Grrl Power #758 – Dabbler(‘s non-terrestrial origin) revealed!
I think the press will ultimately have a bit more of a negative reaction to being lied to about Dabbler’s origin, but it was always the plan to come clean about it once existence of aliens was undeniable. It’s just happening waaaay sooner than anyone thought it would. I initially thought about having some of the press grumbling about it after Dabbler spills it on panel 4, but as usual, Suzie just rolls with it and cuts to the chase.
While these events unfolding the way they did aren’t Sydney’s fault, it definitely would have all gone down differently if she hadn’t been involved. Although, the Alari colony ship making its way to Earth would still have probably happened.
Hmm. Well, if the team hadn’t interfered with Sciona’s portal, she would have arrived on Alar before whatever those things were attacked. Sciona’s plan was to lead a force back through and begin a takeover of Earth. Though Sciona hadn’t planned on just launching an offensive. She was going to do it behind the scenes, so… honestly it’s hard to say if Sydney decelerated or accelerated the extra terrestrial reveal.
I’m still not sure about that green top for Dabbler. I tried a number of colors there, but purple skin with teal stripes does make certain color combinations difficult for her. A peach top actually looked pretty good, but it also kind of looked like she was nude and wearing purple opera gloves. And a bunch of purple makeup on her face I guess. Blue is usually a good solution for her, as long as it’s doesn’t match her hair color too closely, but with the blue drape in the back, and the sky blue UN flag behind her, nothing looked good besides a green that didn’t match her stripes, black, or red.
And yes, I know the US flag is hung wonky. People have said it’s supposed to be flipped around with the stars on the left side when it’s hung vertically, but that seems crazy to me. When it’s horizontal, the stars are at the top left, then if you rotate it 90° clockwise, it winds up how I have it. To put it the ‘right’ way, you have to first flip the horizontal flag left to right, then rotate it 90° counterclockwise. That makes no sense to me. It’s stuff like that which makes the world unnecessarily complicated.
I try not to get political with the comic, but dealing with military personnel and civilization shifting press conferences, it’s hard to at least not dip into that realm just a bit from time to time. I wasn’t sure how else to end this page, but I thought a gag about citizenship would be fitting. Someone in the press corps would definitely ask about it, so Dabbler preempted it. Of course, it’s not like she could be an illegal alien. The government knows she’s here. At the very least she’d have some sort of work visa, right?
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. 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.
I think I’ma have to start using the term “flamestream media”, it’s just so appropriately punny.
are you talking about the modern style of journalism called mission-driven reporting, churnalism, or urinalism?
The only time I’ve ever heard ‘urinalism’ has been when talking about game journalism by critics of modern video game journalists who don’t even know how to play the games that they’re reviewing, like that Cuphead one.
But it’s a funny jab :)
Yeah……..CNN would be more likely to go on a racist screed about her being an alien and not sharing her cool tech than Fox would to go on a xenophobic panic.
Agreed, some of the things the “progressive” left have been saying as of late are outright fascist.
And again, people completely ignore that FASCIST is, by definition, a right-wing ideology. I swear the Right doens’t understand half the words in the English language. They make it up as they go along.
Yeah if they want to claim that left wing groups are bad then use actual evidence and label things correctly. There are other bad ideologies besides fascism. If someone wants to point out a bad ideology on the left they should not stupidly use a name that they have no understanding of.
Only true if socialism is a part of the right wing ideology since Mussolini and Hitler were both representatives of socialist parties.
Hitler and Mussolini were the heads of fascist political parties and only the Nazi’s used “Socialist” in their name to be more palatable, Mussolini’s party was balls out named the “Republican Fascist Party”. The few socialist policies either group implemented were bread and circuses distractions while they consolidated power under their rule. Both the Nazi Party and the Republican Fascist Party were big on privatization, the selling of government assets to private interests, to the point that the word privatization was coined to describe what they were doing.
Bobs – The word “fascism” was Mussolini’s party designation. It wasn’t a philosophy before them, so there’s nothing surprising about the party name. Also nothing surprising about them using the word “republican”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with US politics in that case.
As far as “privatization”, there’s also a distinction between giving assets to individuals and selling them to publicly owned corporations (what happens here) where they will benefit the public in general. Or, in the opposite case of communism, keeping them in government hands but giving the benefits to the well-connected party members.
Likewise, the national socialist party was a populist socialist party, and much of their platform had to do with confiscating wealth from “rich” Jews who didn’t deserve it (for reasons) to give to the German people… plain old socialism…. tax the other guy somehow and give to us. In practice, fascism, naziism, socialism and communism all become oligarchies where the well connected get the products of taxing the people.
Now, unbridled capitalism and pure democracy have somewhat the same tendency. If you look at the era of the railroad barons you can see some of that, although much more diffusely than under Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. The American ideal of separation of powers helps to keep down the concentration of control, which limits the toxic potential somewhat.
Once more someone has proven, they have no knowledge of Socialism, which it give power to the People.
No, it really doesn’t.
Literally, “Labor siezing the means of production,” the people having the power currently reserved for the Donor Class.
No, it really does. The examples of it failing are when, surprise, it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do and does elsewhere.
Though seriously, we really shouldn’t even try to debate politics on the webcomic about superheroes. This is escapist fiction, don’t force us to draw up party lines here too.
Actually… fascism was a throwback to ancient Rome. Their symbol of authority was the “fasces lictoriae”, a bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe, if I recall. The “dictator” (usually appointed to deal with a crisis and was term limited to 6 months) carried the largest bundle.
And what people do and don’t know about the term “socialism” makes me weep for the downfall of society.
No, they were both Democratic nations.
The same way africa has democracy. You get to vote for the current ruler, and if you don’t they beat you and leave you for dead.
Ok, first of all: Africa is a continent, not a country, so that right there is a HUEG generalisation.
Secondly: http://i.imgur.com/ZwynorS.jpg
And a great many of the countries on that continent are as solusandra described
Wait, continents aren’t the same as countries?
Aslan – Fascism doesn’t really have a fixed place on the right-left spectrum. It’s government control of everything, which is roughly the same as communism… in practice they are both oligarchies.
Conservative Americans of this century have nothing whatsoever to do with fascism. The people arguing for government control of everything are now the left… even though half a century ago the liberal arguments were the opposite, “you can’t legislate morality; live and let live; thoughts are not a crime; dissent is not a crime…”
The latter is the only one that is still a thing on the left… the right is now attempting to hold back the tide of leftist fascism on social topics with the former three.
from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:
The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)
That socialism with the venier of capitalism at best.
And he was a socialist
Socialism is not Arcadian and peaceful. We do not believe in the sacredness of human life.
As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933), p. 151, interview took place between March 23 and April 4, 1932
Nice. I was working from memory. Nice to have documentation.
I was remembering the story that the Italian parliament was laid out with left being the more “government control” side and the right being the more “private ownership” side, and there were so many on the left that the fascists wrapped around to the right. I didn’t have a firm reference, so I didn’t write it.
I’d almost interpret that as “the collective owns your individual efforts”… which is full-on communism. However, there was private ownership, so it can also be considered full-slavery capitalism. In practice, they all devolve very similarly, with only the trappings of verbage differing.
In state power Facism was as totalitarian as the USSR, in economics it would be closer to the PRC with state run “companies”
“there was private ownership” but directed in use by the State called at different times State Capitalism , State Socialism and “economic dirigisme”
hear is purported to be the (ONLY COMPLETE OFFICIAL TEXT ON THE INTERNET)
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM
BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
My interpretation wold be that facism was based on a lot of mutually contradictory ideas and a lot of “wish fulfillment”
In state power Fascism was as totalitarian as the USSR, in economics it would be closer to the PRC with state run “companies”
Many Nations use bits and pieces of Facist ideas (as few were really all that new.. ) If I had to guess who made the ECONOMIC side of it work the best that would be post War Japan (MITI and METI)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Trade_and_Industry
Arguments like these frequently remind me that the “political spectrum” can NOT be adequately described in this whole “Left-Right” single-line “spectrum”. If you want a visual representation of one’s political “position”, a square grid is MUCH more telling. The “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” uses this concept to show how Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are in a “Statist” quadrant, and NOT what most people have come to think of as “liberal” or “conservative”. It also shows how most people’s actual views are the polar opposite of this, and typically align with BOTH “liberal” and “conservative” idealogies, in the “libertarian” quadrant. Yes, this quiz has been publicized by a Libertarian group, but only because the two major parties are so heavily invested in making people think that those with an “R” or a “D” by their names are the ONLY two options in any given race, that they have zero interest in something that shows people, “Oh, you only agree with SOME of what we’re saying, not ALL of it.”
So, no. Fascists are NOT “extreme conservatives” any more than Socialists are “extreme liberals”. By the same token, libertarians (I use the lower-case L intentionally, as not to confuse ideals with Party) are NOT “centrist” as the “Left-Right” paradigm would lead one to believe. Rather, they are at the opposite end of the OTHER AXIS, from the previously mentioned totalitarian ideologies. So the next time you think someone is calling you a “Fascist”, or a “Socialist”, check out this VERY short quiz.
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/
Mainly because people are ignoring the authoritarian/libertarian axis and only focus on left/right. Usually due to ignorance.
Of course Benito Mussolini would disagree with you as he stated he was a socialist and was always a socialist. but then again I’ve never been terribly thrilled with the right-left theory of government description I much prefer a paradigm of anarchy versus absolute control the left being anarchy the right being some form of totalitarian state. On this diagram an absolute democracy would be exactly in the center.
Here is a quote from him, note the term WE
Socialism is not Arcadian and peaceful. We do not believe in the sacredness of human life.
As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933), p. 151, interview took place between March 23 and April 4, 1932
Mussolini was a socialist who broke with socialism over the inadequacies he found in the movement and particularly over the place nationalism had in it prompted by the Italian participation in WW1. His misgivings of socialism crystallized in the fascist movement, which repudiated many of the tenets of socialism in favor of an extremely nationalist and racial vision of society. Fascism as mussolini expressed it is the expression of the collective populace through the will of a single individual, though the nazis expressed this better with their concepts of the volk and the fuhrer. The socialists that mussolini broke from were pretty horrified over the system and the end goal of socialism is not the creation of a racial based dictatorship, which was the ultimate expression of fascism. Both socialism and fascism were a reaction to the growing struggle between classes and the perceived failures of capitalism as evidenced by the great depression that cratered the economies of capitalist nations, but which communist nations withstood and fascist nations rapidly recovered from. Living in the late 20s and early 30s, the death of capitalism really could be seen as nigh. But fascists did not repudiate the idea of class hierarchy like a socialist would, and were more than willing to coexist with capitalist systems provided those systems answered ultimately to the will of the great leader who was the embodiment of the will of the volk. Indeed, under the nazis, corporate entities proved relentlessly able to pursue their own interests to the detriment of their workers far more effectively than they had been able to under the Wiemar state.
Suffice to say, the right extreme parts of fascism are found in its expression of racism and veneration of the nation and the embodiment of said nation through the will of one singular great leader. We can see shadings of this today in donald trump and the alt right. It would be difficult for anybody who has studied fascism to not notice the distressing similarities. But a combination of defensive thinking and a need to disguise one’s own racism has led to vehement denials and the ignorance of the masses allows for “lul, but the nazis were socialists” to still be a thing. No reputable scholar of fascism or socialism will tell you they are the same thing.
History of course won’t matter to most I am responding to, but I hope a casual reader can learn something and not be sucked, through ignorance, into the false idea that “lul fascists are really communists, so we can’t be fascists” that the extreme right peddles.
Actually, fascism can be either left or right wing. It has nothing to do with that axis. Fascism is on the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Fascism is based on the idea of government control of everything and no individual control. Many people on the left like to claim (very incorrectly) that fascism is a right wing concept, because it’s used as a smear word and insult, rather than what it actually is – government control. In fact, since left wing tends to involve collectivism and right wing tends to involve privatization and individualism, right wing tends to veer more towards anarchy in the extreme, while left wing tends to veer towards fascism. But both left and right wing can be authoritarian OR libertarian.
authoritarian/libertarian axis is BS as libertarians are completely authoritarian the only difference is libertarians don’t living in a collective society. they believe they can live in completely automatism isolated areas where they are absolute rulers.
I’ve read your sentence three times and I can’t understand a word of it.
Especially the part where you say ‘libertarians are completely authoritarian’ – it’s like you said ‘cats are completely dogs’ or ‘water is completely fire’ or ‘right is completely left.’
Then your sentences, if I can call it sentences, get even weirder.
I’m not sure “government control” is the most effective description, based on conversations with a self-described fascist, as it doesn’t specify the form of control. Apparently Fascism per se is specifically defined as having an absolute leader who carries the people’s backing through their own charisma, as opposed to one whose authority derives from having the right religious blessing or military backing. As such it’s not necessarily a bad thing in its own right: there’s nothing to stop a charismatic dictator listening to public and expert opinion before making a decision, or making decisions based on the best interests of the state as a whole.
Far Left is Facisim/Communism/Authoritarianism. Far Right is Anarchy/Natural Law/No Government. You need to have a true context and understanding of words before you define them for a belief. You can always go look it up and I suggest using a older encyclopedia Britannica book set over google or another biased source of misinformation.
According to Whom, Fox “News”?
I was going to write a rather long post, but I’m trying to stop talking politics a bit. So I’ll just say one word.
Antifa.
allowing for the black anarchists, the Antifa a) aren’t an organization b) is a natural and rational reaction to X group where X = proud boys, American Nazi party (or what ever those loons are calling themselves) white nationalists etc. Which can be trimmed down to “Any violent nationalist or racist group”.
I think it’s all moot though. So just trot those ideas out, if I agree I’ll follow it. If it’s unsupportable and untenable I’ll wee on it and walk away.
No. Antifa is an organization. Its just decentralized. Also the “Proud Boys” came into existence after Antifa, not before. Proud Boys formed in 2016, Antifa (modern antifa) formed in 2008. You are incorrect on your timeline. Also, when they rioted in berkeley there were no proud boys in the area.
Feel free to wee and walk away all you want. Doesnt change facts.
You’re right, it doesn’t change the fact that you picked on one specific part of a list and ignored the rest of it. Their timeline was correct. Or are you gonna say there were no alt-right, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists groups at Berkeley?
And we’re gonna have to play semantics and definitions. By the broadest possible standard “a group of people with a purpose”, antifa could be called an organization. But the moment you define it more than that? A decentralized organization is still a singular entity, just with departments seperated. If you apply that to any disparate people brought together by some shared beliefs, almost anything becomes an organization and it loses meaning.
Though in other news, we’re on a webcomic about aliens and superheroes. Lets let it go at that.
Sure Pander, point to a single example of a very small pool of left wing organizations which actually espouse violence.
Just be sure to keep the proper perspective, since there are many examples of a very large pool of right wing organizations which espouse violence.
The US government has issued a warning based on the rise of white nationalist organizations and has labeled them a growing terrorist threat. Context is always important, because the exception does not make the rule no matter how desperately your ideology might wish that this was true.
When will the day come that left and right handed people realize they are both hands and that they all have a use, and demonizing each other just makes them both look silly.
What are you talking about? Xenophobic panic is the Fox News Entertainment resting state.
Oberon has the right of it. But not to be left out, CNN’s resting state is “blame the thing not people”
Theyre pretty used to also blaming people, to be fair. But I am assuming you are talking about mass shootings, or -isms?
To quote Ferris Bueller,
“-Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there.”
https://youtu.be/4Ep6YVqc6Ks
now here’s a question are supers a terra only oddity? or are there alien supers throughout the galaxy?
also the question of alien vampires, alien fae, alien…thropes? (aliens who transform into their-anoid whatever versions of none-sapient animals from their own planet), ect…
as a matter of taxonomy fay, super etc.. on other world would still first be Alien from Terran as Cora put it.
I’d be surprised if there were not alien supers in this universe. Both DC and Marvel do this heavily. I’m not so deep into the DC universe but the Lantern Corps is pretty much a superhero organization, with Green Lantern just being the local space area’s representative. The future setting Legion of Super-Heroes is a combination of this, with the team being made up of members of races who would be considered superheroes on Earth, plus a couple actual superheroes. Marvel has super powered members of their alien races, with the Shi’ar having what is essentially an expy version of the Legion of Super-Heroes.
So since this comic is a sort of deconstruction of common superhero tropes, I would expect that this would not be excluded. The person of Cora is an example already, her backstory could easily be the origin story for an Earth based superhero: Infant born without limbs has mechanical replacements and later solid holographic replacements capable of manifesting as a variety of handy limb/tools/weapons.
Dave can do politics, if he wants to.
Giving some balance might be a good idea too.
And he can push a religious view too, since both of those are always two sides of the exact same coin. A fact which has been recognized for thousands of years by different cultures on all continents.
I see no politics here. I see harping on Fox News nonsense, which is separate from republican nonsense. There’s no coin.
Would you say the same thing if she said “and before you go all Don Lemon on me and go straight for insults, call me a racist with internalized misogyny, and cut to commercial like a child…. I am a succubus and I feed on sex for reasons that have nothing to do with a mythical Rachel Maddow claim with fake tears of the Patriarchy forcing me to do it.” After all thats just CNN and MSNBC nonsense, right? :)
Beside the political, racial and other background … Dabbler is looking stupendous in this panels ;-).
At least she came here LEGALLY.
That is really all we ask for, even most Americans of Mexican decent, think that illegal immigration is getting out of hand.
lowest in decades,
Asylum is not illegal,
concentration camps, children lost in the system, parents having to pay to take DNA tests to get kids back, confirmed molestations and deaths in the camps. US citizens held for months and years with no reparations for wrongful arrests because ICE is effectively above the law now.
seriously, there is no argument, this is not the place either. No one should support this crime against humanity; and to be honest; the USA has used situations like this in other countries as an excuse to send in armed forces to “help” those countries. If the USA didn’t have the allies that it has, and imperial military presence around the globe someone would have already declared war over these violations/crimes against humanity.
Asylum requires you to make the claim at a legal point of entry not hopping the fence so to speak.
and they DO, and they are still locked up in those camps and their children taken away. Look into it.
Besides the majority of illegal immigrants get into the USA via planes on visas and over stay them. The people being locked up at the boarder, the majority came at a legal point of entry, asking for asylum, and are being treated as prisoners of war for their troubles, stripped of property and family.
Actually the entire point of why they are locked up is because they did not come in at a legal point of entry, and instead tried to cross into the country illegally. Which is why it’s called ‘illegal alien’ – the illegal part is the method by which they tried to enter the country. And when you come into the country illegally, it’s a crime. And when you commit a crime, even if you’re just being held until a trial, you wind up being placed in either a jail or some other holding facility until trial. And when you get placed in a holding facility or jail, the children do not get put in the jail because of a ruling in a California Supreme Court approximately 20 years ago which said the children HAVE to be separated from the adults during that time. The children are reunited with the adults once they can either prove familial kinship and return to their home country, or until they have been put through the court system and been properly adjudicated (the latter of which is how it works for when any adult is charged with ANY crime, whether an illegal alien or a legal citizen). They are not treated as prisoners of war, they are not stripped of their property (except for weapons, if any), and they did not come in at a legal point of entry. If they had come in at a legal point of entry, they wait at that legal point of entry instead of being placed in the illegal border crossing holding facilities.
How is that relevant to the Asylum keepers that don’t do that and are sill shoved into the camps?
Why are people even talking about asylum? Dabbler is not a refugee and not seeking asylum. Asylum seekers and aliens (legal or illegal) are completely different things.
Because he brought up the topic of asylum seekers.
Um…. no, the OP didnt bring up asylum seekers at all.
“At least she came here LEGALLY.”
That’s what the OP said. There was NOTHING about asylum seekers in it. And there’s nothing about asylum seekers in what Dabbler said either.
Then Rhuen said ‘asylum is not illegal’ – which again has nothing to do with what Dabbler said or the OP said, so I’m trying to figure how it got from ‘at least Dabbler came here legally’ to ‘asylum seeker’ when Dabbler is obviously not an asylum seeker. Seems like a dumb tangent on which to get sidetracked into a political argument.
Didn’t say the OP did.
Rhuen talked about asylum seekers, because they too are being held there, and then Butters choose to engage with him about them as well.
It’s not hard to figure out something like a “topic change”. It happens fairly often in debates.
Actually no, it does not happen fairly often in debates. Debates are not supposed to go massively off the topic. If it did, then they are no longer debates. They’re just diatribes about whatever happens to flit into the people’s minds at any given time.
Think of it like a legal case, if you were an attorney. If you go off topic, there’s an objection for relevance. Then the judge notes the objection and tells you to get back to the point of the trial, and strikes your tangents and irrelevant talking points from the record. Many of these posts tend to be pretty massively lacking in relevance to the point of the debate, at least from what I’ve seen on this strip’s comments, which then makes everyone else’s comments go widely off topic as well, until no one is commenting on the original thread point.
The OP mentioned a specific boarder (Mexican descent), the current major event at the boarder is asylum seekers and the concentration camps. It can be inferred by their statement they are referring not to illegal immigration in general but the situation at the specific boarder.
along with the “getting out of hand” has been used by those who don’t know the problem had been at its lowest, being used rather frequently as an excuse for the inhumane treatment of said people.
contextual inference with topical precedence with the current events of major discussion regarding their perceived parameters by bringing up a specific country of origin.
Although to be fair, I did also say this wasn’t the place for this discussion either, and the comic strip’s threads have all been bogged down by defensive political reactions all because so many have been brainwashed into connecting a single news outlet with their core values as if it were a religion. Yet pointing out its just some ad revenue grabbing machine earns ignoring any mention of other stations doing the same like it is a singular attack and acting like they are being personally attacked. No one should be so attached to a fricken news outlet to begin.
And this slippery slope was being avoided just barely, so just kick that barrel over the side and get it rolling.
Actually, NO. Asylum doesn’t give a damn WHERE you are, what nations you passed through to get here, or which side of which fence you are on. The BS the Right is spewing about “legal port of entry” is just that, pure, unadulterated, Grade A bullpucky.
Most cases of asylum require a valid reason to seek asylum from the country they originate from, not simply show up and beg for entry
Those recent ones who trekked all the way from wherever it was in South America did it as a part of an Anti-Shtrump propaganda stunt: they weren’t fleeing war or persecution, simply a mass migration to challenge Shtrump
They were the ones who decided to drag their children along, with the intent on feeding on the bleeding hearted saps to simply let them in: yeah, the kids got in, the abusive parents were left out in the cold
Um… Actually… No. That is quite wrong. To request asylum you need only be on the country you are requesting asylum from’s land. This can be anywhere, and international law was set up like that deliberately to prevent hostile or aggressive nations from preventing their citizens from requesting asylum by blocking legal points of entry.
Not true in any way.
International law requires someone seeking asylum to stop in the first safe country to which they flee.
Asylum for economic purposes is not valid in the US law
(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution
(I) In general
Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review.
And international law save those confirmed as treaties in the United States with empowering legislation to enforce them within United States have no meaning here.
International law does not count “economic” reasons as valid for requesting asylum either.
This is very true and something a lot of armchair pundits and politicians seem to conveniently forget, for some reason.
The alien also needs to not have anyplace closer to his or her home country (or planet I guess in this case?) that would take them in. Given the size of the universe and the likelihood that there are a lot of habitable worlds closer to Dabbler’s home world than Earth, it seems unlikely that she would satisfy this requirement either.
But the whole argument is a moot point, since Dabbler is not a refugee and isn’t claiming to be one. A lot of people for some reason conflate ‘illegal alien’ with ‘refugee.’ Usually out of political purposes and/or ignorance.
Hey Michael. :) Actually no, that’s not correct.
To request asylum legally, you need to do it at a legal point of entry (although the destination country is allowed to make exceptions, but the law states a legal point of entry) or at an embassy, it needs to be in a country that’s the closest available one to your home country that will accept refugees (unless that country has an embassy in the home country and they are able to go there instead, sort of like how Julian Assange did), and the reason for the request must be for persecution in the home country for specific reasons, like political or racial or religious persecution by the home country’s government – it cannot be for economic reasons.
I can give you the specific law if you’d like, but there are both international and US-specific laws on this.
International Law has this as Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, a refugee is defined in Article 14 as “a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country … ”
Different countries then have additional laws on what will be required for a legally recognized asylum seeker, limiting how much of the UN Treaty each country must follow, because of national sovereignty reasons.
None have “hopped the fence” some have came here legally.
Actually quite a few have ‘hopped the fence’ if, by that, you mean ‘came in at an area other than a legal port of entry. According to the Department of Homeland Security, around 11.6 million on the low side of the estimate over the last several years. About 55 percent of this number came through the Mexican border in 2015, and by 2018 I believe the number had raised to 60-70%, but I can’t find the DHS reports past 2015, so I’m using the latest ones on record.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1214_PLCY_pops-est-report.pdf
Risen, not raised.Can’t believe my grammar lately.
Also I should probably specify, when I say 55 percent game through the Mexican border by 2015, I mean 55 percent of all people who crossed a border into the country ILLEGALLY.
All part of the Right’s BRILLIANT plan!
Make America such an unpleasant place that only REAL Americans will want to live here!
Ruin our economy, so only REAL Americans will want to work here!
Promote so much hatred and violence, that only REAL Americans will feel safe here!
Soon, they’ll have their REAL America back, and what a place it will be!
What a place…
ROFL… yes, “ruin our economy”… Ummm. what precise dimension did you say you were from?
No… You’re really a catfish trying to make the left look like morons, right?
You havnt been paying attention to the yield curve inversion, apparently.
It took 7 years for George W Bush to crash the economy. Trump is on track to crash it in 3 to 4 years in office. HW Bush started to crash it, but backed off his “no new taxes” promise when it stopped working. This is NOT a new thing being blamed on Trump, this is actual Republican strategy.
Asylum involves coming in publicly and legally at a designated port-of-entry, actually. Violation 8, US Code 1325. Also specified in the United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212). Also, to get legal asylum, you must 1) have a genuine fear of persecution in your home nation, and 2) there must be no closer nation that will take you in.
It’s a moot point with Dabbler though – she is not a refugee or seeking asylum. She is probably here under some secret alien visitor law and presented herself legally through some sort of secret method, but to the US government, based on some special law that is present in the GrrlPower universe, not existing in ours.
In fact, she could not be a legal asylum seeker, since it would mean that there are no other worlds in the entire universe closer to her from her planet of origin that would allow her there, and she would have be be persecuted on the planet from which she came, in the nation from which she came (if her planet has nations) and couldnt go to another nation, or another planet, that is closer. On the other hand, as a legal immigrant, it would be MUCH easier for her to get into this country since she has valuable skills and knowledge (which is taken into account in immigration).
As a matter of historical record our legal immigration is far above average as well. if one looks at the historical record we have had moments of high immigration followed by years of law immigration legally that allowed an integration into society
He’s talking about illegal border entry, which is the lowest it’s been in decades.
For some random reason, some guy made border security a priority and pieces of this crazy wall popped up all by itself, and magically there are less of them coming across the southern border illegally.
Two thirds of illegal immigration is now accomplished by the crime of overstaying visas… and those people have no argument for asylum, since they were not admitted as asylum seekers.
Go figure that out.
So 688,375 South west boarder apprehensions is ok ? https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration#
Note that is apprehensions not total of illegal entrants (which must more unless you wish to argue that USBP had 100% success rate)
https://www.statista.com/chart/13429/illegal-alien-apprehensions-at-the-united-states-southwest-border-by-fiscal-year/
Truth is, the number of aliens apprehended is a pretty high ratio. This idea that hordes of illegal aliens are swarming over the border while you sleep is a bit hyperbolic.
Further, most agricultural states rely on migrant workers, many of whom may, or may not, be in this country legally. Since something like 93.5% of my ancestry (1/16 native american, or “ancient asian immigrant”) is immigrants, as long as they’re contributing to society and not engaging in criminal behavior, I don’t care. In my state (Florida), they, along with all the other tourists, pay sales tax, so it’s not like they’re not contributing to state/local government.
Stop freaking out folks. she may be an alien, but the important thing is that she went though the government and probably took a few tests (citizen test and ‘you are not going to invade us with space aliens or magical demons right’) before becoming a legal US citizen.
And do love her calm reaction and answer to the question.
Yeah that’s why she has an invisible handler watching her every move and was fitting with a “Fido behave” switch in rhw first press conference, they trust her “THAT” much. Sounds like a real integrated American I don’t think. True patriotic Americans don’t need to be watched, they watch out for non patriots!
She’s not a “patriotic American”, she’s a naturalized American citizen… which means she has officially given up or subordinated all other loyalties, no more, no less. She doesn’t seem like much of a partisan type anyway…she’ll go wherever the party is sexier.
By definition is she’s a member of Arc she is under the authority of some level of the US government due to having security clearance when one has security clearance unless you’re the Secretary of State and you want your own server but I digress you have to follow the rules.and there will be people watching you to make sure.
““Fido behave”
She removed that, in annoyance.
Nah, Dabbles simply ignored it (or started getting turned on by it), Ari threw the clicker at her in annoyance :P
***Sigh***
580 comments, and the majority of them have little to do with the comic. This is why I hate it when politics start infesting something I love.
Don’t worry, it changes with every comic page post.
Guilty of that here. Going to stop responding to the political stuff and just stick to the law stuff.
Well… I’m going to try to anyway.
Perhaps it will be easier if you make a effort to write something else, like bad puns for example.
Um… how about a bad joke instead? I cant think of any illegal border crossing puns.
Question: A rooster ran across the border from the Mexico to the US and laid an egg. Which country does that egg belong to?
Answer: Roosters don’t lay eggs.
Well, then at least no one can accuse you of PANDERing to the punsters.
You punned my name. I am awed by you.
I dub thee, the Pander Punder.
Well now we have been talking stupid nonsense and bad jokes and not once have you made a smart and eloquent political comment. In my opinion this proves that you can avoid politics and that you dare to be stupid. Congratulations!
It’s tough not saying things that are eloquent and well thought out, usually with citations or at the very least, links, but I gave it my best shot in this thread, and I’m glad that you approve.
Frankly it’s easy to be smart on forums these days thanks to Google. You can always find arguments for or against whatever the topic might be. To be stupid on the other hand, now that takes some imagination, to think outside your box and improvising.
Most flame wars will tend to disprove you saying that its easy to be smart on the internet :)
Also you usually need some idea of what you are looking for, or you wind up getting a bunch of wikipedia and conspiracy links :)
Dabbler’s hands in panel 7 are throwing me off a bit. Do her pinkie fingers have 4 segments to a human’s 3?
Dave, could you do us a favor and not bring up politics again.
Yeah, I was kind of sorry I looked into the comments.
“There is no part of [the Internet] that we can discount as worthless. Especially the comments section!*
* See also the assessment that the above speaker is nuts
You are quoting AFAHF’s Lincoln, perhaps?
Grrrrr – AGAHF (A Girl and Her Fed)
More specifically not bring up partisan politics, I think would be more accurate :).
What politics? Admittedly not familiar with US politics, butt have not heard of a political party called “Fox and Friends”
Pretty sure he means partisan politics. Saying ‘please don’t get political’ does not mean they’re talking specifically about political parties. Illegal immigration is a political topic currently all over the news, and calling Fox viewers xenophobes and specifically referencing Fox and Friends is partisan.
Partisan politics doesn’t really belong in a generally apolitical webcomic that’s trying to get as large an audience as possible, and it really creates a lot of animosity and division within the audience. DaveB even recognizes that it was political – it’s right there in his blurb under the comic, last paragraph.
Not too sure what ‘partisan’ means, fairly sure it’s not a term widely used down here
Partisan – being a strong supporter of a particular party, usually to a prejudicial degree. Happens a little less often in European Parliamentary governments because of the larger amount of significantly relevant political parties and the tendency to form coalition governments, while the US usually is a 2 party system, and the more society schisms, the more tribalistic each party’s supporters get.
Closest thing I can think of in the UK would be brexiters vs remainers, although theyre not really ‘parties’… ok the Brexit party is an actual political party now but you get the gist of what I am saying right?
Thank you
Again, not British (mayhap you are thinking of Yorpie)
Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, you see.
Actually, Fox News is the only news station to report both sides of the story.
Fox’ pundits USED to be more right wing than any other, which the other stations don’t allow on their news/opinion shows.
After the Tucker Carlson firing, they’re becoming “fake right wing to get ratings, at best”.
The other stations are cheerleaders for the DNC.
The deal with proper flag orientation is that the stars are supposed to be in the top left, regardless of if it’s hung horizontally or vertically. It has nothing to do with how it rotates.
Gods, I’m so sick and tired of being sick and tired of politics.
“Im ObViOuSlY aN AlIeN”
Yeah, what is a bigger stretch-
Xuriel is a super with an ability to change her form, with supers being a thing for some time
OR
she’s an alien, which as far as common knowledge goes, nobody has really seen aliens before?
Why is Dabbler being dumb here?
Partisan – being a strong supporter of a particular party, usually to a prejudicial degree. Happens a little less often in European Parliamentary governments because of the larger amount of significantly relevant political parties and the tendency to form coalition governments, while the US usually is a 2 party system, and the more society schisms, the more tribalistic each party’s supporters get.
Closest thing I can think of in the UK would be brexiters vs remainers, although theyre not really ‘parties’… ok the Brexit party is an actual political party now but you get the gist of what I am saying right?
How about we all leave politics and the idiocy that is both of the parties out of this. According to business insider at the following link, voters believe that Fox news is biased. That being said, Fox hasn’t ever shut down it’s streaming of Trump’s speeches. Fox has fact checked Trump before, but according to the following link, CNN and NBC have stopped showing Trump’s speeches which, in my opinion, makes them more biased and less reliable than other news sources: https://deadline.com/2019/06/cnn-cuts-away-donald-trump-rally-speech-cnn-sucks-1202634599/.
Hey, as long as we’re here, I’m a little disappointed that the reporters weren’t already barking about ‘Common-Sense-PPO-Legislation’ or ‘Starting the Important conversation’ on the topic of whether having a team-leader with Maxima’s statuesque-appearance reinforces ‘Body-Image-Stereotypes-That-Subliminally-Perpetuate-The-Patriarchy’
… or maybe suggesting the ‘possibility’ that Anvil not getting as much camera-time is some sort of ‘Government-Systemic-Dog-Whistle’
…not to mention that a shape-shifter could Obviously be a plant from RussiaRussiaRussia, intent on affecting our elections.
Has any major news station really attacked someone for being attractive and in a position of power?
And they already talked about the dangers of supers with absurd fire-power, way back in the early days of the comic.
Only republicans get those attacks aimed at them.
Democrats are treated like their shit doesn’t stink by the mainstream news… which is starting to include Fox as of late.
haha, get it? people who watch news networks that aren’t the ones you watch are stupid!
Late to the party, here, but for my two cents worth:
1) Fox “News” is the most brilliant piece of parody/satire that I’ve ever seen. Anyone who takes it seriously is a complete f***ing moron and probably thinks The Onion is a serious journalistic endeavor. When I want comedy, I tune in to Fox, when I want journalism, I tune in to The Daily Show on Comedy Central.
2)Anyone who thinks Hitler was a socialist because the Nazis had “Socialist” in their names probably gets confused as hell by the “Titmouse” being a bird that doesn’t have tits, nor being a mouse.
just lmao @ jesse being so fucking basic
It’s taken me 758 pages to realize Dabbler has two differently colored eyes.
CNN: “Local man steals immigrant’s food.”
(A republican saved a child from being eaten by a lion.)
I pray you’re joking. Because if you aren’t, you’re a complete idiot who clearly hasn’t paid attention to Trumpublicans.
Given 99.9% of Republicans are complete averse to actually risking their own ass for someone else.
What would be far more likely is them bitching at how that kid being eaten was the Democrat’s fault, to “own the libs,” and not have had any actual plan to do anything themselves, because it’s easier to point fingers than have an actual plan. And/or they starved the Lion in the first place (Just like appeasing dictators for four years, or freeing 5000 Taliban without telling the Afghani government first).
And meanwhile, the kid is still eaten regardless.
Please watch something other than the CNN/Mainstream “Drumpf bad” news.
This is the EXACT type of coverage the right wing gets from those outlets (which is starting to include Fox now), and all the vitriol you throw at me about it isn’t going to change that fact.
If you REALLY want a shock: Look up the economic growth rates and the various measures of prosperity under Trump before Covid, and marvel at how we had an actual functioning economy that got treated like death warmed over by the mainstream news.
THEY LIE.
Trump put the US in more debt in one term than Bush did in two prosecuting two wars.
He inherited a strong economy. And managed to screw it up.
That’s not “mainstream media.” That’s literal fact, per government reports, dumbass.
Sorry, but your dictator-ass-kissing Traitor-in-chief is never becoming President again.
And it’s thoroughly due to his own stupidity and ineptitude, not to mention the textbook dementia he consistently displays. Has nothing to do with how the media portrayed him. And it never has.
I mean, ffs, he literally said out loud that he wanted to invade Canada and Mexico.
“Governments keep secrets, get over it.” I love that line.