Ahem…..Not currently but the Coast Guard shifts its flag in many cases to the DoD under war or wartime conditions. Furthermore when conducting blockade or interdiction operations there will usually be a Coast Guard attachment on board any applicable naval units to handle the legal aspects of interdiction and boarding.
This is just an info dump for clarity sake.
Actually, they bring up Posse Comitatus on or about that page. Though it’s pretty well been dead since 2004 anyhow.
IMHO:
Max is making several wrong/bad calls in a row here. However, these are both plausible and justifiable under the circumstances.
She should have warned Sciona before firing, but it is reasonable for her to think that Sciona knew who she was and was already actively evading pursuit by endangering innocents.
She should have tackled Sciona rather than shooting at her, but you shoot instead of tackle because the shot travels faster than you do, and leaves you at a range, where you are unlikely to get a sharp wing decapitation (Max is probably too tough to be hurt by them, but probably is not definitely).
Once the bridge is damaged, she should have assisted the civilians (and she did), but the stereotypically heroic thing to do would be to prioritize patching the bridge and allow Sciona to escape. Max took the ‘third option’ and trusted her teammates to handle the bridge. Not the call I would have made (a solo chase against an opponent that has just displayed heretofore unknown capabilities and an unknown number and variety of allies? No thanks.), but a justifiable one (a presumed attempted murderer and kidnapper with a WMD at her disposal is not someone you want to lose track of).
Her quick assessment of Sciona’s actions is self-serving but could have been intended as her honest assessment in the heat of the moment.
Hindsight being 20/20, she could be court-martialed for any of these decisions if any civilians are killed or hurt so badly that they refuse to simply settle out of court for a hefty sum.
Whether she *should* be is a YMMV question (if it went to a jury, as this comment section shows it could go either way), but I am going to guess that she is going to get a chewing out from a superior officer at least. Possibly some retraining or even temporarily restricted duties may be in order. If someone is killed, even a demotion may be on the table. However, I don’t foresee her suffering criminal penalties for this.
Max is not perfect. She is overconfident, violent, and a touch cold-hearted. And as a stand out member of an *ensemble*, I love her for all of those traits. She is no Superman, and from a narrative perspective, that is good.
Impractical given the range. There is no way Sciona could have heard her. Plus not required as Maxima had good reason to believe that Sciona was preparing to attack the bridge (given Sciona’s past history). This is perfectly normal for SWAT and armed response units around the world. If the officer believes that any delay will cause loss of life they are obliged to act immediately.
Incidentally, this is actually born out by the fact that Sciona was fast enough to deflect an energy attack. Meaning that, if she was not busy defending herself, she could have easily attacked the bridge. Max may be faster than a bullet, but Sciona has shown herself to be faster than cosmic energy!
You countered this one yourself pretty well. Plus an armed police officer, facing someone posing an imminent threat, and who is known to be deadly, is never required to forsake the use of the firearm. The stipulation of ‘imminent’ indicates that any delay would be expected to result in loss of live, be that the officer or innocent members of the public.
She could be subject to a courts martial, if the system is not working right, or if political or public pressure demands it. However she should be vindicated, as Maxima was making reasonable calls.
You end with a good conclusion.
Personally if I was in a city and there was some madwoman in possession of a WMD, and closing to attack range, I would be very happy to have the police make the same calls as Maxima did here! Likewise I would support such a call if serving as a member of a jury. Provided they could show that they had good reason to believe an attack was imminent.
My one point of disagreement here is conditional: Is Max fast enough to actually interpose herself befoe Sciona reached the bridge? If so, she absolutely could have warned her by closing to literal nose to nose range, and maybe even give her an Anvil-style nose boop (considering her super speed).
At the time, she had no idea that Sciona could deflect her blast at all, let alone in the presented time frame. It probably would not have had a positive outcome, knowing what we now know. But as others have pointed out, a lot depends (both legally and morally) on whether she was in “hero v villain” mode, “military v known terrorist” mode, or “cop v suspect” mode.
The most important aspect, regardless of acting in a military or policing role, is Maxima’s belief that the bridge was under attack. If anybody (even a civilian) has justifiable cause to believe that they are permitted to use lethal force in defence of peoples’ lives. And if there is no time to make a warning there is no requirement to do so.
We do not know Sciona’s maximum speed. Likely neither does Maxima. So she could not guarantee getting there before an attack took place. Importantly though Maxima is not always faster than a speeding bullet, nor is she always tough enough to stop a tank shell with her nose. Rather she has to choose which aspect to boost.
To stand any reasonable chance of interposing herself, in front of a supersonic target, racing to get ahead of her, I would say that requires dumping a lot of her variable power pool into boosting her speed. This is just a best guess mind, based on Maxima’s comments when timing Sydney’s flight speed.
From memory it sounded to me like Maxima was impressed with Sydney’s top speed, which implies that it was requiring Maxima to push herself noticeably beyond her default minimum flight speed. So not much to go on, but something. And we can see that Sciona is very much closer to the bridge.
Hence why I conclude that Maxima would have to dump a significant amount of her variable power (or even all of it) just in flight speed. Meaning that she would have to lower her defences proportionately (or all the way to her minimums).
Hovering in front of a super villain, armed with an apocalyptic device, whilst having reduced (or minimal) defences is an extremely good way to die. Especially if making a challenge and allowing time for a response or surrender.
Nobody, be that police or military, are expected to expose themselves needlessly to death. The requirement to give a warning is only for when there is time to spare, or the officer does not expect an imminent attack.
Maxima did exactly what a regular SWAT sniper would do in the same situation. Shoot to kill.
Just so. We even have the author’s blog confirming that nobody, including Sciona herself suspected that she had that power. So shooting was a tactically sound decision, regardless of how badly it turned out.
Honestly, the only questionable thing is Max saying Sciona hit the bridge and that’s a valid legal tactic so no foul there.
If you’re a cop or military, you don’t admit guilt over the radio because that will be used against you in a hearing. Even if it was your disintegrator beam that deflected off the bad girl and punched a hole through the bridge, you don’t preemptively admit any wrongdoing on your part. That’s why police say “Shots fired” and NOT “I shot someone.” Even if the shooting is justified, you’re setting yourself up for a long fall with a pre-emptive admission.
+1
Albeit true of litigious American society. Although not all countries use such principles. For example Japanese are traditionally brought up to respect admitting when guilty (obviously though this will be eroded where Western principles contaminate their society).
As I understand it they have far less of a burden on their legal system, as a result. Instead of a culture where you are expected to deny guilt, or refuse to answer any questions, and to appeal any decision that goes against you, even when guilty, they have it far simpler. “Are you guilty of the charges?” “Yes.” “OK lets move on to sentencing.”
I, and all repliers undersigned, do hereby with this thread petition DaveB to reveal to us Ariana’s face in reaction to hearing about the bridge’s destruction.
signed.
Signed!
So very, very signed.
Signed!
Signed!
Signed!
I also add a rider that we impeach Trump and replace him with the donkey that actually won
(reference Donkey Vote. it doesn’t really mean voting in a donkey, just sounds like it)
You mean the Donkey faced cow that was being investigated for war crimes? o_O
Could we possibly keep real life politics out of this thread? We have enough things that we can debate without getting more ugly.
Agreed :D
There’s something we can all agree on! :) :) :)
…. petitions don’t HAVE riders. You’re thinking of legislative bills.
And no, no changing the text of the petition after people have already signed it.
signed!
Signed!
*paw print of approval*
Secretly hoping that it will occur on a date with Suzy News though.
Laser wings can be set on fire. Interesting to know . . .
Interesting. You are not the only person assuming that they are ‘laser’ or ‘light’ in nature. Given that they do not glow (yet we see plenty of things in the comic which do, most notably Halo’s orbs) and can chop down physical things (note chop not burn) I find it a strange conclusion to come to.
The best support for the idea would appear to be their translucent nature. Yet they are actually significantly more opaque than many species of insects with gossamer wings.
Well, for one, lasers cut things. And two, well, the colouring damn well makes it look like they’re glowing. She’s in a fairly dim lighting, look at the water, yet they’re a bright blue.
(Hums the MST3K theme to himself)
I gotta agree with Pander on all this. being an officer entails being held to a higher standard. and Arc’s charter is to protect the public from hyper threats, which she just became by doing what she did. On the other hand, I don’t think she’ll get much more than an ass chewing from the brass. she’s too great of an asset and really how do you contain and punish someone that powerful?
I’m sure they could find a way to punish and contain her, given how they’ve been able to hold others like Vehemence as well. But even if they do, I do agree that they’d probably just throw money at it to make the problem go away, as well as a private verbal lambasting and major public spin given how how Maxima is a rather major asset.
My main point in any of my posts is that legally, she’s at fault. All the excuses people have made are NOT excuses based on how the law works.
Not sure why my post was done twice.
I’m sure they could find a way to punish and contain her, given how they’ve been able to hold others like Vehemence as well. But even if they do, I do agree that they’d probably just throw money at it to make the problem go away, as well as a private verbal lambasting and major public spin given how how Maxima is a rather major asset.
My main point in any of my posts is that legally, she’s at fault. All the excuses people have made are NOT excuses based on how the law works.
Well, Maxima has no special defense against magical or mental effects.
So they would probably just have one of those people put her in a coma.
Well no defense against mental effects at least. We don’t know about magical effects. She seemed to do fine against that guardian. You’re probably right though – since she did admit that the weakness field did affect her – but her power levels are so insanely high that even a ‘weakened’ Maxima was able to take it apart like nothing.
Why everyone else was debating whether or not Max has serious judgment issues, I keep looking at that first panel and going, “Hey lookit that Sciona’s nipples glow when her wings are on fire.” Yeah I know its just the weird Tron glowy bits one her suit and the angle presented and alla that…but it still looks like nipples of grand arousal too me. Apparently Max shoots cosmic napalm since its a fire that can stick to whings made of “light” or something.
It’s good that you’re focused on the big picture.
Someone has to keep track of these things :D
It may not be napalm, the wings could just be flammable. Whilst we do not know what they are made of, they regrew with the rest of Sciona’s body, when she used the artefact. So it seems likely that they are organic, being a part of her body.
For example dragonflies have similarly exotic wings (albeit clearly not of the same sort). Regardless of their form the wings must have some magical assistance, in order to support Sciona’s weight, to fly at supersonic speeds, to chop down pillars and deflect energy attacks.
… Who knew Sciona incorporated Titanium as part of her light wings?…
Judging by what happened to the very thick metal on the bridge, mere titanium would have melted like butter. I have watched a video of a titanium weapon being forged in a regular blacksmiths forge. So, whilst it is better than wrought iron, or steel, it is not the ‘whole new ballpark’ that would be needed to resist Maxima’s attack.
I’m confused about where you’ve gotten that her wings cut through titanium like butter. I’m not saying they might be able to, but it doesn’t mesh with what we’ve seen it do so far. The hardest thing she’s been able to break with it so far was marble, not steel or titanium. And I believe that when she did so with the pedestal, it wasn’t instant. It took a few seconds for her to build up the pressure to break the pedestal. She didn’t just slice through it.
Please show me where she did though. The only time I’ve seen her slice through something was her hair, and through Vale’s ‘casing’ – which doesn’t seem to be made of steel or titanium either.
You are misunderstanding. Timothy Frierson is alluding to one of titanium’s most notable properties. Namely being heat resistant. Inspired by Sciona being able to bounce Maxima’s energy attack, without melting.
However titanium is only relatively heat resistant, as opposed to being invulnerable to it. Hence why I was talking about being able to forge it without some kind of specialist foundry. So if Sciona did have titanium wings, Maxima’s attack would have melted them instantly (just as with the bridge pillar).
I’m still not sure why we’re talking about titanium. Sciona’s wings seem to be more like an energy construct than any specific metal. And energy, magnetic fields, etc, can repel incredibly hot temperatures, including plasma.
Unless you mean that Timothy is saying Sciona’s wings are like titanium, in which case no – they’re like a force field or solidified light (a la Star Trek TNG/ Luminus from Superman TAS).
…you both missed the point- one of Titanium’s properties is that it is considered unextinguisable once ignited – so if it were true, Sciona would still be trying to put them out(and slowed way down) when Max caught up to her-I failed to express a mild scientific joke…
:-D
I did not know that property. Err sounds kinda weird, given that video clip showing one being forged in fire. But I guess that being hot enough to melt is not the same as being on fire.
I wonder if they knew that property going into making those items? As professional metal workers, with a good grounding in the scientific principles of their job, I guess so.
Personally I would have had serious qualms about setting off an unquenchable fire!
Mind you traditional weapon-smiths are so used to being around fire (they quench in oil, which usually burns) and 1,000 degree + molten metals, that they are pretty blase about it.
*wags tail in amusement*
…the ignition temp is stupidly high(@3600F+and I think I’m low). The only reason I remember it is because it showed up in Iron Man comics-Tony won because he ignited Titanium Man’s suit- years later found out it could burn irl…
Ahh thanks for the info. That explains it nicely.
And it’s used in fireworks, makes a very nice addition to flame work.
https://www.skylighter.com/fireworks/how-to-make/Fireworks-Fountains-Gerbs.asp
I’m not a chemist so I’ll take your word on that :) That’s something I did not know about titanium. Although i don’t know most things about titanium except stealth fighters are made from them, and there was a good song called Titanium.
Thought that that was magnesium…
Any burning metal would be hard to extinguish. Magnesium is very different to titanium though because it requires a very low temperature to burn. So is highly flammable to even regular fire sources.
Nastily (once ignited) it can even continue to burn underwater! So cannot be put out by water based fire extinguishers. Even worse various other types of fire extinguishers (such as carbon dioxide) will not work either. Smothering it under a fire blanket and/or a bucket of sand is typically the only option available.
It has though been used in fireworks, flares and incendiary rounds.
And fairly sure it is used for underwater welding (have seen clips of welding torches with flames at the bottom of oceans)
I thought that the only thing that can weld underwater was thermite.
Again, not a chemist. Took one year of it, and only use it for when doing patent law cases. My knowledge of stuff like thermite and the instability of magnesium comes only from TV shows like Burn Notice and Mythbusters.
Magnesium flares may be used underwater, as a light source, but not for welding. Thermite is indeed used for underwater welding. There are other methods available too though, namely oxy-hydrogen welding and using electrical arcs in hyperbaric welding.
It’s good to know that my watching Burn Notice has provided me with relevant information.
Forging a titanium sword. The Daywalker, Blade’s weapon no less!
*sigh* lost a long post so I’m just gonna shorten it.
I would absolutely LOVE to be the one who had to conduct Max’s after-action or at least be a fly on the wall at it…..sooooo many questions.
Heh. Yea, getting into her mind would be interesting.
By the way any time you loose a post you may be able to retrieve it (if using google chrome or if other browsers have similar recovery options). Just make sure that you do not do anything else in the meanwhile.
One of the most common ways to loose a post is to submit it whilst there is lag. If the server does not receive the info you end up on the next screen with a message that ‘server did not respond’ or some such prompt. This is solved by waiting if you are seeing any signs of the lag persisting (usually the ‘page loading’ symbol gives the clue). Once it has settled down, hit the back arrow.
Typically you will find yourself back with a reply box, and your text still in it. Be cautious though. If you had made a reply (rather than posting a new comment), the box you are seeing may not actually be a reply box, it could be the new comment box. If so just copy your post, find the relevant comment and hit the reply button there, before posting it in.
I have even been able to do this when Chrome crashed and had to be restarted. Again I was careful to let it fully load, which took me straight into the Grrl Power page (I always use the ‘restore last pages used’ option for Chrome), with the text all still there! I know from bitter experience though that if you change the active tab, or click on a different page number, in the comic, this will be lost.
Ats-a one spicy meatball!
What a liar. Maxima hit the bridge and then said it was Sciona. Just like a cop.
Maybe she’ll plant some coke on her, too, just before she brings her in.
Not quite. Rather Maxima is stretching the truth. If Sciona had been a decent sport she would have let Maxima kill her. Rather she deflected the attack, which went towards the bridge. Maxima did not do that, so it is reasonable to say that Sciona hit the bridge. Albeit missing out Maxima’s contribution.
You are assuming Max is planning on letting the only witness to the truth live
If Maxima was playing this scenario as a character in Sydney’s gaming group, her initial shot against Sciona would definitely count as rolling a ‘1’.
No it hit it’s target; it’s just that Sciona rolled high on defense :)
If that bridge falls, Max is a murderer. Ha ha.
Still better than Batman though.
Interesting to note that not only are Sciona’s wings FLAMMABLE, but she also considers her wings being on fire a dangerous situation.
Not a murderer. Involuntary manslaughter.
No but Maxima would fail her mission if she didn’t stop Sciona, especialy if she couldn’t stop the superpowered mass murderer from killing even more people.
Yeah screw those innocent civilians who she just put into a deadly situation!
That’s sarcasm. I’m being sarcastic.
Yes it’s unfortunate that you can’t save everyone and have the perfect ideal sollution to a dangerous situation. Life is unfair.
I am not being sarcastic.
If you consider civilians to be okay as collateral damage, then I hope you never go into law enforcement, because you’d be an awful cop, and probably be in jail within a year.
Okay? No.
Necessary to save even more people in the long run? Yes.
Thats the sort of playing with people’s lives that will get you put in prison as a police officer, or at the very least thrown out of the job and sued.
Case in point, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
“Playing with peoples lives” Implies planning such a situation to occur before hand.
Which isn’t what I’m suggesting or what Max did.
Fact of the matter is that some individuals will without a doubt cause even more damage if pursuit is given up.
So you’re NOT going to respond to my post, I see.
Maxima’s primary duty is to protect civilians. Especially given she put those civilians directly in IMMEDIATE danger of dying. I gave a real life example of how, when police do something to try to deal with a future threat, instead of the immediate threat (the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting), the cop risks being arrested and definitely gets fired and in massive trouble… and you ignored it. Like you’ve ignored many of the things I’ve said :/
You are saying that letting a few hundred die NOW, because there’s a POSSIBLE risk of people dying in the future is acceptable. It’s not. It’s irresponsible and immoral. And against RL protocols for law enforcement. Remember, it’s ‘to protect and serve’ – not ‘to protect and serve unless there’s something that might happen in the future.’ This isnt even like a war strategy, like the whole ‘Churchill and Coventry’ conspiracy theory.
What are you claiming Churchill did with Coventry?
*suspicious look*
*rubs temples*
I’m not claiming anything. It’s an EXTREMELY well known conspiracy theory from World War 2.
The Coventry Blitz conspiracy.
The story goes like this. The Germans had a code which they believed could not be broken by the Allies. However, the Allies had actually broken the code, called the ‘Enigma code.’ The story continues that, in order to keep the Germans in ignorance of our having broken their “Enigma” code, Churchill and his commanders deliberately “sacrificed” Coventry to the Luftwaffe’s bombers, rather than evacuate the city, which would have let the Germans know that the Enigma code had been broken.
There’s a similar conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor, although it’s far less credible.
Both conspiracy theories operate on the flawed idea that it’s better to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians (although with Pearl Harbot it was primarily off-duty military as well) in order to get a different future objective accomplished.
“Maxima’s primary duty is to protect civilians.”
She’s protecting more of them now by stopping the terrorist with magical WMDs.
And like I said before; It’s not a “maybe”.
Both Archon and the Council have every reason to believe that Sciona will use the artifacts to hurt countless more people.
No she’s not. Future possible danger vs immediate imminent real danger. Especially since you have backup who can handle the future possible danger while you clean up the immediate, imminent danger for which you are more qualified than anyone else to do (plus caused).
1)How is Sciona any less imminent than the bridge?
2)Hiro, Dabbler, and Sydney would actually be far better at securing that bridge in a more stable fashion.
Rather than Max trying to give the cables an impromptu welding job.
1) Because Sciona is not CURRENTLY doing something which is about to get people killed. The bridge collapsing IS something that is currently happening that will get people killed. That’s the definition of IMMINENT.
Imminent peril, or imminent danger – danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent.
That wouldn’t be Sciona,because frankly they still don’t know what her plans are yet. They DO know that the bridge collapsing will kill people immediately.
“2)Hiro, Dabbler, and Sydney would actually be far better at securing that bridge in a more stable fashion.”
No they will not. Sydney can only lift up to 16 tons, Hiro does not have even close to Maxima’s superspeed to rescue the people from the bridge in the time it would take for Maxima to do it in mere seconds. Maxima can do anything that those three can do, in relation to saving people from the bridge, faster and better. Merely pursuing Sciona, on the other hand, just requires speed alone, which Halo has, and Dabbler can track her.
Maxima can literally remove all the civilians from the bridge before it collapses, preventing any deaths.
1)Based on what the Council knows and has told Archon?
She’s gonna make another grab for world domination.
2)That is not how Max’s super-speed works.
She isn’t the Flash, her resistance/immunity to traveling at such ridiculous speeds does not extend to the people or things she carries.
***
The amount of speed required to rapidly move every car off the bridge would kill most passengers.
And I’m decently sure that Max physically cannot give the bridge anymore than a quick patch job with her powerset.
This is a problem that requires multiple teammates with powersets other than “fast, strong, and blast” to address and properly save.
The legal term “imminent” isn’t the same as ‘currently’ or ‘immediate’ it just means that the threat is there and will continue to be there if nothing is done it doesn’t require her to have specific immediate plans to hurt people just that she’s hurt a lot of people in the past and that there’s evidence that she will again.
Sciona is an imminent threat to lots of people if she escapes.
Oh noes, you have raised a point where you require me to say that Pander is right.
*cries*
The power will go to her head! Quick, hide the lightning generator remote control, before she goes all megalomaniac on us!
If you check out Dabbler’s Science Corner #1, you will see that Maxima’s force field extends out to encompass things that she picks up, which specifically* enhances the object (or person’s) structural integrity. Engineer/scientist speak for ‘it will make them tough enough to survive being picked up in ways that would normally snap them in half’.
From which we can deduce (using pretty standard logic of how things work in super settings) that the same would also extend to saving a falling victim. So long as Maxima can lay hands on them, they will not break their neck from being abruptly stopped.
Likewise they will not suffer abuse from being whizzed around with right-angled turns at supersonic speed. If she lets one slip mind you, they will be a pancake. And if any hits a bit of debris, they will be ripped to shreds. So it would not be risk free. But her perceptions and reactions speed up to allow her to disarm grenades in mid flight. So Maxima should be similarly capable .
Regarding the rest of the debate, I have covered most of the stuff I would say, elsewhere, so will not interfere here.
But you is fighting well! If you are quick you might find a remote control button with a shocker built into it, at a joke shop!
* And after lengthy debate with she-who-must-not-be-encouraged and Guesticus I concede only structurally, but not protecting versus incoming attacks.
“Oh noes, you have raised a point where you require me to say that Pander is right.”
I have screen captured this, printed it out on glossy paper, and framed it for my office wall.
“The power will go to her head! Quick, hide the lightning generator remote control, before she goes all megalomaniac on us!”
Too late.
“And after lengthy debate with she-who-must-not-be-encouraged and Guesticus I concede only structurally, but not protecting versus incoming attacks.”
Just join me, Yorp, and we can rule the galaxy together.
Lol. A lot.
It would be fun. A lot of work though.
“It would be fun. A lot of work though.”
No, it would be easy. We would bury our enemies in posts and watch them suffocate.
Was it wrong that I visualised the hollow pillars, in the Dark Reliquary, when initially reading that?
It’s not that Max can’t save everyone, it’s that Max would actually be personally responsible for their deaths.
Now where is the evidence that Sciona intended to damage the bridge? Or could before Max was up close and personal?
Sciona is nothing to be alone in a dark alley with, but her strength is only Inhuman or Monstrous, not Godly [to mis?use terms from a supers game I never played]. When she gets kicked out of Deux’ office, she ends up dazed. His guard girl treats her with contempt. Nor do her other scenes show bridge-busting strength. Maybe if she had an hour or so…
And a bridge has other uses, including evasion. It is, of course, more of a movie cliche that high walls are for missing by inches, but dodging around them still has to be tempting. More practical, any time Sciona gets out of direct sight, she has a chance to lose her tail.
Sciona can’t destroy the bridge, and wasn’t trying.
try to recall that Vale is obviously much more than she appears even as a super. we don’t know if her wings behave as a monofilament edge on bridge materials as well as Cooter, and using the bridge as cover seems unlikely given the nature of the chase. assuming she can’t destroy the bridge seems flawed given the size of the hole she made getting kicked out of Deus’ office or slicing the marble column in the office
Overestimating your foe can be as bad, or worse, than underestimating. And there is a serious danger here of overestimating. She is a figure out of legend and most everybody has forgotten what defeated her last time. So there is panic.
But we have seen Vale in action, and talking in bridge-destroying terms, she does not impress. She is kicked out of Deux’ office, and is stunned/dazed when she lands on the copter pad. She damages it, and is damaged by it. Now she seems to have better defense than offense, but using enough power to take out the bridge fast enough to distract her pursuer would likely knock her out cold. A medium Max attack hurts her and puts her into complete flight. In the vault, she has to plan her way in, not blast, and use bothersome protection. In combat she may be well above Cooter and such, but she is very much limited.
What makes Sciona scary is that she has had a thousand? years to prepare an army and other tactics. Her own powers may be considerable, but they are trivial compared with what she may have stocked up.
Now the bridge is not ideal cover, but anything that gets her out of sight even briefly can allow evasion. [One magician trick is to toss an orange into the air about a dozen times, then stare in shock on the 13th time as the orange has “vanished in mid-air”. The entire audience will swear they “saw” the magician toss it the 13th time, but mind and eye get lazy, and just assume the magician tossed it, instead of palming it. So when Sciona goes under the bridge, Max will “see” her come out the other side. That will not last long, but it could be enough time for a hard turn to left or right, dive into the water, change into a flight of bats, or … without Max noticing.]
And Sci-fright didn’t even cut the bridge supports as she flew past, which she easily could do, even while dousing four of her wings in the water, if that was her intent in the first place
You said it yourself she was dousing her wings in water. She was a little busy with the whole “I’m on fire” situation (remember the wings are part of her body, this is the same as if her hands were being burned).
Also she didn’t need to, she already damaged the bridge with Max’s shot.
She still had at least two more wings, if she can fly with four in the water, doubt she actually needs them for flight
I meant more mental limitations. If your one arm is on fire you’ll be focusing on putting that out not punching with the other one.
Pander:- just want to say, know exactly what you were feeling in your posts about Maxi, and trying to get through to the pMs
The sad, and somewhat annoying thing, is that no one seems to understand what a tort is here who’s arguing to vehemently with me, despite my having explained it multiple times, not only here, but in past strips.
Another annoying thing is how they start using personal insults and things that have not happened in the comic to justify their stances.
Another annoying thing is I actually like Maxima as a character (perfect people are boring characters), but I point out when things in the strip do not meet with how the law works, when character do things which would get them in trouble with the law (usually torts, although sometimes criminal), and I point out where characters in the strip would be protected BY the law. It’s like they feel that I have violated their religion by pointing out that a beloved character did something wrong, and they will eschew the law to defend them. Or more scary, that they might actually believe what they’re saying is how the law is supposed to work in real life.
And people really don’t seem to understand legal terms like recklessness and negligence as it applies to a tort. Seriously wondering about just scanning some pages from my law books from school if I can find them in my storage unit. Maybe a Barron’s short primer on Tort Law.
Again, join the club! Been facing personal insults for months, on almost every comic page, mostly that is the only comment, nothing about what was being discussed, just a personal insult and attack towards me (with more than a few defending and justifying the attack because it was aimed at me)
As for the using ‘things that have not happened in the comic to justify their stance’? Sorry, butt you have done that as well yourself, using things that have either not happened at all in comic, or simply not happened on that particular page
Heh, hadn’t read the first page of these comments when making that post
I really haven’t. I always use the law in my reasoning, and things that specifically happen in the comic, rather than making rampant speculation.
Thanks for the solidarity on this though.
Maybe if you didn’t literally start your arguments with broad insults to everyone who might disagree with you you’d get less insults back.
Gusticus has been making good progress on resisting the temptation. But does lapse at times, so fair points, if over-exaggerated.
It is worth mentioning though that aggressive or rude comments will always stick out in the memory more. So will drastically inflate the impression of how many negative are made.
Mike, I’ve had many arguments with Guesticus, and far as I can recall, he hasnt started any of her arguments to me with broad insults. Plus even if he did, it would take a lot for me to insult back. That being said, I never have had to worry about that with Guesticus – he insults Deus (the true hero of the comic), not me personally. And it’s a bit annoying when I see people insulting Guesticus with personal attacks just because of a disagreement in what’s being said (same goes for personal attacks against me, but I argue for a living and it takes more than personal insults to shut me up).
Speaking of Ad Hominem attacks…
That was literally not an ad hominem attack at all. He wasn’t responding to anyone else’s argument, do not an attack of any sort, for one thing. For another, he wasn’t attacking anyone else’s character, so not ad hominem either.
do not=so not
Saying (ok fine implying) that everyone who disagrees with him has PMS is kinda ad hominem. Once I’d give him lea-way for wordplay but he does it repeatedly.
Ah, superhero triage… kept calling it murder when i did it.
:-D
That’s because you kept using the patients’ own intestines as a tourniquet, including the one who simple had a stubbed toe!
Interesting news about data storage. Previously I have only seen basic proof of concept. Whereas that is significantly matured development, albeit years off being market ready.
Now all we need to do is keep an eye open for something like a piece of amber, marked with an easily recognised image, to indicate that it is a DNA data store. Then figure out how to translate that, hopefully with mathematical clues associated with the image, into data we can read on a computer.
Despite their claims (based on human life scales) we know that DNA does degrade over geological time. So a lot of patching up might be needed. Hopefully there will be redundant files though so that losses in one can be replaced with good copies in another.
Then we will have access to all the dinosaur internet!
More dino porn than you can imagine!
I don’t know….I can imagine a lot…..
I actually heard about this years ago, although I remember it being with protein-based memory storage instead of DNA. I think it was called a Kromm drive or something. This was years ago that I heard about this, back in college or high school though. But I think a couple of years ago they did create something like that at harvard, where they were able to store about 700 terabytes of data on a gram of DNA by converting binary to TGAC bases.
I also think they got the idea from an episode of Bablyon 5 in which they did something similar :)
From the unclass ROE for US forces.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/OLH_2015_Ch5.pdf
1. Enclosure A (Standing Rules of Engagement). This unclassified enclosure details the general
purpose, intent, and scope of the SROE, emphasizing a commander’s right and obligation to use force in selfdefense.
Critical principles, such as unit, individual, national, and collective self-defense, hostile act and intent, and the determination to declare forces hostile are addressed as foundational elements of all ROE. [NOTE: The unclassified portions of the SROE, including Enclosure A without its appendices, are reprinted as Appendix A to
this Chapter.]
– – – – –
(2) National Self-Defense. The act of defending the United States, U.S. forces, and in certain
circumstances, U.S. citizens and their property and/or U.S. commercial assets, from a hostile act, demonstrated hostile intent, or declared hostile force.
– – – – –
b. Declared Hostile Force (DHF). Any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist that has
been declared hostile by appropriate U.S. authority. Once a force is declared “hostile,” U.S. units may engage that force without observing a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent; i.e., the basis for engagement shifts from conduct to status. Once a force or individual is identified as a DHF, the force or individual may be engaged, unless surrendering or hors de combat due to sickness or wounds. The authority to declare a force hostile is limited, and may be found at Appendix A to Enclosure A, paragraph 3 of the SROE.
c. Hostile Act. An attack or other use of force against the United States, U.S. forces, or other
designated persons or property. It also includes force used directly to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of U.S. forces, including the recovery of U.S. personnel or vital U.S. government property.
d. Hostile Intent. The threat of imminent use of force against the United States, U.S. forces, or
other designated persons or property. It also includes the threat of force to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of U.S. forces, including the recovery of U.S. personnel or vital U.S. government property.
e. Imminent Use of Force. The determination of whether the use of force against U.S. forces is
imminent will be based on an assessment of all facts and circumstances known to U.S. forces at the time and may be
made at any level. Imminent does not necessarily mean immediate or instantaneous.
3. Actions in Self-Defense. Upon commission of a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent, U.S.
forces may use all necessary means available and all appropriate actions in self-defense. If time and circumstances permit, forces should attempt to deescalate the situation, but de-escalation is not required. When U.S. personnel respond to a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent, the force used in self-defense must be proportional. Force used may exceed that of the hostile act or hostile intent, but the nature, duration, and scope of force should not exceed what is required to respond decisively.
– – – –
From appendix A.
b. National Self-Defense. Defense of the United States, U.S. forces, and, in certain circumstances,
U.S. persons and their property, and/or U.S. commercial assets from a hostile act or demonstration of
hostile intent. Unit commanders may exercise National Self-Defense, as authorized in Appendix A to
Enclosure A, paragraph 3.
– – – –
Ok, it’s a different world, yes, but those are OUR rules.
Thanks. I thought there would be rules of engagement which covered airliners being used as weapons. They might not have included ‘civilian’ in there prior to 911, but it would be remiss of them not to update it after that.
“Sciona hit the bridge as a diversion!”
Wow, Maxima. Way to “I feared for my life from the scary, unarmed black man and was forced to shoot him” the situation. It is apparent that being a crooked cop unwilling to take the slightest responsibility for your own errors goes without interruption from local Podunk deputy all the way up to Archon’s field lead without any change in methods.
Sciona didn’t hit the bridge, you did.
And really? Applying a bandage and counting on others to clean up your messes at the risk of a high number of civilian casualties? In a comic where actions have consequences there would be 20+ deaths when the bridge collapsed right after Maxima flew on knowing that this danger was both real and imminent, and the forensics would show conclusively that the damage was caused by Maxima. But I’m sure that things will go just peachy for Maxima, because ignoring risks to civilians, or even actively causing those risks, only very rarely has any negative consequences for law enforcement.
Max is speaking under emergency conditions, and can’t be held to precise truth here. She had already made the assumption [see old joke] that Sciona was about to attack the bridge as a diversion, so assuming she had is not that unreasonable. Now when she writes out the official report, she can be reamed for repeating the error, but for now, she is well in the forgivable error range.
+1
OK, enough of the heavy debating, for me. It is fun that the comic shows the grey complexities that could occur if villains really did have super powers (or their equivalent). Plus the fact that Dave manages to put his dividing line so well through the grey areas between ‘this is OK’ versus ‘this is unacceptable’ does stimulate interesting debate.
But only up until the point that my head hurts, then I need a break. So here is a super hero related good news story.
I especially like the fact that Marvel have been decent and allowed production of distinctive character limbs royalty free. Well, over and above the fact that people who could not afford limbs before will now be able to get them. And be proud to have their limb match that of a super hero!
I hope we get to see more of Peggy’s collection. I am sure she will have some inspiring ones in there herself.
Heh, like how she said that IronMan was a Disney character :D
Max should have just flew around the world backwards to reverse time.
Oh man, I was cringing at the memory of that the other day, when all the debating about Superman movies was going on. Even though I am not a Super Man fan, I enjoyed watching the movies. But …
….
Psst. This is me doing speechless – I thought I had better explain that, I don’t think people believe I could do such.
Darn it! I just failed again, didn’t I?
It does seem odd that Max would blame Sciona for the bridge when they were both at fault. It might have been just as easy and more truthful to say that she engaged the target but a nearby bridge was damaged. That would have saved the issue of who was responsible for a later time.
Also reminds me of the lecture Max once gave Sydney about not attacking if there is a chance for innocents being injured. Guess Max broke her own rule.
That’s Max made sure to aim downwards at Sciona while she was still several dozen yards away from, and several hundred under, the bridge: So even if Sciona had dodged the blast would do nothing but cause a large geyser of steam and water.(Dave already confirmed that neither thought Sciona could deflect the blast.)
Is it really that difficult to understand what pander has been saying here?
Because for the most part pander is fairly clear and concise with her discussions and has only stated facts as they are, which some people seem to have issues with apparently.
Personally i was considering not commenting because arguing with people is excruciatingly exhausting for me but seeing pander having to repeat herself time and time again only for people to either ignore or argue around what she has said really pisses me off.
You can argue all you want about what you think and believe but you don’t need to be an asshole about it ok?
It is to me. She’s saying Max is being reckless despite the evidence not backing that up.
I’ve literally done nothing BUT provide evidence to back it up in excruciating detail.
Seeing ALOT of discussion about acceptable force, decisions in the heat of action, other options.
and I thought, hmm, what COULD she have done differently with the information she had on hand, most things about Sciona are unknown factors for her, and no information to reason what could happen. Other than dangerous individual who seems to have used lethal intent on secret government body and its enforcers *those golems were packed with lethal weaknesses to various supernatural creatures*, with possibly high defensive stats.
I am left with nothing, so I ask my own characters. If you were in pursuit of this individual with the information Maxima had what would you do?
Rhulan: Fire a bolt of something…let’s see, electric, wind, darkness, not fire too slow, hmm, plasma
-which of those do you think she can’t deflect?
Rhulan: She can deflect? Wait..you said information this character had…did she have that information?
-No
Rhulan: Well then neither do I? But let’s say I do now…what all can she deflect?
-I don’t know
Rhulan: You…don’t know? Right not your character, you know nothing about them, other than they deflected…*looks at comic*…an explosive plasma bolt? Huh…and if she could deflect even partially something with more penetration than that…from me; well those people on the bridge would most certainly be dead. So my only sure kill, is overkill, seems with what she had and could do this Maxima made the best choice she could under these circumstances with what she knew and her experiences. So a learning experience.
-Huh should I ask someone else? Hey Shara what would you do?
Shara: Kill everyone.
-Wait…do you know the scenario?
Shara: What scenario?
-Oh…right, you’re not a good guy.
:)
It seems to me that what we actually have at the moment is Schrodinger’s Max.
She is currently actually both right and wrong at this time.
Her plasma missile may not have been the right choice but even with the lack of proper procedure….it IS justifiable.
The key thing is actually her “patch job”. Unless Dave has been holding out (or I’ve missed something…wouldn’t be the first time)….Max has NO FREAKIN’ CLUE how long that patch will hold. She is not an engineer. So right now she is in “quantum flux” as it were(not a physicist!). If the patch holds long enough for the Halo bubble to get there and clear everyone…..she’s right to go after Sciona.
The after action and the pr sports might quibble….the government might have to shell out damages….but it’ll mostly be a shit happens scenario. On the other hand if the Bubble does NOT get there in time….she dun screwed the pooch most fouly sun. And thats even IF she catches Sciona.
Granted legalisms and ROE might be more clearly spelled out in the first case……but honestly the worst thing that might happen is they find a another Super to take command(I wouldn’t bet on that). Maybe a letter in her file(more likely).
The loss of life though….ehhh those actions would be a minimum taken(and then it would probably be because they don’t want to poke the nuke).
I am assuming however that Dave plans to have no kittens die in the making of this strip….but those poor poor souffles. You shall be joined in memory with the Brave Elephant Volunteers of Hannibal’s Army.
Elephants Never Forget!
The captain hindsight affect.
If what I did was questionable but worked out in the end, it was the right thing to do.
If what I did was questionable but didn’t work out in the end, it was the wrong thing to do.
They seem mutually distinct, yet they can be the same events, and a chaotic X-factor or a slight shift of events further down the line, can change one into the other.
Not really…..she still is technically wrong…..it just might(heh might) work out like she’s planned.
Its just her actual level of trouble will depend on if it’s just stupid…..
or if it’s stupid and it works.
If Maxima’s only consideration was the danger to the folks on the bridge, your arguments are fine. However Sciona is believed to be in possession of a number of weapons of mass destruction (which is an understatement as they are actually described as apocalyptic weapons).
Maxima is prioritising protecting the rest of the country and the whole world. Whilst doing her best to give the people on the bridge a chance to survive until the Halomobile gets there.
That is a wise call, when looking at the big picture.
The last time someone had those beliefs, we had two Gulf Wars that found zero WMD’s
Yup. And how many people got imprisoned for falsifying the intelligence reports, or knowingly acting on such?
When a nation believes that its national interests are endangered, it will willingly snuff out as many lives as is necessary, to preserve its people and their way of life. And laws are structured to facilitate that.
In this case though, do bear in mind that Sciona does have the Bane Ripper on her, so their intelligence is partially correct. And, should they capture Sciona, they could actually find out who has the rest of the mystical WMD, through interrogating or cutting a deal with her.
Unlike the real world situations you mentioned, Archon know that these WMD are real and at large.
Okay, ignoring the fact of what Maxi should or should not have done to stop Sci-fright based on the lies and mis-information she had been given (both by the Shadow League and SmugD), Maxi is completely and totally in the wrong about her actions on this page
-She blatantly lied about who was responsible for the bridge collapse (none of this bullfloppy about being pressed for time or other communication crap, if that was the case, then she simply need only say “The bridge has been hit, get here NOW!’)
-Instead of stopping and helping those that she put in immediate and definite harm, she rigged a quarter-arsed mess of cables to hold it together (that she figured would only last 30 seconds, or less)
-She took off after Sci-fright with the intent of ending her, not catching her
Agreed.
Disagreed. You and Pander view it one way. Maxima and I see it another. And various other folks strongly support one camp or the other. As such there is not a clear cut truth or lie. It is a matter of opinion. Maxima voiced her summation, in good faith. So it is not a lie.
Especially as Maxima knows that her energy attack does not ricochet. We have seen that it does not. It did not bounce around the indoor firing range, which has tons of hard surfaces. It just exploded. In testing it did not bounce off Sydney’s shield. It just exploded. Likewise against Budget Halo.
Yet Sciona turned around and parried it with her wings.
Then throw in the mathematical improbability of the deflected shot, just happening to go to the single most important spot, on the entire landscape, to cause the bridge to collapse, in an ideal way to delay pursuit!
Combined those are extremely good reasons for believing that Sciona was responsible for that.
Which she believes to be sufficient to allow the Alpha team to catch up. If she is a good commander, and has correctly estimated Sydney’s response time, and her jury rigged repairs are sufficient, that will allow those people to be saved.
Lots of “ifs”, I freely agree. However Maxima is balancing that against the risk to the entire world if Sciona gets to deploy a weapon of mass destruction! A tough call, but Maxima is correctly prioritising the risks here.
Her stated intent is that “I am not letting her get away!” Which does not corroborate your conclusion. Contrast that to what Maxima said previously:
This is clearly stating Maxima’s belief that Sciona is approaching the bridge with hostile intent. Thus (with her knowledge of Sciona’s history and the WMD she is believed to be carrying) justifying a lethal response.
Whereas her latest statement indicates that she is in pursuit of an escaping criminal, who she is not letting get away. Under normal circumstances, now that there is not an immediate threat to the people on the bridge, Maxima would be obliged, as a cop, to catch her alive. Which may well be her plan.
However there is another option that is open to her. She need merely declare that she considers Sciona to be a hostile threat to national security (on the grounds of believing her to be in possession of one or more weapons of mass destruction). In which case she switches from operating under police rules, to using the military ones.
And this is why they had to make sure that the comatose opossum was dead. To ensure that if the nation (or the world) is in danger, Archon personnel can use lethal means to protect it.
So yes, she may choose to kill Sciona. But would be doing so legally, if she made such a declaration, and activated the relevant rules of engagement (kindly provided above by PD).
I doubt that Maxima knows how every one of the items stolen from the Dark Reliquary are activated. But she does know that Sciona will only be able to do that if alive. So, if she chose to go down that route, she has justification.
Incidentally, Maxima can tell, just by eyeballing her, that Sciona cannot be carrying all the WMD from the Dark Reliquary. Even though she can be concealing several. So I do not think Maxima is likely to go for the kill option, now that lives are no longer immediately at risk. Rather attempting to capture Sciona would give the best chance to recover the remaining WMD, not on her.
However that line of though only applies whilst Maxima believes she can catch Sciona. If it looks like she has a way to escape, then see above for the lethal option available on national security grounds.
Likewise if Sciona engages Maxima and she feels that her life is endangered. At which point it simply becomes a matter of self defence.
Heh. It just struck me that there could be an interesting trial, at some point. With Sciona in the dock on the following charges:
1) The murder of Cooter.
2) The attempted murder of Wyrmil (or actual murder, if you consider that leaving him without his head and a means to stay alive independently still is murder).
3) The attempted murder of Wyrmcoot.
The court though would have a heck of a time deciding what to do with Wyrmcoot. He is there to testify as the first murder victim. Plus as the first attempted murder victim (/second murder). And as the final attempted murder victim. All well and good, such individual sit in the public gallery, until called.
Yet Wyrmil would also be there to answer for his part in the first murder. So should be facing charges himself. Either conspiracy to commit murder or accessory after the fact, for the same. So as a defendant he should be in the dock, next to Sciona. His murderess!
Yet this would infringe Cooter’s rights, as an innocent victim, to remain at liberty.
‘Victim’, sure, ‘Innocent’? Not on your water bowl!!
Well you know I don’t like Cooter. He deserves a good flogging for being crude to the ladies. Plus he clearly has unpleasant racial views. Sadly our society no longer finds flogging to be an acceptable way to encourage polite behaviour.
But, in the past, others have pointed out that all he wishes to do is seek retribution on monsters who killed his loved ones and threaten the same with other innocent people. Quite a number of legendary heroes have similar origin stories.
Sadly, he does not distinguish between ‘good monsters’ and ‘bad monsters’. Simply because he has not been exposed to any good ones or been taught that they exist. As such he can hardly be held accountable for that, at the present time.
It is unlikely that he has ever actually managed to harm any monsters,* given that we saw he is unable to see them. The Veil protects all supernaturals from him, so even standing in a room full of them he did not know it! So despite wishing to hunt monsters he has not had the opportunity to do so successfully (to the best of our knowledge).
Beyond that we have no evidence that he has done anything illegal. His only agreement, with Sciona, was to ‘hunt monsters’. Which is not actually against any laws.
So he is crude, racist, objectionable, but innocent. Unless proven otherwise, by evidence we have not yet seen.
* Or non-human people. But in that case, the word is probably appropriate, given how they all had no qualms with Cooter being murdered.
“It is unlikely that he has ever actually managed to harm any monsters,* given that we saw he is unable to see them. The Veil protects all supernaturals from him, so even standing in a room full of them he did not know it! So despite wishing to hunt monsters he has not had the opportunity to do so successfully (to the best of our knowledge).”
Unless his family being killed and any successful monster hunting on her behalf are because of problems with the Veil?
Just a guess. Might be wrong.
No, it was an interesting point and there must be something behind it, otherwise he would be unaware that his sister was killed by monsters.
Unless he is just nuts of course.
I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, he might be nuts.
Or just stupid. But I still am a fan of that lovable redneck.
“Your Honor I am just a simple interdimensional demon lawyer…..”
For all the talk about this, the publicity stunt at the bank was much worse. If Maxima got distracted at an inopportune time due to, say, a rogue fly passing too close, a loud car crash outside, the power suddenly cutting out, Sydney prematurely upchucking on her boots, random earthquakes or what have you, Sydney would be dead. Not for a vital mission, even. They put Sydney in the direct line of fire for politics.
Arianna really should have to sue herself for reckless endangerment.
Have they even filled Sydney in on that yet? If Harem wants to make up for the vegetarian gossip thing, that would help.
Fairly sure Sydney knows the bank thing was an Ari-stunt, and that both she (Sydney) and Maxi were set up (not that anyone could have anticipated Sydney being one of the attempted hostages, nor how she would react)
the bank was a setup. yes. nobody predicted Sydney. Sydney didn’t even predict Sydney. she was and to some degree still is using a chaos/crazy strategy with life. confuse them all about what you are doing then when it actually makes sense and was predicable… they still are surprised. when does she get her dose changed anyway? or did they? when was the last time we saw her at the comic shop? has she given that up? these are far more interesting questions at this point then some others I won’t name.
Mmm, Sydney is very smart. So I agree it is possible that she has figured it out. But I cannot think of anything which even hints that she may have.
It is not like Little Miss Bindi-gate is any good with concealing things she should be discreet about.
My point being:
-1: Achilles shot directly at Sydney
-2: Maxima let it happen just so she could show off
Any disruption to Maxima’s focus could have been lethal to a civilian in a situation that was 100% avoidable. Maybe 200% given that either of them could have prevented it.
ok, you made me go back to the beginning. and wow there’s a lot of pages before the bank robbery….
here’s an oldie but we need a return trip! or better yet- have some comment about how they altered the ventilation systems so Sydney can open her spices in the building. see following page too.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/192
here’s the page under discussion
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/253
(for those of you curious the comic starts on page 48)
hmm… given that the prior 6 pages or so are sydney completely shocking the room complete with an ill timed and really bad idea jump up. note that this happened AFTER sydney grabbed the guys tongue and threw him, and we later find out that that’s when Max figured out who they were. Max probably thought Achilies would not actually shoot until he did. now I agree that if it ever came to trial or something Ariana would be roasted alive publicly for this. as far as the grand standing I’m sure a lawyer could convince a jury of that, but really… the whole thing had gone south anyway before that.
Achilles was shooting at Sidney when he knew precisely what Max could, and pretty likely would, do. So he shot when he was sure Max was paying attention to him, giving her a warning just to make sure.
While we don’t know precisely when she knew the robbery was a fake, It is not unreasonable to think she knew right away [… for some stupid reason I have to go to the bank today, maybe for the first time in years, and a robbery happens while I am in line? Can you say suspicious?] Either way, she is alert and ready for a shooting, and the chance of being distracted at the critical moment is quite small. At some point we just accept tiny risks, even when they could be lethal. [Some of the military drill teams like to play around with tossed bayonets.]
I agree but also Ariana’s actions in setting up a fake bank robbery with live ammo is way more reckless than anything Max did.
Yup. Plus we should not over analyse the bank scene, in any event. It was when Dave was just starting out with comic making, and throwing in cool ideas for how to introduce characters in an exiting way.
Which worked. But it was before Dave realised that he was acquiring a huge following, and that literally every word, expression and other nuance would be picked over. Including the moral, legal and ethical considerations of every aspect.
Just to give you an idea of the scope, since the start of the previous comments page it has attracted over two and a half thousand comments*
So it is only after the bank robbery that he started to tighten up things to make them more realistic and robust (when such did not interfere with the comedy, most importantly, or the drama, to a lesser degree).
* Possibly just for that page, but probably including ones on this one too. I subtracted the comment number of the first post on comment page 1, from the most recent comment on the last comment page.
OK, that’s a fair point.
exiting = exciting
Gah, why can’t I train my claws to type that one right! Second time today I only spotted that after posting.
No max… you hit the bridge, naughty naughty.
It had it coming! Standing there with a big “please hit me” sign on it, just waiting for Sciona to come along and whack it!
I think there is another point of this situation that hasn’t been mentioned yet.
Maxima shot a ball of superheated plasma at a river.
We saw that that plasmablast was hot enough to vaporize concrete. I couldn’t find any data on the temperature at which concrete evaporates but since at least one components melts at over 1500°C I would be surprised if it was below 2000°C.
If something like that hit water it would vaporize it instantaneously.
The problem here is that gas need much more space that liquids. 1 mol liquid water is contained in 18 ml of volume, 1 mol of an ideal gas on the other hand occupies 22,4 L of volume. That is an increase by a factor of about 1250. Real water vapor at 100°C increases even more (about 1700 time) and at higher temperatures that number increases even more. So the result here would be what is known as a steam explosion.
Given the size of Maximas plasma ball and the fact that vaporizing several cubic meters of concrete (witch btw should have caused a “steam” explosion as well) didn’t noticably shrink it, the amount of thermal energy contained in must be enormous. If that hit the river it wouldn’t end with just a few cubic
meters (about 1000 l) of water evaporating. The preassure wave of that explosion would have cause more structural damage to the bridge than we have now.
Not to mention that water is an incompressible substance. If something explodes in the air the air compresses and the force of the blast gets dissipated relatively fast, that doesn’t happen unter water. That is the reason why a mountain falling into the ocean can devastate a city on the othe side of the globe, while the same thing on land wouldn’t be noticable a few hundred miles away.
In this case that would mean that the foundations of the bridge would be hit with the full brunt of the blast and likely just shatter.
So if the people on the bridge hadn’t been blown off from the shockwave, hadn’t been cooked alike by the hyperheated steam, the bridge hadn’t been destroyed by the explosion then they would have died when the bridge collapsed as both riversides caved in simutaneouly.
Since Sciona isn’t made from some magical infinitely energy absorbing material but organic matter that would have happened regardless of her dodging or not (since she would have been vaporized like the concrete). So actually Sciona saved all people on that bridge!
Maxima firing that plasma blast in that situation was more than recless it was plain stupid.
Even if the laws of nature in that universe are different in these regards, there is still the thing that she fired an ball of superheated material at an individual of unknown power and equipment. What if Sciona had some ability that made her stronger opon contact with heat? Or if that superweapon she holds interacts violently when heated? Hell, for all she knows Sciona could be carrying a bag of holding full of TNT.
In an unkown situation just throwing the equivalent of an burnig match into what could be an ammunition depot is never the right choice!
It is not super heated plasma. On his blog, on the previous comic page, the author reveals that it is ‘cosmic energy’. Water can be used to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation, if sufficiently deep. It reduces the risk of radiation damage, rather than increasing danger to them.
Maxima’s mittens is water! No her kittens are kryptonite. Hang on … let me start again …
Not going to argue about chemical reactions but when did DaveB ever say that her plasma blast was not plasma, but was cosmic energy? For one thing, cosmic energy is a very nebulous sounding, undefined term. For another, technically speaking, plasma might be considered ‘cosmic energy’ as well. We’re not talking the Power Cosmic from Marvel comics, after all.
Yorp I think you might be mis-remembering things again in order to support your argument. If you aren’t, and could show me where DaveB said that her plasma blasts were not plasma, but was cosmic energy, it would be much appreciated.
I already said, on the previous page, in his blog. However here are relevant extracts:
That doesn’t say that she uses cosmic beams. He’s just waxing philosophically there. I believe they’ve actually used the words ‘plasma blast’ in the comic itself.
Oh it certainly isn’t cannon. When I reread it I realised that I had overstated that (not to mention using ‘cosmic energy instead of cosmic rays’). But it is narrowing down the possibilities to ‘more likely being cosmic rays or cosmic particle beams than anything else in particular’.
Unless of course it is somewhere in the comic as ‘plasma blast’. You have a pretty good memory, so I will not discount that just because I cannot recall that at the moment.
Cosmic energy is easy to explain,
its transdimensional reactive force from another dimensional layor pulled into the physical dimension and localized based on the structure of the P-brane distortion field (which sub-dimension is being used to bridge to what other dimension and which others are being used for the force feedback if any), usually as super heated plasma and explosive kinetic beams….wait.